the Bengals Franchised their kicker
- Thread starter Rampage
- Start date
Dave_in-NC
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 17,049
- Reaction score
- 5,132
Has any team ever done that before?
TheCount
Pixel Pusher
- Messages
- 25,523
- Reaction score
- 8,849
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.
It's a business tactic, nothing more.
Vintage
The Cult of Jib
- Messages
- 16,714
- Reaction score
- 4,888
elcocinero
Member
- Messages
- 482
- Reaction score
- 4
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.
DragonCowboy
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 5,498
- Reaction score
- 250
grr, this is the guy that kept the Eagles in the playoffs.
dallasfaniac
Active Member
- Messages
- 4,198
- Reaction score
- 1
The Falcons franchised their kicker earlier in the week. It's not uncommon amongst kickers because the cost is so low.
Dave_in-NC
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 17,049
- Reaction score
- 5,132
brewers47;2642428 said:
Guess I haven't paid that much attention to it.
dallasfaniac
Active Member
- Messages
- 4,198
- Reaction score
- 1
Rampage;2642436 said:
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.
speedkilz88
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 36,952
- Reaction score
- 23,100
2.4 million is still too much for a kicker.
DTK
Active Member
- Messages
- 735
- Reaction score
- 86
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 $$$$.
BTW, his daughter and son-in-law are co GM's.
If you know anything about Mike Brown, you'd understand. He's the total opposite of Jerry. The Bengals are nothing more than a business to him. He could care less whether the team wins or loses, just so long as he's making his $$$$.
BTW, his daughter and son-in-law are co GM's.
