PATSNUTme

Here is an article as it applies to 2 Charger players, vincent Jackson and Marcus McNiel.

McNeill, Jackson receive roster exempt letters - NFL - Yahoo! Sports

The San Diego Chargers have placed unsigned restricted free agent offensive tackle Marcus McNeill(notes) and wide receiver Vincent Jackson(notes) on the roster exempt list, which means they can't play for three games after signing their one-year tenders.

My questions are; Have the Patriots done the same with Mankins? Do the 3 games include pre-season game or are they all regular season games?

Does anyone have the facts as it applies to Mankins?

Connelly has done a good job so far but it is pre-season. Also what if he gets injured? I'm concerned about a suitable back up. Now when cuts are made son OG may become available. I remember William Robert being cut by the Giants and he gave us a couple of good years. But right now I don't have any confidence in any of the backups.

Discuss.

betterthanthealternative

idontunderstand.

PatsWickedPissah

There was an earlier thread on this same article and I believe it erroneous to say that the player "Can't play 3 games". My understanding from Miguel was that the player could join the team and practise for up to as many as 3 games before he had to count as one of the 53.

But Nut's question still stands. I've read nothing to indicate that the Pats did the paper for a roster exemption. This seems to be a major oversight from the local press if so.

__________________
Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded — here and there, now and then — are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty.
This is known as "bad luck." RAH

Va_Pats_Fan

I read something on one of the feeds on the main page that the pats did not need to issue the letter..the situation was different then the two players from SD...

I'll try and see if I can dig it up.


and here it is

http://www.patspulpit.com/2010/8/16/...-links-8-16-10

__________________
=======================================
ʞɔıɥɔılǝq llıq uo uıǝɥɔs ɯɐpɐ
˙ʎɹoʇsıɥ sʇɹods s,ʇɐɥʇ ˙ʎɹoʇsıɥ lɟu ʇou s,ʇɐɥʇ ˙ʎɹoʇsıɥ sʇɹods uı sǝɥɔɐoɔ ʇsǝʇɐǝɹƃ ǝɥʇ ɟo ǝuo sı ʞɔıɥɔılǝq ʞuıɥʇ ı

PATSNUTme

neitherdoIandthat'swhyIaskedthequestion.

But I think it has been answered. For some reason it does aply to Mankins although the situations seem to be the same. All three are restricted, all three were given tenders, all three declined to sign the tender.

Gwedd

The more I read of this entire situation, the more I am convinced that the real problem is with Mankins' agent, and not him or the Patriots. I believe that Mankins is being poorly served by his agent and might well benefit by a new agent, or perhaps some direct talks with the Patriots.

convertedpatsfan

The Pats can send the letter but have chosen not to.

Mankins' agent went on the record saying he expected it, which may be causing confusion.

MoLewisrocks

From what I can gather, Bill mis spoke, possibly because he didn't want to go into detail about anything to do with Mankins. I think they chose to simply not bust Mankins balls by sending the letter because they don't think he's showing up any time soon and if and when he does they want him to be available to play and/or be more and not less rational. The roster exempt list and letter is merely a tool (a hammer to be precise) that allows teams to pressure unsigned players into signing. It only works if the player was intending to report for the first paid game (i.e. regular season) or actually cares about getting paid. The player does face three games of ineligibility, it's not a choice teams can rescind and I believe SD used it to get a player signed a couple of years ago and could not play him in week 1 regardless, but the pre season counts and the letter had to be sent before week 2 of the pre season or the option no longer exists to preclude them from getting paid if they sign and show up. So effectively the team is denying them the right to show up and collect 1/17th of their scheduled salary unless they end their holdout before week 3 of the pre season. It's worked on some unsigned holdouts in the past, but it wasn't likely to work on the three remaining this season since they are all apparently pretty entrenched. In Jackson's case it's meaningless since he has a 4 game suspension to serve if and when he does show up (including to anyone foolish enough to trade for him) and he would serve this "suspension" concurrently.

For MacNeill each game that goes by means the "suspension" part of the exemption extends further into the regular season. If they somehow got him to sign his tender and even an extension say in week 2, he would then be unavailable to the Chargers for the first three games thereafter. It's just so AJ to cut off his nose to spite his face. You can use it to force an unsigned player in before week 10 as well, but what is the point if you can't play him anyway...

What may start to work is the reality that the money isn't out there for any of them. The Chargers aren't close on MacNeil, Seattle is willing to give up a two for Jackson but not for remotely what his (and Revis) idiotic agent is demanding. Logan might net us a #2 or conditional #1 or some such, but what he isn't getting from anyone is $8M+ with $20M guaranteed...

This was a decent article from former OL Ross Tucker over on NFP Friday about the disconnect between these players and their teams and just whose most responsible... He suggests it's the agents for not managing expectations better. Mankins agent blythly predicted that we would do whatever nasty thing we could to Logan...only we didn't.

Logan Mankins contract squabble with Pats*points to troubling trend - Ross Tucker - SI.com

betterthanthealternative

You didn't read my title line. I don't understand how a new posting can have 5 stars when opened it as the first person to read it.

Patspsycho

I believe that when a team issues the roster exempt status, they must notify the NFL office, and in that way it becomes public information.

In that regard, no such letter was sent to Logan Mankins, in which we can then describe the situation as being somewhat hopeful.