LT, Bolts agree to restructured 3-year deal - Page 2

Xenos · 03-11-2009, 12:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yourfavestoner

What's he going to do, sit out this year? He's got until June 15 to sign the tender, he's in no rush.

Read my previous posts on why Sproles would rather sign a long term deal than sign a tag. He's not Terrell Suggs in terms of running backs (I use that analogy because they both have the same agent). He's going to want a long term deal that gives him more guaranteed money than the franchise tag. If he signs the tag and hurts himself during the season then he'll miss out on more money the next year as well as more financial security. So it's in his interest and his agent to try to get a long term deal now.

I KNOW IT ALL · 03-11-2009, 12:11 AM

I wonder if Tomlinson never did anything meaningful again in the NFL how long it would take him to get into the HOF.

LonghornsLegend · 03-11-2009, 12:20 AM

Still think they should of franchised Turner last off-season, and no that's not really hindsight because I feel like someone in the organization should have known what they had in Turner, and that LT was growing older each year.

Sproles was a huge part of what they did last year, but I also don't think it's hard to find guys like him, at least not as hard as it is to find another LT or Michael Turner for that matter.

yourfavestoner · 03-11-2009, 12:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xenos

Read my previous posts on why Sproles would rather sign a long term deal than sign a tag. He's not Terrell Suggs in terms of running backs (I use that analogy because they both have the same agent). He's going to want a long term deal that gives him more guaranteed money than the franchise tag. If he signs the tag and hurts himself during the season then he'll miss out on more money the next year as well as more financial security. So it's in his interest and his agent to try to get a long term deal now.

No **** it's in his best interest to get a long term deal. But what is he going to do if there's not a long term deal in place by June 15? He's going to have to sign the tender.

Xenos · 03-11-2009, 12:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yourfavestoner

No **** it's in his best interest to get a long term deal. But what is he going to do if there's not a long term deal in place by June 15? He's going to have to sign the tender.

Hey dude. Take it easy. No need to be a ****ing *****. You said the tag was a waste and I just pointed out that it wasn't yet because nothing has been signed. They have until June 15, and if it gets that far I think a long term deal will be in place. There's too much risk for Sproles to just sign the tag right away.

CC.SD · 03-11-2009, 02:26 AM

Turner WAS tagged, he played 2007 under the tag. They didn't do it twice because sometimes you must let a bird spread its wings and fly.

Sproles became our entire offense and kicking game late last year, to call him a glorified third down back is a bit of a misnomer. He's a gamechanger and the organization didn't want to lose him just yet.

Xenos · 03-11-2009, 04:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CC.SD

Turner WAS tagged, he played 2007 under the tag. They didn't do it twice because sometimes you must let a bird spread its wings and fly.

Sproles became our entire offense and kicking game late last year, to call him a glorified third down back is a bit of a misnomer. He's a gamechanger and the organization didn't want to lose him just yet.

They decided to be nice with Turner. In hindsight, they should have tagged and traded him. Though I wonder if they would have got a second for an unproven back.

Brent · 03-11-2009, 10:00 AM

It's still possible to deal Sproles during the draft, right?

CC.SD · 03-11-2009, 10:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brent

It's still possible to deal Sproles during the draft, right?

Yep, and it's been floated, although personally I don't feel it's likely.

bantx · 03-11-2009, 11:24 AM

Sproles would leave if he was guaranteed a starting position, but he knows its not likely someone would give him that money or the opportunity. So he'll wait for that long term deal, Ive heard he has the same agent as Suggs and hes done something similar to what hes doing now, not signing the tender and waiting for the long term deal to get worked out.

EDIT just read xenos post so he basically said the same thing i said about Suggs and the same agent.

Xenos · 03-11-2009, 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bantx

Sproles would leave if he was guaranteed a starting position, but he knows its not likely someone would give him that money or the opportunity. So he'll wait for that long term deal, Ive heard he has the same agent as Suggs and hes done something similar to what hes doing now, not signing the tender and waiting for the long term deal to get worked out.

EDIT just read xenos post so he basically said the same thing i said about Suggs and the same agent.

The difference is that Suggs is one of the best DE in the league. It's more like comparing Merriman's eventual contract. Sproles, on the other hand, is a specialist who won't get nearly the same monetary interest in running back terms as say a Michael Turner.

CC.SD · 03-11-2009, 02:04 PM

Thank god the only uniforms we will ever see LT in are Bolts and Vizio. I'm still pumped about this.

CC.SD · 03-11-2009, 02:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by I KNOW IT ALL

I wonder if Tomlinson never did anything meaningful again in the NFL how long it would take him to get into the HOF.

1st ballot.

2006 MVP
2006, 2007 Rushing Leader
141 career touchdowns (126 rushing, #2 all time.)
11,760 career rushing yards. (#14 all time, 1000 yards to get to #6)
3,801 career receiving yards.
7 career tackles. (ZOMG)
7 career passing TDs, all time record by a RB is 8 (Payton)

1900+ rushing yards in 16 career games against the Raiders.

San Diego Chicken · 03-11-2009, 05:18 PM

I feel great that Chargers got this done. It's a smart business move, because Tomlinson has alot of value as an ambassador for the Chargers. The running game still needs to be fixed on the OL. Right now San Diego has no right guard and our RT is average at best.

nepg · 03-11-2009, 05:21 PM

They're just extending their mistake of letting Turner go and keeping Tomlinson last year... Sproles is an idiot if he doesn't sign that F-tag and refuse to negotiate until next off-season. His risk of injury is low, and he holds all the cards.
________
Live Sex

CC.SD · 03-11-2009, 06:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nepg

They're just extending their mistake of letting Turner go and keeping Tomlinson last year... Sproles is an idiot if he doesn't sign that F-tag and refuse to negotiate until next off-season. His risk of injury is low, and he holds all the cards.

Yes LT is a horrible mistake. Thanks for the input, yay freedom of speech.

Here's a gem from the presser:

Now that the contract negotiations are done, when do you start negotiations with Norv Turner about returning the halfback option?

“We just got through talking about that to be honest with you. Norv has told me that, I don’t want to give it away to all the teams out there, but you’d better watch out. It’s going to be in.”

Time to show all these wildcats how it's really done! Make it rainian Tomlinson~

Matthew Jones · 03-11-2009, 07:06 PM

I'm not sure how much Tomlinson is worth, or whether he'll be any good in three years, as running backs tend to drop off around this point and Tomlinson has looked to continue that trend in the past three years, but we're talking about one of the best players in franchise history here, so obviously the dynamic is changed a little bit.

That said, I don't think he's going to be too effective in three years and I would be trying like hell right now to sign Darren Sproles to a long-term deal. If he's not receptive to that at all, I don't think San Diego stays with just Tomlinson after Sproles leaves. He's a 300-1,000-10 guy right now, which isn't bad, but it's not a Pro Bowl level anymore. This deal was primarily based on reputation over production.

cdf_2108 · 03-11-2009, 08:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RavenOfProphecy

He's a 300-1,000-10 guy right now, which isn't bad, but it's not a Pro Bowl level anymore. This deal was primarily based on reputation over production.

I don't think the front office of the chargers is being nice. I think a 300-1000-10 guy is valuable to any team that doesnt have a rising star. He's not getting a blockbuster 5-6 year deal, he's gettinga 300-1000-10 kind of contract, seems fair and he and sproles should continue to be an effective part of their offense. Now that Rivers, Osgood, and Jackson are developing some chemistry and of course Gates, they don't really need Michael Turner. So i disagree with the guys who are saying that it was a mistake to let Turner go, no way back in 2007 you can sign turner to a long term deal without having to significantly shorten LT's playing time...LT was still just 1` year removed from arguably the best season a RB has ever had. Nobody really knew how mediocre of a year LT was going to have, everybody was pretty optimistic i feel at the beginning of 2008..

CC.SD · 03-11-2009, 08:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cdf_2108

I don't think the front office of the chargers is being nice. I think a 300-1000-10 guy is valuable to any team that doesnt have a rising star. He's not getting a blockbuster 5-6 year deal, he's gettinga 300-1000-10 kind of contract, seems fair and he and sproles should continue to be an effective part of their offense. Now that Rivers, Osgood, and Jackson are developing some chemistry and of course Gates, they don't really need Michael Turner. So i disagree with the guys who are saying that it was a mistake to let Turner go, no way back in 2007 you can sign turner to a long term deal without having to significantly shorten LT's playing time...LT was still just 1` year removed from arguably the best season a RB has ever had. Nobody really knew how mediocre of a year LT was going to have, everybody was pretty optimistic i feel at the beginning of 2008..

Despite your bizarre reference to Osgood actually seeing the field as a wideout (Floyd? Actually my buddy knows Osgood from his Aztec days and says he's being vetted at safety this offseason, he hits like a mack truck after all) this is a great post.

Anyone ripping on Turner's lack of a long term contract would essentially be advocating giving the reigning 2x rushing leader (only 28) and franchise GOD the boot for a backup. I am bitter about Turner but only because we got no compensation when there were plenty of trade rumors out there.

Xenos · 03-11-2009, 09:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nepg

They're just extending their mistake of letting Turner go and keeping Tomlinson last year... Sproles is an idiot if he doesn't sign that F-tag and refuse to negotiate until next off-season. His risk of injury is low, and he holds all the cards.

Why would Sproles be an idiot for wanting to get a long term contract with more guaranteed money than the franchise tag? And he did miss the entire 2006 season because of one freak incident in the preseason game so anything can happen. Man, if only we had Sproles during that season, we might have beaten the Patriots.

cdf_2108 · 03-11-2009, 09:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CC.SD

Despite your bizarre reference to Osgood actually seeing the field as a wideout (Floyd? Actually my buddy knows Osgood from his Aztec days and says he's being vetted at safety this offseason, he hits like a mack truck after all) this is a great post.

.

haha yeah i got him confused with floyd...they seem to be coming along nicely, people used to say SD receivers were irrelevant, but those two with chambers provided some nice deep threats for Rivers

CC.SD · 03-11-2009, 09:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cdf_2108

haha yeah i got him confused with floyd...they seem to be coming along nicely, people used to say SD receivers were irrelevant, but those two with chambers provided some nice deep threats for Rivers

I have always liked Floyd but never in a million years thought he'd still be around. That he caught Rivers' first TD pass is a great little tidbit.

nepg · 03-12-2009, 09:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cdf_2108

I don't think the front office of the chargers is being nice. I think a 300-1000-10 guy is valuable to any team that doesnt have a rising star. He's not getting a blockbuster 5-6 year deal, he's gettinga 300-1000-10 kind of contract, seems fair and he and sproles should continue to be an effective part of their offense. Now that Rivers, Osgood, and Jackson are developing some chemistry and of course Gates, they don't really need Michael Turner. So i disagree with the guys who are saying that it was a mistake to let Turner go, no way back in 2007 you can sign turner to a long term deal without having to significantly shorten LT's playing time...LT was still just 1` year removed from arguably the best season a RB has ever had. Nobody really knew how mediocre of a year LT was going to have, everybody was pretty optimistic i feel at the beginning of 2008..

That's why you trade LT. He was obviously toast, and the Chargers should have jumped on that before the rest of the league figured it out.
________
StickyAndSweet

Bengalsrocket · 03-12-2009, 12:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nepg

That's why you trade LT. He was obviously toast, and the Chargers should have jumped on that before the rest of the league figured it out.

Just because you get some draft picks doesn't mean you'll get a good RB in return. I'd take LT's 300-1000-10 over half of the starting RB's in the league / up coming draft.

Remember folks, not everyone on your team is going to be a superstar. For one, you can't afford to pay 22 superstars to start on your team, and secondly it's near impossible to find that many superstars.

As far as Turner already being there, it's unfortunate they got rid of him with no compensation, but they had three good halfbacks on the roster, and had to make a decision. Maybe not the best one, but I don't think anyone in San Diego is crying about having Tomlinson / Sproles.

Xenos · 03-12-2009, 08:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bengalsrocket

Just because you get some draft picks doesn't mean you'll get a good RB in return. I'd take LT's 300-1000-10 over half of the starting RB's in the league / up coming draft.

Remember folks, not everyone on your team is going to be a superstar. For one, you can't afford to pay 22 superstars to start on your team, and secondly it's near impossible to find that many superstars.

As far as Turner already being there, it's unfortunate they got rid of him with no compensation, but they had three good halfbacks on the roster, and had to make a decision. Maybe not the best one, but I don't think anyone in San Diego is crying about having Tomlinson / Sproles.

We could still get a third round or fourth round compensation pick. We could use that pick to get a decent guard or center in this draft (which is pretty deep in olinemen especially guards can fit in our system).