View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently October 31st, 2014, 4:45 am



Reply to topic  [ 323 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22  Next
 Free Agency 
Author Message
Rookie Player of the Year
User avatar

Joined: August 24th, 2010, 9:54 pm
Posts: 2324
Post Re: Free Agency
DisgruntledFan wrote:
Just a crazy thought here that might make sense to the "Burleson Sucks" Club, would it be worth signing Braylon Edwards to a cheap 1 year prove it "redemption contract"? I noticed that PFT had mentioned that he's still a FA. Give him a shot to be the no. 3, tell him he's on a short leash, and see if being in Michigan and knowing that he doesn't have a long line of suitors will make him dig in and work hard.


I'm all for it--always liked Braylon, and he certainly kicked our a$s the last time we played the Jets.

I think we'll have to wait until after the draft to see moves like that though.

_________________
Driver of the Jim Caldwell bandwagon. Climb aboard.


April 23rd, 2012, 8:41 am
Profile
Post Re: Free Agency
I don't know who's still available, but I would rather have Ocho than Braylon, and I'm a UofM guy. Braylon, IMO, is a lot like Nate (drops a TON of easy balls), but taller (given an even swap I would take Braylon over Nate, but you have to keep in mind that it generally takes a WR a full season to completely learn the playbook and get acclimated). That said, we could probably save $4 million by cutting Nate and signing Braylon.

My issue with all of this is that it should have been done months ago, at the beginning of FA when we could have actually USED that money. Braylon + Bush, or Braylon + Hillis DEFINITELY makes this a better Lions team than just having Nate. I don't understand what people don't get about that... It's maddening. They think you have a personal vendetta against someone, and that you want to "run someone out of town" just because there are better ways to spend that cap space. It's ridiculous...


April 23rd, 2012, 12:45 pm
ST Coordinator – Danny Crossman

Joined: February 11th, 2005, 3:01 pm
Posts: 3717
Location: WSU
Post Re: Free Agency
Im a UM guy too but I truly cant stand Braylon. Burleson knows his role, Braylon definitely has some psychological flaws that have been obvious ever since his desire to get the No 1 jersey at UM. Sure he made some big time plays to win games but with him it always seems to be about himself not the team.


April 23rd, 2012, 4:00 pm
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: August 6th, 2004, 9:21 am
Posts: 9499
Location: Dallas
Post Re: Free Agency
wjb21ndtown wrote:
I don't know who's still available, but I would rather have Ocho than Braylon, and I'm a UofM guy. Braylon, IMO, is a lot like Nate (drops a TON of easy balls), but taller (given an even swap I would take Braylon over Nate, but you have to keep in mind that it generally takes a WR a full season to completely learn the playbook and get acclimated). That said, we could probably save $4 million by cutting Nate and signing Braylon.

My issue with all of this is that it should have been done months ago, at the beginning of FA when we could have actually USED that money. Braylon + Bush, or Braylon + Hillis DEFINITELY makes this a better Lions team than just having Nate. I don't understand what people don't get about that... It's maddening. They think you have a personal vendetta against someone, and that you want to "run someone out of town" just because there are better ways to spend that cap space. It's ridiculous...


Your focus is soley on his contract and individual production. Others see the positive press he continually gets for being a vocal leader on this team which can lead to production improvements elsewhere. Would the individual production of Braylon and Bush offset the individual production and leadership production (seen in other players) if Nate left? I'm not inside Allen Park so I can't see, but I believe that is others perspective and hope it helps.

_________________
Image
LB Tweet


April 23rd, 2012, 4:05 pm
Profile WWW
Post Re: Free Agency
Pablo wrote:
wjb21ndtown wrote:
I don't know who's still available, but I would rather have Ocho than Braylon, and I'm a UofM guy. Braylon, IMO, is a lot like Nate (drops a TON of easy balls), but taller (given an even swap I would take Braylon over Nate, but you have to keep in mind that it generally takes a WR a full season to completely learn the playbook and get acclimated). That said, we could probably save $4 million by cutting Nate and signing Braylon.

My issue with all of this is that it should have been done months ago, at the beginning of FA when we could have actually USED that money. Braylon + Bush, or Braylon + Hillis DEFINITELY makes this a better Lions team than just having Nate. I don't understand what people don't get about that... It's maddening. They think you have a personal vendetta against someone, and that you want to "run someone out of town" just because there are better ways to spend that cap space. It's ridiculous...


Your focus is soley on his contract and individual production. Others see the positive press he continually gets for being a vocal leader on this team which can lead to production improvements elsewhere. Would the individual production of Braylon and Bush offset the individual production and leadership production (seen in other players) if Nate left? I'm not inside Allen Park so I can't see, but I believe that is others perspective and hope it helps.



I'm sorry, but he doesn't provide $4.5 million dollars worth of "leadership" to this team.


April 23rd, 2012, 4:14 pm
ST Coordinator – Danny Crossman

Joined: February 11th, 2005, 3:01 pm
Posts: 3717
Location: WSU
Post Re: Free Agency
certainly nate is not a probowler but he is much better than the az hakim, bill schroeder, tai streets, kevin johnson, bryant johnson flameouts of yesteryear. linehan has worked with him before and he fits the system. cutting him and expecting other free agents to show up at your doorstep isnt realistic - they will see how you just mistreated a guy and that you are probably going to short change them 50 cents on the dollar on there deal.


Last edited by The Legend on April 23rd, 2012, 10:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.



April 23rd, 2012, 10:04 pm
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: January 26th, 2005, 9:34 pm
Posts: 10305
Location: Sycamore, IL
Post Re: Free Agency
Don't worry, wjb will find a way to hate everyone on the team. It's his MO

_________________
_____
I have no faith this team will win a game the rest of the year. The kitties finish at 7-9 and Miss the playoffs as GB wins out and takes it from the kitties.
Image


April 23rd, 2012, 10:18 pm
Profile
Play by Play Announcer - Al Michaels

Joined: October 15th, 2005, 9:00 am
Posts: 1839
Location: Greensboro, NC
Post Re: Free Agency
The Legend wrote:
certainly nate is not a probowler but he is much better than the az hakim, bill schroeder, tai streets, kevin johnson, flameouts of yesteryear. linehan has worked with him before and he fits the system. cutting him and expecting other free agents to show up at your doorstep isnt realistic - they will see how you just mistreated a guy and that you are probably going to short change them 50 cents on the dollar on there deal.

To piggyback off of this point, cutting Nate (and Kyle Vanden Bosch, for that matter) sends a confusing message to the young players on the team--the guys still playing on their rookie deals. The Lions want the young players to follow in the footsteps of veterans like Burleson and KVB--if the team cuts those veterans, it sends the message that hard work and leadership aren't valuable. Why would any young guy aspire to be a team leader if those leaders aren't valued by the organization? The Lions want to show that leadership and hard work will indeed be rewarded--KVB and Burleson serve as evidence of that. When people talk about the "culture" of an organization, this is part of what they're talking about.

For anyone who underrates the importance of taking care of veteran players, I offer this:

http://www.toledoblade.com/DaveHackenberg/2003/12/02/Sanders-explains-his-exit.html

Quote:
So if you ve been wondering all this time why Sanders called it quits with years to go on a lucrative contract, after a 10th straight Pro Bowl selection, and with only 1,458 yards separating him from what was then the league s career rushing record, the answer apparently is former Lions general manager Chuck Schmidt.

[...]

The straw that broke Barry s back, so he claims, was the dismissal of All-Pro center Kevin Glover following the 97 season.

[...]

“I thought there was no way they were going to get rid of Kevin Glover,” Sanders said. “But sure enough, next season he wasn't there. I was shocked. He was the person we could not replace [based on] what he meant to each teammate, how they looked up to him for his performance and work ethic.”

_________________
Proud member of the Contract Extension for Schwartz Fan Club.


April 23rd, 2012, 10:58 pm
Profile
Team MVP
User avatar

Joined: February 20th, 2007, 10:51 pm
Posts: 3364
Location: Saginaw, MI
Post Re: Free Agency
conversion02 wrote:
Don't worry, wjb will find a way to hate everyone on the team. It's his MO


Got that right.

_________________
April 22nd, 2010 @ 7:44p.m. "The Detroit Lions select...Ndamukong Suh". Those are some beautiful words.


Lionbacker2 Fantasy Champion 2011


April 24th, 2012, 12:02 pm
Profile
Hall of Fame Player
User avatar

Joined: April 5th, 2005, 7:03 am
Posts: 7411
Location: Ford Field - 35 yard line / Row 32
Post Re: Free Agency
mwill2 wrote:
The Legend wrote:
certainly nate is not a probowler but he is much better than the az hakim, bill schroeder, tai streets, kevin johnson, flameouts of yesteryear. linehan has worked with him before and he fits the system. cutting him and expecting other free agents to show up at your doorstep isnt realistic - they will see how you just mistreated a guy and that you are probably going to short change them 50 cents on the dollar on there deal.

To piggyback off of this point, cutting Nate (and Kyle Vanden Bosch, for that matter) sends a confusing message to the young players on the team--the guys still playing on their rookie deals. The Lions want the young players to follow in the footsteps of veterans like Burleson and KVB--if the team cuts those veterans, it sends the message that hard work and leadership aren't valuable. Why would any young guy aspire to be a team leader if those leaders aren't valued by the organization? The Lions want to show that leadership and hard work will indeed be rewarded--KVB and Burleson serve as evidence of that. When people talk about the "culture" of an organization, this is part of what they're talking about.

For anyone who underrates the importance of taking care of veteran players, I offer this:

http://www.toledoblade.com/DaveHackenberg/2003/12/02/Sanders-explains-his-exit.html

Quote:
So if you ve been wondering all this time why Sanders called it quits with years to go on a lucrative contract, after a 10th straight Pro Bowl selection, and with only 1,458 yards separating him from what was then the league s career rushing record, the answer apparently is former Lions general manager Chuck Schmidt.

[...]

The straw that broke Barry s back, so he claims, was the dismissal of All-Pro center Kevin Glover following the 97 season.

[...]

“I thought there was no way they were going to get rid of Kevin Glover,” Sanders said. “But sure enough, next season he wasn't there. I was shocked. He was the person we could not replace [based on] what he meant to each teammate, how they looked up to him for his performance and work ethic.”



The Legend & mwill2, Great combination of posts!! =D>

_________________
Image


April 24th, 2012, 3:19 pm
Profile WWW
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: October 20th, 2004, 4:16 pm
Posts: 9908
Location: Where ever I'm at now
Post Re: Free Agency
In all fairness, if the Lions were to cut Burleson, or KVB or Corey Williams, it certainly wouldn't bother some of the young guys....particularly the ones who would now get a chance at more playing time. That said, the Lions wouldn't be the first team to part ways with a veteran player who is getting paid more than they actually are worth. I agree that all three bring more to the table than just stats. But Burleson and Williams are both making more than they should, even with their locker room presence. I'm sure if they had their way, the team would prefer those guys to stick around, but at a lesser amount of play so that the team could afford to add another solid player or two to help shore up their ranks and improve their chances of winning more games.

The Barry Sanders example was good. However, it failed to mention that it was the LAST STRAW for Barry. He was good friends with Glover, which is what upset him the most. But to compare letting Glover go to Burelson or Williams is not a fair comparison. Neither Burleson nor Williams are in their primes, and neither are close to being Pro Bowl level talents. Glover was. He was the best lineman the Lions had at the time, not an OK receiver who is now likely third on the depth chart, or a DT who is now likely fourth on the depth chart.

Good teams don't overpay players that are backups. Keeping Burleson and Williams is fine. Just pay them fairly. Both were overpaid last year for their contributions to the team, both on the field and in the locker room. There's no reason to repeat that again this season.

_________________
Driver of the 'we need a coaching change' bandwagon. Climb aboard.


April 24th, 2012, 3:51 pm
Profile
Play by Play Announcer - Al Michaels

Joined: October 15th, 2005, 9:00 am
Posts: 1839
Location: Greensboro, NC
Post Re: Free Agency
m2karateman wrote:
The Barry Sanders example was good. However, it failed to mention that it was the LAST STRAW for Barry. He was good friends with Glover, which is what upset him the most. But to compare letting Glover go to Burelson or Williams is not a fair comparison. Neither Burleson nor Williams are in their primes, and neither are close to being Pro Bowl level talents. Glover was. He was the best lineman the Lions had at the time, not an OK receiver who is now likely third on the depth chart, or a DT who is now likely fourth on the depth chart.


The example was given to demonstrate the effect of an organizational culture on a player's attitude. Nobody thinks Barry Sanders retired simply because Glover was released. Rather, Sanders was frustrated with the organization--its treatment of Glover was but one example of how the organizational culture discouraged him. And for the sake of accuracy, Glover had been a Pro Bowler but he was NOT in his prime. He was 34 years old and only played 14 games in his career after the Lions released him.

I understand the arguments about cutting/restructuring deals for these aging veterans, I really do. I appreciate the argument and see the validity of it. I'm simply speculating on what I think the front office is trying to do, and why they apparently feel these veteran salaries are justified. I believe this strategy is part of changing the culture of this organization.

The truth is, we can't see or measure the effect that Burleson, KVB, or C. Williams have on the team, nor can we attach a dollar value to it. We CAN, however, see what these players do on the field. When a player's on-field production doesn't seem to match the salary, usually that player is released. When the player isn't released and the player continues to draw a large salary in spite of a lack of production, one can only conclude that A) the team values something else about that player, or that B) the front office is stupid and is willing to throw away money. Given that this front office has turned around the worst franchise in the history of the game, shouldn't we assume that option A is correct?

_________________
Proud member of the Contract Extension for Schwartz Fan Club.


April 24th, 2012, 5:07 pm
Profile
Post Re: Free Agency
conversion02 wrote:
Don't worry, wjb will find a way to hate everyone on the team. It's his MO



You're ridiculous. I don't hate anyone on the team. Avril and Nate are over-paid, period. I don't bitch about KVB's contract, cause he leads by example and gets rookies that don't otherwise know how to work out in shape and acts as a mentor. I think his leadership IS worth his contract. The same is true with Glover. Glover was a good offensive lineman. Barry was also upset that we let Jeff Hartings go. Losing those two players is what prompted his retirement. His famous quote was "we're not offense minded, we're not defense minded, I don't know what we are."

That said, you're not sending a bad message to your rookies if you cut Nate. Nate ISN'T PERFORMING ON THE FIELD, which is why he doesn't deserve his paycheck. He drops too many crucial balls, he doesn't get separation, but most importantly, he's NOT TAKING PRESSURE OFF OF CJ, AND THAT'S WHAT WE BROUGHT HIM IN HERE TO DO. There's nothing wrong with cutting a guy that's not producing, regardless of how many "happy thoughts" he bestows on the team. Nate is more of a vocal leader that says the obvious. I don't respect his leadership style, and I don't respect his role on the team. He's over-paid and should be cut, restructured or traded. Someone else (Ocho for sure) could take his spot, leadership and all, for 1/2 of what he's currently making.

M2 claims that no one would really care if we cut KVB, C. Williams, or Nate, I agree with all of them but KVB. His mentorship role is so strong on that entire DL that I DO think it would bother some if he were let go. Suh and Avril more or less treat KVB like an older brother, they hang out together outside of F. Field, and workout together. It's common knowledge that KVB pushes the "younger bucks" harder and acts as a quasi trainer to them. C. Williams, and Nate, hell no... no one would care one bit, and you wouldn't be sending the "wrong message." If anything, IMO cutting Nate would send the RIGHT MESSAGE - DO YOU'RE DAMN JOB OR LEAVE. Older players like Pett need to be taught that. IMO we're too lackadaisical with disciplining our WRs drops, and the laziness and poor attitude is infectious.


April 24th, 2012, 5:11 pm
ST Coordinator – Danny Crossman

Joined: February 11th, 2005, 3:01 pm
Posts: 3717
Location: WSU
Post Re: Free Agency
Quote:
The Barry Sanders example was good. However, it failed to mention that it was the LAST STRAW for Barry. He was good friends with Glover, which is what upset him the most. But to compare letting Glover go to Burelson or Williams is not a fair comparison. Neither Burleson nor Williams are in their primes, and neither are close to being Pro Bowl level talents. Glover was. He was the best lineman the Lions had at the time, not an OK receiver who is now likely third on the depth chart, or a DT who is now likely fourth on the depth chart.



the situations are actually very similar. glover was entering his age 35 season when the lions let him go. true he was a probowler in his last lions season but he only played 14 more nfl games after he left. the lions replaced him with a stopgap for a season then successfully transitioned to Mike Compton. From a pure football standpoint letting go of glover was the right move but it ended up costing barry sanders. burleson and williams will be 31 and 32 in the coming season and most likely have more football left then glover did. (BTW - M2K williams is 4th on the depth chart at DT on the team? thats a total joke and utterly ridiculous statement - watch a game Sammie Hill isnt god and Fairley has proven nothing, williams will start. )


April 24th, 2012, 6:29 pm
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: January 26th, 2005, 9:34 pm
Posts: 10305
Location: Sycamore, IL
Post Re: Free Agency
Wjb, let me find the threads, but I specifically remember you suggesting or agreeing that we should cut KVB because of his contract

_________________
_____
I have no faith this team will win a game the rest of the year. The kitties finish at 7-9 and Miss the playoffs as GB wins out and takes it from the kitties.
Image


April 24th, 2012, 7:25 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 323 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: UK Lion, Yahoo [Bot] and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware.