View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently April 20th, 2014, 7:39 pm



Reply to topic  [ 39 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next
 Nate's "restructure" not what everyone thought it would be 
Author Message
Post Nate's "restructure" not what everyone thought it would be
Nate sure isn't taking the vet min. He cut just enough salary to not make it profitable to cut his sorry az. He lowered his 2013 cap hit from $6.5 million to $4 million, taking a $2.5 million dollar reduction in salary, to keep his salary at $2 million dollars.

$4 million is still way too much for Nate, and he's scheduled to make $7.5 next year. Ridiculous.


February 28th, 2013, 2:41 pm
Butkus Award Winner

Joined: July 3rd, 2012, 2:06 am
Posts: 641
Post Re: Nate's "restructure" not what everyone thought it would
This is another reason why I want an outrageous portion of Stafford's new contract I'm hoping for given to him in the first year. I'm talking maybe $30 million of a 5 year, $85 million dollar deal in the first year, and more if Suh is somehow traded.

About Burleson, he'll be productive next year. My prediction for him through 16 games is 65 catches for 750 yards and 6-9 TDs, and the following year about 60 catches for 700 yards and a few scores.

We're not paying a complete bum here. With Titus being cut, this is all the less frustrating. We don't need to draft an immediate starter or open the wallet for a free agent. Yes, there are some who have NB ability and more since they're younger, but I'm sure Nate will take another pay-cut next year, and his leadership is needed.

_________________
Image


February 28th, 2013, 3:40 pm
Profile
Post Re: Nate's "restructure" not what everyone thought it would
Shotty wrote:
This is another reason why I want an outrageous portion of Stafford's new contract I'm hoping for given to him in the first year. I'm talking maybe $30 million of a 5 year, $85 million dollar deal in the first year, and more if Suh is somehow traded.

About Burleson, he'll be productive next year. My prediction for him through 16 games is 65 catches for 750 yards and 6-9 TDs, and the following year about 60 catches for 700 yards and a few scores.

We're not paying a complete bum here. With Titus being cut, this is all the less frustrating. We don't need to draft an immediate starter or open the wallet for a free agent. Yes, there are some who have NB ability and more since they're younger, but I'm sure Nate will take another pay-cut next year, and his leadership is needed.


I get it Shotty, but my biggest complaint is 1) he's over paid for the production he's giving us, flat out. There really isn't much arguing that, 2) we're not going anywhere in the next two years, so why over-pay Nate in the mean time, when we could be grooming a young, true #2?, and 3) production aside, Nate doesn't do what a true #2 would do for this offense.

IMO #3 is the most important one... A true #2 would take pressure off of CJ, give us another deep threat, keep the safeties back, and open up our running game with TWO WRs on the field.

I wouldn't care if the #2 that we signed or drafted put up similar numbers, or even worse numbers honestly... If he commanded the respect of the safeties, could get deep, and demanded to be accounted for, that would be enough in my book. Nate isn't that guy. He's old, slow, cheats to get open, and drops WAY too many balls to be considered a possession WR.

We could have had Manningham for what Nate is costing us last year and this year, and we could likely have Massoqui or Hixson for what Nate is going to cost us this year and next. I don't think people on here understand how much someone like Hixon or Mass would open up this offense, and thus, they can't understand how much Nate is costing this team.

Leader or not, he's holding us back, period.


February 28th, 2013, 3:47 pm
Butkus Award Winner

Joined: July 3rd, 2012, 2:06 am
Posts: 641
Post Re: Nate's "restructure" not what everyone thought it would
wjb21ndtown wrote:
Shotty wrote:
This is another reason why I want an outrageous portion of Stafford's new contract I'm hoping for given to him in the first year. I'm talking maybe $30 million of a 5 year, $85 million dollar deal in the first year, and more if Suh is somehow traded.

About Burleson, he'll be productive next year. My prediction for him through 16 games is 65 catches for 750 yards and 6-9 TDs, and the following year about 60 catches for 700 yards and a few scores.

We're not paying a complete bum here. With Titus being cut, this is all the less frustrating. We don't need to draft an immediate starter or open the wallet for a free agent. Yes, there are some who have NB ability and more since they're younger, but I'm sure Nate will take another pay-cut next year, and his leadership is needed.


I get it Shotty, but my biggest complaint is 1) he's over paid for the production he's giving us, flat out. There really isn't much arguing that, 2) we're not going anywhere in the next two years, so why over-pay Nate in the mean time, when we could be grooming a young, true #2?, and 3) production aside, Nate doesn't do what a true #2 would do for this offense.

IMO #3 is the most important one... A true #2 would take pressure off of CJ, give us another deep threat, keep the safeties back, and open up our running game with TWO WRs on the field.

I wouldn't care if the #2 that we signed or drafted put up similar numbers, or even worse numbers honestly... If he commanded the respect of the safeties, could get deep, and demanded to be accounted for, that would be enough in my book. Nate isn't that guy. He's old, slow, cheats to get open, and drops WAY too many balls to be considered a possession WR.

We could have had Manningham for what Nate is costing us last year and this year, and we could likely have Massoqui or Hixson for what Nate is going to cost us this year and next. I don't think people on here understand how much someone like Hixon or Mass would open up this offense, and thus, they can't understand how much Nate is costing this team.

Leader or not, he's holding us back, period.


Good points, and out of those WRs, Manningham would definitely be the guy. He has blazing speed, makes some spectacular catches (see Giants' 2012 playoff run) and does everything needed from a #2. His only problem is he's an average route runner, but as you said we don't need anyone really special opposite the guy who may retire the best ever.

_________________
Image


February 28th, 2013, 4:02 pm
Profile
1st Round Pick

Joined: November 28th, 2007, 12:50 pm
Posts: 1229
Location: Newport Beach, Ca
Post Re: Nate's "restructure" not what everyone thought it would
Shotty wrote:
wjb21ndtown wrote:
Shotty wrote:
This is another reason why I want an outrageous portion of Stafford's new contract I'm hoping for given to him in the first year. I'm talking maybe $30 million of a 5 year, $85 million dollar deal in the first year, and more if Suh is somehow traded.

About Burleson, he'll be productive next year. My prediction for him through 16 games is 65 catches for 750 yards and 6-9 TDs, and the following year about 60 catches for 700 yards and a few scores.

We're not paying a complete bum here. With Titus being cut, this is all the less frustrating. We don't need to draft an immediate starter or open the wallet for a free agent. Yes, there are some who have NB ability and more since they're younger, but I'm sure Nate will take another pay-cut next year, and his leadership is needed.


I get it Shotty, but my biggest complaint is 1) he's over paid for the production he's giving us, flat out. There really isn't much arguing that, 2) we're not going anywhere in the next two years, so why over-pay Nate in the mean time, when we could be grooming a young, true #2?, and 3) production aside, Nate doesn't do what a true #2 would do for this offense.

IMO #3 is the most important one... A true #2 would take pressure off of CJ, give us another deep threat, keep the safeties back, and open up our running game with TWO WRs on the field.

I wouldn't care if the #2 that we signed or drafted put up similar numbers, or even worse numbers honestly... If he commanded the respect of the safeties, could get deep, and demanded to be accounted for, that would be enough in my book. Nate isn't that guy. He's old, slow, cheats to get open, and drops WAY too many balls to be considered a possession WR.

We could have had Manningham for what Nate is costing us last year and this year, and we could likely have Massoqui or Hixson for what Nate is going to cost us this year and next. I don't think people on here understand how much someone like Hixon or Mass would open up this offense, and thus, they can't understand how much Nate is costing this team.

Leader or not, he's holding us back, period.


Good points, and out of those WRs, Manningham would definitely be the guy. He has blazing speed, makes some spectacular catches (see Giants' 2012 playoff run) and does everything needed from a #2. His only problem is he's an average route runner, but as you said we don't need anyone really special opposite the guy who may retire the best ever.


Route running is the least of the skills the next WR2 needs. The lions just need a guy that can take the top off the defense. If a receiver has speed and can run a streak or post route he'll be perfect.


February 28th, 2013, 4:10 pm
Profile
Fired Head Coach (0-16 record)
User avatar

Joined: August 24th, 2010, 9:54 pm
Posts: 2218
Post Re: Nate's "restructure" not what everyone thought it would
Man, WJB you are too much.

Nate took a significant pay cut--just as he said he would going in to the offseason, as he said he wanted to 'retire a Lion.' Assuming he comes back at a similar level to before, I'd say 2 mil is very reasonable for a guy with his production. The guy can't sign away the dead money, so you acting like can but chooses not to is totally disingenuous.

He signed a new contract (posted it on Twitter), so that $7.5 for next year number no longer applies.

_________________
Driver of the Jim Caldwell bandwagon. Climb aboard.


February 28th, 2013, 11:20 pm
Profile
Post Re: Nate's "restructure" not what everyone thought it would
thelomasbrowns wrote:
Man, WJB you are too much.

Nate took a significant pay cut--just as he said he would going in to the offseason, as he said he wanted to 'retire a Lion.' Assuming he comes back at a similar level to before, I'd say 2 mil is very reasonable for a guy with his production. The guy can't sign away the dead money, so you acting like can but chooses not to is totally disingenuous.

He signed a new contract (posted it on Twitter), so that $7.5 for next year number no longer applies.


He's not making $2 mill this year, he's making $4. He actually can "give back" dead money. Any money re-collected by the team can be added back to the cap. I don't think that's reasonable, but what he COULD have done, which would have been more reasonable, was take the vet min salary for 2013, just like Raiola did.

Further, his "new contract" only altered the 2013 year. His 2014 salary is still on the books, currently listed at $7.5 million. He could have wrote down that salary too for the 2014 year, but he did not. It could have been that Mayhew didn't ask him to yet, or it could be that he just wants to keep that bargaining chip.

Nate's current contract (note, it doesn't end after this season):
Year----------Salary--------S. Bonus----Mis. Bonus (restructure related bonuses)-----Total Cap Hit
2013-------$2,000,000----$700,000----$1,331,641-------------------------------------------$4,031,641
2014-------$5,500,000----$700,000----$1,331,641-------------------------------------------$7,531,641
2015 UFA

* $11 million guaranteed
* 2011 Restructure Bonus: $1,093,235 / 4 years
* 2012 Restructure Bonus: $3.175 million / 3 years

* 2013 Base Reduced to $2 million

Nate could have reduced his 2013 salary to $1 mill, putting his total cap hit to $3 mill, which is still more than he's worth, but much more reasonable. Nate could have also reduced his 2014 salary to $1 mill, putting his 2014 salary at $3 mill, which is more than he's going to be worth, but reasonable.

If he were willing to do that, if I were Mayhew, I would offer him a 2015 guaranteed vet min salary. It would cost us $1 mill down the road, but he's worth it. I see it as a win-win. Nate gets one more year of big paychecks, we get a solid character guy that moves down the depth chart and fades away, all while helping our younger guys. That said, that's an issue too... Nate sees his role as needing to "beat out" the younger guys, I see his role as needing to mentor and HELP our younger guys over-take him. He's not a #2 anymore. There may have been a time in Minn that he was, but he hasn't been since he came here, and he is holding this offense back. That needs to change. If he's a true leader he needs to be self-less, realize he's in the twilight of his career, and get the hell out of the way.


March 1st, 2013, 11:00 am
Fired Head Coach (0-16 record)
User avatar

Joined: April 5th, 2007, 5:51 pm
Posts: 2271
Post Re: Nate's "restructure" not what everyone thought it would
I agree with everything you just posted wjb, but ironically he did exactly what you just said,and the knucklehead he mentored decided to go off the deep end. You can argue it was the teams fault for holding him back if you want, but that doesnt change how nate treated titus, and had titus not been a dipshit hed be a Lion and have passed Nate this year. Instead he doesnt have a job. We dont have any other young guys who can beat out NB as far as I can tell (lack of talent at WR is drastic).


March 1st, 2013, 10:13 pm
Profile ICQ WWW
Post Re: Nate's "restructure" not what everyone thought it would
DJ-B wrote:
I agree with everything you just posted wjb, but ironically he did exactly what you just said,and the knucklehead he mentored decided to go off the deep end. You can argue it was the teams fault for holding him back if you want, but that doesnt change how nate treated titus, and had titus not been a dipshit hed be a Lion and have passed Nate this year. Instead he doesnt have a job. We dont have any other young guys who can beat out NB as far as I can tell (lack of talent at WR is drastic).


I can't agree with this DJ... Listen to Nate's preseason and last offseason comments "I have to beat out these young guys..." "I'm fighting to keep my #2 job...

He didn't help Titus push past him, he worked harder to keep those guys down. That's not what I was referring to. CJ and Titus were regularly seen on the sidelines together joking around. Nate and Titus... Not so much...

Nate saw Titus as a threat, not an opportunity, which has nothing to do with what I see Nate's role as.


March 6th, 2013, 1:01 pm
Fired Head Coach (0-16 record)
User avatar

Joined: April 5th, 2007, 5:51 pm
Posts: 2271
Post Re: Nate's "restructure" not what everyone thought it would
Been crazy busy at work so dont have time to dig, and Im not arguing that Nate didnt want to continue to be the #2 and fight for it, but i believe there were multiple articles about the time Nate spent directly with Titus trying to help him be a better Receiver, PRO in General and even person. Maybe someone else can find them.

Nate def didnt volunteer to be a Mentor 1st, WR 2n by any means, but he did try to Help Titus... dood was just lost.

End result is the same, weve got CJ and nothing else at WR, on a Team that relies on its passing offense to do anything. If that isnt rectified, 4-12 here we come.


March 6th, 2013, 7:14 pm
Profile ICQ WWW
1st Round Pick

Joined: November 28th, 2007, 12:50 pm
Posts: 1229
Location: Newport Beach, Ca
Post Re: Nate's "restructure" not what everyone thought it would
Nate was also one of the only people to actually try and defend Titus after his many outbursts. He did an interview before the release where he said that Titus was a good guy and just misunderstood. That is more than any of the other Lions were saying about Titus.


March 6th, 2013, 11:42 pm
Profile
League MVP
User avatar

Joined: March 30th, 2006, 12:48 am
Posts: 3634
Location: Davison Mi
Post Re: Nate's "restructure" not what everyone thought it would
I also rememeber reports of him "taking Titus under his wing" in camp after he popped Delmas in the back of the head.


March 7th, 2013, 10:21 am
Profile
Post Re: Nate's "restructure" not what everyone thought it would
Being a "good guy" and helping someone take the #2 spot are two completely different things. It doesn't matter that Nate is in fact a "good guy," he did everything he could to keep Titus down the depth chart, and keep himself in the #2 spot. That's exactly what I DON'T want out of Nate.


March 7th, 2013, 11:36 am
1st Round Pick

Joined: November 28th, 2007, 12:50 pm
Posts: 1229
Location: Newport Beach, Ca
Post Re: Nate's "restructure" not what everyone thought it would
wjb21ndtown wrote:
Being a "good guy" and helping someone take the #2 spot are two completely different things. It doesn't matter that Nate is in fact a "good guy," he did everything he could to keep Titus down the depth chart, and keep himself in the #2 spot. That's exactly what I DON'T want out of Nate.


My favorite part of your posts are when you just start making things up. Nate didn't do anything to keep Titus down on the depth chart, he did everything he could to make himself good enough to stay at the top of the depth chart. Nate trying to stay at the top of his game is in no way a determent to Titus and is actually the better way to get something out of a good player because he would need to compete for the spot.

The Lions run many 3 WR sets, so let's stop pretending like Titus wasn't on the field, also the reason why Nate got more targets than Titus was because Nate took a load of the short passes and did a good job getting YAC. Titus was an outside reciever and considering it takes longer for his routes to develop it would have been less likely to go his way. In his first year Titus did very little after the catch and he was starting to do more this last season, but unfortunately he decided to throw a tantrum instead of playing through the season.

Nate is a player not a coach. Players don't mentor by rolling over for the new kid, they give the rookie tips and workout with them while doing everything they can to keep their own game sharp. Titus also made it pretty damn apparent that he didn't think he needed any help since he is already as good as Calvin Johnson.


March 7th, 2013, 1:04 pm
Profile
League MVP
User avatar

Joined: March 30th, 2006, 12:48 am
Posts: 3634
Location: Davison Mi
Post Re: Nate's "restructure" not what everyone thought it would
wjb21ndtown wrote:
Being a "good guy" and helping someone take the #2 spot are two completely different things. It doesn't matter that Nate is in fact a "good guy," he did everything he could to keep Titus down the depth chart, and keep himself in the #2 spot. That's exactly what I DON'T want out of Nate.


and how exactly did he do that? Take his parking spot? tie his shoes laces together? not hold his hand and tell him it was going to be ok when he was acting like a lil B!#@H?


common man, you are an accountability guy...why hold Nate accountable for things you have no evidence of, but give Titus a pass when he is CLEARLY a douchebag?


March 7th, 2013, 1:32 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 39 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


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.