I think I recall that New England had Richard Seymour listed as a DT on the roster for many years even though he was more of a DE, so that his franchise tag would be cheaper if they ever needed to use it.

They should have just gone ahead and listed him on the depth chart as a kicker.

Re 2:

He would have to change his number and declare himself an eligible receiver for every play. Now, they could have called him a fullback, and I'm pretty sure that would have had a lower franchise number.

FB is listed under the RB franchise tag number.

Can Bengals' fans explain the Stacey Andrews franchising?

I am not a Bengals fan, but part of the reason behind the tag might be his younger brother who is already a two-time Pro Bowler. They might figure that Stacy has some untapped potential.

re: 4

That seemed like an odd choice to me too. (Franchising a guard with four years' experience? Really?) But being a Jags fan I'm not going to complain - it would have been really quite unfortunate if Jared Allen and Justin Smith had both been tagged.

To quote my favorite nuclear power plant owner... excellent. So long as he returns to 2006 form next year. Or Polian will replace him with his Mexican non-union equivalent.

Well if Peyton was half the Qb that Tom Brady is, Dwight would have 2006 numbers. Just goes to show, Brady is better.

(/threadjack)

Makes you wonder if there should be a different method for working out franchise tags (perhaps based on games played and postseason awards)?

"If Dallas Clark is a tight end, I’m a professional chef. I mean, sometimes I line up in the kitchen and cook dinner, but that’s not generally where I do my work."

Thats absolutely brilliant.

#4
Being a lifetime Bengals fan all I can say is this is par for the course. Mike Brown inherited the Bengals from his dad Paul Brown. Unlike other owners, who are usually successful business men, Mike Brown's only job ever has been owner of the Bengals. He named his daughter and son-in-law as GMs and they decide player value and negotiate contracts. The front office and scouting departments have always been some of the smallest in the league. Again, because Mike Brown only makes money off of the Bengals, he has no successful businesses on the side, he is rather cheap when it comes to things that cut into his profits. Obviously things are running perfectly, see as how our most talented players always end up complaining for years and eventually end up being dealt. (see Pickens, Carl/Dillon, Cory and currently Johnson, Chad). The 2005 division winning season is like hope in Shawshank.
I'm off to go drink now...

Very happy with the move. Also there may have been a reason for Clark's dropsies, check the link in my name. (from 18 to 88)

Starting guard Ryan Lilja was also signed to a five year deal yesterday.

8:
dwight?

#8 & #13
that is a lot to pay for a 51 year old tight end

#7 - I'm pretty sure Anthony Gonzalez is a US citizen, but I don't know about his union status...

13: Yeah, Dwight. You see, son, a proper QB can broadcast psychic waves that spur defensive players on to greater achievements. Or, at the very least, shout fake audibles from the sidelines in an attempt to confuse the opposing offense. Or something.

12: I approve of that move. I think Lilja is the Colts' most underrated lineman, and the best guard they've had in a while.

Jake Scott is more replaceable. He and Ben Utecht are the only remaining free agent Colts of note. People can raid us for those guys if they really want, but neither one is all that talented, and Utecht especially strikes me as the sort of guy who won't do nearly as well outside of Indy.

#7, 15:
I believe he's of Cuban and German heritage, not Mexican. Not so sure about his union status, though.

Great comment by Aaron. At some point the NFL players union has to address the franchise tag as I think it's pretty clear to most fans it's not being used on only "franchise" type players.

Clark is too "deceptively quick" to be a true wide receiver. He also runs good routes.

#20

He's a "Fan Favourite" too.

#15 and #18
I believe #7 is referring to the Simpsons.

While I agree that a) requiring a position designation for franchise players makes less and less sense every year given the increasing number of "hybrid" players, and b) Dallas Clark is probably best labeled a receiver, the fact remains that position designations are required for the franchise tag because there needs to be a baseline for establishing how much the one year tender would be worth. Yes, it's unfair to players like Clark, Suggs and Seymour; but how else would you establish the value of the one year tender they would be offerred? Of course, I suppose one alternative would be to eliminate the franchise designation altogether, but that another issue.

#21
He's a "white guy" too.

The table in the linked article has Dallas Clark listed as an "OT", so he's being short-changed against that position also. Good ol' USA Today...

I understand Clark's dilemma, but if there were more granularity in the franchise tag categories, the top 5 "slot receivers" probably wouldn't pay more than the top 5 tight ends. Plus, there are several other "receiver-first" type TEs to compare salaries with in his listed positional category. Now granted, it can be argued that a TE shouldn't be a "franchise" player period, but you could also say that about a kicker or punter, and the fact is that these positional distinctions were negotiated into the CBA.

Pats bias at all with Aaron willing to do a research project to get Clark more money? :)

#7 - Senor Clarko?

#4 Irrational anti Mike Brown ranting aside, the Andrews tag made sense, in my opinion. Saying you cant crack the line up behind Willie Anderson is not a harsh criticism. Andrews has replaced both tackles at a high level in the last 2 years due to injuries to both of them. There is some concern that Willie Anderson's latest foot injuries will never really heal, thus his play may be more limited than the every-down, iron man performace he made his first decade or so in the league.

Solid line play is an absolute key for an offense first team forced to play the Steelers and Ravens twice a year. The last time the O-Line was injury free, the Bengals won the division.

And in the MB ranting division, you shouldn't use the "too cheap" attack when they are paying a reserve 7 million dollars. It makes you look like you aren't paying attention.

#22 - yeah I know, I was just inferring that Anthony Gonzalez was a Mexican, non-union Dallas Clark.

If I were negotiating for the players in the next round of CBA talks, and I wasn't willing to go to war to end the Franchise designation, I'd fight to have any player who caught more than ten passes in a year lumped in one category, all offensive linemen lumped together with any fullback who didn't catch 10 passes, all defensive linemen and linebackers lumped together, all safeties and corners lumped together, and of course all qbs lumped together. I think this would cut down significantly on franchising, and there may be chance it could fly with enough owners.

> I think this would cut down significantly on franchising, and there may be chance it could fly with enough owners.

A possible tradeoff to condensing the eligible position designations would be to increase the franchise tag salary basis from the top 5 players to the top 10 in each category. This would still be fairer to the players than the current system, imo.

#29

No, you were implying it. Where has this sudden confusion between those two words come from? I had never seen it five years ago, and now people are using them like they're interchangeable.

#28 To clarify, since the salary cap is equal to a teams portion of the TV deal and there is a minimum set with the latest agreement, my argument isn't really so much with signing Andrews (which I think is smart and I would plagiarize your point verbatim)its that there isn't really a way to justify what exactly the Bengals front office does. Since the salary cap money is accounted for already the only way to make money is increase revenue (raise ticket prices...etc.) or lower expense (not spend any money on good to great or even capable front office personel) that is what I was trying to get at, but I quickly sank into the morose of what it is to cheer for the Bengals, hence the Shawshank reference.

#33: #28 To clarify, since the salary cap is equal to a teams portion of the TV deal

Er, wha? The salary cap is a percentage of the total gross revenue of the entire NFL. Back when the salary cap was based on "designated gross revenues", it was basically equal to a team's portion of the TV deal. But that hasn't been true since the last renegotiation. This meant that, at that time, barring gross and utter incompetence, it was impossible not to turn a profit considering your primary costs were pretty much taken care of.

Nowadays, no, the salary cap isn't automatically taken care of. If you aren't keeping up with the Redskins in terms of non-shared revenue, teams could actually lose money. That's compensated for because there's additional revenue sharing that was agreed upon at the time of the last CBA, too.

But it is a tenuous situation - hence the reason that the owners are going to opt out of the deal early, which is exactly what I said would happen when the extension was signed.

#32 - Imply? Or Implode!

#36
Moooom! Make him stop!

(And now, we've gone from Simpsons references to grammar nitpicking straight back to Simpsons references. Woo!)

I am all for Aaron's designation of Clark as a WR because he lines up in a split position. But, why stop there? I think he should get paid the average of the top-5 wide receivers who weight 250+ and occasionally line up tight on the line and block for running plays.

But, he's the only WR who weighs 250+ and lines up tight some times. So, the Colts can pay him anything they want, as he's a unique player. I say $1 M, to keep the cap down.

(For comparison, the sizes of other "big" WR's: Owens 218, Fitzgerald 226, Boston 228, Moss 210, Porter 220, Reed 210, Toomer 203, Walter 215, Ward 205, Williams 211, Edwards 211, ... I think you get my point.)

The real issue is people using "begs the question" interchangeably with "raises the question." Also we should all go back to saying "to the tune of" when referring to amounts. I'm shocked to learn that Clark outweighs Owens to the tune of 30 pounds.

Irregardless of whether he's the exception that proves the rule, this is a mute point.

37.
If it walks like a duck, quacks like duck but doesn't necessarily weighs as much as a duck... is it a duck?

Doktarr, I'm not sure your statement is perfectly cromulent.

I can't begrudge the Colts for trying to save a few bucks here & there. It's a doggy-dog world, after all.

39

I could care less.

Is there a statue of limitations for malapropisms?

I was certain that Clark would get a long-term deal, but I'm surprised they got it done so quickly.

It was obvious Clark wasn't going anywhere, since he and Manning are best friends and he seems very happy in Indy. But the franchise tag suggested to me that his agent and the Colts front office weren't yet close to a deal.

I don't think it's absurd for Clark to get paid like a TE. While he does split wide a lot, how often does a WR stay in to block or man up on a lineman? How many WRs weigh 250? Also, the routes he runs are more TE-ish routes based on size mismatches and seams than slot WR-type routes like drags (see: Welkaaaah).

The real issue is why being a TE means getting paid less. I don't think it will for much longer, at least for the top players - a lot of TEs are replaceable but the best ones like Gates and Clark bring as much to their teams as the top WRs do.

Do the colts get their franchise tag back now that he's signed? Not that they have anyone else they'd use it on; I'm just curious what the rule is.

You could argue that the best tight ends bring MORE to their teams than Wide Receivers because they do more in the running game. The versatility required at that position gives NFL tight ends a confusing payscale, and that's before throwing the Clark WR/TE wrench into it.
I don't think we'll ever see that shift in money you allude to. But if we could change the pay structure of the NFL, I'd definitely pay WR's less than most other positions. The visible positions can make big money in advertising anyways.

> Do the colts get their franchise tag back now that he’s signed?

Yes, they do get the tag back...