1. Welcome to San Diego Chargers NFL Football Podcast and Forum!
    Bolt Talk is one of the largest online communities for the San Diego Chargers.
    We host a regular Chargers podcast during the season.

    You are currently viewing our community forums as a guest user.

    Create an Account or

    Having an account grants you additional privileges, such as creating and participating in discussions. Furthermore, we hide most of the ads once you register as a member!
    Dismiss Notice

Offical combine thread

Discussion in 'NFL Draft' started by charger1993, Feb 22, 2014.

  1. Jesse Kemp

    Jesse Kemp BoltTalker

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2013
    Messages:
    297
    Ratings:
    +132
    Yeah all the tag figures are screwy because the nfl hasn't kept up with how positions have changed.
     
  2. in_a_days

    in_a_days dgaf

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2006
    Messages:
    8,038
    Ratings:
    +1,018
    Dude, chinaman is not the preferred nomenclature.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  3. SuperCharger92

    SuperCharger92 BoltTalker

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2011
    Messages:
    3,655
    Ratings:
    +791
    I would still tag him at $11M to avoid him getting to free agency, and hope to strike something at the end of next year. We should restructure Gates, Rivers and Weddle though, seeing how the cap # is always going to rise, next year we'll have $27M with those restructured contracts with a chance of it increasing due to the rise of cap space. Draft well this year, make some bargain signings and cut ties with Clary, Cox, and McClain and we should have enough room and then some left over for emergency.

    UDFA's will be key again this year, I think 1 or 2 might make it on our roster seeing how deep the class is. We've had at least 1 make it every year since Gates haven't we?
     
  4. Jesse Kemp

    Jesse Kemp BoltTalker

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2013
    Messages:
    297
    Ratings:
    +132
    It's very simple- we can't afford it.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  5. The LBC

    The LBC I'm a Real Prick

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2010
    Messages:
    3,821
    Ratings:
    +1,304
    Not to mention, has anyone actually looked at how much (i.e. little) Miami actually guaranteed Ellerbe? It was $14M, which amounted to the signing bonus ($7M) plus one year of annual-average pay. It's truly not that terrible - and that's perfectly reasonable for Butler. The guy is effectively guaranteed for years 1 and 2 of the contract and then if released after yield cap-relief (yes there's dead money factored in, but if he's released in Y3, the Dolphins still save ~$3m from what his total cap-hit would have been, and that amount only increases in subsequent years).
     
  6. The LBC

    The LBC I'm a Real Prick

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2010
    Messages:
    3,821
    Ratings:
    +1,304
    It's the average of the Top 5 annual bases for that position (specifically of players who played the majority of their snaps at a "linebacker" position in 2013):
    LaMarr Woodley - $13.59M
    Lawrence Timmons - $11.6M
    Tamba Hali - $11.46M
    Clay Matthews - $10.9M
    James Laurinaitis - $10.4M

    Welcome to the wonderful world of all linebackers being lumped together.
     
  7. The LBC

    The LBC I'm a Real Prick

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2010
    Messages:
    3,821
    Ratings:
    +1,304
    It's no so much "not keeping up," this is something that (believe me on this) the NFLPA specifically fought to keep as vague as possible when defining the franchise tenders in the Collective Bargaining Agreement. Which positional tag applied to a player could/can/has always been able to be challenged/appealed by the player if they don't agree with what the team designates them. And in most cases of a challenge, like Suggs previously (who appealed for DE money when tagged as a linebacker), a settlement is reached.

    The owners would absolutely love to be able to have twice as many tags or tags that are more "role/scheme-specific" than position-specific, but it's a two-way street and in order for change to occur it would have to be conceded in the CBA. And the Players' Union is always going to argue, stand by, whatever situation offers the greatest potential earnings for the players.
     
  8. The LBC

    The LBC I'm a Real Prick

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2010
    Messages:
    3,821
    Ratings:
    +1,304
    I'd add on that restructuring just for the sake of gaining "space this year" (particularly when if you look at our future cap situations that offer us $40+ million in space in 2015 and years moving forward) is pretty dumb.

    Perhaps unknown to some folks, Rivers did a small restructure last year (freed up around $3 million for which the cap-hit was deferred over this coming season and the next). It's possible Weddle or Gates do the same this season - but given the way last season played out (which isn't a lot to go off, but it's something), it's doubtful Telesco asks them to do it unless it's absolutely necessary and it will be minimal (similar to Rivers', around $2 million or so), because they both only have 2 years remaining on their deals including this next one.

    Restructuring players en masse is only a prudent move when you're in a position like the Steelers were in over the past several seasons - where you have a bonafide championship caliber team already assembled and you making what is effectively an "all-in" move banking on squeezing as many championships out of the next several seasons at the expense of the future. For teams in a state like ours is, it's dumb, we'd end up turning into the Jets of the Mike Tannenbaum years cap-wise.

    Fans don't want to hear it, but the smart move is doing absolutely nothing (or at worst negligible) to touch that 2015-and-forward cap-space beyond any new contracts we create/sign this offseason, and if that means biting the bullet and having a lean-year in terms of free agency/roster moves then that's what you do. The only way to keep your cap-situation in a constantly favorable state is to consistently draft well enough to keep your team flush with inexpensive talent year-to-year. It's going to take more than a year for Telesco to do that.

    We're going to get some relief as it sounds like the salary cap is set to increase to around $135 million, and we'll probably see some releases (not quite to the extent I think some folks are envisioning), and they probably won't come until they're actually necessitated or until the player himself has been replaced on the roster. The only reason (aside from off-the-field issues) players get cut from teams at this stage are teams trying to create enough space to get under the cap (or enough cap to slap the franchise tag on another player) or team's trying to get the guy off the roster before the start of the new league year in order to avoid owing him a particular roster bonus due in that new league year.
     
  9. Jesse Kemp

    Jesse Kemp BoltTalker

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2013
    Messages:
    297
    Ratings:
    +132
    Quoted for trooph...
     
  10. Lance19

    Lance19 BoltTalker

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2011
    Messages:
    4,233
    Ratings:
    +1,935
    Wasn't "Jewish Kid & Chinaman" NBC's 8:30 p.m. lead-in to Chico & the Man in 1977?

    (you know, after "Chicano and a Nisei" at 8)
     
  11. NYCharger

    NYCharger BoltTalker

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2013
    Messages:
    258
    Ratings:
    +81
    They actually changed it slightly in the new CBA, so now it's a five year rolling average for the non-exclusive tag, which is certainly what we'd be giving Butler if it came to that. This keeps the really crazy contracts from blowing up the franchise number. Obviously in Butler's case we'd be far better off giving him the 2/14 deal that Ellerbe effectively got rather than a franchise tag at 1/10.

    Totally agree with your above post about not pushing the hard choices into the future unless you absolutely are all-in. We're not. I much prefer a Jay Cutler contract to a Joe Flacco contract for this very reason. And I've said this before in my limited time here, but it's worth repeating: every team has cap space when you look out into the future (okay, maybe not the Cowboys, but every normal team.) But then when you add in 2014 and 2015 draft picks, 2014 free agents, and re-signing your own guys whose contracts expire by the end of next season, all that space quickly evaporates.
     
    Last edited: Feb 28, 2014
  12. The LBC

    The LBC I'm a Real Prick

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2010
    Messages:
    3,821
    Ratings:
    +1,304
    Cowboys actually have it too, but you have to look at it with the lens that their front office does. Just about every long-term contract that they sign their players to is designed to be restructured at roughly the halfway point as a sort of "cap-space nest egg" - mostly because Jerruh is so cash-rich he has no problem doling out massive one-time payments (bonuses) if he thinks it gains him some sort of competitive advantage.
     
  13. matilack

    matilack Take A Knee McCree!!!

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2006
    Messages:
    16,422
    Ratings:
    +3,309
    Bump for awesomeness.

    Is this dude gone? We should totally try to get him back, he was hilarious.
     
  14. Bruce Daniel

    Bruce Daniel BoltTalker

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2014
    Messages:
    498
    Ratings:
    +218
    Lmao, I forgot about this dude..."I type with impunity" - effing classic!
     
    • Like Like x 1
  15. Moses

    Moses Can You Stand The Rain?

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2009
    Messages:
    831
    Ratings:
    +354
    MtlBoltsFan vs Chaincrusher would be a matchup for the ages. :roflmao:
     
  16. ThunderHorse17

    ThunderHorse17 Lone Wolf

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2010
    Messages:
    5,199
    Ratings:
    +318
    Don't discount 1foolguy.

    He had his moments lol.
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  17. Concudan

    Concudan Caffeinated Commando

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2006
    Messages:
    52,009
    Ratings:
    +4,674
    That would possibly break the InterWebs...
     
  18. Bruce Daniel

    Bruce Daniel BoltTalker

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2014
    Messages:
    498
    Ratings:
    +218
    I'll take MtlBoltsFan + 3.5 (insults per paragraph)
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Winner Winner x 1
  19. Lance19

    Lance19 BoltTalker

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2011
    Messages:
    4,233
    Ratings:
    +1,935
    What, and leave the crass misogyny on the table?!?

    It's a tough call.
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  20. LT-Express

    LT-Express Bolttalk.com Janitor since 06' Staff Member Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2006
    Messages:
    2,646
    Ratings:
    +422
    Lol so did we really just bring this thread back to the top to see a few posts from MTL? Good god you must be bored.
     
  21. Chaincrusher

    Chaincrusher BoltTalker

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2015
    Messages:
    1,621
    Ratings:
    +250
    It is not as tough of a call as the one regarding which is greater between the offensiveness of your comments or the level of your demonstrated ignorance of the issues involved in my posts.

    Do you still not understand that Hardy never had a trial that complied with the requirements of the United States Constitution?

    Gee, there were photos of a woman that appeared to have been injured. Instead of pretending like you were there, maybe you could acknowledge that you weren't there and don't know how the woman in question became injured.

    That might have been something that would have been addressed at a jury trial only in the eyes of the prosecutor there was not even enough evidence to take the matter to a jury trial.

    And before you cry about the alleged victim not cooperating further in the trial process, you need to acknowledge that you do not know why she refused to cooperate further. Contrary to your previous ignorant assumption about it being a simple matter of her being paid off, there are multiple reasons (including non-monetary ones such as the witness knowing she lacks credibility that are consistent with Hardy's possible innocence) that could have been involved. Again, you don't know and it is the height of ignorance for you to think that you do.

    Contrary to the Ray Rice situation, there was not any conclusive proof of any assault perpetrated by an NFL player and Hardy has denied any such actions. He may or may not be telling the truth. The reality is that we do not know what happened and we probably never will.

    Under those circumstances, it is wrong for some journalist to presume that Hardy owes an apology to anyone. She does not know what happened and neither do any of us. When she assumes Hardy's unproven guilt in a publication, she wrongs Hardy and owes him an apology.

    But what is most amazing above all else as it pertains to this matter is that if someone has the ability to look at the issues from even a remotely objective standpoint (which I do due to 25+ years of legal experience) and explain 1) why a bench trial under North Carolina's criminal procedure means nothing without the right to a trial de novo; 2) how there could easily be inconsistent results between a bench and jury trial, and 3) that Hardy should be presumed innocent until proven guilty in a jury trial, that person gets labeled as a Hardy-loving misogynist because those doing the labeling are completely incapable of examining the issues in an objective fashion and do not really grasp the issues involved from a legal standpoint.

    Your ignorance and misuse use of pejorative labels as it concerns both my posts and me disgust me.
     
  22. Lance19

    Lance19 BoltTalker

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2011
    Messages:
    4,233
    Ratings:
    +1,935
    You're just flat out wrong.
    It isn't that your years in law give you better insight...they seem to have had the opposite effect.
    Everyone deserves their day in court.
    But the rest of us have no obligation to pretend that their innocence is plausible when the circumstances show otherwise...
    because citizen opinions don't deprive one their life or liberty.
    You're wrong about 5 other ways, as well, but I have no patience for answering your long-winded
    gish gallop posts item for item...you simply are not worth more time than other things I'm doing.
    I don't care if you really don't understand, or you're just trolling...and your constant insults won't
    bait me into wasting a bunch of time. The misogyny line was half a joke. Ask yourself why it resonates.
     
    Last edited: Jan 23, 2016
  23. Chaincrusher

    Chaincrusher BoltTalker

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2015
    Messages:
    1,621
    Ratings:
    +250
    To answer your final question first, the misogyny comment bothers me because it is not only false, it is very false. I suspect that you also would not appreciate being assigned a pejorative label that was pretty much the opposite of your actual character.

    My years in the law allow me to break down legal issues dispassionately without being swayed by what the media or anyone else believes I should think. That ability is especially useful when it comes to matters involving hot button issues just as the lack of that training often hinders the efforts of others without that background when it comes to legal analysis of matters involving hot button issues.

    Since I was exploring legal issues, I have much more confidence in the correctness of my views there than I do yours. No offense intended, but I seriously doubt you are qualified to assess the soundness of my legal analysis.

    Regarding Hardy possibly being innocent, are you really asserting that it is not plausible? What if the alleged victim is simply lying for her own reasons (such as to get money from Hardy)? That certainly is one of the two competing theories of the case. That is not plausible?

    Finally, and to be perfectly clear, I am not suggesting that Hardy is innocent. I don't know the answer to that one way or the other. And whether or not you realize it (and apparently you do not), neither do you.
     
  24. Lance19

    Lance19 BoltTalker

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2011
    Messages:
    4,233
    Ratings:
    +1,935
    No.
    If you'd looked at all info available to the public
    even half as dispassionately as you claim to be capable of,
    his innocence is not plausible.
    (I don't know you...I'm only going by the words you've chosen to represent yourself with)
     
    • Like Like x 1
  25. Chaincrusher

    Chaincrusher BoltTalker

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2015
    Messages:
    1,621
    Ratings:
    +250
    That's right, you don't know me, so maybe you should refrain from making pejorative personal references about me.

    Further, I didn't "represent myself" at all. I discussed the Hardy case from a legal perspective and expressed my disagreement with anyone trying to assume Hardy's guilt without it being proven.

    Moreover, one of the points that I made more than once is that all of the information has never been made available to the public. We do not know the specifics (the prosecutor mentioned some generalities) regarding why the prosecutor dropped the case. You can speculate all day, but you do not know.

    We also do not now what evidence the defense held back during the bench trial so as not to tip its hand to the prosecutor, knowing that the defendant could gain an advantage by getting a preview of the prosecutor's case because the defendant had a right to a trial de novo (brand new trial, only this time before a jury), but the prosecutor did not. In that situation, it is likely that a party with a right to a trial de novo would not present everything that the party could present if the defense concluded that there were tactical advantages to be had by not doing so.

    Those are important issues and when the answers to the questions presented by those issues remain unknown, you cannot have a full understanding of the situation.

    That my background allows me to spot and discuss these issues does not make me against the rights of the alleged victim or against women in general.

    Transmogrifying my discussion into the notion that I am somehow a misogynist is precisely the wholly illogical rationale that typifies persons incapable of the very dispassionate analysis to which I have been referring.

    Of course, Hardy's innocence is plausible. All it would take is for the alleged victim to be lying about the incident in question. The "greedy gold digger" is a plausible theory in the Hardy case whether or not it is actually true.
     
  26. Lance19

    Lance19 BoltTalker

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2011
    Messages:
    4,233
    Ratings:
    +1,935
    No, his innocence is possible...not plausible...to any intelligent, fair-minded person weighing the evidence made public (It's not he said/she said: a female witness & female judge, etc. know far more than you and I)

    And sorry, but everything you type here represents you. Me too. All of us.
    If you don't want people to think you have issues with women, I suggest you represent yourself differently.
    Just as I'd tell Mel Gibson:
    "If you don't want people to think you have issues with Jews, I suggest you represent yourself differently."

    Anyway, you're on borrowed time with me...one or two short responses left, max.
     
  27. Chaincrusher

    Chaincrusher BoltTalker

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2015
    Messages:
    1,621
    Ratings:
    +250

    Again, you do not seem to grasp the significance of the bench trial functionally only counting if Hardy wins. On more than one occasion you have referenced a bench trial that essentially was a preseason game for the defense as if it meant anything. It did not.

    You seem not to recognize that North Carolina's system would naturally tend to cause the judge at a bench trial to give the benefit of the doubt to the prosecution (whether or not the judge should), which is the exact opposite of what a jury is instructed to do. Letting the case go to the jury is always the safe play for the bench trial judge because in that case the judge does not actually decide anything since the defendant has the right to a trial de novo before a jury which wipes out the bench trial judge's decision as if it never existed.

    That's what a trial de novo does. It cancels the result of the earlier trial and the parties start all over again.

    Further, you do not understand the evidence very well if you think the testimony given by the four non-law enforcement percipient witnesses was anything other than conflicting accounts of the alleged incident. It was very much he said/she said only there were two men and two women that gave testimony with the testimony of the men supporting the defense and the testimony of the women supporting the prosecution.

    Moreover, barring unassailable corroborative evidence, which does not exist in the Hardy case to the best of my knowledge, when there is conflicting testimony supporting two different theories of the case and it all seems credible on its face, outcomes supported by both lines of testimony are almost always plausible.

    In fact, when such cases are to be decided on the basis of picking and choosing between the conflicting testimony, it is usually the side that has the burden of proof that loses. (That would be the prosecution in this case.)

    Finally, your "representing yourself" discussion is bizarre and illogical.

    I have seldom witnessed anyone have as much difficulty as you in distinguishing between 1) someone with an extensive legal background discussing the nuances of the legal issues presented to offer some insight that readers without that background may not possess regarding the subject matter and 2) someone that actually is antagonistic toward women just because they are women.

    You seem so emotionally caught up in the domestic violence issue that you checked your brain at the door. You just can't seem to understand that when someone makes a legal analysis that does not fully support one side, that is not a personal attack on that person/side or upon any group of people of which that person/side is a member.

    I have done nothing in my discussion of this matter except explain the legal issues involved in the Hardy case and why it is improper to assume that Hardy is guilty without that matter being proven. There were no negative comments made about any woman therein on the basis that the person that was the subject of the comment was/is a woman.

    For instance, I criticized Ms. Brennan's assertion that Hardy owed an apology not because Ms. Brennan happened to be a woman, but because her position was/is wrong. And it is that kind of distinction that you have repeatedly failed to grasp.

    Accordingly, your comments comparing me to Mel Gibson fail so miserably to the point that, as I have noted above, they are bizarre and illogical. Heck, they are even pathetic in terms of just how far off base they are.

    Your comments are as misplaced as mine would be if I chose any member of this forum at random and started comparing that person to Adolf Hitler or any other person with a villainous reputation.

    Simply put, you are spewing a bunch of crazy nonsense.
     
  28. Lance19

    Lance19 BoltTalker

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2011
    Messages:
    4,233
    Ratings:
    +1,935
    I've learned that you just aren't good at admitting error...
    so you repeatedly try to bluster by folks with constant, sad appeals to authority
    (and I'm sorry, CC, but no matter how many times you insist that a law background means
    that your reasoning actually makes more sense than it appears to, it doesn't...really. )

    and burying any who contradict you in an avalanche of words (you're the "Winter Storm Jonas of B.S.") :p

    Not much more I can say. If you don't like looking like a misogynist, maybe revise your public face.
    If you don't like being known as a thin-skinned blowhard, tighten your prose and toss in a 100 word reply, occasionally. Look, I know you spent decades getting this way, and I have no fantasy that you're going to
    change anytime soon. Especially since you believe you're dealing with someone who doesn't understand
    this as well as you do. :whistling: But I have no stake in what you think, or desire to try to educate you.
    And this isn't the place to hash out the particulars of your issues.
    You're down to one final, short response, CC
    (barring a miraculous--and almost certainly impossible--satori-like moment on your part) :)
     

Share This Page