Kazkal Posted March 20, 2007 Report Share Posted March 20, 2007 was hoping they'd get him to a long term contract. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoosierCat Posted March 20, 2007 Report Share Posted March 20, 2007 They should still be able to get a deal done. I expected Larson would sign, $1.3m is good money for a punter. For a long-term deal they will just roll that into a bonus. Only bad thing is it still takes up $1.3m versus the cap; a long term deal would probably save $400-500k. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stripes Posted March 20, 2007 Report Share Posted March 20, 2007 He had his best year by far in 2006. Good to keep him in the fold if he continues playing like that. I don't want to see 2005-like inconsistency though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhoDeyForever Posted March 20, 2007 Report Share Posted March 20, 2007 Good deal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kazkal Posted March 21, 2007 Author Report Share Posted March 21, 2007 Aye,With all those insane deals going down I just don't wanna see a team pay him like 2 million a year next season lol. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HairOnFire Posted March 21, 2007 Report Share Posted March 21, 2007 Wow, a punter making 1.3 million. More proof of how cheap Mike Brown is, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShulaSteakhouse Posted March 21, 2007 Report Share Posted March 21, 2007 Wow, a punter making 1.3 million. More proof of how cheap Mike Brown is, right?Nah, just more proof of his incompetence, and the fact he couldn't just lock him up long term and save $ under the cap this year and next, and get it over with. (we'll see if that happens) Is he hoping Larson has a bad year and is cheaper next time? That's a good winning attitude.Instead he's cutting guys like Simmons to keep a punter, before the draft, with no real backup plan.Great management! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stripes Posted March 21, 2007 Report Share Posted March 21, 2007 Nah, just more proof of his incompetence, and the fact he couldn't just lock him up long term and save $ under the cap this year and next, and get it over with. (we'll see if that happens)Larson himself is half of that discussion, isn't he? Mikey can't just hypnotize him and force him to sign.Is he hoping Larson has a bad year and is cheaper next time? That's a good winning attitude.Why make that assumption? Does that really seem any more conceivable to you than him keeping Larson in place because he's a solid punter and a long term deal wasn't of huge importance given the tender already in place? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kazkal Posted March 21, 2007 Author Report Share Posted March 21, 2007 Why woulden't larson want to sign it this year though? he's the highest paid punter ever no? would seem retarded not too sign it then extend. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShulaSteakhouse Posted March 21, 2007 Report Share Posted March 21, 2007 Nah, just more proof of his incompetence, and the fact he couldn't just lock him up long term and save $ under the cap this year and next, and get it over with. (we'll see if that happens)Larson himself is half of that discussion, isn't he? Mikey can't just hypnotize him and force him to sign.Is he hoping Larson has a bad year and is cheaper next time? That's a good winning attitude.Why make that assumption? Does that really seem any more conceivable to you than him keeping Larson in place because he's a solid punter and a long term deal wasn't of huge importance given the tender already in place?Why wouldn't it be of importance? Why go through this having to re-sign him at the highest possible tender and cap amount every year, if you like the guy? It's not as if he hasn't had several years here to prove himself already.I would feel differently if Larson were a rook or a one year player.More likely - contrary to Hair's knee jerk Mike Brown defense reply - I'm guessing the Bengals' take the 1.3 hit on Larson this year because they have to at this point - and look for a cheaper option for next season, because Mike Brown IS TOO CHEAP to pay a punter that much for more than one season.We'll see. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HairOnFire Posted March 21, 2007 Report Share Posted March 21, 2007 Instead he's cutting guys like Simmons to keep a punter, before the draft, with no real backup plan. Your thinking process seems exactly like an aging Brian Simmons plays football. Soft and slow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.