McAfee to play 2013 under the tag

[husker61]

Being a franchised punter in the NFL does not mean he will be paid like a RB or QB. Franchise means Pat makes the average pay of the 5 top paid punters in the league. According to Spotrac Pat makes $2,977,000 for this year. What other top 5 punter in the league is as good as Pat? Keep in mind not only does he punt he is the holder for FGs. He kicks FGs. He is the emergency QB. I have seen him line up as a WR in training camp. He is one of the best tacklers on special teams. Is there another punter who is capable of doing all of these things?  

 

really! he has kicked how many fg's in his career??? nobody get payed to be a holder, i would rather the back up qb do it to have a legitimate threat of a fake and good pass. qb, wr, and best tackler?????

 

some fans of a player will throw anything out there to back up their player.

 

punters are not important enough to franchise.

[crazycolt1]

really! he has kicked how many fg's in his career??? nobody get payed to be a holder, i would rather the back up qb do it to have a legitimate threat of a fake and good pass. qb, wr, and best tackler?????

 

some fans of a player will throw anything out there to back up their player.

 

punters are not important enough to franchise.

Me being a Pat fan has zero to do with it. I guess you did not know that Pat did lead the special teams in tackles season before last. With him being the emergency QB he is capable of doing more than just be a holder on FGs. You have your opinion as to a punter is worth being franchised but it wasn't shared by the Colts. As far as punters not being worth much just try to have a winning team without a good punter. The punter sets up the field position not only for the offense but the defense as well. Punting and special teams play a huge part of the team no matter what your opinion is. 

[Valpo2004]

3 million for a good punter isn't that bad.  We'll probably be paying him close to that when we sign him to a long term deal anyways.  

[jvan1973]

really! he has kicked how many fg's in his career??? nobody get payed to be a holder, i would rather the back up qb do it to have a legitimate threat of a fake and good pass. qb, wr, and best tackler?????

some fans of a player will throw anything out there to back up their player.

punters are not important enough to franchise.

it is when he is a top five punter making under three million for the season seems pretty smart to me. now next year is another story

[Superman]

3 million for a good punter isn't that bad.  We'll probably be paying him close to that when we sign him to a long term deal anyways.  

 

Top five punters all make over $3m a year. http://www.spotrac.com/top-salaries/nfl/average/punter/

[Gavin]

They will get a deal done, He was 5th in Average Per Punt, Top 3 in Touchbacks.

[Superman]

They will get a deal done, He was 5th in Average Per Punt, Top 3 in Touchbacks.

 

Not until next year. McAfee needs to have a strong season, and a little more consistency would help. He hit a few ugly punts last year, like the return we gave up against the Pats. 

[Gavin]

Not until next year. McAfee needs to have a strong season, and a little more consistency would help. He hit a few ugly punts last year, like the return we gave up against the Pats. 

I'd have to go look back at that particular Punt

[Superman]

I'd have to go look back at that particular Punt

 

Second quarter, I think. He hits a magnificent punt that's called back for a penalty. The second kick is a knuckle-ball, and Edelman takes it back for the score.

[Valpo2004]

How was he at punts inside the 20?  

 

It's really hard to rate a punter using stats if you ask me.  

[jvan1973]

How was he at punts inside the 20?

It's really hard to rate a punter using stats if you ask me.

not just points, kickoffs. he was among the league leaders in touchbacks

[husker61]

it is when he is a top five punter making under three million for the season seems pretty smart to me. now next year is another story

 

that is part of my argument. the colts have painted themselves into a corner for next year. they should have hammered out a deal at this years market price. it will be harder next year to keep him after franchising him.

[jvan1973]

that is part of my argument. the colts have painted themselves into a corner for next year. they should have hammered out a deal at this years market price. it will be harder next year to keep him after franchising him.

maybe, we shall see

[husker61]

Top five punters all make over $3m a year. http://www.spotrac.com/top-salaries/nfl/average/punter/

 

that is the average for their entire contracts, and a lot of them are back loaded and the players never get that money. if they were making that this year. pat would be getting the average of their salaries for being franchised. i would never pay a punter that much. i would rather have an average (much cheaper) punter and use that money for some top special teams players.

[Superman]

that is the average for their entire contracts, and a lot of them are back loaded and the players never get that money. if they were making that this year. pat would be getting the average of their salaries for being franchised. i would never pay a punter that much. i would rather have an average (much cheaper) punter and use that money for some top special teams players.

 

The franchise tag is the average of the top five cap hits at the position in 2013. Cap hits don't equal salaries, I'm sure you're aware. But players and agents usually judge the value of the contract on the yearly average (as well as the guaranteed money). 

[crazycolt1]

that is the average for their entire contracts, and a lot of them are back loaded and the players never get that money. if they were making that this year. pat would be getting the average of their salaries for being franchised. i would never pay a punter that much. i would rather have an average (much cheaper) punter and use that money for some top special teams players.

Well it is my opinion that a top punter is a top special teams player. Not only does Pat punt he also does the kick offs. He is the main player in special teams. Without him the other special team players wouldn't have the chance to shine. I have no clue in why you have a problem with the Colts paying Pat. There have been a few other's in this forum who agree that Pat is worth the money and have explained why. You value your opinion but it is not shared by most. The Colts paying him the average of what the top 5 punters in the league is not unreasonable considering what else he brings to the field, locker room and the fan base. Stating your opinion is your right but out and out arguing when no one else agrees with you is a dead end street. We will just have to settle to just agree to disagree.  

[englishcoltsfan]

Anyone listen to Pat on the Dan Dakitch show at lunchtime earlier? Dude is hilarious, I really hope he hangs around for his career.

[husker61]

The franchise tag is the average of the top five cap hits at the position in 2013. 

 

not true. he would be making a lot more if this was the case.

 

An "exclusive" franchise player must be offered a one-year contract for an amount no less than the average of the top five salaries at the player's position as of a date in April of the current year in which the tag will apply.

[husker61]

Well it is my opinion that a top punter is a top special teams player. Not only does Pat punt he also does the kick offs. He is the main player in special teams. Without him the other special team players wouldn't have the chance to shine. I have no clue in why you have a problem with the Colts paying Pat. There have been a few other's in this forum who agree that Pat is worth the money and have explained why. You value your opinion but it is not shared by most. The Colts paying him the average of what the top 5 punters in the league is not unreasonable considering what else he brings to the field, locker room and the fan base. Stating your opinion is your right but out and out arguing when no one else agrees with you is a dead end street. We will just have to settle to just agree to disagree.  

 

it won't be the first time i disagreed with most fans here or past forums.

 

i like my record and posted it at the time to the criticism from many:

 

i didn't like giving sanders that big contract.

 

i didn't like giving clark that big contract.

 

i didn't like giving brackett that big contract.

 

i thought they should have cut harrison after it was clear to me he wasn't the same player.

 

i thought they should have cut freeney two years before before his contract was up.

 

i never thought angerer was or will be that top linebacker that almost everyone here said.

 

none of these opinions were popular when i made them.

 

i don't dislike pat, he's a very good punter. i just would have played hardball with him and not franchised him.

 

fan base?? how many fans stopped following the colts after they got rid of edge and manning? that's just a silly argument.

 

most don't like what the colts did in free agency this year (they want big names), i did. we will see how that turns out.

[Superman]

not true. he would be making a lot more if this was the case.

 

An "exclusive" franchise player must be offered a one-year contract for an amount no less than the average of the top five salaries at the player's position as of a date in April of the current year in which the tag will apply.

 

Kickers and punters are grouped together. It's the top five at either position. Point being, that's what the tag is based on. It's a frame of reference for what kind of contract a top punter would be asking for. And it's about $3m a year. The highest paid punter is making $3.75m. The highest cap hit is $4.05m. It doesn't get much higher than what the tag value is.

 

Your own personal opinion on what a punter is worth notwithstanding, $3m a year is about 2.5% of the cap. It's not the kind of contract that hurts a team.

[Superman]

 

i don't dislike pat, he's a very good punter. i just would have played hardball with him and not franchised him.

 

 

There's no indication there were any negotiations at all, before or after the tag. That's what's so weird about it.

[NewColtsFan]

like i said when he was franchised, it was a stupid move!

 

there is no incentive for a kicker to negotiate a long term contract because he will be payed top money, get a 20% bump next year if he is franchised again, and there is very little chance for career threatening injury. being franchised is a great contract! why should he take less money? the only reason players don't want to be franchised because of risk of career ending injury.

 

 

Sorry,  but this is not true.

 

There is a reason/motivation for the player to sign a long-term deal.

 

That way, they get the guaranteed signing bonus money from a multi-year deal up front.

 

So,  this year, McAfee is getting roughly $3 Mill and I believe it's all guaranteed.    Great, good for him.

 

But, if he had signed a long-term deal,  he might've gotten $6-8 Mill guaranteed up front in a bonus, and then smaller, more cap friendly salaries for the duration of his deal.

 

But it's the guaranteed signing bonus money that is the biggest motivation for signing a long-term deal.   I have no idea why you didn't acknowledge that??    You seem to know football very well....

[ColtStrong]

really! he has kicked how many fg's in his career??? nobody get payed to be a holder, i would rather the back up qb do it to have a legitimate threat of a fake and good pass. qb, wr, and best tackler?????

 

some fans of a player will throw anything out there to back up their player.

 

punters are not important enough to franchise.

I think you're getting a little too excited here. Chillax. PMac is a great punter, holder, tackler. And yes, he can kick field goals if asked. We just havn't seen it yet. And the tackling part can't be underestimated. If you have a punter that isn't afraid of contact, it's like having an extra player on the field. 

 

Anyone that thinks we can find a great punter anywhere is nuts. A great punter makes a HUGE difference in field position. Every yard counts. He's worth every penny. Yet some are still ready to run him out of town. <shakes head>

[crazycolt1]

it won't be the first time i disagreed with most fans here or past forums.

 

i like my record and posted it at the time to the criticism from many:

 

i didn't like giving sanders that big contract.

 

i didn't like giving clark that big contract.

 

i didn't like giving brackett that big contract.

 

i thought they should have cut harrison after it was clear to me he wasn't the same player.

 

i thought they should have cut freeney two years before before his contract was up.

 

i never thought angerer was or will be that top linebacker that almost everyone here said.

 

none of these opinions were popular when i made them.

 

i don't dislike pat, he's a very good punter. i just would have played hardball with him and not franchised him.

 

fan base?? how many fans stopped following the colts after they got rid of edge and manning? that's just a silly argument.

 

most don't like what the colts did in free agency this year (they want big names), i did. we will see how that turns out.

A silly argument? You are the one who insist on arguing. How many fans left? Not as many as you think. The games were still sold out. Irsay has continued to make the Colts one of the top NFL teams in fan base and worth. The fans who did move on to other teams were not fans in the first place. 90% of your points were exactly why the Polian's were fired. Now would you like to write another book what you would have done if you were Grigson? 

[husker61]

There's no indication there were any negotiations at all, before or after the tag. That's what's so weird about it.

 

there is absolutely no incentive for pat to negotiate a long term deal, he is getting everything he wants being franchised.

[Superman]

there is absolutely no incentive for pat to negotiate a long term deal, he is getting everything he wants being franchised.

 

I disagree. Any player, regardless of position, would prefer a long term deal. He said as much in his statement when he was tagged, and in his statement a couple days ago.

[husker61]

Sorry,  but this is not true.

 

There is a reason/motivation for the player to sign a long-term deal.

 

That way, they get the guaranteed signing bonus money from a multi-year deal up front.

 

So,  this year, McAfee is getting roughly $3 Mill and I believe it's all guaranteed.    Great, good for him.

 

But, if he had signed a long-term deal,  he might've gotten $6-8 Mill guaranteed up front in a bonus, and then smaller, more cap friendly salaries for the duration of his deal.

 

But it's the guaranteed signing bonus money that is the biggest motivation for signing a long-term deal.   I have no idea why you didn't acknowledge that??    You seem to know football very well....

 

the signing bonus is only beneficial if there is a likely risk of career ending injury. that isn't the case with punters. a signing bonus doesn't mean much to punters.

[husker61]

A silly argument? You are the one who insist on arguing. How many fans left? Not as many as you think. The games were still sold out.  

 

that's my point. fans don't quit following teams because a player leaves. YOU said fan base is a reason to give him more money.

[husker61]

I disagree. Any player, regardless of position, would prefer a long term deal. He said as much in his statement when he was tagged, and in his statement a couple days ago.

 

i am sure if it is a player friendly contract he would welcome it, but that doesn't help the team. other positions there is a great incentive to get a big signing bonus in exchange for a team friendly back loaded salary long term contract. what incentive would there be to him to not just keep getting franchised with at least a 20% raise every year? i am sure some of what he said is just saying the right things and not burning your bridges.

[Superman]

the signing bonus is only beneficial if there is a likely risk of career ending injury. that isn't the case with punters. a signing bonus doesn't mean much to punters.

 

I disagree, again. A player gets a signing bonus up front, not paid over 17 weeks. That's incentive right there.

 

Take Andy Lee's contract from 2012: seven years, $21.6m, signing bonus $2.5m. He got that signing bonus when he signed. Then he got his 2012 base salary of $1.1m over the course of the season in 17 payments of approximately $65k. 

 

In McAfee's case, he gets his $2.977m base salary in 17 equal payments over the course of the season. Getting that money up front + a base salary would be more beneficial.

 

Also, a long term contract has other likely to be paid money worked into it. Lee's contract included a 2013 roster bonus of $1.75m not to mention the base salary (another $1.8m). Mike Scifres' contract included a Year 2 option bonus, and a total of $9m guaranteed (or likely to be paid). There's the likelihood of future earnings that's always associated with a long term contract. 

 

No player would prefer to play on a one year contract when he could do a long term deal. Even a punter.

 

Lastly, you keep suggesting that punters don't get hurt. Anything could happen to jeopardize any player's future earnings. Connor Barth just tore his Achilles. What if he was playing on a one year contract? Wouldn't that jeopardize his future earning potential?

[Superman]

i am sure if it is a player friendly contract he would welcome it, but that doesn't help the team. other positions there is a great incentive to get a big signing bonus in exchange for a team friendly back loaded salary long term contract. what incentive would there be to him to not just keep getting franchised with at least a 20% raise every year? i am sure some of what he said is just saying the right things and not burning your bridges.

 

I don't think any player would want to play on one year contracts rather than have a long term deal. And I don't think any team would continue to tag a player year after year.

[jvan1973]

the signing bonus is only beneficial if there is a likely risk of career ending injury. that isn't the case with punters. a signing bonus doesn't mean much to punters.

every single player that steps on the field has a chance at getting an injury. ALL players want long term deals.

[jvan1973]

i am sure if it is a player friendly contract he would welcome it, but that doesn't help the team. other positions there is a great incentive to get a big signing bonus in exchange for a team friendly back loaded salary long term contract. what incentive would there be to him to not just keep getting franchised with at least a 20% raise every year? i am sure some of what he said is just saying the right things and not burning your bridges.

They won't tag him next year.

[husker61]

I disagree, again. A player gets a signing bonus up front, not paid over 17 weeks. That's incentive right there.

 

Take Andy Lee's contract from 2012: seven years, $21.6m, signing bonus $2.5m. He got that signing bonus when he signed. Then he got his 2012 base salary of $1.1m over the course of the season in 17 payments of approximately $65k. 

 

In McAfee's case, he gets his $2.977m base salary in 17 equal payments over the course of the season. Getting that money up front + a base salary would be more beneficial.

 

Also, a long term contract has other likely to be paid money worked into it. Lee's contract included a 2013 roster bonus of $1.75m not to mention the base salary (another $1.8m). Mike Scifres' contract included a Year 2 option bonus, and a total of $9m guaranteed (or likely to be paid). There's the likelihood of future earnings that's always associated with a long term contract. 

 

No player would prefer to play on a one year contract when he could do a long term deal. Even a punter.

 

Lastly, you keep suggesting that punters don't get hurt. Anything could happen to jeopardize any player's future earnings. Connor Barth just tore his Achilles. What if he was playing on a one year contract? Wouldn't that jeopardize his future earning potential?

 

we will disagree on the value of up front money without the injury factor.

 

connor barth was hurt off the field (playing basketball), so there is a possibility the team could go after the upfront money if the injury affects his ability to perform. i am not a lawyer or know what clauses are in his contract. this isn't a good example to use. i believe a fg kicker is at more risk of injury than a punter.

[jvan1973]

we will disagree on the value of up front money without the injury factor.

connor barth was hurt off the field (playing basketball), so there is a possibility the team could go after the upfront money if the injury affects his ability to perform. i am not a lawyer or know what clauses are in his contract. this isn't a good example to use. i believe a fg kicker is at more risk of injury than a punter.

how is a field goal kicker at more risk? how often do they make tackles, or blocked too prevent them from making a tackle?

[husker61]

 And I don't think any team would continue to tag a player year after year.

 

i agree, and the colts will be in a worse situation next year. that's why i said they should have played hard ball with him this year.

[NewColtsFan]

the signing bonus is only beneficial if there is a likely risk of career ending injury. that isn't the case with punters. a signing bonus doesn't mean much to punters.

 

There's also the risk of declining performance and/or injury, whether or not it's football related.

 

Players want multi-year deals to get their hands on big signing bonus money --- even punters!

 

If a team gives a punter/kicker a multi-year deal it says to everyone -- job security.   Doesn't seem likely a team would give a special teams player like that mullions of guaranteed dollars in a signing bonus and then cut them a year or two later.    An investment has been made.

 

Guaranteed dollars plus job security = motivation for a player to want a long term deal....

[Superman]

we will disagree on the value of up front money without the injury factor.

 

connor barth was hurt off the field (playing basketball), so there is a possibility the team could go after the upfront money if the injury affects his ability to perform. i am not a lawyer or know what clauses are in his contract. this isn't a good example to use. i believe a fg kicker is at more risk of injury than a punter.

 

Any player can be hurt at any time, on or off the field. Barth is a perfect example of that. I don't know what factor makes you think a kicker is at more risk of injury than a punter; punters get roughed more than kickers do. And just as many punts are returned as kickoffs these days. Besides, in McAfee's case, he's the kickoff specialist, so he's as more risk than the typical punter anyways.

 

But this isn't just about risk of injury. A long term contract shields a player from some of the changing circumstances that every athlete is affected by. The team could bring in a new leg, and McAfee could be deemed unnecessary. That's easier to do when he's not under contract past 2013. He could get hurt off the field. He could get seriously ill. He could have a bad year. Having a multi year contract benefits him. 

 

I don't know why anyone would think those principles don't apply to a punter. If a player had to choose between three one year contracts in a row at an average of $3.5m, or a five year deal with an average of $2.5m and a signing bonus, I think he'd choose the five year deal. There's more security, and there's upfront money.

[Superman]

i agree, and the colts will be in a worse situation next year. that's why i said they should have played hard ball with him this year.

 

The Colts will be fine on the cap next year. 

 

This is weird. I get that you don't value a punter all that much; that's one issue. But I don't know why anyone would think a player would prefer the franchise tag to a multi  year deal.

[husker61]

how is a field goal kicker at more risk? how often do they make tackles, or blocked too prevent them from making a tackle?

 

that's just my opinion from watching games. 

 

as far as your second question, there doesn't seem to be a difference.

 

http://www.kicking.com/Injuries%20to%20Kickers%20in%20American%20Football%20-%20Brophy%20-%202010.pdf

 

"The percentage of lateral ankle sprains due to contact did not

differ between punters and placekickers. Shoulder inju-

ries, however, were primarily attributed to contact (68%);

again, there was no significant difference in the percentage

of contact injuries between punters and placekickers. It

must be considered that both punters and placekickers

are at risk for a variety of nonkicking injuries (listed above)

when they attempt to tackle the opposing player returning

or running with the ball after receiving the kick. This often

results in violent, open-field collisions in addition to the

possibility of injury while the kicker is running down the

field attempting to make a tackle.