[jets0n]

Why can a team like SD put such a high tender on a player that doesn't have a significant contribution to the team? I mean, come on. You should have to at the very least be a full time starter for a team in order to demand a 1st round pick. Turner doesn't come close to having any impact on that team especially at RB. I mean, LT... HELLO!?!?! I just think it's really lame that they can say he's worth a 1st round pick if he goes elsewhere when he doesn't have a 1st round pick contribution and neither was he selected in the 1st round.

Anyone else have an opinion on this?

[kobeskool]

maybe barlow for turner

[beanz]

Why can a team like SD put such a high tender on a player that doesn't have a significant contribution to the team? I mean, come on. You should have to at the very least be a full time starter for a team in order to demand a 1st round pick. Turner doesn't come close to having any impact on that team especially at RB. I mean, LT... HELLO!?!?! I just think it's really lame that they can say he's worth a 1st round pick if he goes elsewhere when he doesn't have a 1st round pick contribution and neither was he selected in the 1st round.

Anyone else have an opinion on this?

That's how it works dude. There's nothing wrong with it. Players can become restricted free agents after their third year, so they are still young players. If the team feels they are a valuable, young commodity and they don't wanna lose the guy for nothing, they put a tender on him. Just because they aren't a starter doesn't mean the rules should change. It works both ways, since the Jets got a 1st rounder from the Skins for Coles.

Basically, the restricted free agents are young guys. The only ones who get attention are the high ceiling ones who intrigue teams a lot. Thats why they are willing to part with a pick(s) for them.

It's not lame, its set up to help teams keep their young players, or at least get something for them. Besides, it's only a one year tender, and if the team doesn't end up extending that contract, they become unrestricted the next year.

[Jetsfan115]

because the tender is only allowed ot an RFA which is usally only late round draft picks just coming off of their rookie contract. its set that way this way you can basically get an extra year to see if the player is worth keeping reltivly cheap and w/o needing to franchise a player not worth it and also allow u to gte something back for losing a good player. it makes perfect sense

[RetireChrebet]

Thats a very simple question...the league, writers, and public love not knowing the full potential of a player...in the games turner has played he has put up big numbers however can not displayuhis full potential due to the fact hes behind tomlison...no1 knows what he can do in a full season but what hes put up is big so u have to go with that

[JetsMan4012]

iknow what a tender is in football, yet i somehow thought u were talking about chicken tenders

[VaNDelaYInDusTrIEs]

iknow what a tender is in football, yet i somehow thought u were talking about chicken tenders

Haha. I knew what he meant when I read the title, but I considered saying something along the lines of, "me too, i'm really more of a wing guy...".

[JetsMan4012]

Haha. I knew what he meant when I read the title, but I considered saying something along the lines of, "me too, i'm really more of a wing guy...".

i usually prefer tenders of wings, however on a side note i had wings for dinner a couple nights ago, still have some left

[VaNDelaYInDusTrIEs]

They're really quite different. Wings are more work. If you just feel like relaxing, I say go with the tenders. No mess, no fuss. If you can get tenders with some buffalo sauce, that's just excellent. But when I'm not feeling lazy, I'll usually go with wings. Wings and football, it doesn't get much better than that.

[JetsMan4012]

They're really quite different. Wings are more work. If you just feel like relaxing, I say go with the tenders. No mess, no fuss. If you can get tenders with some buffalo sauce, that's just excellent. But when I'm not feeling lazy, I'll usually go with wings. Wings and football, it doesn't get much better than that.

yea the left over ones(and the ones we made, cause all of them were like this) had buffalo sauce on them, and now i feel like getting some of those leftovers

[jets0n]

That's how it works dude. There's nothing wrong with it. Players can become restricted free agents after their third year, so they are still young players. If the team feels they are a valuable, young commodity and they don't wanna lose the guy for nothing, they put a tender on him. Just because they aren't a starter doesn't mean the rules should change. It works both ways, since the Jets got a 1st rounder from the Skins for Coles.

Basically, the restricted free agents are young guys. The only ones who get attention are the high ceiling ones who intrigue teams a lot. Thats why they are willing to part with a pick(s) for them.

It's not lame, its set up to help teams keep their young players, or at least get something for them. Besides, it's only a one year tender, and if the team doesn't end up extending that contract, they become unrestricted the next year.

I'd say, yeah ok I agree but Coles was our #1 WR when he left for Washington. He was coming off a career year and he started all the games at the same time showing his dominance at the WR position. His situation is worthy of a 1st round pick. Michael Turner on the other hand never gets carries unless it's in a meaningless situation. I just don't see how they can say he justifies a 1st round pick. Nothing anyone can say to me makes it relevant either because of the sheer fact that no one in their right mind would give up a 1st round pick for the guy. People like John Abraham and Randy Moss go for 1st round picks. Not guys like Turner who aren't dominant at their positions let alone the fact that he's not even a starter. Who plays in front of him is irrelevant. If anything, the fact that he plays behind LT makes his stock drop because SD isn't losing a damn thing by not having him so he doesn't have true value to the team. He's obviously gonna be traded for a 3rd or a 2nd at the most to a team that wants him... ala the Jets. But there's no way anyone is gonna touch the guy if he's got a 1st round tender on him.

Point is this: SD shouldn't be allowed to put the value on him. It should be up to the league.

[gmany3k]

with great coaching and great blocking schemes just give it to Justin Miller and let him run down hill.
then tell san diego to suck their tender . we want a power runner in our division let Cmart pick our drafted RB. Tangini wants to build their own hand mand picked team.

[beanz]

But there's no way anyone is gonna touch the guy if he's got a 1st round tender on him.

Exactly, you solved your problem.

Putting the tender on him keeps teams away from him, thus giving him one more year with the team to prove he deserves a long term deal. A restricted free agent isnt quite a free agent yet, so its not unfair that the players current team can have some type of advantage geared towards them.

And by putting the high tender on him, it not only guarantees them something to replace a young player with potential, but it also scares some teams from going after him all together.

[RaphAC]

I'd say, yeah ok I agree but Coles was our #1 WR when he left for Washington. He was coming off a career year and he started all the games at the same time showing his dominance at the WR position. His situation is worthy of a 1st round pick. Michael Turner on the other hand never gets carries unless it's in a meaningless situation. I just don't see how they can say he justifies a 1st round pick. Nothing anyone can say to me makes it relevant either because of the sheer fact that no one in their right mind would give up a 1st round pick for the guy. People like John Abraham and Randy Moss go for 1st round picks. Not guys like Turner who aren't dominant at their positions let alone the fact that he's not even a starter. Who plays in front of him is irrelevant. If anything, the fact that he plays behind LT makes his stock drop because SD isn't losing a damn thing by not having him so he doesn't have true value to the team. He's obviously gonna be traded for a 3rd or a 2nd at the most to a team that wants him... ala the Jets. But there's no way anyone is gonna touch the guy if he's got a 1st round tender on him.

Point is this: SD shouldn't be allowed to put the value on him. It should be up to the league.

It would be all fine and well until the leaugue fucks us over and puts a low tender on one of our good players... so I think it should stay up to the team.

[Smedsthejet]

I'd say, yeah ok I agree but Coles was our #1 WR when he left for Washington. He was coming off a career year and he started all the games at the same time showing his dominance at the WR position. His situation is worthy of a 1st round pick. Michael Turner on the other hand never gets carries unless it's in a meaningless situation. I just don't see how they can say he justifies a 1st round pick. Nothing anyone can say to me makes it relevant either because of the sheer fact that no one in their right mind would give up a 1st round pick for the guy. People like John Abraham and Randy Moss go for 1st round picks. Not guys like Turner who aren't dominant at their positions let alone the fact that he's not even a starter. Who plays in front of him is irrelevant. If anything, the fact that he plays behind LT makes his stock drop because SD isn't losing a damn thing by not having him so he doesn't have true value to the team. He's obviously gonna be traded for a 3rd or a 2nd at the most to a team that wants him... ala the Jets. But there's no way anyone is gonna touch the guy if he's got a 1st round tender on him.

Point is this: SD shouldn't be allowed to put the value on him. It should be up to the league.

Turner and Coles are similar situations seeing as neither was a 1st round pick and both the teams could have tendered them lower meaning they wouldn't have got 1st round compensation. It's a fair system as it allows teams to get compensation for talented later round choices who are still young. Coles wasn't dominant at his position when he went for a 1st rounder too.
Also teams will go after him if he's got a 1st round tender because he is talented. SD will get a 1st for him if they decide to trade him considering a number of teams will be looking at him and therefore a bidding war will begin and SD will hold out for the best offer they can get.

[beanz]

Turner and Coles are similar situations seeing as neither was a 1st round pick and both the teams could have tendered them lower meaning they wouldn't have got 1st round compensation. It's a fair system as it allows teams to get compensation for talented later round choices who are still young. Coles wasn't dominant at his position when he went for a 1st rounder too.
Also teams will go after him if he's got a 1st round tender because he is talented. SD will get a 1st for him if they decide to trade him considering a number of teams will be looking at him and therefore a bidding war will begin and SD will hold out for the best offer they can get.

Yup. The system rewards teams who draft well and find potential studs in late rounds. Theres nothing wrong with that. The Chargers were smart enough to draft him, and now hes a RFA. They deserve to be able to do what they want with him. God forbid LT ever went down, they deserve the right to put whatever compensation they want to on their own player.

[GangGreenGuy]

I'd say, yeah ok I agree but Coles was our #1 WR when he left for Washington. He was coming off a career year and he started all the games at the same time showing his dominance at the WR position. His situation is worthy of a 1st round pick. Michael Turner on the other hand never gets carries unless it's in a meaningless situation. I just don't see how they can say he justifies a 1st round pick. Nothing anyone can say to me makes it relevant either because of the sheer fact that no one in their right mind would give up a 1st round pick for the guy. People like John Abraham and Randy Moss go for 1st round picks. Not guys like Turner who aren't dominant at their positions let alone the fact that he's not even a starter. Who plays in front of him is irrelevant. If anything, the fact that he plays behind LT makes his stock drop because SD isn't losing a damn thing by not having him so he doesn't have true value to the team. He's obviously gonna be traded for a 3rd or a 2nd at the most to a team that wants him... ala the Jets. But there's no way anyone is gonna touch the guy if he's got a 1st round tender on him.

Point is this: SD shouldn't be allowed to put the value on him. It should be up to the league.

It’s a lot more complicated then what’s being said here.

The problem is that when the "RFA" was initially instituted by the league & the union the cap was much more of a concern then it is now after the new network contract. The compensation picks due to a team is in relationship the contract tender (in essence new salary) the player receives.

If the Jet’s had upped Coles tender (in essence salary) by about another $150,000 the Jet’s would have received a 1st & 3rd round pick for Coles.

The league never envisioned that teams would have enough salary cap to be tendering backups with 1st round compensation.

[VaNDelaYInDusTrIEs]

It’s a lot more complicated then what’s being said here.

The problem is that when the "RFA" was initially instituted by the league & the union the cap was much more of a concern then it is now after the new network contract. The compensation picks due to a team is in relationship the contract tender (in essence new salary) the player receives.

If the Jet’s had upped Coles tender (in essence salary) by about another $150,000 the Jet’s would have received a 1st & 3rd round pick for Coles.

The league never envisioned that teams would have enough salary cap to be tendering backups with 1st round compensation.

That's a good point. If they put the first round tender on him, they have to pay him more. I'm not sure how much it is, but it's more than any backup RB should get.