Opinions on Jimmy Graham

[ROMOTOOWENS]

This is a big deal. 5 million bucks more if he is a WR. It is a business though- eventhough he is worth the 12 million. 67 percent he lined up in the slot or WIDE. The all important twitter account though he lists himself as a TE. I personally think he should be considered a TE.

 

[scotsman1948]

he is worth it no matter what his position is

 

[ROMOTOOWENS]

I agree with that he is worth but this is 5 million dollars. If he wins his case, the Saints will probably have to cut a player or two. I think you have to call him a TE though

 

[Ekspozed]

Call him a pass catcher and pay him what he's worth.

 

[jarntt]

I've never heard anyone call him a WR. It would be a travesty if he won this case. Whether he is worth it or not is irrelevant. The next guy won't be.

 

[ROMOTOOWENS]

People are making a big deal about the 67 percent. To me that can kind of go against him if argued correctly. That means 33 percent of the time he lined up beside the OT. WRs dont line up there. Im surprised this has really never been an issue before with Gonzo, Sharpe, and others. Do OLBs in a 3-4 get paid as much as DEs?

 

[Manster7588]

People are making a big deal about the 67 percent. To me that can kind of go against him if argued correctly. That means 33 percent of the time he lined up beside the OT. WRs dont line up there. Im surprised this has really never been an issue before with Gonzo, Sharpe, and others. Do OLBs in a 3-4 get paid as much as DEs?

Considering the CBA says he has to be franchised at the position he played the most snaps that 67% is not going to hurt him one iota. The Saints are stuck between a rock (CBA) and a hard place (Graham)As for you 3-4 OLB argument how much was Ware paid.

The owners agreed to this CBA. Graham has all the leverage.

 

[ROMOTOOWENS]

I just see this creating a huge mess. I wonder what Sproles percentage was

 

[Manster7588]

Im surprised this has really never been an issue before with Gonzo, Sharpe, and others

I don't think Sharpe played under This CBA, and we don't know if Gonzo isn't banging down his agents door as we speak why he didn't know this rule. Grahams agent just smacked the Saints GO across the face with a dead fish.

 

[tw1st3d]

He's a tight end

and if you want to compare him ... At best Kellen Winslow ..... Who was also considered a tight end and did the same things ( 30 years earlier)

Line him up as a wide receiver and the corners can cover him ... at TE he creates match up problems .... doesnt change his position or what he is

JMO

 

[UK Cowboy]

My opinion is he deserves TE money. And that he'd look good with a Star on his helmet.

 

[ArlingtonCowboys100]

He is a tight end. I hope he becomes disgruntled. The Saints offense would not be nearly as dangerous without him. He probably deserves the money.

 

[Schmoopy1000]

Considering the CBA says he has to be franchised at the position he played the most snaps that 67% is not going to hurt him one iota. The Saints are stuck between a rock (CBA) and a hard place (Graham)As for you 3-4 OLB argument how much was Ware paid.

The owners agreed to this CBA. Graham has all the leverage.

Curious what the exact wording is in the CBA.

If he starts a play in a TE spot & moves into a slot spot (or wherever) then to me he started the play in a TE spot. (not where he was when the ball was snapped)
So looking at it from that point of view I wonder what the percentage would be.

The guy is a TE. If he wants to be paid like a WR he could then act like a WR, until then he should be considered a TE (IMO)

 

[Manster7588]

Curious what the exact wording is in the CBA.

If he starts a play in a TE spot & moves into a slot spot (or wherever) then to me he started the play in a TE spot. (not where he was when the ball was snapped)
So looking at it from that point of view I wonder what the percentage would be.

The guy is a TE. If he wants to be paid like a WR he could then act like a WR, until then he should be considered a TE (IMO)

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...sQFjAA&usg=AFQjCNFF1nVKmJglO5mBBLoX4A4Vr4JFyg

Page 44

ARTICLE 10, SECTION 2. A. i.

Sound like a rule to keep NFL teams from having a guard play OT and be paid as a guard.

 

[Schmoopy1000]

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...sQFjAA&usg=AFQjCNFF1nVKmJglO5mBBLoX4A4Vr4JFyg

Page 44

ARTICLE 10, SECTION 2. A. i.

Sound like a rule to keep NFL teams from having a guard play OT and be paid as a guard.

I couldn't find the part where they talk about how the NFL decides what position a player plays, but when they listed the positions it was just OL, not C, G, T. So I guess if you were to Fran tag a Center or a guard you would be paying them like a LT.






Quarterback, Running Back, Wide Receiver, Tight End, Offensive Line, Defensive End, Interior Defensive Line, Linebacker, Cornerback, Safety, and Kicker/Punter.

 

[Manster7588]

I couldn't find the part where they talk about how the NFL decides what position a player plays, but when they listed the positions it was just OL, not C, G, T. So I guess if you were to Fran tag a Center or a guard you would be paying them like a LT.






Quarterback, Running Back, Wide Receiver, Tight End, Offensive Line, Defensive End, Interior Defensive Line, Linebacker, Cornerback, Safety, and Kicker/Punter.

"Nonexclusive Franchise Tender. The Nonexclusive Franchise Tender shall be a one year NFL Player Contract for (A) the average of the five largest Prior Year Salaries for players at the position (within the categories set forth in Section 7(a) below) at which the Franchise Player participated in the most plays during the prior League Year,"

 

[Manster7588]

So I guess if you were to Fran tag a Center or a guard you would be paying them like a LT.

If the Franchise a C he'd be paid as a C. The CBA stops team's from having a C be moved to OT and the team keep paying him as a C under the Franchise tag.

 

[Schmoopy1000]

"Nonexclusive Franchise Tender. The Nonexclusive Franchise Tender shall be a one year NFL Player Contract for (A) the average of the five largest Prior Year Salaries for players at the position (within the categories set forth in Section 7(a) below) at which the Franchise Player participated in the most plays during the prior League Year,"

Oh. I was looking for what they considered participated (at snap or start of play (before motion & such))
I guess depending on how the arbitrator reads that. Since it seems pretty vague.

 

[Schmoopy1000]

If the Franchise a C he'd be paid as a C. The CBA stops team's from having a C be moved to OT and the team keep paying him as a C under the Franchise tag.

that makes sense to me, but reading further about the positions in the CBA they didn't list it that way. Just OL.
on the defense side it was DE & interior line.

 

[Manster7588]

that makes sense to me, but reading further about the positions in the CBA they didn't list it that way. Just OL.
on the defense side it was DE & interior line.

Simple history tells us C's are franchised as C's and G's are franchised as G's.