robdiddy
All-Matt Stafford
All Peter Pan. Never gonna grow up
Posts: 355
|
Post by robdiddy on Jan 8, 2015 23:22:58 GMT -5
Why would you cut tulloch? He was still an emotional leader while hurt.
|
|
|
Post by joeking1978 on Jan 8, 2015 23:29:15 GMT -5
I don't think they need to cut Tulloch's- just restructure his deal and like Fatley, put him in a "prove me wrong" contract. I can't inGine the FA market will be that great for either coming off bad injuries
|
|
robdiddy
All-Matt Stafford
All Peter Pan. Never gonna grow up
Posts: 355
|
Post by robdiddy on Jan 8, 2015 23:30:38 GMT -5
I don't think they need to cut Tulloch's- just restructure his deal and like Fatley, put him in a "prove me wrong" contract. I can't inGine the FA market will be that great for either coming off bad injuries I give you that young man
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 8, 2015 23:45:01 GMT -5
I don't think they need to cut Tulloch's- just restructure his deal and like Fatley, put him in a "prove me wrong" contract. I can't inGine the FA market will be that great for either coming off bad injuries I give you that young man What does Tolluch need to prove? That he won't fellatio his knee out doing dances? I would hope he doesn't have to prove that. Who replaces Tolluch? Fatley? I think we need to field an entire team.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 8, 2015 23:59:24 GMT -5
I give you that young man What does Tolluch need to prove? That he won't fellatio his knee out doing dances? I would hope he doesn't have to prove that. Who replaces Tolluch? Fatley? I think we need to field an entire team. Nobody is talking about the 'other stuff, i.e. signing draft picks, signing a FA or two'. Seems like we are just worse right away.
|
|
robdiddy
All-Matt Stafford
All Peter Pan. Never gonna grow up
Posts: 355
|
Post by robdiddy on Jan 9, 2015 0:17:37 GMT -5
I give you that young man What does Tolluch need to prove? That he won't fellatio his knee out doing dances? I would hope he doesn't have to prove that. Who replaces Tolluch? Fatley? I think we need to field an entire team. I feel like Tulloch would take less money. If they won the super bowl without him he'd have killed himself.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 9, 2015 0:21:48 GMT -5
What does Tolluch need to prove? That he won't fellatio his knee out doing dances? I would hope he doesn't have to prove that. Who replaces Tolluch? Fatley? I think we need to field an entire team. I feel like Tulloch would take less money. If they won the super bowl without him he'd have killed himself. He might. But aaugusti was talking about just cutting guys. It would be interesting for someone with a big opinion on this (I see you flem and aaugusti) to actually run the math out. Like all of it. Not "this is the cap hit for so and so, etc.". Play the whole thing out within the cap of 2015 and beyond. Seems like a lot of big opinions with a handful of numbers to support them.
|
|
|
Post by joeking1978 on Jan 9, 2015 7:35:03 GMT -5
I just looked up Tulloch's age and not only is he 30- but he was born on 1/1/85 McFly...
Trust me, EVERYONE will be skeptical to offer big money to a 30yr old middle tier LB who just blew out a knee dancing. It's not like he is a Brian Urlacher or Ray Lewis type player.
Same goes for Fatley
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 9, 2015 7:39:02 GMT -5
I just looked up Tulloch's age and not only is he 30- but he was born on 1/1/85 McFly... Trust me, EVERYONE will be skeptical to offer big money to a 30yr old middle tier LB who just blew out a knee dancing. It's not like he is a Brian Urlacher or Ray Lewis type player. Same goes for Fatley I'm not talking about big money, but what's his contract now? I could see him getting similar money/year.
|
|
|
Post by flemgoblue on Jan 9, 2015 7:41:42 GMT -5
depends on the deal.. each one is different. If they franchise him and he signs that deal, theyre fucked for years to come.. i stand by it. Sure they only need to clear 8 mil to get HIM under the cap. but they still have to sign 15-20 more players to fill out a roster and all their rookies. where does that money come from? restructuring calvin and stafford.. which fucks us in the future. Cutting Bush, Tulloch, and Jason Jones will create enough cap space to clear the 8 million. Calvin's deal was going to be renegotiated this year no matter what happened with Suh. Your "Fucked for years to come" thought is totally wrong, flem. bullshit it is.. so you cut tulloch, jones and bush.. and now you have suh. great, you still need to sign another 15-20 players plus your rookies. so now you need to clear another 20 million to do that.. where does that money come from? restructuring stafford and calvin. which backloads their deals and creates another clusterfuck. Its like youre ignoring the fact that making room for Suh will create other holes in LB, RB and DE depth under your plan and the fact that they still need to fill out a roster with another 15 or so heads
|
|
|
Post by aaugusti on Jan 9, 2015 9:56:49 GMT -5
Flem, the major flaw in your premise is that Suh actually plays under the tag, which will not happen. Another team will sign him to a contract, and even if franchised, he is the type of player that is worth giving up 2 high draft picks for. Suh is in his prime and one of the 4 best defenive players in the NFL. Like I have said twice now, once the Lions tag him, they do not have to have the cap space clear.
You say that by cutting Bush, Tulloch and Jones you are creating 3 holes. I'm sorry, but Bush was terrible this year and just about everyone on the board wanted Bell and Riddick to get carries over him. Tulloch was out most of the year and Whitehead stepped in without missing a beat. Jones is a below average DE that does not produce what he gets paid. Losing Tulloch would suck, but if all three were not on the team this year I would not be losing any sleep. Cutting Ryan Broyles will also shave about 1 Million off the cap.
For the rookie pool you need to have about 4-5 million of cap space cleared.
As for Calvin and Stafford, Calvin's deal is the only one that you need to get redone, and if you look at his current contract, the last two years are all salary with 0 dead money. That's because dead money can only be pushed out over a 5 year period. So in theory the Lions could restructure the deal by evening out the dead money, as well as converting some of the salary to bonus. Done and done without screwing the team for "years to come."
|
|
|
Post by fastfreddie on Jan 9, 2015 10:28:16 GMT -5
I certainly hope Aaugusti is correct.
I don't mind losing Bush, but I'd hate to see Tulloch go, and was hoping that his return from injury would shore up that unit.
|
|
|
Post by eruff on Jan 9, 2015 13:55:24 GMT -5
Flem, the major flaw in your premise is that Suh actually plays under the tag, which will not happen. Another team will sign him to a contract, and even if franchised, he is the type of player that is worth giving up 2 high draft picks for. Suh is in his prime and one of the 4 best defenive players in the NFL. Like I have said twice now, once the Lions tag him, they do not have to have the cap space clear. You say that by cutting Bush, Tulloch and Jones you are creating 3 holes. I'm sorry, but Bush was terrible this year and just about everyone on the board wanted Bell and Riddick to get carries over him. Tulloch was out most of the year and Whitehead stepped in without missing a beat. Jones is a below average DE that does not produce what he gets paid. Losing Tulloch would suck, but if all three were not on the team this year I would not be losing any sleep. Cutting Ryan Broyles will also shave about 1 Million off the cap. For the rookie pool you need to have about 4-5 million of cap space cleared. As for Calvin and Stafford, Calvin's deal is the only one that you need to get redone, and if you look at his current contract, the last two years are all salary with 0 dead money. That's because dead money can only be pushed out over a 5 year period. So in theory the Lions could restructure the deal by evening out the dead money, as well as converting some of the salary to bonus. Done and done without screwing the team for "years to come." So im guessing you also will let Fairley, Mathis, Sims and others walk as well?
|
|
|
Post by aaugusti on Jan 9, 2015 14:12:48 GMT -5
Seeing as you can't keep both Fairley and Suh, I would rather have Suh.
Rob Sims' play has declined dramatically each of the last two years.
Rashean Mathis has been a warrior the last two years, but is 34 and not getting any younger.
|
|
|
Post by flemgoblue on Jan 10, 2015 7:12:45 GMT -5
Flem, the major flaw in your premise is that Suh actually plays under the tag, which will not happen. Another team will sign him to a contract, and even if franchised, he is the type of player that is worth giving up 2 high draft picks for. Suh is in his prime and one of the 4 best defenive players in the NFL. Like I have said twice now, once the Lions tag him, they do not have to have the cap space clear. You say that by cutting Bush, Tulloch and Jones you are creating 3 holes. I'm sorry, but Bush was terrible this year and just about everyone on the board wanted Bell and Riddick to get carries over him. Tulloch was out most of the year and Whitehead stepped in without missing a beat. Jones is a below average DE that does not produce what he gets paid. Losing Tulloch would suck, but if all three were not on the team this year I would not be losing any sleep. Cutting Ryan Broyles will also shave about 1 Million off the cap. For the rookie pool you need to have about 4-5 million of cap space cleared. As for Calvin and Stafford, Calvin's deal is the only one that you need to get redone, and if you look at his current contract, the last two years are all salary with 0 dead money. That's because dead money can only be pushed out over a 5 year period. So in theory the Lions could restructure the deal by evening out the dead money, as well as converting some of the salary to bonus. Done and done without screwing the team for "years to come." Correct, I am primarily talking about if he plays under the tag on the one year deal. But its also an issue if he doesn't. Whatever long term deal he signs is bound to be in the 17-20 range, right? so we're still going to have to clear a ton of space to sign FAs and draft class. While the "holes" in the roster I referenced may not be starters primarily, they still need to be contributing players. Just because people wanted Bush out, doesnt mean riddick is a serviceable replacement. he isnt. Riddick is awful carrying the ball out of the backfield. he's a decent receiver in limited playing time. So you still nbeed a RB capable of splitting time with Bell. LB depth is weak as well without Tulloch. When you have 3 guys taking up half your cap, you dont have money to sign quality depth and replacement guys. They need DL depth outside of just SUh as well since theyre losing Fairley, Jones under your plan, Mosely and whoever takes up the Fluellen spot. They also need a starting CB on the other side from Slay an OL starter and depth on the OL
|
|
|
Post by philly on Jan 10, 2015 18:45:42 GMT -5
Flacco >>>> staffdong
|
|
reggie
All-Pavel Datsyuk
Posts: 895
|
Post by reggie on Jan 10, 2015 19:59:23 GMT -5
flacdong
|
|
Pollux
All-Kirk Gibson
Posts: 3,874
|
Post by Pollux on Jan 10, 2015 20:16:37 GMT -5
Do you think their fans are screaming to trade him now?
|
|
|
Post by flemgoblue on Jan 11, 2015 6:38:59 GMT -5
in the playoffs, absolutely. probably overall as well
|
|
|
Post by eruff on Jan 11, 2015 8:02:46 GMT -5
Do you think their fans are screaming to trade him now? Flacco made one bad read and it cost them the game. The guy is money in the playoffs. Stafford isn't even in the same paragraph as Flacco in any conversation…
|
|
|
Post by eruff on Jan 11, 2015 8:47:56 GMT -5
Seeing as you can't keep both Fairley and Suh, I would rather have Suh. Rob Sims' play has declined dramatically each of the last two years. Rashean Mathis has been a warrior the last two years, but is 34 and not getting any younger. I get it. Cut all experience and add depth with cheap inexperienced talent. Over the last few seasons the Lions has added a few pieces on the defensive side of the ball to make the unit better. Now you want to cut the meat away to keep Suh. Sounds like an ass backwards plan.
|
|
Pollux
All-Kirk Gibson
Posts: 3,874
|
Post by Pollux on Jan 11, 2015 10:27:30 GMT -5
Do you think their fans are screaming to trade him now? Flacco made one bad read and it cost them the game. The guy is money in the playoffs. Stafford isn't even in the same paragraph as Flacco in any conversation… So you're saying no then.
|
|
|
Post by joeking1978 on Jan 11, 2015 10:53:09 GMT -5
Why can't we keep Fairly and Suh? I still think Tulloch can be restructured. Give Broyles his walking papers as well. Jones would be nice to keep somehow, but not for that money
|
|
|
Post by flemgoblue on Jan 11, 2015 11:23:10 GMT -5
Why can't we keep Fairly and Suh? I still think Tulloch can be restructured. Give Broyles his walking papers as well. Jones would be nice to keep somehow, but not for that money welcome to the convo.. how do you plan on keeping both of them, signing FAs to fill out a roster ( and hopefully to upgrade to some degree), signing your rookies and not screwing yourself for the future by backloading stafford and calvin all with only 20 mil in free space?
|
|
|
Post by joeking1978 on Jan 11, 2015 11:42:21 GMT -5
I am looking for an explanation to why you think Fairly is going to attract big offers?
|
|