Registered Members experience this forum ad and noise-free.
CLICK HERE to Register for a free account and login for a smoother ad-free experience. It's easy, and only takes a few moments.Breer says it was about $7M a year :Low balling? 7-8 million per year guards? I know the position has evolved, but that's still a lot for a guard. Even if the Pats offer was 6.5, what's wrong with that? The Pats have other places to spend money.
It's like Deion Branch all over again. You'd think these guys would learn...
What makes you think Mankins is a high character guy? I've always liked Mankins but not because I thought he was a good guy. Just the opposite really.
put it this way, I'd bet he's of higher moral fiber than the head coach of the pats
I'm losing respect for Mankins now. He says he was promised that his contract would be addressed. Now top 5 guard money isn't enough? He was never promised that he would become the highest paid, but that's how he's making it sound right now.
The Pats have other places to spend money.
Actually, since I noted that it was specifically in comparison to Evans' deal, your comments here are as completely irrelevant, as well as being wrong, presicely because of the specific comparison.
1.) Evans is not a "much better guard" than Mankins. Mankins has his problems, but he's still a top level guard. A 20% drop in the amount of money is a lowball offer in comparison, pretty much by definition:
Lowball - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
2.) The viewing population isn't uninformed if they've gotten to this point in the thread. You're simply wrong.
3.) You apparently don't know the definition of propaganda any better than you understand the words "in comparison to said contract". Perhaps rather than making it personal next time, you should just consult a dictionary and an English textbook.
"I was asked to play '09 out, and that they would address the contract during the uncapped year," Mankins said.
Jets troll.
**** him it was clear what he was about.We dont need guys like him.Hopefully we will get a decent return.
It sure is Mankins' problem. He doesn't control his destiny so what other teams are willing to give him doesn't matter one iota.that's not really mankins' problem now, is it? I am sure there are other teams out there that will give him what he wants in a heartbeat.
It sure is Mankins' problem. He doesn't control his destiny so what other teams are willing to give him doesn't matter one iota.
You're right Doos, you can define low-balling by comparing to one single contract, and say everything else is irrelevant, cuz you only happen to mention one single contract. I've learned a lot... not only does market value mean nothing when citing low-balling while citing a single contract, the fact that the contract cited is silly is irrelevant, since you said so yourself. Your logic is astounding. Truly your words have no spin and could never be perceived as propoganda.
If you keep working at it, citing definitions may work as an aid to your arguments, rather than a hindrance.
No offense, Logan, but take it up with the NFLPA. The players weren't complaining when the CBA bumped the cap up to over $120 million dollars, after all. I absolutely agree that the RFAs are getting hosed, and there's probably been collusion, but the "trade me" stuff doesn't score points with me. You'd only be moving on to another team that was colluding to keep salaries down, after all.
branch 'didn't control his own destiny, either, right?'
a guy who makes a stand can shoot his way out of town. all he has to do is say some crap that blows up the bridges and there is no return. if mankins makes his stand in a way that having him around will be a problem, the pats will have to move him.
No they won't.branch 'didn't control his own destiny, either, right?'
a guy who makes a stand can shoot his way out of town. all he has to do is say some crap that blows up the bridges and there is no return. if mankins makes his stand in a way that having him around will be a problem, the pats will have to move him.
From our archive - this week all-time:
April 8 - April 23 (Through 26yrs)











