PDA

View Full Version : GIANTS LIKELY WON'T FRANCHISE MARIO MANNINGHAM



RoanokeFan
02-22-2012, 01:27 PM
GIANTS LIKELY WON'T FRANCHISE MARIO MANNINGHAM (http://network.yardbarker.com/nfl/article_external/giants_likely_wont_franchise_mario_manningham/10041916)

"According to Jason LaCanfora of the NFL Network (http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d82710915/article/plenty-of-players-preparing-for-franchise-tag), the New York Giants will
likely not place the franchise tag on wide receiver Mario Manningham.


The Giants are a franchise that typically never uses the the franchise tag
any way and it looks like this year wont be any different.</p>


Manningham is a good receiver that has a knack for making plays, but hes
very inconsistent with his route running and sometimes makes routine catches
more difficult then they need to be."</p>

Shockdisnation03
02-22-2012, 01:34 PM
I knew that without the article....lol

Kase-1
02-22-2012, 01:35 PM
Who was the last player we franchised, I feel like we NEVER give anyone that tag

slipknottin
02-22-2012, 01:47 PM
Jacobs got the tag, but it was only for about a month while they renegotiated a long term deal for him.


Roanoke, slightly off topic, but I remember an article last year posted during training camp that had all the weigh-ins for the players at camp. Do you remember that article?

greenca190
02-22-2012, 01:51 PM
Yeah, this is kind of common sense. Not only do the giants rarely tag players, but manning ham doesn't warrant a 9.5 million dollar pay day.

nygsb42champs
02-22-2012, 02:10 PM
I would be shocked if the franchised him. That would be paying a huge amount to a #3 WR.

WR4Life
02-22-2012, 02:14 PM
I would be shocked if the franchised him. That would be paying a huge amount to a #3 WR.

He would be getting more money that is for sure. I do not know the ins and outs of it under the new cba but I'm pretty sure people who get franchise tagged do not make as much as they used to when being franchised. I'm pretty positive that it isn't the average of the top 5 players at the position anymore. I think I remember reading somewhere that if they are franchised once, then they are owed 120% of what they made in their last year or something. Then the rules change for the 2nd time and the maximum 3rd time.

Anyone can feel free to correct me if I am wrong.

greenca190
02-22-2012, 02:16 PM
I would be shocked if the franchised him. That would be paying a huge amount to a #3 WR.

He would be getting more money that is for sure. I do not know the ins and outs of it under the new cba but I'm pretty sure people who get franchise tagged do not make as much as they used to when being franchised. I'm pretty positive that it isn't the average of the top 5 players at the position anymore. I think I remember reading somewhere that if they are franchised once, then they are owed 120% of what they made in their last year or something. Then the rules change for the 2nd time and the maximum 3rd time.

Anyone can feel free to correct me if I am wrong.

It's still te average of the top five players at the position. That 120 percent figure is if they have been franchised two years in a row. Therefore, they'd be making 120 percent of their original franchised tender.

slipknottin
02-22-2012, 02:17 PM
It's still te average of the top five players at the position.

They changed it, no longer is it the average of the top 5.

RoanokeFan
02-22-2012, 02:24 PM
Jacobs got the tag, but it was only for about a month while they renegotiated a long term deal for him.


Roanoke, slightly off topic, but I remember an article last year posted during training camp that had all the weigh-ins for the players at camp. Do you remember that article?

I don't, but let me see if I can sniff it out....

RoanokeFan
02-22-2012, 02:25 PM
It's still te average of the top five players at the position.

They changed it, no longer is it the average of the top 5.

Don't they now also go back over the last five years as well? That really reduces the salary.

Kruunch
02-22-2012, 02:28 PM
It's still te average of the top five players at the position.

They changed it, no longer is it the average of the top 5.

It's still the average of the Top 5 ... but over the past 5 years now.

So franchise tag numbers for this year are, on average, about 15-20% lower than last years' tag numbers.

Even so, a tag would put MM at $8mil this year I believe. No way the Giants give him that.

I doubt MM stays on the team ... between the SB run this year and his season in 2010 (top 6 in plays over 20 yards and top 11 in plays over 40), some team will dump $5-6mil/yr on him which I don't see the Giants matching.

greenca190
02-22-2012, 02:29 PM
It's still te average of the top five players at the position.

They changed it, no longer is it the average of the top 5.

Don't they now also go back over the last five years as well?* That really reduces the salary.


Yes! I stand corrected. It is the average of the top paid player at a certain position over the span of the last five years. Sorry for the confusion.

greenca190
02-22-2012, 02:32 PM
I'm surprise it's only 8 mm after fitzgeralds contract last off season

WR4Life
02-22-2012, 02:47 PM
It's still te average of the top five players at the position.

They changed it, no longer is it the average of the top 5.

It's still the average of the Top 5 ... but over the past 5 years now.

So franchise tag numbers for this year are, on average, about 15-20% lower than last years' tag numbers.

Even so, a tag would put MM at $8mil this year I believe. No way the Giants give him that.

I doubt MM stays on the team ... between the SB run this year and his season in 2010 (top 6 in plays over 20 yards and top 11 in plays over 40), some team will dump $5-6mil/yr on him which I don't see the Giants matching.

It seems to be a bit more complex than that. After some research this is what I found on profootballtalk

Under Article 9, Section 2(a)(i) of the CBA, the franchise tender for each position arises from a formula that takes the value of franchise tags for the last five years, adds them up, divides them by the total value of the salary cap for the last five years, and multiplies the resulting percentage by the salary cap for the current year. (Since there was no salary cap in 2010, the number to be used will be the average of the salary cap in 2009 and 2011.)

For quarterbacks, the 2012 tender will be $14.4 million. It was $16.1 million in 2011.

For running backs, the 2012 tender will be $7.7 million. It was $9.6 million in 2011.

For receivers, it will be $9.6 million, down from $11.4 million.

For tight ends, the number drops from $7.3 million to $5.4 million.

For offensive linemen (yes, theyre all jumbled together regardless of whether they play center, guard, or tackle), the franchise tender falls from $10.1 million to $9.4 million.

For defensive ends, the $13 million franchise tender in 2011 becomes $10.6 million in 2011.

For defensive tackles, the franchise tender will be $7.9 million, down from $12.5 million the prior year.

For linebackers, the number moves from $10.1 million in 2011 to $8.8 million in 2012.

For cornerbacks, the tender falls from $13.5 million to $10.6 million.

For safeties, the new number is $6.2 million; last year it was $8.8 million.

Though the NFL.com item ignored the kicker/punter number, it appears that the amount was $3.25 million in 2011. Multiple reports regarding kickers who may be franchised this year have pegged it in the range of $2.5 million.

Toadofsteel
02-22-2012, 02:47 PM
If the giants use their tag at all this offseason, it's going to be on Weatherford... and thats only if they can't negotiate a long-term deal.

bklyn1028
02-22-2012, 03:12 PM
If the giants use their tag at all this offseason, it's going to be on Weatherford... and thats only if they can't negotiate a long-term deal.

I'm gonna tag my nana for her sausage with peppers and onions......hmmmmmmm

RoanokeFan
02-22-2012, 04:55 PM
I, for one, am, glad they changed the formula. Some of those QB's were getting close to my compensation package [:S]

RoanokeFan
02-22-2012, 04:59 PM
If the giants use their tag at all this offseason, it's going to be on Weatherford... and thats only if they can't negotiate a long-term deal.

The first, last, and only REAL franchise tag was placed on LT Jumbo Elliott in 1993. They applied the tag to Brandon Jacobs in 2009, but he came to terms and didn't spend any time under the tag.

Zoboomafoo
02-23-2012, 09:07 AM
The 120% rule still applies if 120% of the last year's cap number (salary plus prorated signing bonus and other bonuses) is greater than the franchise tag number. That's why if the Texans franchise Mario Williams, it wouldn't be at the 10.6mil franchise number, but 18.8mil (although I keep seeing $22mil thrown around, but I'm not sure why).

I have not been able to find out if there are still the exclusive and non-exclusive tiers of franchise tenders. It used to be that non-exclusive was the average of the top five salaries of the previous year and two number one picks as compensation if the player were signed away, with exclusive being top five of current year.