Mario movement rumors (MERGED) Signs with Buffalo $100 million

[ChampionTexan]

His cap hit would be 16-17m next season IF franchised.

I actually think it would be more than that

I think the franchise tag is entirely impossible for Mario this offseason. Casserly said yesterday that the franchise tag number for Mario is in the neighborhood of $22 million.

I don't trust Casserly much, but I've heard this from others in the local/national media, plus as much as I usually don't trust Casserly, I'm starting to think that Spotrac is pretty worthless. I have yet to see a single source besides them that provides 2011 cap amounts, and I honestly question their info regarding both Mario and Jacoby.

 

[PapaL]

Random Thought: Day 1 of our offseason and we're 15 pages into Mario's contract. Gonna be a long offseason.

 

[Brandon420tx]

We won't be franchising him, If we do we will "have" to trade him because we won't have the room. If we have to trade him, we have to wait for him to sign the Tender, since we're trading him if he signs the Tender, he doesn't sign it unless the trade is to a team he actually wants to go to.

Too many variables, its either new contract or he walks. I'm done with this though, I'm tired of arguing money that's not mine to spend

 

[ChampionTexan]

Random Thought: Day 1 of our offseason and we're 15 pages into Mario's contract. Gonna be a long offseason.

Option 1 - 15 pages (and counting) of whether or not to bring back our stud DE/OLB

Option 2 - 15 pages (or more) regarding or bird-brain coach, miserly owner, moronic GM, horrible coordinators, etc.

We're doing fine!

 

[gafftop]

Simplified possible Mario outcomes next season: 4/19/11
1. Plays good when healthy but has some type of nagging injury as last two years
2. Does not adapt to 3-4.
3. Plays great in his contract year

In 1 we get probably nothing or do we get compensation because we do not sign as we did with Dunta. Last pick in draft. LOL

In 2 same as 1

In 3, do you want to give Mario say 20+ million for the next 5 years based on his last year of performance. Say the cap is 120 million. If you divide in half, half for offense and half for defense, do you really want to give Mario 33% of all money for defense? I sure don't. DO YOU?

In reality probably no player is worth that large of % of cap. Maybe Peyton or Brady etc QBs of that caliber may be the only position that warrants that and even then it is a crap shoot because of injury.

The above is why I think IF you can get a good deal in a trade this year you do it.

It is very likely that other teams view Mario in the same way and will give nothing for him this year. I don't know. But if there are teams out that that covet him I think it should seriously be considered by the Texans.

I don't think Aso is a good deal based on reasoning above.
Just my opinion.

This post started in 3/7/11 trying to decide what we could do to get Aso. It morphed into should we just trade Mario before the 2011 season to what to do with Mario now that the season is over.
The above posted on 4/19/11 BEFORE last season started for all you just tuning in after the Texans last game to Ravens.

It was my contention that the best plan of action was to trade Mario prior to the start of last season. Any outcome once this season was over was inferior to the choice we would have now. I felt he would probably not stay healthy for the season and I still think that is a HUGE factor in determining what to do with him now. I will be curious to see if a lot of Mario's team mates start emphatically backing him up. To date the only ones I hear talking about how Mario is the best defensive player on the team is the talking heads.

 

[Dutchrudder]

The above posted on 4/19/11 BEFORE last season started for all you just tuning in after the Texans last game to Ravens.

It was my contention that the best plan of action was to trade Mario prior to the start of last season. Any outcome once this season was over was inferior to the choice we would have now. I felt he would probably not stay healthy for the season and I still think that is a HUGE factor in determining what to do with him now. I will be curious to see if a lot of Mario's team mates start emphatically backing him up. To date the only ones I hear talking about how Mario is the best defensive player on the team is the talking heads.

 

[amazing80]

My stance is still the same, Mario SHOULD be traded, but the more I think about it, the less likely that is to happen. Someone will have to give up picks for him and then turn around and make him a huge offer that he will have to agree to. So we would need the most we could get from him, plus a good team so he would be willing to sign long term with them AND they would have to be able to afford him.....that narrows it done, to practically 0 teams....welcome back Mario, strap up and see you on the field in 5 months when OTAs start

 

[Mustyzulu1979]

Mario is too good to trade away. I keep thinking how good our D would have been with him in the lineup.

 

[TexCanada]

I think a big part of the decision could be Mario's willingness or unwillingness to play the 3-4 DE spot. If he is willing to play there along with 3-4 OLB and also put his hand in the dirt as a 4-3 DE on third downs then he is extremely valuable for us and should be signed. We don't have weaknesses at those spots, but he could instantly turn our front seven into one of the best in the league if he is willing to sacrifice some personal stats for the good of the team.

I would base my decision on Mario on a conversation with him (and I'm sure many of these have already taken place) to see how bad he wants to be a part of this defense. If he is willing to do whatever it takes then we should find a way to get him signed.

 

[amazing80]

I think a big part of the decision could be Mario's willingness or unwillingness to play the 3-4 DE spot. If he is willing to play there along with 3-4 OLB and also put his hand in the dirt as a 4-3 DE on third downs then he is extremely valuable for us and should be signed. We don't have weaknesses at those spots, but he could instantly turn our front seven into one of the best in the league if he is willing to sacrifice some personal stats for the good of the team.

I would base my decision on Mario on a conversation with him (and I'm sure many of these have already taken place) to see how bad he wants to be a part of this defense. If he is willing to do whatever it takes then we should find a way to get him signed.

Thats exactly what he was doing this year

 

[badboy]

My stance is still the same, Mario SHOULD be traded, but the more I think about it, the less likely that is to happen. Someone will have to give up picks for him and then turn around and make him a huge offer that he will have to agree to. So we would need the most we could get from him, plus a good team so he would be willing to sign long term with them AND they would have to be able to afford him.....that narrows it done, to practically 0 teams....welcome back Mario, strap up and see you on the field in 5 months when OTAs start

If we can sign him to a cap friendly deal so can others. Having a 3-4 OLB or 4-3 DE of his calibre could bring some good offers.

 

[TexCanada]

Thats exactly what he was doing this year

Then I think we should fight hard to retain him. I would just want to know for sure that he would be willing to play 3-4 DE if, for example, A. Smith got injured.

 

[badboy]

Then I think we should fight hard to retain him. I would just want to know for sure that he would be willing to play 3-4 DE if, for example, A. Smith got injured.

Think I'd move Mitchell to cover for Smith & leave Mario where he is.

 

[TexCanada]

Think I'd move Mitchell to cover for Smith & leave Mario where he is.

Thats fine too, I would just want to know exactly where his head is at. I want to know that he is here to win football games and not just put up stats. Personally I believe that he is in the right frame of mind and I would work hard to get him signed at a reasonable cap number.

 

[thunderkyss]

His cap hit would be 16-17m next season IF franchised.

Understood. But you've got someone saying Mario will demand $16m/yr, that he's not worth 1/10 the cap......

Most of us are saying we should sign him to a long term deal. Not franchise him.

 

[CloakNNNdagger]

Came across this interesting article about Franchise and Trade.

2012 NFL Free Agents: Packers Would Be Brilliant to Sign-and-Trade Matt Flynn

by Timothy Rapp
(Featured Columnist) on January 3, 2012

The Green Bay Packers are sitting on a golden commodity: the right arm of backup quarterback Matt Flynn. But what they do with him may very well determine not only their own future, but the future of organizations such as the Washington Redskins or Cleveland Browns.

What am I talking about?

Flynn—coming off of a win against the Detroit Lions that saw him go 31-of-44 for 480 yards and six touchdowns—is set to become a free agent this year, and more than one organization would be licking their chops at the chance to sign him, especially considering that one less highly-touted quarterback is hitting the 2012 NFL Draft after prospect Matt Barkley decided to return to USC.

But Green Bay would have to sign Flynn to trade him, and that's where things get tricky. Tom Silverstein of the Milwaukee-Wisconsin Journal Sentinel did an excellent job of breaking down the Packers' options, which I'll paraphrase here:

If the Packers decide to apply the franchise tag to Flynn, any team that wanted to sign the quarterback would have to give the team two first-round draft picks. Slapping the franchise tag on Flynn won't be cheap, however—last year, the quarterback tag was worth $14 million and will be similar or higher this season.

Technically speaking, the Packers aren't allowed to apply the franchise tag with the clear intent to then turn around and trade him, since trading franchised players is prohibited. According to Silverstein, however, the NFL tends to look the other way in such instances.

So the Packers would look to negotiate a trade with another team, sign Flynn to that contract, work out the deal so that they aren't on the hook for a cap hit and turn around and deal the quarterback.

The risk is if they sign him to the franchise tag and can't work out a deal with another team. As Silverstein points out, that would both crush their salary cap and prevent them from applying the tag to a player they would likely otherwise use it for, tight end Jermichael Finley.

With teams like the Browns and Redskins interested, it's a possibility that the Packers could pull the trade off. Then again, as Steve Doerschuk of Cantonrep.com writes, the Browns may have other quarterback plans, from sticking to Colt McCoy to trading the farm for the right to draft Andrew Luck. Or maybe they'll stay put and wait for their franchise quarterback to fall to them:

An interesting twist in the Flynn story: The Browns also are weighing the option of spending a No. 4 overall draft pick on Heisman Trophy winner Robert Griffin III.

If the Packers are able to trade Flynn, it will be a stroke of genius from general manager Ted Thompson. If the rest of the league is smart, they'll refuse to negotiate with the Packers and throw a ton of money at Flynn to ensure they land him when he hits the free-agent market.

Then again, who ever knows what Daniel Snyder will do?]link

 

[badboy]

The tag requiring 2 firsts is not the only one available.

 

[Rey]

Texans should trade mario and yates and whatever else they need to for rg3.

 

[infantrycak]

The tag requiring 2 firsts is not the only one available.

Effectively it is. A transition tag is useless and carries no compensation. An exclusive rights franchise tag doesn't let the player negotiate with other teams so there is no compensation set since they can't talk. A non-exclusive franchise tag allows negotiation but is but for agreement of the teams to something lessor 2 1sts.

 

[Texecutioner]

Texans should trade mario and yates and whatever else they need to for rg3.

That wouldn't be enough Rey. Be real.


I like the thinking though.


It would have to be more like Mario, Yates, a 1st rounder, and 3rd rounder.

That still might not even get it done.

I'd do it though. RG3 looks like one of the best prospects of all time coming into this league.

 

[ObsiWan]

That wouldn't be enough Rey. Be real.


I like the thinking though.


It would have to be more like Mario, Yates, a 1st rounder, and 3rd rounder.

That still might not even get it done.

I'd do it though. RG3 looks like one of the best prospects of all time coming into this league.

Having given up all of that, would you be willing to let RGIII learn behind Schaub for a year or two? You're not only giving up a "special" defensive player (Wade's assessment) but you're giving away his (Wade's) chance to snag a 1st round quality replacement and/or our badly needed #2 WR. All for a guy that will be a backup for a year or two.

Are you really good with that?

You could be right. It just seems a bit steep to me.

 

[GP]

I don't think RG3 would land on the Texans even if he fell to us at our initial spot in Round 1. To me, Kubiak is happy discovering some raw talent like Yates rather than the hyped up guy ESPN shows every day on their highlights show.

Schaub was a backup in Atlanta, and we snagged him just weeks before the Vick Saga broke national news. Yates was a guy not even invited to perform at NFL Combine, he ends up throwing passes to the ones who DID get invited...Kubiak drafts him in Round 5. See a pattern?

Kubiak will bank on Yates as the season starter, and will work Schaub into the QB1 spot in 2012 (when Schaub is 100% ready on that foot of his) to see if Schaub needs a serious look at a new contract in 2013 or if it's time to part ways. Kubiak likes BOTH those guys, he isn't going to add RG3 to the mix for the sport of it, IMO.

The whole IDENTITY that Kubiak has built here is one of "You want to play football? You do, huh? OK. Let's see how bad you want to be here." I cannot see a single player he's added who is a self-serving, prime time type of guy. Kubiak wants guys like Walter, Anderson, Schaub, OD, Foster, the guys who would play football for a sandwich if it meant they were on a good team and won games due to the talent and hustle of the guys surrounding them.

RG3 is going to want to be the starter somewhere right out of the gate, guys. His agent will demand it. Endorsement agents will demand it. Our team is not a good destination for all that stuff.

I, too, had once daydreamed about having RG3 as our future QB. But with what I saw in Yates in the 1st Bengals game (zipping the game-winning pass to Walter and clinching AFC South and playoffs in that one toss) and what I saw in the two games in the playoffs, I think Kubiak will stick with Schaub or Yates. He will use his 1st rounder or trade down.

I want Kubiak to go bananas in the draft on offense, though. But the whole RG3 thing is not his schtick, IMO. Runs very contrary to his nature.

 

[mussop]

Having given up all of that, would you be willing to let RGIII learn behind Schaub for a year or two? You're not only giving up a "special" defensive player (Wade's assessment) but you're giving away his (Wade's) chance to snag a 1st round quality replacement and/or our badly needed #2 WR. All for a guy that will be a backup for a year or two.

Are you really good with that?

You could be right. It just seems a bit steep to me.

That's not high of you consider him a FRANCHISE QB. I do! Would do it so fast it would make your head spin. Imagine the benefits of having a mobile QB that is really accurate and throws a beautiful deep ball.

To be honest with Schaubs injury history we should really consider this.

 

[Vinnie]

Jeez, seems steep to me too. Especially considering we're looking at being just another good WR or two away. We know we have a very good prospect in Yates, he proved that much. Why not hang on to him? Don't get me wrong, I'd be thrilled to have RGIII, but why slit your throat for the future when you're already so close to contending now?

 

[GP]

That's not high of you consider him a FRANCHISE QB. I do! Would do it so fast it would make your head spin. Imagine the benefits of having a mobile QB that is really accurate and throws a beautiful deep ball.

To be honest with Schaubs injury history we should really consider this.

Not arguing here, but just playing devil's advocate for a little bit:

You'd have to give RG3 the keys to this team the day you drafted him. I mean it. Even if you somehow tricked him, his agent, and all the endorsement agents/managers into accepting a one-year "hold the clipboard and spit sunflower seeds on the sideline" gig...you will have two guys ahead of him in 2012 (Yates and Schaub) who are going to know their days are numbered.

It does more harm than good to try and swing some sort of idealistic draft day steal of RG3 out from underneath every other team's nose. Because if you make THAT big of a splash, on draft day, you are 100% definitively stating that RG3 is your guy N-O-W or in 2013. It signals the end of both Yates and Schaub.

To even swing that deal, it would take so much to get it done. To then try and pacify other people who are affected by that deal, it takes more. It messes with what Kubiak has been building, IMO. It inserts a dynamic and possibly uncontrollable and flammable situation.

I don't think Bob McNair would endorse it (He already turned down this same sort of situation with Vince Young and this was when we HAD the overall #1 pick in our lap!). There was ONE collegiate player that Bob McNair came right out, immediately, and said he would NOT draft with the #1 pick...Vince Young. VY was shocked, stunned, and then pissed off royally about it. BUt the reason was because Bob, and Gary too, wanted to try and see what David Carr could do...and that meant NOT inserting a potential explosive situation in the midst of that.

The Carr experiment didn't work out, so Kubiak doesn't even try to draft a guy. He just trades some 2nd round picks for a backup named Schaub. Over the years, he builds Schaub into a very good QB. Now he drafts a 5th rounder who wasn't even an NFL Combine QB!

Everything on the table says that this team will not only NOT trade up to get RG3...but that we also wouldn't take him even if he fell to us at #24 or whatever we're drafting at in round 1. It's no knock on RG3, it's just not the way Kubiak or McNair would go. I even think a lot of people need to be prepared for us to drop out of round 1 altogether unless a Kubiak or Phillips guy is sitting there and they're shocked he's still there.

RG3 needs to go to a team that has nothing going for it. A vacuum of star power whereby RG3 is IT and it's HIS show. That's what his agent wants. It's what marketing guys at athletic companies want. And that the Colts might actually go with Andrew Luck instead of RG3 is a head-scratcher for me.

Don't get me wrong, I think RG3 will be every bit as good as (or even better than) Cam Newton. But he won't be wearing Steel Blue. It's not a logical step considering what else we could do with what we'd give up for him.

 

[GP]

If Kubiak did this, he would have to gut the team's QB roster. Yates would be traded on draft day, Schaub would be stashed on I.R. or released outright prior to camp (no team will trade for Schaub prior to camp with the type of injury he's had). Kubiak would have to send other draft picks or do some other trading of our players to get it done.

Does that sound like Kubiak? No. It's the polar opposite. What is on the line, more than anything else, is the idea Kubiak has (which is valid) that HE knows how to draft and HE knows how to find guys that get overlooked. HE gives them chances, and they perform for him out of sheer gratitude of being chosen by Kubiak to even compete for that roster spot. Call it manipulative or whatever, but it works. He attracts people like JJ Watt, Barwin, Foster, Manning, etc.

Gee whiz, he even kept JJ returning punts last Sunday. I mean, if that's not loyalty to his guys, I don't know what is.

We won't draft RG3 or try to get RG3 not because RG3 is not good. But because it's not the motive or direction of Kubiak. Plain and simple. This team is trying to become a perennial plug-and-play team like the Patriots and Ravens, a team that is in the playoffs every year and merely trying to add a piece every year to be the top team they know they're near being.

The big question ought to be about Yates and Schaub and who is the guy in 2013. How that whole thing will play out, IMO, is the real story.

 

[Texecutioner]

Having given up all of that, would you be willing to let RGIII learn behind Schaub for a year or two? You're not only giving up a "special" defensive player (Wade's assessment) but you're giving away his (Wade's) chance to snag a 1st round quality replacement and/or our badly needed #2 WR. All for a guy that will be a backup for a year or two.

Are you really good with that?

You could be right. It just seems a bit steep to me.

Hell yeah, I'd be good with that, but I'd only want RG3 sitting for a season tops most likely unless Schaub was playing better than he ever has before in which he'd be great trade bait.

As far as a #2 WR, I keep saying that the last thing I want to do is draft some young WR that takes a year or two to develop any way. I want to get a solid vet at WR right now or acquire one through a trade that isn't that happy in his current situation. To many good WR's that will be available in this off season.

Andrew Luck and RG3 are going to be this next generation's elite QB's in my eyes. I think that highly of both of them, and I'd feel pretty good building from there and then I'd immediately stack a great defense behind them.

 

[Texecutioner]

The big question ought to be about Yates and Schaub and who is the guy in 2013. How that whole thing will play out, IMO, is the real story.

Matt Schaub without question.

 

[welsh texan]

The problem I have with the whole RGIII debate, and I agree it will never happen anyway, btw... Is that, given we're talking about being 1 or possibly 2 pieces, and some better injury luck, away from being perennial contenders for a long time, why on earth would you, at that stage, before you've really done anything, go and take a chance on a rookie QB and hope that he's an improvement?

Even if he's once in a generation, you can still get it done with an Eli anyway, and that is the kind of level a healthy Matt Schaub can play at, and keep on taking the late round QB flyer each year, waiting for his eventual replacement to show up.

Before we see stats comparing Eli and Schaub before he went down, Schaub was injured pretty badly this season long before he broke his foot, the guy wasn't healthy and it showed in his play.

I just don't see how this team doesn't resign Mario, a guy who was dominant from the moment he set foot on the field until he hurt, with no offseason to learn his new position or anything. I expect this guy to come back and I also expect him to show us exactly why Wade believes in him. If Barwin can get 11.5 from that position, Mario can go get 20. And what Barwin and Reed can do in rotation, staying fresh, will be totally scary. jmo.

 

[ObsiWan]

Hell yeah, I'd be good with that, but I'd only want RG3 sitting for a season tops most likely unless Schaub was playing better than he ever has before in which he'd be great trade bait.

So you're telling me that if Schaub has another pro-bowl caliber season in 2012, and we're the 2012 AFCS champs with Schaub at the controls, which we should be, you would still kick Schaub to the curb and inject RGIII in 2013?? Or are you saying Schaub would have to continue to have pro bowl seasons to keep RGIII on the bench beyond 2012?

As far as a #2 WR, I keep saying that the last thing I want to do is draft some young WR that takes a year or two to develop any way. I want to get a solid vet at WR right now or acquire one through a trade that isn't that happy in his current situation. To many good WR's that will be available in this off season.

I agree with you on that point. That's why the first half of my and/or concerned giving Wade a new tool to replace Mario.
Two "first day picks" AND Mario AND T.J. Yates? Man, that's a serious gamble.

I'd also take a good look at Brandon Weeden. Somebody had to get Justin Blackmon the ball...

Gonna be interesting to see these guys at the combine.

 

[leebigeztx]

Ask kc how they like giving up allen for that 2nd rd pick. The thing is, if you franchise mario and someone calls you bluff, he's going to hit your cap for 18m or so. The bes case scenerio to me is a deal that is 6yrs 72m with 36m in 1st 3 yrs. The thing about mario that is so unique is that if watts or smith gets hurt, he can play the 5 and wrck shop. That's enough reason for me to give him the money. As far as the health risk, you can have that in snaps bonus. The team can take his last couple of yrs and set a % of snaps bonus. Just going by last yr, its easy to set the bar at 75% of snaps

 

[mussop]

I know, hell everyone knows we aren't going after RG111. The debate is is obviously hypathetical. But to me its a no brainer. If you could acquire a franchise QB right now for this young team without giving up any of your core players you do it without hesitation.

I know how good Schaub is. I also know he is on the wrong side of 30 and just missed most of his season. He has had some past injury issuess and without him as we have seen there isn't much chance of us going as far as our talent should dictate we are capable of going.

We also know that there just isn't much out there as far as quality backups go. I'm sorry but Yates is not the answer to our future. If Schaub were to go down again next season do you want to waste another season of this young talented team with Yates at the reigns?

Think of this team without Mario, without Yates, now add RG111, a few late draft picks and sprinkle in a couple young upcoming FA's. Also that is a team that FA's want to come and play for.

And I don't even worry about RG111. He is a intelligent and mature beyond his years. His agent and his endorsement people have absolutely no say in the matter as far as I'm concerned. Was GB stupid for drafting A Rodgers when they already had a great QB in Favre? No! This move would be about the future and it would be a good one.

 

[mussop]

Ask kc how they like giving up allen for that 2nd rd pick. The thing is, if you franchise mario and someone calls you bluff, he's going to hit your cap for 18m or so. The bes case scenerio to me is a deal that is 6yrs 72m with 36m in 1st 3 yrs. The thing about mario that is so unique is that if watts or smith gets hurt, he can play the 5 and wrck shop. That's enough reason for me to give him the money. As far as the health risk, you can have that in snaps bonus. The team can take his last couple of yrs and set a % of snaps bonus. Just going by last yr, its easy to set the bar at 75% of snaps

did KC already have someone in place that was producing similar numbers? No. We do. Besides Mario is no Allen.

 

[dalemurphy]

did KC already have someone in place that was producing similar numbers? No. We do. Besides Mario is no Allen.

This is the problem. Why Texan fans think Mario is anything like Jared Allen is beyond me. If you want a comparison of a DE similar to Mario, I think the player would be Will Smith.

 

[srrono]

Do you guys think the Panthers would be intrested in a trade for Mario?
Thier coach is a def minded coach they signed C.Johnson last year at 1 DE spot so they would have Mario on the other side at his natural position. Panthers def was bad last year mario could help the pass rush. Panthers have the 8th pick in the draft.

 

[ChampionTexan]

Ask kc how they like giving up allen for that 2nd rd pick.

A "Sign and trade" of Mario is pretty unlikely to hapen, but I'm not sure where you get the idea that KC's trade of Jared Allen is the example for why it should never be considered. KC turned the Jared Allen trade into Branden Albert and Jamaal Charles along with two other picks (one a third rounder) that never really turned into anything. Had they known ahead of time they would get a starting OL and a RB who would go on to finish second in the league in rushing, they would probably feel pretty good about going ahead and doing it.

LINK

 

[Dutchrudder]

Do you guys think the Panthers would be intrested in a trade for Mario?
Thier coach is a def minded coach they signed C.Johnson last year at 1 DE spot so they would have Mario on the other side at his natural position. Panthers def was bad last year mario could help the pass rush. Panthers have the 8th pick in the draft.

How exactly do you propose we trade the rights of a player we don't have under contract?

I really don't understand this line of thinking, we don't own Mario and with the new franchise tag rules Mario can hold off signing the tender so he doesn't get traded if he doesn't want to go elsewhere. I really think we are down to just signing him to play for us or letting him walk.

 

[BullNation4Life]

How exactly do you propose we trade the rights of a player we don't have under contract?

I really don't understand this line of thinking, we don't own Mario and with the new franchise tag rules Mario can hold off signing the tender so he doesn't get traded if he doesn't want to go elsewhere. I really think we are down to just signing him to play for us or letting him walk.

correct me if I am wrong, if the Texans franchise him at 18-20 mil (maybe lower) then trade him, THEN Mario signs a new contract with said team, doesn't he get the franchise tag money AND the money guaranteed in his new contract?

If this is so, seems it would soot Mario to sign the tender, then get traded and make close to double his guaranteed money from his new contract...

Also who would pay this franchise tag, Texans or the team that trades for him?

 

[BullNation4Life]

This is the problem. Why Texan fans think Mario is anything like Jared Allen is beyond me. If you want a comparison of a DE similar to Mario, I think the player would be Will Smith.

probably same reason you think you are anything like Peter King as a blogger....

Teams would pay a hell of allot more for Mario Williams than Will Smith...I'd bet my house a ridiculous government salary that you ask 31 GMs who they would rather have, 31 take Mario Williams over Will Smith any day of the week, twice on Sunday....

 

[Rey]

1) Rg3 would be worth it

2) Mario will be a texan next year

 

[WolverineFan]

If we give up a ransom to get RG3 you might as well just give up a little bit more and take Luck. He was made to play in this offense.

 

[Dutchrudder]

correct me if I am wrong, if the Texans franchise him at 18-20 mil (maybe lower) then trade him, THEN Mario signs a new contract with said team, doesn't he get the franchise tag money AND the money guaranteed in his new contract?

If this is so, seems it would soot Mario to sign the tender, then get traded and make close to double his guaranteed money from his new contract...

Also who would pay this franchise tag, Texans or the team that trades for him?

The new deal nullifies the F-tag deal. You don't get both. With the new CBA, a franchise tagged player cannot be traded after July 15th, so if Mario gets tagged and doesn't want to leave H-town, he can just wait until July 16th to avoid being traded. In that case Mario has a huge amount of leverage over the Texans to negotiate a new deal, or play for a buttload of money and get a new deal in 2013 when the cap increases. I'm sure his agent is smart enough to understand the scenario and won't advise him to sign the tender without a new deal in place. Otherwise Mario could end up with another team against his will.

 

[BullNation4Life]

The new deal nullifies the F-tag deal. You don't get both. With the new CBA, a franchise tagged player cannot be traded after July 15th, so if Mario gets tagged and doesn't want to leave H-town, he can just wait until July 16th to avoid being traded. In that case Mario has a huge amount of leverage over the Texans to negotiate a new deal, or play for a buttload of money and get a new deal in 2013 when the cap increases. I'm sure his agent is smart enough to understand the scenario and won't advise him to sign the tender without a new deal in place. Otherwise Mario could end up with another team against his will.

ahhh, makes sense now. Thanks....

So it's sign him and live with it or let him walk with nada....

Glad I am not Rick Smith. I do not see this ending well....

 

[Blake]

What is with the RG3 talk? I see a 0.0% chance the Texans even look QB in the draft period. Schaub is their boy. Yates is also their boy.

Mario Williams will be retained. Either franchised and traded, or franchised and signed to a multi-year contract. There is no 3rd direction. You do not let young pass rushers go. There is no debate.

 

[Dutchrudder]

ahhh, makes sense now. Thanks....

So it's sign him and live with it or let him walk with nada....

Glad I am not Rick Smith. I do not see this ending well....

It's still possible to do the f-tag and trade deal, but the player has to be on-board with it (or have poor advice from his agent). I don't see any incentive for the player to do that though as they would only be hurting their future team in the process.

 

[badboy]

I don't think RG3 would land on the Texans even if he fell to us at our initial spot in Round 1. To me, Kubiak is happy discovering some raw talent like Yates rather than the hyped up guy ESPN shows every day on their highlights show.

Schaub was a backup in Atlanta, and we snagged him just weeks before the Vick Saga broke national news. Yates was a guy not even invited to perform at NFL Combine, he ends up throwing passes to the ones who DID get invited...Kubiak drafts him in Round 5. See a pattern?

Kubiak will bank on Yates as the season starter, and will work Schaub into the QB1 spot in 2012 (when Schaub is 100% ready on that foot of his) to see if Schaub needs a serious look at a new contract in 2013 or if it's time to part ways. Kubiak likes BOTH those guys, he isn't going to add RG3 to the mix for the sport of it, IMO.

The whole IDENTITY that Kubiak has built here is one of "You want to play football? You do, huh? OK. Let's see how bad you want to be here." I cannot see a single player he's added who is a self-serving, prime time type of guy. Kubiak wants guys like Walter, Anderson, Schaub, OD, Foster, the guys who would play football for a sandwich if it meant they were on a good team and won games due to the talent and hustle of the guys surrounding them.

RG3 is going to want to be the starter somewhere right out of the gate, guys. His agent will demand it. Endorsement agents will demand it. Our team is not a good destination for all that stuff.

I, too, had once daydreamed about having RG3 as our future QB. But with what I saw in Yates in the 1st Bengals game (zipping the game-winning pass to Walter and clinching AFC South and playoffs in that one toss) and what I saw in the two games in the playoffs, I think Kubiak will stick with Schaub or Yates. He will use his 1st rounder or trade down.

I want Kubiak to go bananas in the draft on offense, though. But the whole RG3 thing is not his schtick, IMO. Runs very contrary to his nature.

FWIW, Schaub said he is on target to particpate in OTAs. Did not say 100% but i gathered that he feels he will start game 1.

 

[mussop]

The new deal nullifies the F-tag deal. You don't get both. With the new CBA, a franchise tagged player cannot be traded after July 15th, so if Mario gets tagged and doesn't want to leave H-town, he can just wait until July 16th to avoid being traded. In that case Mario has a huge amount of leverage over the Texans to negotiate a new deal, or play for a buttload of money and get a new deal in 2013 when the cap increases. I'm sure his agent is smart enough to understand the scenario and won't advise him to sign the tender without a new deal in place. Otherwise Mario could end up with another team against his will.

Are you sure this is how it works? Not doubting you it just doesn't sound right. Once you franchise a player doesn't that make him your property? Can't you trade that player once you've made that move? But after July 16th you can't trade the player?

 

[Dutchrudder]

Are you sure this is how it works? Not doubting you it just doesn't sound right. Once you franchise a player doesn't that make him your property? Can't you trade that player once you've made that move? But after July 16th you can't trade the player?

If they sign the Franchise tender, then you own a contract with them and have something to trade at the team's discretion. Before that, like when Dunta held out, you have nothing to trade. The new CBA made it more difficult to sign and trade a player by putting a time limit on it.

 

[badboy]

IMO if you trade up for RG3 or Luck you include Schaub in the trade. If you contemplate a trade of Mario he pretty much has to be on board as in a trade to as perennial playoff team like New England. He could do this to allow Texans to recoup some draft picks. I still think many underestimate the relationship between Mario and McNair. Bob would say Mario, we love you but can move you to a team with SB chances and you can get that super contract we will work out with that team. We can add players that offer us a chance to move deeper.

 

[steelbtexan]

How exactly do you propose we trade the rights of a player we don't have under contract?

I really don't understand this line of thinking, we don't own Mario and with the new franchise tag rules Mario can hold off signing the tender so he doesn't get traded if he doesn't want to go elsewhere. I really think we are down to just signing him to play for us or letting him walk.

Other teams seem to be able to get it done.

Allen, Cassell, Seymour etc....