Chiefs can rescind the tag on Albert

[FRCDFED]

I thought I saw a comment yesterday that Albert could hold out if he thought there was a chance they were going to have him play guard. I am in no way condoning that; however, it appears from this article that it would be in his best interest to sign his tender and show up.

13 fewer tags than last year

Posted by Mike Florio on March 5, 2013, 8:39 AM EST

The dust has settled on the franchise-tag designation period. Unlike last year, when 21 tags flew, only three were applied in 2013.

So what gives?

The easy explanation is that this year’s crop of players eligible for the tag wasn’t as good as last year’s. But it’s likely more complicated than that.

Ravens quarterback Joe Flacco would have been this year’s Drew Brees, if the Ravens had been willing or able to carry his exclusive franchise tender, like the Saints did last year with Brees. These deals get done on a deadline basis, and for the Ravens the real deadline was having to choose between two equally bad evils: more than $19 million under the exclusive tag or nearly $15 million under the non-exclusive tag, along with an opportunity for the Browns to try to steal the Super Bowl MVP.

The Titans got cold feet regarding the possibility of using the franchise tag on tight end Jared Cook. or he would have been No. 9. If he’d signed the offer and if he’d then won the inevitable grievance arguing that he’s a receiver, the Titans would have been paying Cook more in 2013 than they’ll be paying Chris Johnson.

The Titans could have instead used the tag on kicker Rob Bironas. Last year, the tag was applied to six punter/kickers. But with the market for kickers and punters expected to be soft this year, teams other than the Colts apparently opted not to invest nearly $3 million in a veteran, given that low-cost options like Blair Walsh and Greg Zeuerlein were floating in last year’s draft pool.

The biggest factor for the lack of tags could have been the salary cap. Even though the franchise tenders are now based on the five-year average cap percentage consumed by the five highest-paid players at each position, it becomes more difficult to give one large chunk of cap space to one player at a time when the total cap grew by only 0.5 percent in 2012 and 1.9 percent in 2013. For too many teams, the upward pressure of salary increases coupled with a relatively static total spending limit has made eight-figure salaries for non-superstar players a luxury that no longer can be afforded.

It should be no surprise, for example, that the Patriots didn’t use it. At a time when quarterback Tom Brady’s cap number will be $13.8 million, how could they justify tying up $10.8 million in cornerback Aqib Talib or $9.8 million in tackle Sebastian Vollmer or $11.4 million in receiver Wes Welker?

The next question is whether the one-year franchise tenders will become long-term deals. Teams have until July 15 to make that transformation.

If not, the players who have received the franchise tenders but who won’t be signing them any time soon need to worry about something that hasn’t happened in eight years: A team rescinding the tag.

Chiefs left tackle Branden Albert should be specifically concerned about that. After all, his new head coach, Andy Reid, did it twice in Philly, to defensive tackle Corey Simon in 2005 and to linebacker Jeremiah Trotter three years earlier. If/when the Chiefs take left tackle Luke Joeckel with the first pick in the 2013 draft, Albert may want to quickly put pen to paper for his $9.828 million salary, or the chance to do so may permanently evaporate.

Then, he would end up on the open market in May, long after the big money has flowed for the year.

Given the new realities of a cap-strapped NFL, that’s a real concern that every franchise player should now have.

[The Franchise]

Originally Posted by patteeu

If the Chiefs take an offensive lineman at 1.1, it's not likely that he'd sit. Both he and Albert would play unless he's a huge disappointment.

They're not moving Albert to guard. That would cause him to hold out.

If they draft a LT at 1.1 and move him to RT......you moved a top 10 RT to guard.....which is reeruned.

Drafting a LT at 1.1 and moving him to OG is beyond reeruned.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by KC_Lee

It's the exceptional depth at OT that has pushed teams over the top to win the Super Bowl.

I mean who can forget the dazzling performance of the depth charts of recent Super Bowl winners?!? I know I for one will be telling my grandchildren of the nearly transcendental performance of Baltimore's depth chart last year in the Super Bowl.

All four of the starting offensive tackles in the super bowl were first round picks. Even one of the starting guards was a first round pick.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by Pestilence

They're not moving Albert to guard. That would cause him to hold out.

If they draft a LT at 1.1 and move him to RT......you moved a top 10 RT to guard.....which is reeruned.

Drafting a LT at 1.1 and moving him to OG is beyond reeruned.

I don't think Albert would be the one moved to guard, but any of the three options is possible and none of them are reeruned if they make your team significantly better.

[bowener]

I'm starting to believe my own made up reason for the Alex Smith trade. That we traded for him because he was such a good teammate and sat quietly once he was passed over for Kap. It is well known now that he helped Kap as much as he could. Chiefs needed a backup and a vet, especially a vet willing to ride the pine when asked, and to help tutor the young guys. I know it won't happen, but I am still pulling for Geno at #1. If he falters or gets injured, AS is there for a few games to hold the course.

[mr. tegu]

Originally Posted by patteeu

I don't think Albert would be the one moved to guard, but any of the three options is possible and none of them are reeruned if they make your team significantly better.

None of those scenarios make the team signicantly better. Chiefs QBs were sacked 40 times, 11th worst in the league, but we know a lot of that has to do with the horrible QBs themselves and the fact that we played from behind so much.

We were 5th in the league in rushing yards. Our o-line is fine and basically nothing can be done with it to make it significantly better than it was last season and as it sits right now.

[Fish]

Originally Posted by patteeu

All four of the starting offensive tackles in the super bowl were first round picks. Even one of the starting guards was a first round pick.

Albert was #15 overall in the first round. Eric Winston was #66 overall, high in the third.

We're fine......

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by mr. tegu

None of those scenarios make the team signicantly better. Chiefs QBs were sacked 40 times, 11th worst in the league, but we know a lot of that has to do with the horrible QBs themselves and the fact that we played from behind so much.

We were 5th in the league in rushing yards. Our o-line is fine and basically nothing can be done with it to make it significantly better than it was last season and as it sits right now.

I don't accept your evaluation. Replacing the worst member of the line with a guy talented enough to be considered for the 1.1 pick is going to make the line better. More importantly, it's likely to make the line better over the next several years, not just in year one.

[Pasta Little Brioni]

Originally Posted by patteeu

If the Chiefs take an offensive lineman at 1.1, it's not likely that he'd sit. Both he and Albert would play unless he's a huge disappointment.

That would be an absolutely awful wastes of resources. We'd have spent the following picks on the O-line....

Round Pos

1 LT
1 LT
2 LG
2 C
3 RG
3 LT

Along with big FA bucks on a RT.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by Fish

Albert was #15 overall in the first round. Eric Winston was #66 overall, high in the third.

We're fine......

We could be better. The only question is whether or not it's worth the sacrifice. I understand that you don't think so.

[Pasta Little Brioni]

Originally Posted by patteeu

All four of the starting offensive tackles in the super bowl were first round picks. Even one of the starting guards was a first round pick.

What about the previous 10 years?

[mr. tegu]

Originally Posted by patteeu

I don't accept your evaluation. Replacing the worst member of the line with a guy talented enough to be considered for the 1.1 pick is going to make the line better. More importantly, it's likely to make the line better over the next several years, not just in year one.

Would it make it better? Sure. Significantly better? No. A waste of a pick? Absolutely.

[The Franchise]

Originally Posted by patteeu

I don't accept your evaluation. Replacing the worst member of the line with a guy talented enough to be considered for the 1.1 pick is going to make the line better. More importantly, it's likely to make the line better over the next several years, not just in year one.

No it's not....because you don't know if a player like Joeckel can realistically make the switch to OG.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by PGM

That would be an absolutely awful wastes of resources. We'd have spent the following picks on the O-line....

Round Pos

1 LT
1 LT
2 LG
2 C
3 RG
3 LT

Along with big FA bucks on a RT.

Past picks are sunk costs. They shouldn't affect future decisions except to the extent that they may still have lingering effects on cash and cap salary.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by Pestilence

No it's not....because you don't know if a player like Joeckel can realistically make the switch to OG.

This is still a low football IQ take.

[Pasta Little Brioni]

Anyone that reads post 53 and still wants an OL early in this draft cannot be helped.