With Regards To Vince

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from ATJ. Show ATJ's posts

    Re: With Regards To Vince

    Once you actually wade through this thread ignoring those who possess no level of credibility whatsoever and disregarding the personal attacks (eliminating both would reduce this thread to one page, by the way), you actually have a topic worth discussing.

     

    It's an interesting question.  I love Big Vince but there's no question that he's past his prime.  I think Suh is a total dick but he has some talent.  A swap of the two would upgrade the Pats D, imo, but that cap hit is a killer and probably would be a deal-breaker regardless. 

     

    I don't see it happening.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from Philskiw1. Show Philskiw1's posts

    Re: With Regards To Vince

    I think Vince is hurt pretty bad.  He never left the team after surgery. I'm sure he's worried too, this was the contract that he retires on. Now I bet he has no idea what's going to happen in the front office. I think wilfork comes back late in the season and isn't the same guy. It might not be here, we have a history of moving on. 

    As far as Suh goes, for what he'd cost I'd rather go after a younger cheaper guy like phil Taylor. The browns are a mess and most likely have a price. Lombardi may know what it is.  

    The lions problem isn't Suh, it's stafford.  Stafford stinks, that's the guy they should cut. He has that sidearm thing...  He "shucks" the ball. Put him with Brady's receivers and see how he does. Until they get someone behind center they won't do anything. 

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from mthurl. Show mthurl's posts

    Re: With Regards To Vince

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:

    In response to mthurl's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    They are afraid to learn. I've seen the tactic before.

    They're embarrassedd someone younger than them may know more or be more intelligent on a topic, so they lash out all insecurely.

    Mt HUrl is infamous for it.

    They behave that way to cover up for being insecure, hence the mocking.

     

    Afraid to learn? Rusty I'd be willing to learn something, but the problem is you don't know what you're talking about. I hate to break it to you, but the whole board thinks you're a moron...and they're right.

    What am I supposed to learn from you? That we are going to get the 7th overall selection in the draft for Mallet? That Patrick Chung shut down Victor Cruz all by himself? That Cunningham is a better player than Carlos Dunlap? That Brandon Merriweather is the second best safety in the entire AFC? Because these are all things you've preached over the last five years here. What else can you teach me? How not to have a job and post 300 times a day on here about salary cap hell, that doesn't exist? Sounds exquisite.

    Get a life.

    [/QUOTE]

    See Mel?^^

    Totally embarrassed.   He thinks there is no cap hell, says it daily, Lions in a cap hell deluxe with Suh controlling the entire future of the Lions, yet Mt Hurl looks to deflect in embarrassment again.

    You take a couple months off during the summer, and I don't claim you don't have a job, Cupcake.

    [/QUOTE]


    Let's talk about embarrassment - you are the one guy who searches the internet 24 hours a day to find something related to "cap hell", it lead you to a story on the Detroit Lions. There are 32 teams in the NFL and two of them (Detroit and Dallas) are in a poor position financially. Now these two teams I mentioned are the closest thing you can find to "cap hell", yet I'd be willing to bet Detroit will not trade Suh do to "cap hell" and if the did, explain to me where this wide spread "cap hell" is taking place all over the NFL like you claim.

    Even the Redskins, Raidiers, Dolphins and Jets have 20 plus million in cap space right now...those were the teams you warned about for year and years and years about cap hell...how they "spent wildly" and would suffer in "cap hell" for years! Never happened. What DID happen is you bought into one team's approach to value and being frugal - and it lead you to believe in "cap hell" and you were fooled. Simple. Sad, but simple.

    It must kill you to listen to all the local sports stations around here - how they laugh at the cap...how they keep saying we should of went out and signed better free agents when we had the chance...how there is no such thing as "salary cap hell", because it plays around here daily. The warnings were out! Rusty exposed once again.

    The other thing that is embarrassing, is that the whole premise of your thread (us aquiring Suh) can't happen...the Lions will not save one penny against the cap if they release or trade Suh, so Suh is not going anywhere. Do your homework before you start threads - actually READ the article and UNDERSTAND it - then start your stupid thread.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: With Regards To Vince

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    The Krapper has today backed down from a bet he offered with his own voluntary premise and now claims Larry Fitzgerald or Suh's cap hit is absorbed by the new team they'd be traded to.

    This is AFTER he claims I don't know what I am talking about with regards to the cap.

    Suh has Mayhew by the balls in Detroit. Will Mayhew make the wise move?

    The Krapper claims I don't know the cap, but I've just embarrassed him again:

    "There has been a lot of media chatter about the Lions being forced to trade Suh. But trading him not only weakens the defense considerably, it doesn’t really alleviate the cap problem. Without renegotiating the final year of his deal, Suh would still count $19.4 million against the cap if they trade or release him.

    If you are looking for worst-case scenarios, there it is."



    From The Detroit News: http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20140215/SPORTS0101/302150046#ixzz2tXDn8OYZ

    [/QUOTE]

    This is why a trade is unlikely.  Trading Suh creates 19 million in dead money for the Lions.  They save just 3 million in cap space.  The most likely scenario is they get a long term extension worked out. That will reduce cap cost significantly and allow them to keep Suh. Detroit is tight against the cap, but they're not in cap hell because they've got lots of good players signed.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from rkarp. Show rkarp's posts

    Re: With Regards To Vince

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    The Krapper has today backed down from a bet he offered with his own voluntary premise and now claims Larry Fitzgerald or Suh's cap hit is absorbed by the new team they'd be traded to.

    This is AFTER he claims I don't know what I am talking about with regards to the cap.

    Suh has Mayhew by the balls in Detroit. Will Mayhew make the wise move?

    The Krapper claims I don't know the cap, but I've just embarrassed him again:

    "There has been a lot of media chatter about the Lions being forced to trade Suh. But trading him not only weakens the defense considerably, it doesn’t really alleviate the cap problem. Without renegotiating the final year of his deal, Suh would still count $19.4 million against the cap if they trade or release him.

    If you are looking for worst-case scenarios, there it is."



    From The Detroit News: http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20140215/SPORTS0101/302150046#ixzz2tXDn8OYZ

    [/QUOTE]

    This is why a trade is unlikely.  Trading Suh creates 19 million in dead money for the Lions.  They save just 3 million in cap space.  The most likely scenario is they get a long term extension worked out. That will reduce cap cost significantly and allow them to keep Suh. Detroit is tight against the cap, but they're not in cap hell because they've got lots of good players signed.

    [/QUOTE]

    Pro, cople of points. 

    The $19-20M in dead money against the cap is correct, but there is still a 2 years  savings of $16M in actual base salary still due that the team would not have to pay

    The return of players for Suh would allow the Lions to both draft for need and create ample $$$ available to fill in via FA go forward

    There has been rampant speculation that Suh is a locker room cancer, and was the undermining factor on Schwartz being fired.  

    I actually like Suh the player, but cant see him working here financially, cant see the Pats parting with the assets needed to pull this off (both trade assets and $$$ assets)

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from rkarp. Show rkarp's posts

    Re: With Regards To Vince

    In response to ATJ's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Once you actually wade through this thread ignoring those who possess no level of credibility whatsoever and disregarding the personal attacks (eliminating both would reduce this thread to one page, by the way), you actually have a topic worth discussing.

     

    It's an interesting question.  I love Big Vince but there's no question that he's past his prime.  I think Suh is a total dick but he has some talent.  A swap of the two would upgrade the Pats D, imo, but that cap hit is a killer and probably would be a deal-breaker regardless. 

     

    I don't see it happening.

    [/QUOTE]

    ATJ, my apologies to the boad for veering off course. Russell tends to do that to many of us here, and I fell victim as well...

    Agree, interesting thought/topic, but in the end I also agree not in the best interest of the Pats

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from rkarp. Show rkarp's posts

    Re: With Regards To Vince

    In response to Philskiw1's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Wow, I think I disagree with everything you said

    I think Vince is hurt pretty bad.  He never left the team after surgery.

    Vince tore his achilles. Its a fairly common injury that most come back from (Crabtree in record time). Vince's weight makes it harder, but he has plenty of time. He is working out and ahead of schedule. He could be ready for the start of the season 

     

    I'm sure he's worried too, this was the contract that he retires on. Now I bet he has no idea what's going to happen in the front office. I think wilfork comes back late in the season and isn't the same guy. It might not be here, we have a history of moving on. 

    Not sure at all what you eman, but Vince already rcvd all of his money from the contract other than his last year of base salary. He can sign a team friendly deal with the Pats, and make MORE money...win for Vince and win for the Pats

    As far as Suh goes, for what he'd cost I'd rather go after a younger cheaper guy like phil Taylor. The browns are a mess and most likely have a price. Lombardi may know what it is.

    Why would the Browns trade Taylor? They have 6 pro bowl players, $40M in available cap space and 2 #1 draft choices. Their future is very bright if they can get management all on the same page. Why would Lombardi know what his successor thinks anyways?

    The lions problem isn't Suh, it's stafford.  Stafford stinks, that's the guy they should cut. He has that sidearm thing...  He "shucks" the ball. Put him with Brady's receivers and see how he does. Until they get someone behind center they won't do anything. 

    Stafford is a top 5 QB in terms of talent. 

    [/QUOTE]


     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from AyyyBoston. Show AyyyBoston's posts

    Re: With Regards To Vince

    Don't think I agree with Stafford being top 5 in talent. Rodgers, Brady, Brees, and P. Manning are better. In terms of the 5th guy, I suppose you could make an argument for Stafford, but I can't see it. You would rather have him than guys like Matt Ryan, Andrew Luck, Tony Romo, Phillip Rivers (etc.)?

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from ghostofjri37. Show ghostofjri37's posts

    Re: With Regards To Vince

    I would put Stafford in the Tony Romo category... Enigma

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from joepatsfan111111. Show joepatsfan111111's posts

    Re: With Regards To Vince

    In response to ghostofjri37's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I would put Stafford in the Tony Romo category... Enigma

    [/QUOTE]


    +1 no doubt

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from rkarp. Show rkarp's posts

    Re: With Regards To Vince

    In response to AyyyBoston's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Don't think I agree with Stafford being top 5 in talent. Rodgers, Brady, Brees, and P. Manning are better. In terms of the 5th guy, I suppose you could make an argument for Stafford, but I can't see it. You would rather have him than guys like Matt Ryan, Andrew Luck, Tony Romo, Phillip Rivers (etc.)?

    [/QUOTE]

    I was referencing talent, not production or "who is better"...

    factor in Staffords age, get him better coaching and he is in that echelon. 

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from rkarp. Show rkarp's posts

    Re: With Regards To Vince

    reading the opinons on this entire post, Stafford, Suh and the Lions in general, it strikes me what a bad HC SChwartz was in Detroit. Tons of talent there, potential top 8 QB? Potential dominting D? But the team was usually ill prepared, made dumb mistakes, took bad penalties, never could max out the QB's potential. SOme will blame the GM, but arent these problems on the HC?

     

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from NoMorePensionLooting. Show NoMorePensionLooting's posts

    Re: With Regards To Vince

    In response to rkarp's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    reading the opinons on this entire post, Stafford, Suh and the Lions in general, it strikes me what a bad HC SChwartz was in Detroit. Tons of talent there, potential top 8 QB? Potential dominting D? But the team was usually ill prepared, made dumb mistakes, took bad penalties, never could max out the QB's potential. SOme will blame the GM, but arent these problems on the HC?

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Stafford ain't even in Tony Romo's league IMHO. Throws a ton of picks that can wipe out 300+ yards of positive passing yardage. The whole team actually turned the ball over quite a bit in 2013.

    The "heralded" D was actually average, middle of the pack stat wise. The O was at the top stat wise but as I said Stafford would throw a dope pick at the worst possible time to deflate anything positive they had going on.

    Schwartz was no help for sure but how much power and control did he actually have?

    "Rumors" and I get that, say that Suh was openly challenging Schwartz's authority every day and got away with it. Once the HC is shown to be a paper tiger the lcker room is lost.

     

     

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from rkarp. Show rkarp's posts

    Re: With Regards To Vince

    In response to NoMorePensionLooting's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to rkarp's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    reading the opinons on this entire post, Stafford, Suh and the Lions in general, it strikes me what a bad HC SChwartz was in Detroit. Tons of talent there, potential top 8 QB? Potential dominting D? But the team was usually ill prepared, made dumb mistakes, took bad penalties, never could max out the QB's potential. SOme will blame the GM, but arent these problems on the HC?

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Stafford ain't even in Tony Romo's league IMHO. Throws a ton of picks that can wipe out 300+ yards of positive passing yardage. The whole team actually turned the ball over quite a bit in 2013.

    The "heralded" D was actually average, middle of the pack stat wise. The O was at the top stat wise but as I said Stafford would throw a dope pick at the worst possible time to deflate anything positive they had going on.

    Schwartz was no help for sure but how much power and control did he actually have?

    "Rumors" and I get that, say that Suh was openly challenging Schwartz's authority every day and got away with it. Once the HC is shown to be a paper tiger the lcker room is lost.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    kid is 25 years old. has thrown for 5000 yards twice, had a 40 and 30 TD season in 4 seasons (he was hurt 1 season). give him some coaching and discipline, lets see how how his ceiling is. 

    I hear you regarding the D, but why? Look at the sum of the whole, who wouldnt you want here? Fairley, Suh, Ansah, Young, Tulloch, Quin, Delmas...lot of talent there

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from NoMorePensionLooting. Show NoMorePensionLooting's posts

    Re: With Regards To Vince

    In response to rkarp's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to NoMorePensionLooting's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to rkarp's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    reading the opinons on this entire post, Stafford, Suh and the Lions in general, it strikes me what a bad HC SChwartz was in Detroit. Tons of talent there, potential top 8 QB? Potential dominting D? But the team was usually ill prepared, made dumb mistakes, took bad penalties, never could max out the QB's potential. SOme will blame the GM, but arent these problems on the HC?

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Stafford ain't even in Tony Romo's league IMHO. Throws a ton of picks that can wipe out 300+ yards of positive passing yardage. The whole team actually turned the ball over quite a bit in 2013.

    The "heralded" D was actually average, middle of the pack stat wise. The O was at the top stat wise but as I said Stafford would throw a dope pick at the worst possible time to deflate anything positive they had going on.

    Schwartz was no help for sure but how much power and control did he actually have?

    "Rumors" and I get that, say that Suh was openly challenging Schwartz's authority every day and got away with it. Once the HC is shown to be a paper tiger the lcker room is lost.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    kid is 25 years old. has thrown for 5000 yards twice, had a 40 and 30 TD season in 4 seasons (he was hurt 1 season). give him some coaching and discipline, lets see how how his ceiling is. 

    I hear you regarding the D, but why? Look at the sum of the whole, who wouldnt you want here? Fairley, Suh, Ansah, Young, Tulloch, Quin, Delmas...lot of talent there

    [/QUOTE]


    Ya don't know but it's an average D, perhaps too much money one or two players and the balance of the D suffers.

    Stafford throws a lot of yardage...sure....but just like Bledsoe he up and throws a pick that changes the entire game. I hate stats per say, it's like tats on a bull, what difference does it make if you don't win the game.

     
  16. This post has been removed.

     
  17. This post has been removed.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from AyyyBoston. Show AyyyBoston's posts

    Re: With Regards To Vince

    In response to rkarp's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to AyyyBoston's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Don't think I agree with Stafford being top 5 in talent. Rodgers, Brady, Brees, and P. Manning are better. In terms of the 5th guy, I suppose you could make an argument for Stafford, but I can't see it. You would rather have him than guys like Matt Ryan, Andrew Luck, Tony Romo, Phillip Rivers (etc.)?

    [/QUOTE]

    I was referencing talent, not production or "who is better"...

    factor in Staffords age, get him better coaching and he is in that echelon. 

    [/QUOTE]

    No, I realized that. I was talking on merely a talent basis. Out of the guys I mentioned, I think Ryan and even Romo (when he is not busy choking) have more pure talent that Stafford...maybe Rivers as well.

     

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from rkarp. Show rkarp's posts

    Re: With Regards To Vince

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to rkarp's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    reading the opinons on this entire post, Stafford, Suh and the Lions in general, it strikes me what a bad HC SChwartz was in Detroit. Tons of talent there, potential top 8 QB? Potential dominting D? But the team was usually ill prepared, made dumb mistakes, took bad penalties, never could max out the QB's potential. SOme will blame the GM, but arent these problems on the HC?

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Tons of talent? They had no O Line (until this year), RBs, LBS,  secondary and only had two WRs. Unless you think their TEs were gamechangers, we disagree. Solid is a good word for Scheffler and their high draft bust (can't even remember his name, he's so insignifcant with the dropsees).

    Jahvid Best, the guy from Illinois at RB sucked, sucked...They really had no talent. Delmas? You won't an injury prone player, he's it.

    You're a moron.

    Mayhew should ihave been absolutely shiyatcanned for his abysmal drafts and loss of leverage with salary allocation. Christ, Suh has him by the nads again right now. Have you read the articles I posted yet? LOL

    Ansah just got there this year, too. No one has any idea what he can do. Fairley has been a massive disappointment and a bust so far.

    Do you ever have a clue? Their entire team was Stafford/Megatron with one of the worst defenses in the league, which is why they got into a shootout in the 2011 playoffs.

    [/QUOTE]

    Look at the sum of the whole, who wouldnt you want here? Fairley, Suh, Ansah, Young, Tulloch, Quin, Delmas...lot of talent there

     

    you are bludgeoned yet again

     
  20. This post has been removed.

     
  21. This post has been removed.

     
  22. This post has been removed.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: With Regards To Vince

    In response to rkarp's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    The Krapper has today backed down from a bet he offered with his own voluntary premise and now claims Larry Fitzgerald or Suh's cap hit is absorbed by the new team they'd be traded to.

    This is AFTER he claims I don't know what I am talking about with regards to the cap.

    Suh has Mayhew by the balls in Detroit. Will Mayhew make the wise move?

    The Krapper claims I don't know the cap, but I've just embarrassed him again:

    "There has been a lot of media chatter about the Lions being forced to trade Suh. But trading him not only weakens the defense considerably, it doesn’t really alleviate the cap problem. Without renegotiating the final year of his deal, Suh would still count $19.4 million against the cap if they trade or release him.

    If you are looking for worst-case scenarios, there it is."



    From The Detroit News: http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20140215/SPORTS0101/302150046#ixzz2tXDn8OYZ

    [/QUOTE]

    This is why a trade is unlikely.  Trading Suh creates 19 million in dead money for the Lions.  They save just 3 million in cap space.  The most likely scenario is they get a long term extension worked out. That will reduce cap cost significantly and allow them to keep Suh. Detroit is tight against the cap, but they're not in cap hell because they've got lots of good players signed.

    [/QUOTE]

    Pro, cople of points. 

    The $19-20M in dead money against the cap is correct, but there is still a 2 years  savings of $16M in actual base salary still due that the team would not have to pay

    The return of players for Suh would allow the Lions to both draft for need and create ample $$$ available to fill in via FA go forward

    There has been rampant speculation that Suh is a locker room cancer, and was the undermining factor on Schwartz being fired.  

    I actually like Suh the player, but cant see him working here financially, cant see the Pats parting with the assets needed to pull this off (both trade assets and $$$ assets)

    [/QUOTE]


    If that base salary is guaranteed money and accounts for 16 million of the 19 million in dead money if Suh is cut, then a trade looks better, because the dead money for the Lions would only be 3 million, and the 16 million in guaranteed base would become the acquiring team's responsibility.  So if his contract is structured with guaranteed base rather than with bonus, a trade is far more feasible.  If the deal is structured this way, though, the acquiring team picks up that guaranteed base and has to apply it to their cap, so they'll need some hefty space to accomodate him.  

     
  24. This post has been removed.

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: With Regards To Vince

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to rkarp's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    The Krapper has today backed down from a bet he offered with his own voluntary premise and now claims Larry Fitzgerald or Suh's cap hit is absorbed by the new team they'd be traded to.

    This is AFTER he claims I don't know what I am talking about with regards to the cap.

    Suh has Mayhew by the balls in Detroit. Will Mayhew make the wise move?

    The Krapper claims I don't know the cap, but I've just embarrassed him again:

    "There has been a lot of media chatter about the Lions being forced to trade Suh. But trading him not only weakens the defense considerably, it doesn’t really alleviate the cap problem. Without renegotiating the final year of his deal, Suh would still count $19.4 million against the cap if they trade or release him.

    If you are looking for worst-case scenarios, there it is."



    From The Detroit News: http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20140215/SPORTS0101/302150046#ixzz2tXDn8OYZ



    This is why a trade is unlikely.  Trading Suh creates 19 million in dead money for the Lions.  They save just 3 million in cap space.  The most likely scenario is they get a long term extension worked out. That will reduce cap cost significantly and allow them to keep Suh. Detroit is tight against the cap, but they're not in cap hell because they've got lots of good players signed.

    [/QUOTE]

    Pro, cople of points. 

    The $19-20M in dead money against the cap is correct, but there is still a 2 years  savings of $16M in actual base salary still due that the team would not have to pay

    The return of players for Suh would allow the Lions to both draft for need and create ample $$$ available to fill in via FA go forward

    There has been rampant speculation that Suh is a locker room cancer, and was the undermining factor on Schwartz being fired.  

    I actually like Suh the player, but cant see him working here financially, cant see the Pats parting with the assets needed to pull this off (both trade assets and $$$ assets)

    [/QUOTE]


    If that base salary is guaranteed money and accounts for 16 million of the 19 million in dead money if Suh is cut, then a trade looks better, because the dead money for the Lions would only be 3 million, and the 16 million in guaranteed base would become the acquiring team's responsibility.  So if his contract is structured with guaranteed base rather than with bonus, a trade is far more feasible.  If the deal is structured this way, though, the acquiring team picks up that guaranteed base and has to apply it to their cap, so they'll need some hefty space to accomodate him.  

    [/QUOTE]

    False.  19.2 million hits the Lions cap if he's dealt.

    [/QUOTE]

    That's what I thought, but I haven't seen a good description of the deal, and if his 16 million in base for 2014 and 2015 were guaranteed, the Lions wouldn't have to eat that as dead money if they could trade him away, since the acquiring team would pick that obligation up.  That's what I gathered Rkarp was saying.

     

Share