PatsFans.com Menu
PatsFans.com - The Hub For New England Patriots Fans

Peter King MMQB - Patriots & Lance Briggs?!?


Status
Not open for further replies.
Off-field problems? Because he is unhappy with his contract situation? On the team he has been a leader and a lockerroom guy. He came in as a low pick and feels Chicago jerked him around on an extension.

Was Richard Seymour an off-field problem when he refused to show up unless he got an extension? The business side of the league can get messy, but it is separate from the game and what the player brings.

Technically, no, Seymour wasn't an off-field problem. However, Seymour also wasn't in front of the news media demanding to be traded and claiming that he'd play'd his last down for the Patriots. Seymour and his representative stayed OUT of the media and continued to negotiate.

The problem is that Briggs is wrong in that Chicago didn't jerk him around. They made a fair offer to him while he was still under contract. All that has been said is that Briggs turned that offer down. Nothing has been said as to whether or not Briggs actually had a counter offer sent to the Bears. If Briggs DID have a counter offer, then he might have a gripe. If not, then he has NO GRIPE. Negotiations take both sides working on it. If Briggs side wasn't talking (ala Deion Branch) then its their own fault.
 
You missed three people...

Gerrett Mills $390,625
Dan Stevenson (cut) $47,000
Jeremy Mincey (cut) $22,733
So, $3,595,437 + 390,625 + 47,000 + 22,733 = $4,050,795
I was off by .2M (I was trying to remember off the top of my head.)

And if you account for inflation with the new salary cap, that's probably going to cost an additional 20% to sign rookies this year.

I've already weighed in on Briggs. I like the talent but he doesn't like our system and our money is tight so this trade is unlikely to happen.
 
I don't think that its just an issue of salary cap space - its more of an issue with having too much of the cap tied up in one area of the team.

Its a wet dream to have Briggs, Colvin, AD, Vrabel, Bruschi and Seau in the same team but it just doesn't seem very practical.

NM
 
I don't think that its just an issue of salary cap space - its more of an issue with having too much of the cap tied up in one area of the team.

Its a wet dream to have Briggs, Colvin, AD, Vrabel, Bruschi and Seau in the same team but it just doesn't seem very practical.

NM

Why does everyone think they are bringing Seau back? I don't see it.
 
How about trading Colvin for Briggs?

do we really need 3 starting OLB's?

how about Colvin for Moss?
 
Why does everyone think they are bringing Seau back? I don't see it.

I liked what I seen last year.

Im going to presume he is coming back until I hear different.

You could well be right though.
 
I don't think he definitely is...and also. remember the team had Vrabel, McGinest and Colvin...so having more OLBs is certainly OK. With flexibility...even better. rember Roman Phifer??
 
How about trading Colvin for Briggs?

do we really need 3 starting OLB's?

how about Colvin for Moss?

NE had Colvin, Vrabel, and Banta-Cain last year. Why do people think having Thomas, Vrabel, and Colvin is to many? Really you need four good OLB's so you have two capable backups keeping the starters fresh. Thomas, and Vrabel will likely rotate with eachother, and Colvin could use someone to rotate with. Is that Woods? Maybe. Also, Thomas and Vrabel can both rotate at ILB, so it doesn't really matter that Vrabel, and Thomas are listed at OLB, since they play both positions.
 
Last edited:
And if you account for inflation with the new salary cap, that's probably going to cost an additional 20% to sign rookies this year..

There is a limit to how much the rookie pool can increase It is 5%.

See page 38 of the new CBA.
 
Yes, if you want to ignore the idea that the rookie pool exists, then yes, all that matter is the net.

Unforutnately, the rookie pool DOES matter and teams have to have that amount set aside to sign their players.

Where does it say that in the CBA???
 
i'd rather see samuel locked up on a long term deal before briggs comes in, giving up the 28th overall pick..

briggs said he wanted to be "The guy"...dont think that'll happen as long as bruschi, vrabel, and even colvin are on the team....he's 25 or 26 which brings youth, and amazing talent at the olb position but...there are only 4 starting spots, if briggs is angry b/c he's not getting the money and cant be the "guy", what makes you think he'll take a contract (no matter how large it may be) to compete with thomas for a starting job, as i dont see colvin bruschi and vrabel losing their spot on the 1st string....

bring in a posluzni or a willis(knock on wood) with the 28th pick and let vrabel and bruschi mentor him....while saving 4 million in cap space, and 15 million in guarantees and lock up samuel...

if you bring in briggs and he voluntarily sits until bruschi retires...maybe a year or 2, then he'll step in at the age of 27 or 28...i'd rather have a guy step in when he's 23, or 24 when bruschi retires...
 
Last edited:
Here is page 38 of the amended CBA..

December 6, 2006 DRAFT

ARTICLE XVII
ENTERING PLAYER POOL

Section 1. Definition: For purposes of this Article XVII of this Agreement, the following terms shall have the
meanings set forth below:
(a) “Entering Player Pool” means the League-wide limit on the total amount of Salary to which all of the
NFL Clubs may contract for in signing Drafted Rookies (and certain amounts contracted to be paid to Undrafted
Rookies as described below) during each League Year of this Agreement, as set forth below.
(b) Salary shall be defined and calculated in the same manner as set forth in Article XXIV (Guaranteed
League-wide Salary, Salary Cap & Minimum Team Salary). In the event a Rookie who is subject to the
Entering Player Pool signs a Player Contract after the commencement of the regular season, the Club must have
Room under its Rookie Allocation for the entire Paragraph 5 amount of the contract.
Section 2. Covered League Years: The Entering Player Pool will be in effect in all League Years, except as set
forth below. The NFL may remove the Entering Player Pool at its option in any Uncapped Year, by notice to the
NFLPA at least 60 days prior to the scheduled date of the Draft that League Year. Further, in any Capped Year,
the NFL may remove the Pool, by notice to the NFLPA at least 60 days prior to the scheduled date of the Draft
that League Year, but to the extent that any Club spends more than its Rookie Allocation in that League Year,
the Club will pay an equivalent number of dollars to its Veteran players pursuant to reasonable allocation
instructions by the NFLPA.
Section 3. Calculation:
(a) The Entering Player Pool shall consist on a League-wide basis of the amount of the Entering Player
Pool for the immediately preceding League Year (excluding any formula allotments attributable to any
Compensatory Draft Selections), increased by the same percentage as the increase in Projected TR for that
League Year over the prior year’s TR (as defined in Article XXIV (Guaranteed League-wide Salary, Salary Cap
& Minimum Team Salary)), up to a maximum of five percent (5%) per season, but shall not in any event
decrease in actual amount from League Year to League Year. Notwithstanding the foregoing, to the extent there
are Compensatory Draft Selections as a result of Article XVI (College Draft), Section 2 and/or Article XX
(Franchise and Transition Players), Section 15, the Entering Player Pool shall be increased in accordance with
Subsection (c) below and as otherwise agreed upon by the NFL and the NFLPA.
(b) For each League Year of this Agreement, each Club shall have a Rookie Allocation, which shall be its
proportional share of the Entering Player Pool, calculated based on the number, round, and position of the
Club’s selection choices in the Draft. The Rookie Allocation formula shall be agreed upon by the NFL and the
NFLPA and shall remain in effect for the duration of the Agreement, unless the NFL and the NFLPA otherwise
agree.
(c) If, pursuant to Article XVI (College Draft), Section 2 and/or Article XX (Franchise and Transition
Players), Section 15, a Club has one or more Compensatory Draft Selections, an amount shall be added to that
Club’s Rookie Allocation, and to the Entering Player Pool (notwithstanding Subsection (b) above), based upon
the amount allotted to selection choices of that round and position in calculating the Rookie Allocation (the
“Formula Allotment”). In the event that a Club signs a Player Contract with a Drafted Rookie who was drafted
in a prior League Year, an additional amount shall be added to that Club’s Rookie Allocation, and to the
Entering Player Pool (notwithstanding Subsection (b) above), equal to the lower of the Club’s original Formula
Allotment for such draft choice or the amount of unused Room under the Club’s Rookie Allocation during the
League Year in which the player was originally drafted.
(d) Notwithstanding the above, nothing shall prevent the Club from signing a player for an amount in
excess of the player’s Formula Allotment, if the Club has Room available under its Rookie Allocation.
(e) In the event that the NFL holds a supplemental draft in addition to its annual Draft in advance of the
next League Year’s Draft, adjustments shall be made to the Entering Player Pool and Rookie Allocation in a
manner to be agreed upon by the NFL and the NFLPA.
(f) In any League Year in which one or more expansion Teams enter the League, the amount of the
Entering Player Pool shall be increased to account for the draft selections of any such expansion Teams.
(g) In the event the NFL holds a supplemental draft in addition to its annual College Draft in advance of
the following League Year’s College Draft, there shall be added to each selecting Club’s Rookie Allocation,
and (cumulatively, if more than one selecting Club) to the Entering Player Pool for that League Year, an amount
 
Miguel, I noticed you fixed your free agent page. You used to have Chad Scott listed in two different groups.:)

Do you get most of your info from the NFLPA.org site, or from reports?

That's a very nice website, especially if you have a media password.
 
Last edited:
They don't have to set aside that much cap room. The value of all the contracts can't add up to more than the rookie pool number, but that isn't until they are signed anyway.

Draft picks only count as a rookie-minimum tender offer. If a team has more than 51 players under contract, that tender doesn't even count against the cap. If a team has less than 51 players, the team only needs enough cap room to offer a rookie minimum salary tender to each pick that brings them up to 51 players to be able to draft.

Very well said.
 
It's kinda funny that a total non-story has gotten this many posts. King was throwing out a hypothetical. The Pats have shown no interest in trading for Briggs and Briggs seems pretty adament he does not want to go to a 3-4 defense where he will be another cog in the system.
 
It's kinda funny that a total non-story has gotten this many posts. King was throwing out a hypothetical. The Pats have shown no interest in trading for Briggs and Briggs seems pretty adament he does not want to go to a 3-4 defense where he will be another cog in the system.

It was a public pitch by the guy's agent - nothing more
 
FYI - I asked some Bears fans over at kffl about Briggs, including if he could play ILB. I was surprised that most of them thought he was actually better suited to be on the inside, and all thought the 28th pick would get the deal done.

I know its all specualtion, but....

Here is a link to the thread, if you want to read their comments first hand.
http://www.kffl.com/forums/showthread.php?t=200576
 
Last edited:
FYI - I asked some Bears fans over at kffl about Briggs, including if he could play ILB. I was surprised that most of them thought he was actually better suited to be on the inside, and all thought the 28th pick would get the deal done.

I know its all specualtion, but....

Here is a link to the thread, if you want to read their comments first hand.
http://www.kffl.com/forums/showthread.php?t=200576

Wow! I'm thinking a lot of these guys are totally frustrated with Briggs' stance now and would love to get something for him right now rather than risk losing him for at least 10 games this season, which he could possibly do and still collect all of his money.

What I would be worried about however is that stallworth's and washington's contracts are both back ended. It's a small hit this year but next year their cap charges would be huge (assuming of course that washington makes the team). Will we have enough money for all these guys next year?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.


Patriots Kraft ‘Involved’ In Decision Making?  Zolak Says That’s Not the Case
MORSE: Final First Round Patriots Mock Draft
Slow Starts: Stark Contrast as Patriots Ponder Which Top QB To Draft
Wednesday Patriots Notebook 4/24: News and Notes
Tuesday Patriots Notebook 4/23: News and Notes
MORSE: Final 7 Round Patriots Mock Draft, Matthew Slater News
Bruschi’s Proudest Moment: Former LB Speaks to MusketFire’s Marshall in Recent Interview
Monday Patriots Notebook 4/22: News and Notes
Patriots News 4-21, Kraft-Belichick, A.J. Brown Trade?
MORSE: Patriots Draft Needs and Draft Related Info
Back
Top