TE Jimmy Graham, CHI (2 Viewers)

[Bracie Smathers]

Every time one of these trades takes place where a team pays a premium to move-up in order to select a player, for some reason the price paid is always questioned when it should not.

The price is cut-and-dried.

The Bills did not trade the Browns 2 first-round picks to get WR Sammy Watkins they only gave the Browns their 2015 1st and 4th round picks but they did wound up paying this price to draft Watkins:

- 2014 first round pick

- 2015 first round pick

- 2015 fourth round pick

Their is no way around the fact that is the price the Bills paid to draft WR Sammy Watkins.

Not up to speed on this thread, but this post is confusing and the bolder is just flat out wrong. The Bills traded the Browns two 1st round picks for Wakins (one this year and one next year).

I mean, the trade was literally for the Bills 2014 1st Round Pick, 2015 1st Round Pick & 2015 4th Round Pick.

The Browns and Bills swapped 2014 first round picks.

The Bills paid a premium to move-up.

The Bills did not pay 2 first-round picks to move-up.

The Bills paid the Browns their:

- 2015 1st round pick

- 2015 4th round pick

That is the cost the Bills paid to move-up in 2014 and the cost the Browns got in exchange to move-down.

The Bills final cost to draft WR Sammy Watkins was the 2014 first-round pick attained from Cleveland and the cost to move-up which was their 2015 1st round pick AND their 2015 4th round pick for a total cost of:

- 2014 1st round pick

- 2015 1st round pick

- 2015 4th round pick

The cost to move up and the total cost is cut-and-dried.

 

[ghostguy123]

The "cost to move up" and the "trade" are two different ways of looking at the same thing. Both are right..

But it would probably be wise to simplify it by saying this:

The bills traded pick 9 and their 2015 1st and 4th.......for pick 4.

 

[Wyld Stallyns]

It's all semantics, sure. Feel free to put whatever spin you guys want on it, but on paper the official trade that would've been submitted to the league is:

- Bills give 2014 1st, 2015 1st, 2015 4th

- Bills get 2014 1st

 

[DerekR]

No

 

[opensourcebeer]

These aren't the droids you're looking for.

 

[Leonidas]

Somebody should edit the thread title to accurately reflect the actual topic of the Browns/Watkins

 

[ldizzle]

Jimmy Graham?

 

[steveski]

Somebody should edit the thread title to accurately reflect the actual topic of the Browns/Watkins

Maybe something like: How many different ways can we word the same thing and argue that they are not the same?

 

[Bracie Smathers]

Pro Football Talk made a good point on Twitter:

"If unproven Sammy Watkins is worth two first-round picks and a fourth-round pick, how is Jimmy Graham not signed to an offer sheet?"

Obviously with Graham you have to pay him a ton of money so that is likely part of the reason, but a 4th round rookie pick carries with it appx $22 million in salaries over four years where 14 million are guaranteed so that's not exactly a small amount neither.

Perhaps someone will make a move now that it is the '15 and '16 picks that would be on the table to get Graham.

It seems like the Seahawks would be the obvious team to make a run at Graham.

They just took a pass on Jeremichael Finley after checking out his neck. Finley is/was earning $7 million a year as one of the highest paid TEs in the league. I'm sure they'd want him at a lower price but it seems they were willing to spend at the TE position.

Providing they have the cap room, they certainly could use a tall weapon like him and the picks they would be giving up would likely be late first round selections where landing a guy like Jimmmy would be difficult.

Maybe the cap hit + the draft picks is simply too high for any team to swallow, even a team like Seattle who PFT didn't mention but makes a lot of sense if they have the cap space.

 

[Adam Harstad]

Pro Football Talk made a good point on Twitter:

"If unproven Sammy Watkins is worth two first-round picks and a fourth-round pick, how is Jimmy Graham not signed to an offer sheet?"

Obviously with Graham you have to pay him a ton of money so that is likely part of the reason, but a 4th round rookie pick carries with it appx $22 million in salaries over four years where 14 million are guaranteed so that's not exactly a small amount neither.

Perhaps someone will make a move now that it is the '15 and '16 picks that would be on the table to get Graham.

It seems like the Seahawks would be the obvious team to make a run at Graham.

They just took a pass on Jeremichael Finley after checking out his neck. Finley is/was earning $7 million a year as one of the highest paid TEs in the league. I'm sure they'd want him at a lower price but it seems they were willing to spend at the TE position.

Providing they have the cap room, they certainly could use a tall weapon like him and the picks they would be giving up would likely be late first round selections where landing a guy like Jimmmy would be difficult.

Maybe the cap hit + the draft picks is simply too high for any team to swallow, even a team like Seattle who PFT didn't mention but makes a lot of sense if they have the cap space.

Seattle probably isn't interested in tying up such a huge percentage of their cap on new players with guys like Russell Wilson coming up for extension soon.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Rotoworld:

ESPN Saints reporter Mike Triplett expects franchise player Jimmy Graham to receive an extension worth between $10.5 million and $11 million annually.
Graham is sitting out OTAs and has a grievance hearing scheduled on June 17-18. He could earn an additional $5 million if he's declared a wide receiver, so there's incentive for the Saints to extend him in the next two weeks. Graham lined up in the slot or split wide on 67 percent of his 2013 snaps. The deadline for signing franchise-tagged players to long-term deals is July 15.

Source: ESPN.com

I think a natural scenario for some time has been that the sides will hedge their bets, just before, or at or just after, the grievance hearing. The Saints will move the salary into WR territory, but not all the way to what Grahan would win outright, and Graham will come down a little to ensure that he is justified in what he gets paid without risking losing. Perhaps both sides wait for whatever packets or documentation or stats get submitted by the other side to see how strong the respective positions are.

No matter what the Saints could/would match anything brought by another team, they have that right.

And the NFL does not risk having the franchise tiers challenged and officially ruled upon, so they probably want this settled too.

 

[msommer]

How many WRs are lined up next to a tackle 33% of their snaps?

 

[False Start]

My thought is if a team was going to make a play for Graham they would have done it by now.

 

[ghostguy123]

My thought is if a team was going to make a play for Graham they would have done it by now.

Not without a contract in place prior to a deal.

But I dont see any team giving a ton in trade for a TE who is going to make a ton of money also.

 

[Faust]

Rotoworld:

Jimmy Graham - TE - Saints

An NFL source calls the NFLPA's claim that Jimmy Graham should be franchise tagged as a receiver as opposed to a tight end a "naked cash grab."

That's an actual source within the NFL, as opposed to the vague "league source" we typically encounter in these kinds of stories. "It ignores Mr. Graham's use as a traditional tight end on roughly 60 percent of the snaps where he lined up within four yards of the tackle," the league's source said of Graham's argument. "It also ignores the historical use of the tight end position." The league can gripe all it wants, but the fact is, Graham lined up in the slot or out wide on 67 percent of his snaps last season. Graham could win his grievance, upping his tag from $7.035 million to $12.3 million.

Source: ESPN.com

Jun 10 - 9:15 PM

 

[Long Ball Larry]

Good point. If there's one thing NFL management never gets involved in, it's an attempt to grab more cash.

 

[Phenix]

Shame on the Saints for letting it come to this instead of paying the man what he deserves.

I have some anger towards the Saints as they obviously do not respect him enough to make him the highest paid TE.

 

[Ghost Rider]

It has nothing to do with respect. Paying a TE that much will make it hard to address areas of need. It's good business sense.

 

[Heatman]

Shame on the Saints for letting it come to this instead of paying the man what he deserves.

I have some anger towards the Saints as they obviously do not respect him enough to make him the highest paid TE.

they want to make him the highest paid TE, he wants to be paid like the highest paid WRs.

 

[Faust]

@RapSheet

A settlement in the Jimmy Graham system arbitration is unlikely, from what I'm told. Sounds like he'll have his day(s) in court.

@RapSheet

Among @NFL's arguments: Jimmy Graham meets in the TE room, lines up where TEs line up...and lists himself as a TE on Twitter (really).

 

[John Paul]

He's a TE.

 

[Faust]

Jimmy Graham's arbitration continues Wednesday

 

[Phenix]

He's a TE.

Yes he is, even if he wins his grievance he will still be a TE on the Saints roster, he just will make a boat load of money.

 

[ghostguy123]

Shame on the Saints for letting it come to this instead of paying the man what he deserves.

I have some anger towards the Saints as they obviously do not respect him enough to make him the highest paid TE.

Not really much else I can say to your post. So Clueless.

 

[Braktastic]

I think it is hilarious that his Twitter bio is being used against him. The guy is a great TE, but he doesn't seem like the sharpest tool in the shed. "I'm Jimmy"!

 

[Faust]

Where Graham ranks among receivers

 

[Phenix]

Shame on the Saints for letting it come to this instead of paying the man what he deserves.

I have some anger towards the Saints as they obviously do not respect him enough to make him the highest paid TE.

Not really much else I can say to your post. So Clueless.

Yes you are if that is your comment to what I was clear about. I forget I need Ghostguys approval to have an opinion.

 

[Leonidas]

I think it is hilarious that his Twitter bio is being used against him. The guy is a great TE, but he doesn't seem like the sharpest tool in the shed. "I'm Jimmy"!

Well...he DOES call himself a TE.

He IS a TE.

It doesn't seem very complicated to me.

 

[KellysHeroes]

Not going to happen, owners have way too much to lose if he's paid WR money

 

[Grahamburn]

Well played by the NFL.. "Sorry, Jimmy. Even you think you're a tight end."

 

[lod01]

Exactly why does the position title dictate pay? If you are putting up the same stats as a WR you should be paid the same as that WR. He's a TE that doesn't block in-line and catches passes.

 

[*****]

Exactly why does the position title dictate pay?

Because the NFL and NFLPA collectively bargained for a higher cap in exchange for a tagging system based partly on position title that limits mobility of a few players each year. The NFLPA negotiated away (for money) the principles of fairness and equity that you are reasonably pointing out.

 

[3quinox]

Would any of these rulings change his fantasy outlook? Maybe it's a stupid question, but if he get's ruled and paid "wide receiver" money, will the team change his position designation on the team to WR and not TE?

 

[unckeyherb]

Would any of these rulings change his fantasy outlook? Maybe it's a stupid question, but if he get's ruled and paid "wide receiver" money, will the team change his position designation on the team to WR and not TE?

I doubt the team would change his designation. However, if they did and/or FF sites started listing him as a WR, then his value would take a massive hit, no question. He'd still put up a lot of points and be a top ten WR, but his delta over other TE's is so massive that he's probably the most valuable player in FF. That would not be the case if he was thrown in with WRs.

 

[Adam Harstad]

Would any of these rulings change his fantasy outlook? Maybe it's a stupid question, but if he get's ruled and paid "wide receiver" money, will the team change his position designation on the team to WR and not TE?

It might impact him down the line, but I doubt any league management sites would change his designation to WR this late in the offseason.

 

[3quinox]

Does this possible impact change how you view him in dynasty in any way?

 

[Adam Harstad]

Does this possible impact change how you view him in dynasty in any way?

It introduces risk. I might sound like a broken record on this point, but "you have to price risk".

With that said, I think the risk is pretty minimal. Jimmy Graham wants money, but all else being equal, I'm sure he'd rather continue being listed as a tight end. The competition for All Pro awards is much easier at tight end. The chances of him making the Hall of Fame are much better at tight end. Continuing to retain his tight end designation is really the best thing for Jimmy Graham's future. He just doesn't like the fact that it's not the best thing for his short-term bottom line. No matter how this situation is resolved, I imagine New Orleans and Jimmy Graham will both gladly continue listing him as a TE in the media guide.

Besides, Jimmy Graham argues that he splits out and plays "wide receiver positions" two thirds of the time. That means, of course, that he plays "tight end positions" one third of the time. Can we name any other tight ends who spend the majority of their time in the slot or split out wide? I can- Tony Gonzalez, Dallas Clark, Aaron Hernandez, Jordan Reed, etc. Can we name any other wide receivers who spent more than a handful of snaps lined up as an in-line tight end? I can't. Not a single name. That seems like a pretty damning argument to me. Despite his posturing in an effort to get more money, it seems overwhelmingly clear that Graham is, in fact, a tight end. I would expect his positional designation to continue reflecting this fact going forward.

If any of the Graham owners in my leagues were worried about his positional designation- especially in TE-premium leagues where a switch has a HUGE impact on his value- I would be happy to shoot them offers and let them unload that risk onto me, instead.

 

[RC94]

Anyone know where I can find stats on where players lined up and how often? I am curious how often WRs line up right next to a Tackle like a TE does sometimes.

ETA - specifically thinking about offensive plays, not special teams plays, if it's possible to find that info.

 

[Adam Harstad]

Anyone know where I can find stats on where players lined up and how often? I am curious how often WRs line up right next to a Tackle like a TE does sometimes.

ETA - specifically thinking about offensive plays, not special teams plays, if it's possible to find that info.

Mike Tanier wrote about the Jimmy Graham debate in early May. To quote from him:

Graham’s case gets a little ugly when we come from the opposite direction: How often does a wide receiver line up in a three-point stance next to an offensive tackle? The Football Outsiders game charters also keep track of unusual players lined up at tight end: extra offensive linemen, moonlighting linebackers, running backs, and wide receivers. So I searched the database for the following big-name, big-money wide receivers in the tight end spot: Larry Fitzgerald, Reggie Wayne, Marques Colston, Jordy Nelson, Victor Cruz, Brandon Marshall, Calvin Johnson, A.J. Green, Dez Bryant and Brian Hartline.

The total: 85 appearances at tight end among ten receivers who combined for thousands of snaps. Fitzgerald had the most, with 36. Cardinals coach Bruce Arians used a formation where Fitzgerald motioned from wide left toward the formation and into a spot between the tackle and the flexed-out tight end rather frequently. (Strategies like these help cause 10% disparities between data sets when determining who lines up where on a play-by-play basis.)

Edit to add: Larry Fitzgerald played 1020 offensive snaps last year, so 36 snaps represents just 3.5% of his plays. And Fitzgerald was the high-water mark. The other nine players averaged just 5.5 snaps at TE each, which would account for less than 1% of their offensive plays.

 

[Yenrub]

It has nothing to do with respect. Paying a TE that much will make it hard to address areas of need. It's good business sense.

I get that teams don’t like or want to pay TE’s like they do WR’s but isn’t Graham just as important to the Saints passing game as Megatron is to the Lions passing game or any of the other top WR’s to their respective teams? Outside of Graham the Saints don’t have an “elite” pass catcher on the roster

 

[Insomniac]

Anyone know where I can find stats on where players lined up and how often? I am curious how often WRs line up right next to a Tackle like a TE does sometimes.

ETA - specifically thinking about offensive plays, not special teams plays, if it's possible to find that info.

Mike Tanier wrote about the Jimmy Graham debate in early May. To quote from him:

Graham’s case gets a little ugly when we come from the opposite direction: How often does a wide receiver line up in a three-point stance next to an offensive tackle? The Football Outsiders game charters also keep track of unusual players lined up at tight end: extra offensive linemen, moonlighting linebackers, running backs, and wide receivers. So I searched the database for the following big-name, big-money wide receivers in the tight end spot: Larry Fitzgerald, Reggie Wayne, Marques Colston, Jordy Nelson, Victor Cruz, Brandon Marshall, Calvin Johnson, A.J. Green, Dez Bryant and Brian Hartline.

The total: 85 appearances at tight end among ten receivers who combined for thousands of snaps. Fitzgerald had the most, with 36. Cardinals coach Bruce Arians used a formation where Fitzgerald motioned from wide left toward the formation and into a spot between the tackle and the flexed-out tight end rather frequently. (Strategies like these help cause 10% disparities between data sets when determining who lines up where on a play-by-play basis.)

Edit to add: Larry Fitzgerald played 1020 offensive snaps last year, so 36 snaps represents just 3.5% of his plays. And Fitzgerald was the high-water mark. The other nine players averaged just 5.5 snaps at TE each, which would account for less than 1% of their offensive plays.

It dpesn't matter how rarely WRs lined up or shifted into a TE position. It also doesn't matter how he's listed on the roster or what meetings he attends or what he posts on Twitter or even if he made the Pro Bowl as a TE. The only thing that matters is what the CBA language dictates.

The Nonexclusive Franchise Tender shall be a one year NFL Player Contract for (A) the average of the five largest Prior Year Salaries for players at the position (within the categories set forth in Section 7 (a) below) at which the Franchise Player participated in the most plays during the prior League Year,...

If he wasn't lined up as a TE on most of his plays, by the letter of the CBA, he should win the grievance. It may not be logical or reasonable but it's the standard the parties agreed to when they made the deal.

 

[False Start]

When will we get a ruling?

 

[Adam Harstad]

Anyone know where I can find stats on where players lined up and how often? I am curious how often WRs line up right next to a Tackle like a TE does sometimes.

ETA - specifically thinking about offensive plays, not special teams plays, if it's possible to find that info.

Mike Tanier wrote about the Jimmy Graham debate in early May. To quote from him:

Graham’s case gets a little ugly when we come from the opposite direction: How often does a wide receiver line up in a three-point stance next to an offensive tackle? The Football Outsiders game charters also keep track of unusual players lined up at tight end: extra offensive linemen, moonlighting linebackers, running backs, and wide receivers. So I searched the database for the following big-name, big-money wide receivers in the tight end spot: Larry Fitzgerald, Reggie Wayne, Marques Colston, Jordy Nelson, Victor Cruz, Brandon Marshall, Calvin Johnson, A.J. Green, Dez Bryant and Brian Hartline.

The total: 85 appearances at tight end among ten receivers who combined for thousands of snaps. Fitzgerald had the most, with 36. Cardinals coach Bruce Arians used a formation where Fitzgerald motioned from wide left toward the formation and into a spot between the tackle and the flexed-out tight end rather frequently. (Strategies like these help cause 10% disparities between data sets when determining who lines up where on a play-by-play basis.)

Edit to add: Larry Fitzgerald played 1020 offensive snaps last year, so 36 snaps represents just 3.5% of his plays. And Fitzgerald was the high-water mark. The other nine players averaged just 5.5 snaps at TE each, which would account for less than 1% of their offensive plays.

It dpesn't matter how rarely WRs lined up or shifted into a TE position. It also doesn't matter how he's listed on the roster or what meetings he attends or what he posts on Twitter or even if he made the Pro Bowl as a TE. The only thing that matters is what the CBA language dictates.

The Nonexclusive Franchise Tender shall be a one year NFL Player Contract for (A) the average of the five largest Prior Year Salaries for players at the position (within the categories set forth in Section 7 (a) below) at which the Franchise Player participated in the most plays during the prior League Year,...

If he wasn't lined up as a TE on most of his plays, by the letter of the CBA, he should win the grievance. It may not be logical or reasonable but it's the standard the parties agreed to when they made the deal.

That's all that matters in terms of whether he succeeds in his grievance this offseason, but it is NOT all that matters in terms of where he will be listed for fantasy purposes going forward. Which is my point- whether Graham wins his grievance or not, he's a tight end and will likely continue to be listed as such for fantasy purposes.

Edit to add: it's also ambiguous whether the slot counts as a WR position, anyway, given the frequency with which traditional TEs line up there. If you strictly compare Graham's plays where he lined up tight against the line to plays where he was split out wide, treating slot plays as ambiguous and not indicative of anything, then Graham would still be tagged as a TE. It's by no means certain which way his grievance will go based on the facts we have.

 

[steveski]

If we want to be exact about it, didn't he line up in the slot more than any other position? Slot WR's get paid less than TE's.

 

[Adam Harstad]

If we want to be exact about it, didn't he line up in the slot more than any other position? Slot WR's get paid less than TE's.

That would be an awesomely hilarious result, but the CBA doesn't distinguish between outside WRs and slot WRs for franchise tag purposes. Slot WRs make less than outside WRs on the open market, but both make the same amount if they get tagged.

 

[Faust]

Rotoworld:

Jimmy Graham - TE - Saints

Arbitrator Stephen Burbank plans to inform the Saints and NFL of Jimmy Graham's franchise tag designation on Thursday, July 3.

Burbank will decide whether the Saints' tight end tag should stick, or whether Graham should be honored as a wide receiver. The "losing" side is expected to then appeal Burbank's ruling. Our ultimate expectation is a compromise in the middle, with Graham maintaining tight end eligibility in all fantasy leagues.

Source: Adam Schefter on Twitter

Jun 30 - 4:43 PM

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Rotoworld:

Jimmy Graham - TE - Saints

Arbitrator Stephen Burbank plans to inform the Saints and NFL of Jimmy Graham's franchise tag designation on Thursday, July 3.

Burbank will decide whether the Saints' tight end tag should stick, or whether Graham should be honored as a wide receiver. The "losing" side is expected to then appeal Burbank's ruling. Our ultimate expectation is a compromise in the middle, with Graham maintaining tight end eligibility in all fantasy leagues.

Source: Adam Schefter on Twitter

Jun 30 - 4:43 PM

Couple days ago the local rag had a short story about Brees saying that the arbitrator had actually told him, Brees, personally, the result of his ruling on Graham.

Apparently this happened when both were playing in a charity golf tourney in San Diego or something like that.

I was pretty surprised to read that. But Brees says he wasn't sharing the info with the team or anyone else.

 

[Sabertooth]

Yeah I doubt that happened.

 

[Steed]

@MarcSesslerNFL: Sean Payton happy dance. RT @RapSheet The Jimmy Graham decision is out. Burbank has ruled hes a tight end. The Saints have won

 

[eNdblu]

Graham owners better hope and pray that him and the Saints get a deal done... The possibility of a holdout has risen exponentially if he's gonna be stuck with the franchise tag.