_2.gif "Time.com 50 Best Websites 2008")
The Seahawks concluded their four-day minicamp today, and wide receiver Bobby Engram was in the building — but not on the practice field.
Engram left a note on Tuesday for coach Mike Holmgren explaining that he isn’t participating in minicamp because he wants a new contract, and today the Seattle Post-Intelligencer reports that Engram was seen entering the building after practice in a sport coat, but did not practice with his teammates.
Presumably, that means Engram was on the scene trying to negotiate a new deal. But will Engram get the contract he wants? NFL teams don’t often give raises to 35-year-olds.
Seahawks quarterback Matt Hasselbeck doesn’t sound concerned about Engram missing time in May.
“I feel like I could throw to Bobby with my eyes closed,” Hasselbeck said. “He’ll be back and he’ll be the same Bobby we all know and love. … He’ll be a playmaker for us this year, just like he was last year.”
Engram was the Seahawks’ best receiver last season, catching 94 passes for 1,147 yards.
May 8th, 2008 at 5:00 pm
Give the man a contract, even if it is just a two year deal and put some performance incentives in there if you think he is too old. He is tried and true and has been a staple of the Seahawks for the last few years. He plays through injuries and is Hasselbeck’s favorite target.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 3.4 / 5 with 8 rating(s)
May 8th, 2008 at 5:24 pm
Football needs an arbitration system or something. This is crazy. There is more than enough money to go around, and players should be rewarded for production not potential. The problem is past production does not translate into future potential, but the amount a guy makes should be more tied to performance clauses and there should also be a buyout option in every non gauranteed deal as part of the CBA. Individual players should not have to bargain for those basic rights every player in the union should be in favor of.
How can any player in the last year of his deal not have the money on his mind, particuarally when they have out performed the current one and have a much higher “street value” were they to instantly be free agents?
Guys like Roy Williams, Anquan Boldin, Engram and even Ocho Stinko would be much better off finacially to pay double any cap hit bact to the teams and get a new signing bonus in the wake of the Larry Fizgerald and Javon Walker deals.
I was thinking the same thing with Ed Reed before he go his extension while watching him tackle half heartedly in a meaningless game vs Housto when we were both way out of contention 3 years ago. Why would he want to hit anyone making 500k or whatever when he has already been defensive MVP of the leauge? He is risking muliple millions of dollars at that point, and for what? He has proven everything he needed to to be the highest paid player at teh position, and he was playing a 1-12 team on a 6-10 team. I know there are London insurance companies who cover such guys for a ridiculous premium, but when you have already established a much higer value than your contract, you are really taking a huge risk trying to play 100% without thinking about not getting hurt.
Tim Tebow would be a fool to play another season of free football IMO. He is the first Soph to win the Heis, and he would be taken by someone high in the supplemental draft. Getting into a pro system and sitting and learing the progame would be better for him finacially than taking the beating he does with Gator Nation on his shoulders.
Even if he has another season like last year and stays healthy, he may be a high first round pick instead of a 2nd or 3rd round supplimental, but then he will have the higher expectations and the early PT that goes with them. The real money is in the second contract that may be easier to get by being a back up QB for your first 2 or 4 seasons. 1st round picks alomst have to start in year 2 to not be finacially a bust that will get way less in his second contract than a sought after young free agent QB like Shaub, Breese or Dellhomme.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 3.15 / 5 with 6 rating(s)
May 8th, 2008 at 5:32 pm
I don’t see why the Seahawks shouldn’t give him a raise. He may be 35, but the way he bounced between being a slot receiver and a starting receiver meant he had less playing time, which could mean that he is a young 35, if you will. Sure, he probably isn’t going to extend his career much longer, but giving him a raise and minor extension would be good so you know he can finish his career as a Seahawk.
I imagine the Seahawks just don’t want to get burned like they did with Shaun Alexander. But I think it is important to protect the veterans, because Bobby Engram sure protected the Seahawks when it seems every other receiver went down last season. I think it is only right that they show some commitment to him.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 3.75 / 5 with 4 rating(s)
May 8th, 2008 at 6:09 pm
Bottom line…Engram’s the best and most productive receiver on this team despite the fact that there are bigger names with bigger salaries. Branch is bordering on being a bust in Seattle, Burleson is a little overrated, and Jackson and Hackett are gone. They need this guy.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 3.35 / 5 with 3 rating(s)
May 8th, 2008 at 7:17 pm
again pardon me if I don’t feel sorry for these guys. they get paid millions in signing bonuses then whine when somebody else makes more than them a year?what would they do if the team asked them for money back if the did not play up to the big contract they just signed? bottom line is you signed the contract and got your money up front so shut up and play!
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 3.65 / 5 with 3 rating(s)
May 8th, 2008 at 7:37 pm
Bottom line…..he signed the contract, he needs to honor it! it woud be the same as you selling a car, then you find out it was a colecters edtion, is the person going to pay you more for? no! You made the deal, you live with it.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 3.75 / 5 with 4 rating(s)
May 8th, 2008 at 7:38 pm
I’m glad to see the love for Bobby Engram in these comments.
The guy’s been quietly productive for years, never complained when he was buried on depth charts of teams who were starting inferior and obviously less productive receiver. Even though speed has never been Engram’s game, it’s easy to sympathize with his situation and understand why a guy wants more money when his career earnings probably total less than what Jake Long has made in the past 2 weeks.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 3 / 5 with 5 rating(s)
May 9th, 2008 at 4:02 am
I miss Bobby Engram’s reliability on my Bears. That was way back in the day, though.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 5 / 5 with 1 rating(s)
May 9th, 2008 at 1:05 pm
Jeremiah W, I also once thought the freedom of a buyout should be mandatory in all NFL contracts, and maybe it still should be but I feel the reason more players don’t demand it is that the franchise would then want one for themselves. That creates a dilemma where the player doesn’t feel they have nearly the leeway during the early part of the contract that players currently enjoy. They would have the pressure of feeling that they must make an immediate impact, or be bought out of their contract when they weren’t expecting it and/or before they could prepare to hit the open market. Remember that the whole point of these longer-term deals is security, and security is the opposite of freedom.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated
May 9th, 2008 at 1:55 pm
The clubs already have a better option than a buy out, they have a back out clause. They can just stop payment.
The long term deal only provides security for the team since the player only gets to keep what ever they have gotten up front and a check on gameday.
There are a lot of finacial issues that affect gameplay, and this may not be one of the more important ones. I feel like the guys who get it worse are the 54 through 87 that go through camp and then have to find a real job until next year.
There is no good reason for not keeping 80 man rosters all season long and all 53 active players on gameday. 1 high first round bust makes enough money to pay all of those guys leauge min, let them develop in real practice and have guys who know your playbook and calls ready to go if your starters get hurt. They are always signing 100 “street free agents” to fill rosters instead of just keeping the bulk of the guys who went 4 or 5 weeks of two a days in summer heat up to speed and ready to step up.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated
May 9th, 2008 at 3:48 pm
While I’m not sure exactly what you’re refering to when you say back out clause, I should have clarified that I was refering primarily to buyouts in rookie contracts.
I see the 53 man roster as simply a human resources equivalent of the salary cap. During Joe Gibbs’ first stint at Washington he was notorious (as were a few others) for stockpiling talent on the roster, practice squad, IR and anywhere else he could think of. As other teams cried foul, the rules were changed to prevent teams from gaining a competitive advantage as well as good players languishing uselessly on rosters while they could be making other teams more competitive.
My personal preference would be to see the size of practice squads double from 8 to 16. That way everyone gets to carry more players but other teams can still “access” these guys if they’re struggling at a position, by signing them to their 53-man roster. But only to their 53 man roster, not just pilfering them to put on their own pratice squad.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated