Jump to content

Larson signs


Kazkal

Recommended Posts

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...