the Bengals Franchised their kicker

I'm not sure you guys understand what the franchise tag is really for, there's nothing wrong with frachsing a player while trying to work out a deal to make sure no one else can interfere while showing the guy you definitely want him around for at least a year, and that he's better off negotiating unless he wants to play hard ball and sit out the year.

It's a business tactic, nothing more.
 
I really dont see a problem with it. It keeps your decent kicker off of the market and only pays him $2.4 million, and buys them more time to negotiate a new Deal.
 
The Falcons franchised their kicker earlier in the week. It's not uncommon amongst kickers because the cost is so low.
 
brewers47;2642428 said:
It actually happens probably much more with kickers than any other position.

Guess I haven't paid that much attention to it.
 
I figured that the tag would be used on more important positions. also most players hate the tag from what I've seen.
 
Rampage;2642436 said:
I figured that the tag would be used on more important positions. also most players hate the tag from what I've seen.

More important position would have been Housh, but then he would cost them $10 million next year. Franchise a kicker so no one else can get them, $2.4 million.
 
It was cheaper for them to franchise the kicker than it was to franchise Housh: 2.4 million compared to 10 million.

If you know anything about Mike Brown, you'd understand. He's the total opposite of Jerry. The Bengals are nothing more than a business to him. He could care less whether the team wins or loses, just so long as he's making his $$$$.

BTW, his daughter and son-in-law are co GM's.
 

Staff online

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
474,003
Messages
14,505,693
Members
24,207
Latest member
TomGiantsfan
Back
Top