swamp dog 0 Posted July 13, 2006 looks like only $15.5 mill of it is guaranteed: http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/artic...PDATE/607130454 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
uubeee 0 Posted July 14, 2006 looks like only $15.5 mill of it is guaranteed: http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/artic...PDATE/607130454 How does a guy who have never made the pro bowl get that deal? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
My Negro! 3 Posted July 14, 2006 Backus is a human pylon! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
swamp dog 0 Posted July 14, 2006 How does a guy who have never made the pro bowl get that deal? yeah, if it were the packers they'd just badmouth his azz and ship him out of town for a draft pick. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
uubeee 0 Posted July 14, 2006 yeah, if it were the packers they'd just badmouth his azz and ship him out of town for a draft pick. It's a serious question swamp. How does a player who has never made the pro bowl become the 6th highest paid OL in the league. The highest paid OL who has never made the pro bowl. Go ahead and hate on the Pack. We're used to it. But answer the question for what it's worth. You think he's worth it? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
swamp dog 0 Posted July 14, 2006 It's a serious question swamp. How does a player who has never made the pro bowl become the 6th highest paid OL in the league. The highest paid OL who has never made the pro bowl. Go ahead and hate on the Pack. We're used to it. But answer the question for what it's worth. You think he's worth it? given the market, yes, he's worth it. and this deal (which had to be done by tomorrow or the lions risked losing the franchise tag) is more cap friendly than one-year tender he signed earlier in the spring. the lions didn't create the market price for tackles. you have to pony up to keep them--and despite backus not making a pro bowl yet he is young and he is good. i heard a lot of packer fans last year saying how relieved they were the packers didn't pony up the big bucks for wahle and rivera. well, how did that work out? in a perfect world, it'd be nice if backus agreed to play for peanuts but that's not how it works. with young tackles you either pay up or watch them bolt. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
uubeee 0 Posted July 14, 2006 given the market, yes, he's worth it. and this deal (which had to be done by tomorrow or the lions risked losing the franchise tag) is more cap friendly than one-year tender he signed earlier in the spring. the lions didn't create the market price for tackles. you have to pony up to keep them--and despite backus not making a pro bowl yet he is young and he is good. Fair enough. All I was looking for. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jay 0 Posted July 14, 2006 I don't think Backus is among the top 10 tackles in the league, but by the time this deal reaches its midpoint, he won't be paid among the top 10 any more. You have to pay your tackles. It's just the way it works. As for swamp's slam of the Packers off-season dealings with their guards, it was an entirely different situation. The Packers simply COULDN'T pony up the cash for Wahle and Rivera last year. It just wasn't possible. That kind of thing eventually happens when you have a good team with good players that are in demand to the rest of the league. I wanted the Pack to keep Wahle, but he got tackle money from Carolina, which priced him out of reach. The Packers were not in a position to match the ridiculous offers that either one of their guards got in free agency.... If they had the same cap situation last year that they do this year, I would have liked them to keep Wahle. The Packers paid Clifton and Tauscher appropriately. They are better tackles and make less money than Backus. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
swamp dog 0 Posted July 14, 2006 I don't think Backus is among the top 10 tackles in the league, but by the time this deal reaches its midpoint, he won't be paid among the top 10 any more. You have to pay your tackles. It's just the way it works. As for swamp's slam of the Packers off-season dealings with their guards, it was an entirely different situation. The Packers simply COULDN'T pony up the cash for Wahle and Rivera last year. It just wasn't possible. That kind of thing eventually happens when you have a good team with good players that are in demand to the rest of the league. I wanted the Pack to keep Wahle, but he got tackle money from Carolina, which priced him out of reach. The Packers were not in a position to match the ridiculous offers that either one of their guards got in free agency.... If they had the same cap situation last year that they do this year, I would have liked them to keep Wahle. The Packers paid Clifton and Tauscher appropriately. They are better tackles and make less money than Backus. until they hold out after seeing what backus and others are getting paid ...it never ends; it never stops. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vikings4ever 496 Posted July 14, 2006 Vikings got a better deal for their big OL signing. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sho Nuff 719 Posted July 14, 2006 given the market, yes, he's worth it. and this deal (which had to be done by tomorrow or the lions risked losing the franchise tag) is more cap friendly than one-year tender he signed earlier in the spring. the lions didn't create the market price for tackles. you have to pony up to keep them--and despite backus not making a pro bowl yet he is young and he is good. i heard a lot of packer fans last year saying how relieved they were the packers didn't pony up the big bucks for wahle and rivera. well, how did that work out? in a perfect world, it'd be nice if backus agreed to play for peanuts but that's not how it works. with young tackles you either pay up or watch them bolt. What Packer fan stated they were relieved that the Packers did not pony up for Wahle or Rivera? More like, we could not afford them both...guards are typically easier to replace on the line. But nice to see you have not lost your touch for revisionist history. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SmartassBoiler 0 Posted July 14, 2006 Kudos to the Lions for not knowing the franchise rules and losing their franchise tag for 2007 thanks to this deal. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vikings4ever 496 Posted July 14, 2006 Kudos to the Lions for not knowing the franchise rules and losing their franchise tag for 2007 thanks to this deal. http://sport.monstersandcritics.com/nfl/ar...six-year_tender Detroit had until 4 p.m. Friday to reach agreement with Backus on a long-term contract without risking losing the franchise-player designation, a tag applied to Backus in Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SmartassBoiler 0 Posted July 14, 2006 http://sport.monstersandcritics.com/nfl/ar...six-year_tender Taken from another board: LIONS LOSE FRANCHISE TAG FOR 2007Lost in the reports regarding the decision of the Detroit Lions to sign offensive lineman Jeff Backus to a six-year contract is the reality that, in doing so, the team has forfeited the franchise tag for the 2007 season. Per the "Term Sheet" negotiated by the NFL and the NFL Players Association more than four months ago, if a team signs its franchise player to a multi-year deal before July 15, the team loses the franchise tag for one year. (Originally, the Collective Bargaining Agreement called for the forfeiture of the franchise tag for the full term of the contract if a long-term deal was reached prior to July 15.) The Lions previously applied the franchise tag to Backus, and then signed him to a one-year deal with a promise that he would not be tagged again in 2007. As a result, the Lions now will apply the tag in 2007 to no one. The deal was done before July 15 despite the loss of the tag because the Term Sheet also provides that "any contract signed after [July 15] through the end of the regular season can be for only one year." So what does that mean? ESPN.com says that the Management Council advised the Lions that a multi-year contract signed after July 15 would have triggered the loss of the franchise tag for the life of the deal. We disagree; we think the proper outcome would have been invalidation of the contract. If the Term Sheet says that any post-July 15 contract "can be for only one year," then it can be for only one year. Period. The overriding problem, in our view, is that the Term Sheet still has not been incorporated into the formal CBA. As a result, the sketchy, sometimes vague language that was hammered out at the bargaining table isn't as clear or precise as it will be once it is fully articulated with wherefores and heretofores in the official contractual document. (Okay, maybe it won't be clear -- but it definitely will be precise.) So please, NFL and NFLPA, we beg you, on behalf of the 32 teams and the agents and the players. Finalize the CBA so folks will know exactly what the HEL is going on. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DrJ 0 Posted July 14, 2006 Kudos to the Lions for not knowing the franchise rules and losing their franchise tag for 2007 thanks to this deal. Millen: What, me worry? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
