Pass2Run
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 10,870
- Reaction score
- 12,221
It's not a false dilemma...Exactly the right move.
Bye, Dalton.
It's not a false dilemma...Exactly the right move.
Bye, Dalton.
I said ‘NO’ to both. It’s not a knock on the players, but on the associated costs and return on investment. Paying for either one is just bad business and not worth the costs.I said no to Schulz and yes to Pollard.
Pollard is more important to the team and as usual we haven't prepared for him leaving.
I don’t need to because I’m AGAINST IT.Show us the last time a RB still performed for 1 year on a second contract.
That's all you need for franchising a player.
Since when do team need to ‘prepare’ for running back departures?I said no to Schulz and yes to Pollard.
Pollard is more important to the team and as usual we haven't prepared for him leaving.
Franchising which one is *less* wrong?I said ‘NO’ to both. It’s not a knock on the players, but on the associated costs and return on investment. Paying for either one is just bad business and not worth the costs.
A franchise tag for pollard would be acceptable because it isn’t a long term deal. Get one more year of excellent production out of him. Then let him walk.
That's the *appropriate* comparable if you're testing the idea with historical data.I don’t need to because I’m AGAINST IT.
Indeed . Just look at Pacheco at KC or Stevenson with the patriots . Many out there and I hope Jerry won’t get duped like Zeke duped him a few years agoLet both Zeke and Pollard go. No need to pay that kind of money to RB's. We can get Pollard back cheap when the real GM's won't pony up that kind of money for a scatback.
We can find starting quality RB's on day two and three of the draft.
Both are wrong. I’m against both. I was against Schultz last year (and the numbers prove me right). And I’m against Pollard this year. History proves me right.Franchising which one is *less* wrong?
Since they've got nothing for next year.Since when do team need to ‘prepare’ for running back departures?
A franchise tag qualifies as a “second contract”. It involves much more money than a first contract.That's the *appropriate* comparable if you're testing the idea with historical data.
a franchise tag isn’t a second contract really….I mean its a short term thing for 2 seasons at mostSomeone feel free to show us the last second contract for a running back that worked out well for the team:
And they don’t NEED TO.Since they've got nothing for next year.
Teams ALWAYS DO. Running backs don’t improve with age.You *can* get one with a mid round pick, but there's no *guarantee* you'll hit. Wanna spend next year with Dak throwing 60 times a game? I don't.
The best argument shows that it was a mistake. The production isn’t near the cost.The best argument for Schulz was that we had nothing in the pipeline. Now we've hit on a couple of rookies. Now we wave goodbye.
Good thing there’s 0 chance of that.TE is less important than RB. I don't want to risk 0 running game next year.
Looking at the wrong comparable does not prove you right.Both are wrong. I’m against both. I was against Schultz last year (and the numbers prove me right). And I’m against Pollard this year. History proves me right.
How much guaranteed money does it involve?To be fair
a franchise tag isn’t a second contract really….I mean its a short term thing for 2 seasons at most