Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 54
Like Tree12Likes

Thread: Amendola would have no issue with franchise tag

  1. #31
    Rambos's Avatar
    Rambos is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Cali
    Age
    49
    Posts
    8,614
    Rep Power
    65

    Re: Amendola would have no issue with franchise tag

    Quote Originally Posted by Rambunctious View Post
    It's not like he is missing games do to typical day in and day out injuries that pester players... the dude broke a collarbone and and arm. I have no question about his health or toughness.
    - WR Danny Amendola suffered a foot injury in the first half but returned to the game to open the second. His status will be more clear as the week goes on.


  2. #32
    Rambunctious's Avatar
    Rambunctious is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    1,187
    Rep Power
    53

    Re: Amendola would have no issue with franchise tag

    Quote Originally Posted by Rambos View Post
    - WR Danny Amendola suffered a foot injury in the first half but returned to the game to open the second. His status will be more clear as the week goes on.
    I respect your opinion just don't think it's a big concern. He missed 3 minutes of play time and was back at the start of the 2nd-half.

  3. #33
    Nick's Avatar
    Nick is online now Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Morgantown, WV
    Age
    31
    Posts
    18,908
    Rep Power
    147

    Re: Amendola would have no issue with franchise tag

    Quote Originally Posted by Nick View Post
    You have to consider that, even with Amendola, this offense lacks enough playmakers to really be effective week in and week out, and those playmakers are going to cost money as well. That doesn't even begin to talk about the offensive line and backfield as well.
    Sooo, yeah....


    Quote Originally Posted by Rambos View Post
    Would you tag him?
    Without knowing all the numbers, it's tough to say now, but my gut answer would be no for the reasons above. We simply need more weapons and better protection, and a big franchise tag contract could hinder the team's ability to fill those needs.

  4. #34
    Rambos's Avatar
    Rambos is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Cali
    Age
    49
    Posts
    8,614
    Rep Power
    65

    Re: Amendola would have no issue with franchise tag

    Quote Originally Posted by Rambunctious View Post
    I respect your opinion just don't think it's a big concern. He missed 3 minutes of play time and was back at the start of the 2nd-half.
    It would not stop me from signing him, but it would be a factor if the price tag becomes really high.

    Originally Posted by Nick View Post
    You have to consider that, even with Amendola, this offense lacks enough playmakers to really be effective week in and week out, and those playmakers are going to cost money as well. That doesn't even begin to talk about the offensive line and backfield as well.
    I think at some point Bradford has to redo his deal. The backfield the running backs? I don't think the Rams are willing to spend big money on SJ if that's what you are saying? Pead, DR and Terrance Ganaway are on the roster already, if they draft another one that's not going to cost too much. The only playmaker that's going to cost a ton is a big time WR.

    KD said last week we have about 10-11 million in cap space after signing Long and JL. He said they could free up about 20 mil if they wanted too but will most likely stay pat. Having two first round picks over the next two years they will need money for that. He said they could sign one maybe two impact FA this year. He mentioned DA as one of them and SJ was not mentioned at all.

  5. #35
    Nick's Avatar
    Nick is online now Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Morgantown, WV
    Age
    31
    Posts
    18,908
    Rep Power
    147

    Re: Amendola would have no issue with franchise tag

    Quote Originally Posted by Rambos View Post
    I think at some point Bradford has to redo his deal.
    It needs to come before 2014, because that's when his salary jumps up to $14.015 million.


    Quote Originally Posted by Rambos View Post
    The backfield the running backs? I don't think the Rams are willing to spend big money on SJ if that's what you are saying?
    I don't think the Rams are going to spend big money to bring Steven Jackson back, but I would not be surprised if they either (1) brought him back at a modest cost or (2) brought in another veteran to be part of the rotation so that they don't have to depend on solely young players at the position.

    Either way, veteran contracts are more expensive, and while we aren't talking about big money contracts, that price tag has to be factored in as well when you're talking about having enough room for a franchise tag contract under the cap. Every little bit counts.


    Quote Originally Posted by Rambos View Post
    He said they could sign one maybe two impact FA this year. He mentioned DA as one of them and SJ was not mentioned at all.
    Look, I think you have to take anything a front office person says about the offseason with a big grain of salt, especially this early in the process. But if the Rams only plan on pursuing and signing two "impact" free agents, and they view Danny Amendola as one of them, then that statement doesn't leave me feeling particularly optimistic.

    Danny is a very good player, but we've seen the problems the offense has been having even with him on the field. Obviously more is needed, and if his contract - either the franchise tag or a long term deal - is going to be so expensive that it prevents the Rams from adding those needed offensive pieces, then I would understand if they opted to let him walk so that they could pursue others with more potential for impact play, be it at skill positions or along the offensive line.
    Rambos likes this.

  6. #36
    macrammer's Avatar
    macrammer is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northern Cal
    Age
    55
    Posts
    1,841
    Rep Power
    27

    Re: Amendola would have no issue with franchise tag

    Football is many things to many different folks. To the owners, it is a business plain and simple. I certainly hope the Rams lock up DA for years to come but not at a cost that handcuffs us in pursuing much needed talent to fill some of our many holes. Business means you have to make tough decisions that are not always viewed positively by the fans. If it makes the team better then so be it. Tired of losing

  7. #37
    Rambos's Avatar
    Rambos is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Cali
    Age
    49
    Posts
    8,614
    Rep Power
    65

    Re: Amendola would have no issue with franchise tag

    Two If's

    If the Rams sign one of the big time WR early in FA next year and then can't afford or unwilling to overpay for Amendola. I can live with that.

    If the Rams fail to sign a big time WR and then let Amendola walk that's going to be scary. Then what do we do? Draft a WR and wait two, three years for him to develop?

    Amenodla is the only elite receiver we have, not saying Givens and Quick won't be better next year. My hope is we lock up DA and land a WR in FA. If not we better draft some elite defensive players and get ready to grind out some wins.
    Last edited by Rambos; -11-19-2012 at 11:59 AM.

  8. #38
    Nick's Avatar
    Nick is online now Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Morgantown, WV
    Age
    31
    Posts
    18,908
    Rep Power
    147

    Re: Amendola would have no issue with franchise tag

    Quote Originally Posted by Rambos View Post
    Two If's

    If the Rams sign one of the big time WR early in FA next year and then can't afford or unwilling to overpay for Amendola. I can live with that.

    If the Rams fail to sign a big time WR and then let Amendola walk that's going to be scary. Then what do we do? Draft a WR and wait two, three years for him to develop?

    Amenodla is the only elite receiver we have, not saying Givens and Quick won't be better next year. My hope is we lock up DA and land a WR in FA. If not we better draft some elite defensive players and get ready to grind out some wins.
    Third If: If the Rams give Danny Amendola a long term deal worth $9-10 million per year, and that prevents them from being able to add an additional playmaker to the offense, then we're probably back in square one except with another big contract on our hands. We've seen what this offense looks like when Danny Amendola is its best weapon, and we know that, dangerous as Danny is, he's not enough.

    Amendola is the best receiver that the Rams have, and it would be painful to lose him. But more painful, IMO, would be a situation where the Rams lock him up to an extension so large that they're unable to make other important improvements to this offense, forcing the team to continue to field the kind of unit we've seen for much of this season - one that is average at best, maddening at worst.
    DE_Ramfan likes this.

  9. #39
    DE_Ramfan's Avatar
    DE_Ramfan is online now Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Indianapolis, Indiana, United States
    Posts
    898
    Rep Power
    15

    Re: Amendola would have no issue with franchise tag

    Quote Originally Posted by Rambos View Post
    If the Rams fail to sign a big time WR and then let Amendola walk that's going to be scary. Then what do we do? Draft a WR and wait two, three years for him to develop?
    Didn't Fisher say he'd need 3-5 years to rebuild this team? He may be prepared to do just that.


    Quote Originally Posted by Rambos View Post
    Amenodla is the only elite receiver we have, not saying Givens and Quick won't be better next year. My hope is we lock up DA and land a WR in FA. If not we better draft some elite defensive players and get ready to grind out some wins.


    Danny is not elite. Being our best receiver is like being the tallest man on the island of pygmies.

  10. #40
    Rambos's Avatar
    Rambos is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Cali
    Age
    49
    Posts
    8,614
    Rep Power
    65

    Re: Amendola would have no issue with franchise tag

    Quote Originally Posted by Nick View Post
    Third If: If the Rams give Danny Amendola a long term deal worth $9-10 million per year, and that prevents them from being able to add an additional playmaker to the offense, then we're probably back in square one except with another big contract on our hands. We've seen what this offense looks like when Danny Amendola is its best weapon, and we know that, dangerous as Danny is, he's not enough.

    Amendola is the best receiver that the Rams have, and it would be painful to lose him. But more painful, IMO, would be a situation where the Rams lock him up to an extension so large that they're unable to make other important improvements to this offense, forcing the team to continue to field the kind of unit we've seen for much of this season - one that is average at best, maddening at worst.
    It's going to be tough for the Rams unless Amendola signs for around 20 Mil.

    Try for a second to think about what this offense has been like when he does not play, It's beyond bad. Thae being said you are right he is not enough.

    I have to believe that the future playmakers for this team, at least most of them are here now and will come in the draft at a much lower cost then FA. FA now with the new CBA is going to be at an all time high, while the draft cost has been reduced.

    Pead
    Richardson
    Givens
    Quick
    Kendricks
    Pettis
    Ganaway

    Add in two more drafts with four first round picks coming in the next two years. I think we will be building through the draft more then FA. IMO.

    I guess I would rather have Amendola at a higher price and hope Givens and Quick develop into elite playmakers along with the players still to be drafted. Then to let him go and try and find playmakers to replace him in FA.

    Maybe I'm starting to realize if he gets a big deal then we can't get a WR in FA to go with him...

  11. #41
    Rambos's Avatar
    Rambos is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Cali
    Age
    49
    Posts
    8,614
    Rep Power
    65

    Re: Amendola would have no issue with franchise tag

    Quote Originally Posted by DE_Ramfan View Post
    Didn't Fisher say he'd need 3-5 years to rebuild this team? He may be prepared to do just that.




    Danny is not elite. Being our best receiver is like being the tallest man on the island of pygmies.
    I thought he said no one said I could not win the division this year... Three years sounds about right five years?

    What is your definition of being elite, if one of the requirements is height then I guess he will never make the grade.

  12. #42
    citr92 is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    California
    Posts
    2,044
    Rep Power
    7

    Re: Amendola would have no issue with franchise tag

    just want to add, i really hope saalim hakim gets good enough for a call up, or at least be a return man

    i WANT to see his speed work

  13. #43
    Nick's Avatar
    Nick is online now Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Morgantown, WV
    Age
    31
    Posts
    18,908
    Rep Power
    147

    Re: Amendola would have no issue with franchise tag

    Quote Originally Posted by Rambos View Post
    I have to believe that the future playmakers for this team, at least most of them are here now and will come in the draft at a much lower cost then FA. FA now with the new CBA is going to be at an all time high, while the draft cost has been reduced.
    It'd be nice if they were, but of the list you supplied, only two (Givens & Richardson) is either meeting or exceeding expectations. Pead and Quick have been disappointments so far, Kendricks has not developed into a weapon, Pettis hasn't become a consistent target, and I really don't understand why Ganaway is even mentioned at this point.

    Now, obviously the draft is a marathon rather than a sprint, and it would be unfair to expect these guys to step onto the field as a rookie and turn it on immediately. But at the same time, I think we can all agree that we were hoping to see something more positive so far from guys like Quick, Pead, and Kendricks this season. So do we just continue to wait, or do you supplement when veteran options present themselves while allowing those young players more time to develop?

    The draft is a long-term solution and this team needs short-term answers as well if they're going to fix some of these issues. Do you really want to sit around and wait another couple of years for Quick and any other rookie WR the Rams may take in the next draft or two to possibly become legitimate weapons? If you're willing to pay Danny Amendola "impact player" type of money, then let's go get a real impact receiver for Sam and ask Givens or Pettis or a rookie to fill that slot role (or if we're lucky, sign Danny to a modest deal to do it himself).

    Building through the draft is preferable to spending big free agent money, absolutely. But you also have to balance it with the time you're spending waiting for these guys to come around (if they ever do).
    macrammer likes this.

  14. #44
    Rambos's Avatar
    Rambos is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Cali
    Age
    49
    Posts
    8,614
    Rep Power
    65

    Re: Amendola would have no issue with franchise tag

    Quote Originally Posted by Nick View Post
    It'd be nice if they were, but of the list you supplied, only two (Givens & Richardson) is either meeting or exceeding expectations. Pead and Quick have been disappointments so far, Kendricks has not developed into a weapon, Pettis hasn't become a consistent target, and I really don't understand why Ganaway is even mentioned at this point.

    Now, obviously the draft is a marathon rather than a sprint, and it would be unfair to expect these guys to step onto the field as a rookie and turn it on immediately. But at the same time, I think we can all agree that we were hoping to see something more positive so far from guys like Quick, Pead, and Kendricks this season. So do we just continue to wait, or do you supplement when veteran options present themselves while allowing those young players more time to develop?

    The draft is a long-term solution and this team needs short-term answers as well if they're going to fix some of these issues. Do you really want to sit around and wait another couple of years for Quick and any other rookie WR the Rams may take in the next draft or two to possibly become legitimate weapons? If you're willing to pay Danny Amendola "impact player" type of money, then let's go get a real impact receiver for Sam and ask Givens or Pettis or a rookie to fill that slot role (or if we're lucky, sign Danny to a modest deal to do it himself).

    Building through the draft is preferable to spending big free agent money, absolutely. But you also have to balance it with the time you're spending waiting for these guys to come around (if they ever do).
    Jerry: Then that's the meal.

    This list is just the start but this is it, this is the meal. Fisher took Pead, Quick he's not worried what they do their first year. If he was he would be playing them more. He wants them to play when they are ready and needed.

    Ganaway is part of the long term plan, I will go on record now. IMO SJ will not be a Ram next year.

    Terrance Ganaway at Running Back 4 yr/$2,178,000 2015 2016
    Why would the Rams carry 4 running backs? Why? He will be playing next year with Pead and DR.

    Now, obviously the draft is a marathon rather than a sprint, and it would be unfair to expect these guys to step onto the field as a rookie and turn it on immediately.
    I agree... but you just did.

    It'd be nice if they were, but of the list you supplied, only two (Givens & Richardson) is either meeting or exceeding expectations. Pead and Quick have been disappointments so far, Kendricks has not developed into a weapon, Pettis hasn't become a consistent target,
    But at the same time, I think we can all agree that we were hoping to see something more positive so far from guys like Quick, Pead, and Kendricks this season.
    Kendricks due to the O line injuries has had to stay in and block more... but he has done a nice job catching the ball, close to 77% of the balls targeted at him he has caught. Would i like to see him do more in that respect sure, but it's the scheme. Just like Sunday I can't fault SJ for not having more yards when the coach does not call his number. IMO Kendricks has played much better.

    Quick, the one thing the staff could not know was how well HE would pick up the offense. Quick has struggled with the mental side of things. Next year he will need to have a big jump in play and he should having the time to keep working at it. That said I'm more disappointed the 2 Million we gave FA Smith then the rookie with huge upside. Not all FA workout out but they all cost more money upfront. Smith, Mike Sims Walker,Bennett..... Heck as unfair as football is Wells has been a huge bust if you count playing time this year.

    Pead the writing is on the wall for SJ, they Rams don't want him and they don't use him anymore. Fourth and one on Sunday. The Rams pull a pissed off SJ and send in Pead. SJ has 6.2 per carry and they get away from him. The Rams have moved on from SJ already IMO. Pead will produce next year... I will bet you he has more yards for the Rams then SJ does.

    The draft is a long-term solution and this team needs short-term answers as well if they're going to fix some of these issues. Do you really want to sit around and wait another couple of years for Quick and any other rookie WR the Rams may take in the next draft or two to possibly become legitimate weapons?
    I think you know the answer to that as far as receiver goes.. I have posted many times I want Jennings yesterday. That said I think Givens and Quick both can be really good players for us. When you are a good team like the 9ers, you draft players for the future and when they are ready they play. Look at their draft this year not many rookies are playing but that does not mean they are not part of the future. When your bad like us, we think a rookie is going to come in and make the team better from day one, when that rarely happens.

    The good teams build through the draft the bad teams like the Skins try to by a winner every year and we see how that works, not very good.

    But you also have to balance it with the time you're spending waiting for these guys to come around (if they ever do).
    If they guys that you draft and coach up never become good then the team will always be at the bottom. If Les and Fisher can't draft and coach up the players we will never win.

    You also need to find some nuggets along the way. Amendola , Billy got him off a practice squad. We traded for Marshal. UDFA, you can pay big money for a punter like we have done in the past or you can have an eye for talent and get a Johnny Hekker.

    Johnny Hekker at Punter 3 yr/$1,450,000 2014 2015

    You can pay big money for a FG in FA we have or you can draft a Greg Zuerlein.

    Greg Zuerlein at Kicker 4 yr/$2,275,473 2015 2016

    Draft a Michael Brockers or pay a higher price for a Kendall Langford?

    Michael Brockers at Defensive Tackle 4 yr/$9,520,000 2015 2016

    Kendall Langford at Defensive Tackle 4 yr/$24,000,000 2015 2016



    I think the Rams are doing it right, it will take more then one year.
    Last edited by Rambos; -11-20-2012 at 01:44 PM.

  15. #45
    Nick's Avatar
    Nick is online now Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Morgantown, WV
    Age
    31
    Posts
    18,908
    Rep Power
    147

    Re: Amendola would have no issue with franchise tag

    Quote Originally Posted by Rambos View Post
    Why would the Rams carry 4 running backs? Why? He will be playing next year with Pead and DR.
    Yeah, I'm not exactly overflowing with confidence in a backfield consisting of three guys who were all rookies this year without any meaningful starts on their résumé.

    I wouldn't be surprised if Jackson is gone as well - the writing is pretty clearly on the wall for him to leave - but I do believe the Rams will bring in a veteran at least for camp to compete, if only to add some leadership and experience at the position. Because the line-up you named is severely lacking both.


    Quote Originally Posted by Rambos View Post
    I agree... but you just did.
    Actually, no, and that was clear in the sentence right after the one you quoted as well as the phrasing of the paragraph prior.


    Quote Originally Posted by Rambos View Post
    Kendricks due to the O line injuries has had to stay in and block more... but he has done a nice job catching the ball, close to 77% of the balls targeted at him he has caught. Would i like to see him do more in that respect sure, but it's the scheme. Just like Sunday I can't fault SJ for not having more yards when the coach does not call his number. IMO Kendricks has played much better.

    Quick, the one thing the staff could not know was how well HE would pick up the offense. Quick has struggled with the mental side of things. Next year he will need to have a big jump in play and he should having the time to keep working at it. That said I'm more disappointed the 2 Million we gave FA Smith then the rookie with huge upside. Not all FA workout out but they all cost more money upfront. Smith, Mike Sims Walker,Bennett..... Heck as unfair as football is Wells has been a huge bust if you count playing time this year.

    Pead the writing is on the wall for SJ, they Rams don't want him and they don't use him anymore. Fourth and one on Sunday. The Rams pull a pissed off SJ and send in Pead. SJ has 6.2 per carry and they get away from him. The Rams have moved on from SJ already IMO. Pead will produce next year... I will bet you he has more yards for the Rams then SJ does.
    Okay, but none of this answers my question. Do you agree that we were hoping to see something more positive so far from guys like Kendricks, Quick, and Pead, and Kendricks? Judging by the fact that your comments about the latter two are basically, "Hopefully they do better next year," maybe I can guess the answer.

    As for Kendricks, according to PFF's breakdown of offensive snaps, Kendricks actually stayed in to block on pass plays on average more last year than this year. So let's throw the "blame the OL" excuse out the window in this case.

    While Kendricks is catching more passes on average per game, he's not being used very dynamically. Only three of his receptions have occurred further than 10 yards down the field. And he's playing under a coordinator that knew how to help Dustin Keller get 40-50 yards per game in New York, so it also isn't the scheme either.


    Quote Originally Posted by Rambos View Post
    I think you know the answer to that as far as receiver goes.. I have posted many times I want Jennings yesterday. That said I think Givens and Quick both can be really good players for us. When you are a good team like the 9ers, you draft players for the future and when they are ready they play. Look at their draft this year not many rookies are playing but that does not mean they are not part of the future. When your bad like us, we think a rookie is going to come in and make the team better from day one, when that rarely happens.
    I do think it's unfair to expect a rookie to come in on Day One and be a superstar, but when you're selecting guys in the second round, I think it's safe to say you expect more impact in Year One than what the Rams have gotten out of Quick and Pead. That's the balance.

    Yes, on a good team where there's more talent and fewer holes, rookies don't get as many opportunities. You bring up the *****, which is interesting because not only did the ***** try to help their WR unit by spending a first round pick on a receiver, but they also brought in two veterans as well.

    So while they're building long-term through the draft, they also understand the value of veteran personnel to fill immediate holes while those rookies develop.

    The Rams were not willing to pony up the dough for any of the top free agent names at receiver this year, and instead got Steve Smith. I've always liked Smith as a player, but as you pointed out, he's been a non-factor. So at least in his case, the "Why pay big money for a top receiver when we could get Steve Smith for cheaper?" didn't exactly translate to success.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 9
    Last Post: -10-02-2011, 12:21 PM
  2. WR is an issue--sad to admit...
    By RamWraith in forum RAM TALK
    Replies: 48
    Last Post: -12-04-2007, 05:30 PM
  3. My take on the weed issue
    By general counsel in forum DRAFT & FA
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: -04-19-2007, 01:33 PM
  4. Thread Issue
    By thoey in forum HELP
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: -09-16-2006, 09:37 PM
  5. Replies: 0
    Last Post: -02-07-2006, 09:40 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •