Chiefs cut Maclin/Signs with Ravens
- Thread starter 12intheBox
- Start date
-
To unlock all of features of Rams On Demand please take a brief moment to register. Registering is not only quick and easy, it also allows you access to additional features such as live chat, private messaging, and a host of other apps exclusive to Rams On Demand.
Maclin would easily make this offense better. No more 10 guys in the box for Gurley, no more sellout blitz on Goff. I know the cap situation makes it virtually impossible but man would it be nice.
Exactly, and KC has a lot of young emerging talent that is pretty cheap. So he had to go.
100% agree with you here.
Kelse (their dbag TE) got A LOT of passes throw his way and that probably had something to do with his drop off.
Gotta bring him in for a look. At least talk to him.
I think Woods & Company will accomplish the same thing, No need for Maclin. JMHO.
ReddingRam
Hall of Fame
The key to this...and most of our other signing issues (Donald) is the Tru Franchise Player Tag. THAT HAS to get done and done soon. To me, that is the biggest (and only real) problem I have with the Rams this off season. It has hamstrung us now to go into the season with what we have. I really don't know of any other contracts that they can or should play with to open up the kind of money to get #1 - Aaron Donald signed to a new deal and/or #2 any flexibility for other pickups.
When the tag was announced I cringed .... and i am still SMDH at the move. I would have just offered him a fair, market value contract at the time and if he didn't take it ... well then .. see ya!. Especially when they announced that they have no idea if he even fits the system. Mind boggling to me.
When the tag was announced I cringed .... and i am still SMDH at the move. I would have just offered him a fair, market value contract at the time and if he didn't take it ... well then .. see ya!. Especially when they announced that they have no idea if he even fits the system. Mind boggling to me.
I've been watching Maclin since college. The dude is a beast. He is better than anything we have in my opinion
Last edited:
I imagine he will be claimed on waivers, if not he will be commanding guaranteed money.
He'll probably end up in New England or I wouldn't be surprised if the 49ers snatched him up
He'll probably end up in New England or I wouldn't be surprised if the 49ers snatched him up
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...isk-by-cutting-jeremy-maclin-after-five-otas/
Chiefs took a risk by cutting Jeremy Maclin after five OTAs
Posted by Mike Florio on June 3, 2017
Getty Images
The NFL’s adoption of the ability to cut players in March with a post-June 1 designation was aimed in part at allowing teams to move on from a big cash and cap number without being required to let the player risk injury during offseason workouts. The Chiefs assumed that risk anyway with receiver Jeremy Maclin.
That’s perhaps the strangest aspect of Kansas City’s decision to wait until June 2 to cut the player who made $23 million over two years in Kansas City.
The Chiefs allowed Maclin to participate in five of the 10 OTA sessions before abruptly dumping him on June 2, spreading the total cap charge of $7.2 million over two year ($2.4 million applies this year). If Maclin had torn an ACL or blown an Achilles tendon or suffered another season-ending injury, the Chiefs would have owed him $10 million for 2017.
For Maclin, the risk was more than negligible. He has suffered two torn ACLs and gave the Eagles a scare three years ago during an OTA by inadvertently colliding with a defensive back, going down, and not being able to get up right away.
The Chiefs nevertheless were willing to assume that risk, possibly to see whether they could trade him (they reportedly tried a bit but couldn’t) or to see whether he still had it (Terez Paylor of the Kansas City Star reports that Maclin looked “spry” during OTAs). Per multiple reports, the Chiefs didn’t ask Maclin to take a pay cut.
So, to summarize, they were willing to risk owing him $10 million, but they weren’t willing to keep him for 2017 at some dollar amount less than $10 million. And if the reason for the latter is that they wanted to give him a chance to make at or close to $10 million elsewhere, Maclin would have been in much better position to do that if they’d cut him on March 9, designated him as a post-June 1 release, and allowed him to hit the market while the money was still flowing.
The end result is that it was an unusual move, one which underscores the reality that no one is safe — and which should make everyone wonder who may be the next to be dumped, traded, or benched without warning by a Chiefs franchise that hopes to bust through whatever ceiling that is keeping them from returning to the AFC title game.
Chiefs took a risk by cutting Jeremy Maclin after five OTAs
Posted by Mike Florio on June 3, 2017
The NFL’s adoption of the ability to cut players in March with a post-June 1 designation was aimed in part at allowing teams to move on from a big cash and cap number without being required to let the player risk injury during offseason workouts. The Chiefs assumed that risk anyway with receiver Jeremy Maclin.
That’s perhaps the strangest aspect of Kansas City’s decision to wait until June 2 to cut the player who made $23 million over two years in Kansas City.
The Chiefs allowed Maclin to participate in five of the 10 OTA sessions before abruptly dumping him on June 2, spreading the total cap charge of $7.2 million over two year ($2.4 million applies this year). If Maclin had torn an ACL or blown an Achilles tendon or suffered another season-ending injury, the Chiefs would have owed him $10 million for 2017.
For Maclin, the risk was more than negligible. He has suffered two torn ACLs and gave the Eagles a scare three years ago during an OTA by inadvertently colliding with a defensive back, going down, and not being able to get up right away.
The Chiefs nevertheless were willing to assume that risk, possibly to see whether they could trade him (they reportedly tried a bit but couldn’t) or to see whether he still had it (Terez Paylor of the Kansas City Star reports that Maclin looked “spry” during OTAs). Per multiple reports, the Chiefs didn’t ask Maclin to take a pay cut.
So, to summarize, they were willing to risk owing him $10 million, but they weren’t willing to keep him for 2017 at some dollar amount less than $10 million. And if the reason for the latter is that they wanted to give him a chance to make at or close to $10 million elsewhere, Maclin would have been in much better position to do that if they’d cut him on March 9, designated him as a post-June 1 release, and allowed him to hit the market while the money was still flowing.
The end result is that it was an unusual move, one which underscores the reality that no one is safe — and which should make everyone wonder who may be the next to be dumped, traded, or benched without warning by a Chiefs franchise that hopes to bust through whatever ceiling that is keeping them from returning to the AFC title game.
Yep! This is why I am so sick of Tru's situation. With all that money tied up in a player who doesn't deserve it, it becomes tougher to obtain or retain the players that do. This is a holdover from the Fisher regime, and, with the damn 'Hawks dangling Sherman out there as trade bait, Tru becomes even less attractive to possible trade suitors.
Maybe it is me, but somehow I always came away from the Jenks fiasco thinking that the Rams just flat out screwed up the negotiations, that Jenks would still be here if they hadn't played hard ball that severely. Jenks would have been a much better fit for what the SonOfBum is trying to accomplish here; he might have even reached his highest potential under Wade. Tru gives us more size, but he lacks Jenks' instincts and overall agility.
If the Horns go ahead with this Tru situation, Tru had better ball the hell out of this 2017 season. Hopefully, he will be auditioning for a new 2018 team, and we can concentrate on getting or developing a true shutdown CB in 2018.
My understanding was that Maclin was not the best team guy. He also had his one really good season in a contract year. He got paid. Seems to be a real crap shoot. And don't we have enough short receivers?
If he clears waivers, ( giving every team a chance to pick him up ) we can renegotiate his contract if we felt we want him, just like every other team. Basically Maclin could choose his team.
InnovatedMind
NO MA'AM President
InnovatedMind
NO MA'AM President
It would take time for Woods and Co to earn the respect of defenses.
With Maclin and his history, he'll automatically command defensive pressure, a long with Gurley on Day 1.
This is the #1 receiver we can plug and play from the start and pay dividends to our young receiver corp in the future with his veteran expertise.
You wanted Pierre Garcon? Maclin is a better pro, high IQ, just as tough mentally / physically, younger, and less wear.
We bring him in, we move money around, we cut a player... or trade, we do everything we can to position ourselves for him because he's on a silver platter. Our NUMBER 1 for at least 3 years, or at least until Kupp and Reynolds and Woods emerge.
You want trade assets for next years offseason/draft? This is how it could be done.
He's no Josh Gordon.... but it's JEREMY MACLIN! HE'S ON A SILVER PLATTER!
you're right.... picking up Maclin would make total sense, but it's not happening unless we could move Tavon...and trading Tavon for a draft pick is simply not going to happen.
Unless Tavon really explodes this year we need to cut him after the season and move on