Bengals Franchise Shayne Graham

The Ram

The Ram

Half Man, Half Amazing
Say bye-bye to Housh. The Bengals are proving to be some serious cheapskates by going with a kicker with the franchise tag.
 
What the hell is this franchise thinking? Gotta secure that kicker for this year's Super Bowl run?
 
Not sure I agree with your assessment.....I would have loved to see Housh tagged....but at the end of the day it's a one year band aid to a larger issue at the cost of 9.88 mil....now if they don't spend that money elsewhere, I agree, but this now gives them the money to fill a lot of weaknesses.

As far as the FT on Graham, if they did not tag Housh, I was hoping that this would be done. It's a cheap tag and locks down one of the most accurate kickers in the game. If your not tagging Housh anyways, hell might as well use it and not have to chase the market for a kicker.

Am I disappointed Housh will not be in Cincy, yes, do I think that for a second it came down to man we have to tag Graham so we can't tag Housh....NO. But againm, if your not tagging Housh, use it somewhere else.

Now we will see how they use this money they have free now. Better be some big time OL improvements and adressing the RB situation.
 
It's a kicker. Release him and go get another one :) Bring in 9 or 10 of them for some minicamp workouts, keep a couple going into training camp, and pick the best one. All for a price of under $1 Million.
 
i think this will be the first of several kickers that get franchised this offseason. the "franchise" tag has become absolutely ridiculous.
 
Ask the Patriots how valuable kickers can be......sorry, as much as we want to make fun of kickers, kickers can win and lose games.....there are good kickers.....and there are bad kickers. If you can keep one of the better kickers in the league and you've decided your not going to use the FT on anyone else....why not??
 
Da Bomb said:
i think this will be the first of several kickers that get franchised this offseason. the "franchise" tag has become absolutely ridiculous.
Click to expand...
Depends on how your look at the franchise tag....all it is is a vehicle to retain a player. Nothing more, nothing less. Forget the meaning of the word franchise and look at what the tool does. It retains a player for the average pay of the top 5 at that position. It also carries no signing bonus cost or bonus money, so that cost is your only cost. It does not mean that this is a FRANCHISE player......the name is misleading as to where and why this is a useful devise to use.
 
Mike said:
It's a kicker. Release him and go get another one :) Bring in 9 or 10 of them for some minicamp workouts, keep a couple going into training camp, and pick the best one. All for a price of under $1 Million.
Click to expand...


Lol, now that is what the Bucs have been doing for years. No Wait, that was QBs, nevermind.
 
Miller said:
Depends on how your look at the franchise tag....all it is is a vehicle to retain a player. Nothing more, nothing less. Forget the meaning of the word franchise and look at what the tool does. It retains a player for the average pay of the top 5 at that position. It also carries no signing bonus cost or bonus money, so that cost is your only cost. It does not mean that this is a FRANCHISE player......the name is misleading as to where and why this is a useful devise to use.
Click to expand...

that's what i mean, the name "franchise" tag is ridiculous. a kicker an be really important but not exactly a franchise player. they need to scrap the name or change the way it's set up. im not sure i like the tool either way, but its definitely a misnomer. :)
 
Personally I'd like to see it removed, the players just cry about it, if they dislike the damn thing so much bargain it out and give something to the owners in return.
 
Actually, I am with Miller on this one. The Bengals have some nice young players that are playing well and should use some monies to tie them up for a few years. Better to sign up a half dozen players to nice extensions than bust the bank on one WR.
 
I'm with Miller too actually. I know it's a kicker and because of that alone I understand how this looks, but I think it's a better option than throwing it on Housh.
 
Miller said:
Ask the Patriots how valuable kickers can be.
Click to expand...

When it was time to pay their kicker, they "kicked" him to the curb.

If they want to keep him, simply sign him long term, at a much lower price than that. If he won't sign for far less than that, let him go.

Like I said, if the Bengals were contending, I could see the one year risk. But in their current condition, it seems pointless to me.
 
The Falcons franchised their punter and it's possible the Raiders will do the same, so on the ridiculous scale franchising a PK isn't so bad.
 
Mike said:
When it was time to pay their kicker, they "kicked" him to the curb.

If they want to keep him, simply sign him long term, at a much lower price than that. If he won't sign for far less than that, let him go.

Like I said, if the Bengals were contending, I could see the one year risk. But in their current condition, it seems pointless to me.
Click to expand...
But explain to me the risk? It's 2.5 mil......with no bonuses that count against the cap and no signing bonus that count against the cap.....it you sign him long term for around 1.5 mil a year, the difference will be swallowed by signing bones and performance bonuses for the most part.....so you avoid all that and ink him for one year at a manageable cap hit and retain an important part of your club. I just don't see where there is a risk to it, it's not like your paying him 9 mil a year and are crippling your cap to do it. The ideal situation is obviously to ink him long term, but when you can't get that done you use the tag, that is what it is there for and this is one of the more cost effective ways to use it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top