Jump to content

Time For Vic Beasley to Go


Flying Falcon
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 430
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

1 hour ago, FentayeJones said:

Reed and Alford were not hard cuts, they were no brainers that everybody predicted. Bryant really wasn't hard either. As great as he is, having a 4M a year kicker who is injury prone and about to turn 44 is a luxury that the team could not afford anymore especially with GT already on the roster. And Vic wont be cut,  if they decide to move on they will rescind his 5th year option and he will be a UFA and wont be able to sign with another team until free agency.

Which if we go that route, he will be part of the compensatory pick formula...which always can’t hurt depending on how much we sign.

Alford and Reed won’t count, but...

Bryant, Teco, Shelby, McClain, Bethel, Levitre, Hardy are all potentials....

 

As for Beasley, this draft is so deep at DL, I’d see if I could get a sign/trade deal for a 3rd round pick...

Thatd bring Montez Sweat into the picture and then a 2nd round OL plus two 3rds to go OL/DL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, DoYouSeeWhatHappensLarry said:

 

I'm not positive about this. I dont think you get comp picks for declining an option. Can't remember where I read that but for some reason I dont think we would. 

See I know we’re getting one for declining Bryant’s team option but I didn’t know if rescinding an option was different for some reason. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, DoYouSeeWhatHappensLarry said:

Irvin's option was declined, not rescinded so its not quite the same thing. That might be a false distinction but for some reason I think it makes a difference. 

 

It's possible that the difference is that SEA declined the 2016 option, rather than picked it up when they had the chance to do so prior to the 2015 season.  For us, we've already picked up the option...so that might actually be the difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, The Smart One said:

See I know we’re getting one for declining Bryant’s team option but I didn’t know if rescinding an option was different for some reason. 

I THINK it's a situation where the following happens:

1. The Falcons pick Beasley's Option up in 2018, giving him an injury-guaranteed 5th year in 2019
2. Beasley remains on the roster headed into 2019
3. The Falcons CUT Beasley to avoid the injury-guaranteed option year
4. Beasley would therefore not count as a UFA. 

Whereas a team declining a team option (as was the case with Bryant), the contract expires "naturally"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, TheDirtyWordII said:

It's possible that the difference is that SEA declined the 2016 option, rather than picked it up when they had the chance to do so prior to the 2015 season.  For us, we've already picked up the option...so that might actually be the difference.

See the post above*. 

Looking at the RG3 situation seems to be comparable. They technically had to "release" him prior to his 5th year locking in. 

.....which means we should have our answer in the next month. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Matt_The Iceman_Ryan said:

Which if we go that route, he will be part of the compensatory pick formula...which always can’t hurt depending on how much we sign.

Alford and Reed won’t count, but...

Bryant, Teco, Shelby, McClain, Bethel, Levitre, Hardy are all potentials....

 

As for Beasley, this draft is so deep at DL, I’d see if I could get a sign/trade deal for a 3rd round pick...

Thatd bring Montez Sweat into the picture and then a 2nd round OL plus two 3rds to go OL/DL

I feel like trading Beasley makes a lot of sense here. He’d make a lot of sense to pick up with no restructuring for a team with a lot of salary cap room like the raiders. If he busts you let him go. If he balls out you can tag him and make him do it again before extending. Low risk high reward. I could see getting a second for Beasley from the right team. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Theyhateme : ) said:

There's no need to re-signing him at any rate because we've seen his ceiling. He's not giving us what we need.

I mean.....if his ceiling is 15+ sacks and a First Team All Pro spot AND you reasonably think he can push that level of play in the future, you absolutely have to resign him. 

The concern with Beasley isnt a ceiling....its the year to year. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, TheDirtyWordII said:

I don't know how people don't get the concept of Beasley saying 'no' to Option #3 and having so many better options available to him.

This is literally a 'because real estate people are stupid Woody' situation.

Eh, I don't really understand why some people think the team just has to bend over and take it either.  Option 3 makes the most sense for the team, and possibly even Vic if he can return to form.  I don't think it's they don't get the concept, I think it's they don't agree with just outright paying him OR letting him walk.  It's not so black and white.

 

15 minutes ago, DoYouSeeWhatHappensLarry said:

 

I'm not positive about this. I dont think you get comp picks for declining an option. Can't remember where I read that but for some reason I dont think we would. 

I thought you did?  Though, I could be wrong because the comp system feels like you need an MBA to decipher.  I will google and see what I can find...you may be right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, DoYouSeeWhatHappensLarry said:

I mean.....if his ceiling is 15+ sacks and a First Team All Pro spot AND you reasonably think he can push that level of play in the future, you absolutely have to resign him. 

The concern with Beasley isnt a ceiling....its the year to year. 

He just hasn't shown much since then...I would say move on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the confusion comes from the idea of "rescinding" the 5th year option. I dont think that's technically what happens. 

I think the 5th year option extends the rookie deal by 1 year at a rate determined by draft position/transition tag value. It's guaranteed for injury alone. So in order to get rid of the player, you have to release him. 

So its not really a "rescind" situation. Because the option was already exercised last year. You can't un-exercise it. All you can do is cut the player. 

EDIT TO ADD: The Dolphins rescinded the 5th year option on JaWuan James...but then ended up honoring it? 

I think this analysis is correct. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, capologist said:

If DQ believes he can get the double digit sack version of Beasley back then it's a no brainer to keep him.  We'll see...

Hes trash, he shows promise when you reduce his snaps. 12 mil is too much for a situational rusher who still gets pushed past the play doing the same speed rush.. Gimme that 12 any day 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Dr Long Shot said:

Pass rushers don't grow on trees... even if he is just a 5-7 sack a season guy that's not exactly easy to find. If we can keep him at a reasonable contract we would be foolish not to.

There were 85 players that got at least 5 sacks last year. 
They literally do grow on trees. 

And 5 is Vic's second highest season...

Edited by MD-FalconFan13
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, DoYouSeeWhatHappensLarry said:

Irvin's option was declined, not rescinded so its not quite the same thing. That might be a false distinction but for some reason I think it makes a difference. 

 

Only thing I am seeing is about rescinded players who are cut do not net comp picks which leads me to believe that if we rescind and let him walk, we would get a comp pick but again, not 100%.  Either way, don't really want him to walk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, R_The_Great said:

And all of those justify the moronic decisions that we dealt with the past 2 years?  Petrino was in the AB era, so I don't want to hear that.  Sark is officially the O coordinator for Alabama?  WOW sign him up to head coach in the NFL.  What a qualified candidate!  Sark is so wanted, i mean the likes of Mike Murlarkey, Dirk Koetter, Kyle Shanahan, ALL became head coaches after being the Falcons offensive coordinator, BUT SARK is Special. HE IS A COLLEGE RANK COACH. OMG.  BRING SARK BACK!!!

You can go on another silly rant if you want, evidently Nick Saban thinks Sark is competent enough to be OC for arguably the best college program in the country. He also turned down an offer from the Arizona Cardinals for an OC job. So your silly obsession with Sark being the worst football coach in history holds no water. 

So what if AB hired Petrino? Nobody saw that train wreck coming as far as I remember.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, MD-FalconFan13 said:

There were 85 players that got at least 5 sacks last year. 
They literally do grow on trees. 

And 5 is Vic's second highest season...

Yes, but out of those 85 only 20 have had 5 sacks or more in the past four seasons... just looked it up lol. Having taken a look at each one of those 85 I can also guess Vic is probably top 15 in average sacks per season and probably top 10 among DEs during the last four years. But the point is a perennial 5-7 sack guy does not grow in trees at all, even though yes, a bunch of guys get 5 sacks or more in any given season... consistently doing it is another story though. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, athell said:

Eh, I don't really understand why some people think the team just has to bend over and take it either.  Option 3 makes the most sense for the team, and possibly even Vic if he can return to form.  I don't think it's they don't get the concept, I think it's they don't agree with just outright paying him OR letting him walk.  It's not so black and white.

Because he’s under contract right now to the Falcons for 1 more year at $12.81M.  There is no scenario that makes sense to Vic Beasley that commits him to a long term bargain contract.  None. 

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.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...