I write this knowing that he could sign in 2 hours and this thread will be moot BUT really, WTF. How is it possible that we alone of the teams in the NFL do not have our first round pick signed when training camp begins? The $$ is slotted meaning the money has bee preordained for months. The holdup apparently is "offset" money which every other team in the top 10 has caved on---except us, because once again we know what we are doing while every other team does not, right?. As I understand it, "offset" protects the team from having to pay RT his full salary if he gets cut in the next few years. That is all it does. I mean--have a little bit of faith in your first round QB that he will not be a collasal bust! He may turn out to be, but at least get him in camp first before you start worrying about this!

Only other unsigned 1st rounders are Blackmon, and Jax has an excuse for trying to take hard line given his insane DUI this offseason, and Kendall Wright, who is a WR taken in the 20s and not really comparable here (plus they have not yet started camp so he's not yet a holdout). Once again I get the sense that the FO is just overmatched/dumb as compared to other teams.

Rant over.

________________________________________________________
The beatings will continue until morale improves.

For a guy who isn't likely going to play much in his first season, I get why the FO is doing this. The thing is, most of the other teams caved on the offset because they aren't worried about cutting their first rounders.

So, I have to ask: why are we worried about cutting our first round pick? Could it be that he wasn't that good of a pick to begin with?

with each day he misses of camp, they are setting him up to be a bust, out of concern of contract langauge that would insure them against his being a bust. makes perfect sense, if you are run by morons.

________________________________________________________
The beatings will continue until morale improves.

Thats pretty stiff. He's not the first to hold out.

.....................................................................................
“I'm here" You're welcome!" - Kenny Powers

Under the new CBa, he is

________________________________________________________
The beatings will continue until morale improves.

berkeley223 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> with each day he misses of camp, they are setting
> him up to be a bust, out of concern of contract
> langauge that would insure them against his being
> a bust. makes perfect sense, if you are run by
> morons.


The logic behind this hold out is perplexing. Why did we pick this guy in the top ten if we are worried about him being a bust?

I don't blame the FO for pushing the offset. I do blame the FO for picking a guy in the top ten where the offset would be an issue.

While I agree - the team is run by morons, Tannehill was one of the riskiest picks in the first round. And I don't think a holdout will matter - RT's primary job this year will be making sure he doesn't drop his clipboard. So at least the FO is doing the right thing now, but for all the wrong reasons.


I can already hear the RT apologists: "Dan Marino was a holdout too...". At least Dan had the common courtesy to throw for over 5K yards the year before he held out.

This kid hasn't done squat but marry well.

eesti Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Thats pretty stiff. He's not the first to hold
> out.


errrrrr.....Isn't he the only holdout we have left?

errrrr...Given the fact that there was a tremendous feeling, not only in Miami, but the predominant position in the entire NFL world that he got drafted much higher than he deserved, would not one say that holding out is pretty big-headed of him?

Of course, on the other hand, I don't know what the figures are and never under-estimate the STUPIDITY of our front office and it COULD BE that those dunderheads are simply trying to get him to sign for the lowest amount any 8th pick in the First round has ever signed for.

That's be just like our management but uh, oh, The Truth will probably object loudly since he thinks we have the Mensa Society of Coaching and Management.

DolfanKing Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> For a guy who isn't likely going to play much in
> his first season, I get why the FO is doing this.
> The thing is, most of the other teams caved on the
> offset because they aren't worried about cutting
> their first rounders.
>
> So, I have to ask: why are we worried about
> cutting our first round pick? Could it be that he
> wasn't that good of a pick to begin with?

Hahahaha! That's classic.

Yeah...no agenda.

So it's treason to question our management?

THE Truth Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> DolfanKing Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > For a guy who isn't likely going to play much
> in
> > his first season, I get why the FO is doing
> this.
> > The thing is, most of the other teams caved on
> the
> > offset because they aren't worried about
> cutting
> > their first rounders.
> >
> > So, I have to ask: why are we worried about
> > cutting our first round pick? Could it be that
> he
> > wasn't that good of a pick to begin with?
>
> Hahahaha! That's classic.
>
> Yeah...no agenda.


Yea, thats right. I have an agenda. You've seen through my grand plan...

I've decided to start small by complaining about the management on a chat board that has about 10 regular posters. I expect they will take my crystal clear arguments to heart, and thoroughly convince ten of their friends, and so on... In time was hoping this "agenda" would lead to a decline in game day attendance so that the Jet/Bill/Patriots would be able to come to our stadium and feel as if it were their own. If only you hadn't seen through my evil plan.

"Agenda". Yea, right.

there is no question of the player being greedy. the only hold up in the deal (since the $$ and years are set by the CBA) is over the offset. every other team in the top 10 "caved" on that, figuring the risk (presumably small, if you have faith in your #1 pick) of the player being such a bust that he'd be cut in 3 years did not outweigh the downside of having the player hold out. obviously we came to a differnt conclusion.

question: why?

________________________________________________________
The beatings will continue until morale improves.

You DO have to give him credit for his "Pinky and the Brain" allusion. LOL.

Tannehill needs to send his wife in there for negotiations

ChyrenB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You DO have to give him credit for his "Pinky and
> the Brain" allusion. LOL.

One of my favorite cartoons of all time.

But seriously, an "Agenda"? Like me complaining about what I see as bad management is some kind of conspiracy?

No secret I don't like the front office and current ownership. No secret I didn't like the Tannehill pick in the first round.

One of my biggest complaints about taking RT at #8 is that he was a much bigger risk to bust than any of the other players taken at the top end of the first round, and may be the riskiest player taken in the entire first round. The insistance on the offset clause shows that the Dolphins agree that Tennehill was a risk.

Did other players picked in the top 10 have this snag? No. Because the rest of the top 10 picks were seen as blue chip by their respective teams. And that is my complaint... if you pick a player in the top ten, then it must be a "blue chip" player. It must be a guy that you know will be a start for years, starting with his rookie year. And it usually has to be at a difficult to fill position like DL, LT, QB, etc.

The only thing that this front office got right with this pick was the position, but that was only because the fans were sharpening their pitchforks for Ireland if he didn't...

And since Ross can't possibly have the unsightliness of a Matt Millen situation in Miami, he gave the green light for the reach. But no way is he going to give the reach pick a contract deserving of a blue chip player. Why? Because Tannehill isn't Blue Chip. The Dolphins know it. Tannehill should know it. The fans will know it soon enough. I'm sure Ross will react by firing Ireland and hiring another know nothing yes man as GM.

Now back to the conspiracy. I think the facts will prove out what I said about Tannehill when we drafted him. I think they already are. And I think Truthy (or whatever name he goes by these days) knows this. But rather than admit the truth, he does what all zealots do, and concocts an elaborate conspiracy theory to justify the real world facts into his skewed world view.

If there is one thing I've learned about the internet.... Fabricating elaborate, crackpot conspiracy theories seems much more likely than one admitting a realistic view where someone they disagree with may be right about something.

berkeley223 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> there is no question of the player being greedy.
> the only hold up in the deal (since the $$ and
> years are set by the CBA) is over the offset.
> every other team in the top 10 "caved" on that,
> figuring the risk (presumably small, if you have
> faith in your #1 pick) of the player being such a
> bust that he'd be cut in 3 years did not outweigh
> the downside of having the player hold out.
> obviously we came to a differnt conclusion.
>
> question: why?


I saw a story last week that said Ireland was not point on the draftee negotiations. The woman (I forget her name) that is our cap guru is handling that. It speculated that since she previously worked for the NFL offices in New York we would be one of the ones to toe the line on the "offset" language because that is what the league office wanted all the top 8 teams to do.

her name is dawn aponte. I know it because she is the one who screwed up cutting Joey Porter, on her first day of work a few years ago. it was a total embarassment that the team made such a basic mistake. if Ireland is delegating something as important as signing our top 10 "franchise" QB than we are in more trouble than I thought!

________________________________________________________
The beatings will continue until morale improves.

First off, you got to know I find it funny that you again shift culpability on GM duites away from Ireland... You are to much Truth.hahaha... Second, how does the capologist have anything to do with offset language, and a slotted pay scale... We all know what Tannehill is going to get money and cap wise.. It is about whether the Dolphins give in on the offset...

To me, I understand the dilema, as I have said all along, Tannehill is still raw there is alot of development to go, and how that process plays out, has risk invovled... But at the end of the day Ireland drafted the guy #8, so he has to suck it up and fall inline, with what the other top ten picks got IMO..

But from Ireland's position,there really isnt any real down side, to Ireland not giving in, because the Tannehill isnt going to be ready any ways.. So IMO, the pressure to get him in camp early isnt very much... Tannehill needs the snaps to improve his play personally more then the team needs him at this point...

As far as Ireland's position on not caving into the offset language, I think it just gives him more negative talk among players league wide about how he is stubborn, and didnt let Tannehill start camp on time, when all other teams gave into the same issue. I think Ireland has to learn that you cant fight every battle, some just arent worth fighting, and I believe this to be one of them...

-----------------------------------------------------------------
All things are subject to interpretation whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power and not truth.
Nietzsche



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/27/2012 11:14AM by Crowder52.

Isn't it something like $12 million total for 4 years? I'm sure a good portion of that is bonus. So what's the total risk to the Phins? Maybe a couple million for a couple years dead money? Is there something else that I'm missing?

tstamper- If we cut Tannehill after year 2, and he went and signed with say the Jets, we would be on the hook finacially and cap wise for a portion of his salary, and the Jets would get a deal of what they have to pay while his rookie contract is being fullfilled by us...That is what offset is about... If he gets cut and picked up by another team before his rookie contract is up... we would have dead money

-----------------------------------------------------------------
All things are subject to interpretation whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power and not truth.
Nietzsche

Crowder52 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> First off, you got to know I find it funny that
> you again shift culpability on GM duites away from
> Ireland...

Exactly. Ireland is her boss. She may be the person that sets the salary, but if Ireland (or Ross) said, "put the offset language in", it would be in.

Crowder52 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> tstamper- If we cut Tannehill after year 2, and he
> went and signed with say the Jets, we would be on
> the hook finacially and cap wise for a portion of
> his salary, and the Jets would get a deal of what
> they have to pay while his rookie contract is
> being fullfilled by us...That is what offset is
> about... If he gets cut and picked up by another
> team before his rookie contract is up... we would
> have dead money


The key phrase here in my mind is "if we cut Tannehill after year 2"....

Who the heck cuts top ten picks after two years? It is a very rare occurrence. Obviously, this team does not see Tannehill as a legit top ten pick.

Thx Crowder for the info. I didn't know the details. However, it still doesn't seem like it would be that much money we're talking about. I mean, we're not cutting after years 1 or 2. Heck, we probably wouldn't cut him after year 3.

Mark Barron (picked at #7) gets 9 million of his 14.65 million as signing bonus. The last 2 years of pay average about $2 million per year. So, we're risking 1 or 2 years of $2 million/yr or perhaps less for the portion of his salary. I guess it just doesn't seem like that big of a deal to me, but it's not my money I suppose.

DolfanKing Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>> The key phrase here in my mind is "if we cut
> Tannehill after year 2"....
>
> Who the heck cuts top ten picks after two years?
> It is a very rare occurrence. Obviously, this
> team does not see Tannehill as a legit top ten
> pick.


I agree, it is the rare stupid team to dump a top 10 pick after 2 years. Oh wait, we just did that with Teddy Ginn (OK not a cut, but a 5th round trade, basically the same)

________________________________________________________
The beatings will continue until morale improves.

Actually, he lasted 3 yrs.

I should have said "Even he made it 3 years"

i agree with Berk and DOlfanking, that is if you are worried about offset before a guy even plays after spending a top ten pick on him, it doesnt speak highly to the confidence you have in the guy.. Why even draft him if you are worried you might have to pay him for 4 years if he doesnt work out.

ts tamper- it isnt that much money they are arguing about, but we would have more dead money then just his annual salary, becasue we would still be on the hook for his prorated signing bonus no matter what. SO add that to the salary, and you have a decent hit against the caps, "if" all of that were to happen.
The bottom line is, eveyr other team and GM caved in on the offset for players in the top ten... Ireland by theory and the actions of the other NFL teams with top ten picks who have already signed, doesnt have a leg to stand on. Nothing good comes out of this situation from him taken such a hard stance against it..

-----------------------------------------------------------------
All things are subject to interpretation whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power and not truth.
Nietzsche

tsstamper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I should have said "Even he made it 3 years"

LOL!

I think one of the big differences between Ginn and Tannehill is that the Ginn pick was generally an unpopular pick. Fans were less inclined to accept his deficiencies, and it became easy to cut him.

While I didn't think Ginn was worthy of that high a pick, I think he made us a better team at the #4 WR position. Ginn certainly made SF a better team, and one could argue his injury (and subsequent replacement at PR/KR) is what cost the Niners. Ginn was a very good return guy, and would have not had the two costly fumbles that cost the Niners the game.

Point is, Ginn had some talent, and that is why he lasted 3 years here even though he never panned out as the top WR.

I'm not sure what the FO is think, except that RT may have been a big gamble (bigger than Ginn) because if he doesn't pan out at QB, the team would be best to cut him rather than go through the QB controversy that would likely occur if they benched him.