RugbyMuffin
ASFN IDOL
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2003
- Posts
- 30,485
- Reaction score
- 4,877
Because Clancy and Milford Brown are expendable.
Update on Clancy/Brown
- Thread starter BigWatson
- Start date
Because Clancy and Milford Brown are expendable.
CardNots
ASFN Lifer
Frankly they just don't fit the system Whiz is trying to install here. SIMPLE!
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2005
- Posts
- 46,247
- Reaction score
- 11,851
I think Tank, in 10 games, will have more tackles and sacks...and generally have a larger impact than Clancy could have in 16 games.
Disagree. Clancy is by far our best run stopper. It might not show up in the tackles/sacks stats, but he has been a great addition to our team.
Besides, Tank was suspended 8 games, so he only has 8 games to play this year.
Last edited:
JeffGollin
ASFN Icon
I could have predicted most of the comments made on this thread. To address them in general -
1. I continue to believe the reason why we appeared to have wound up in cap trouble despite having a big cap cushion earlier this off-season is because the "big" cushion was misleading and overhyped.
2. While I continue to be dubious about PFT's credibility, the fact that both the EVT and AZR ran with the story kind of lends it credence.
3. Lending even more credence was the comment by one of the dailies that the Cardinals were said not to want to restructure the contracts "to create cap room" but in order to pay backups "backup money" and starters "starter money" (the implication being that neither Brown or Clancy were expected to start).
4. To me, therefore, the wisdom of the moves to restruct Brown's and Clancy's contracts should be evaluated on the basis of whether or not they should start. That's in the hands of the coaches.
Personally, I like Brown better than Wells at LG because he's a more forceful run blocker. And I don't want to lose Clancy because I feel we should be 3-deep in quality depth at NT. But they pay the coaches big bucks to make those kinds of decisions, and I defer to them.
5. My guess is that Kendrick is 95% likely to be gone, but something might still be worked out with Milford. My reasoning: It would be tough for Clancy to leapfrog Watson and Branch to become a starter. Things are less deep on the O-line, and it would be easier for Brown to outcompete Wells at LG for a starting spot.
6. All of this begs the question - If Alan Faneca and the Steelers aren't compatable and Kendrick Clancy and Milford Brown don't seem to fit with the Cardinals, wouldn't a trade make a great deal of sense?
7. When a team puts itself in a position where it may have to cut a couple of talented players, it's natural for many of us to automatically feel that "we've somehow failed." There's some truth to that, but it's also possible that an infusion of talent (by addition or player development) can make a talented player less valuable relative to the other guys at his position.
It's premature to beat up on Cardinal management. If, later on, these personnel decisions turn out to backfire, there will be plenty of time to throw rocks then.
1. I continue to believe the reason why we appeared to have wound up in cap trouble despite having a big cap cushion earlier this off-season is because the "big" cushion was misleading and overhyped.
2. While I continue to be dubious about PFT's credibility, the fact that both the EVT and AZR ran with the story kind of lends it credence.
3. Lending even more credence was the comment by one of the dailies that the Cardinals were said not to want to restructure the contracts "to create cap room" but in order to pay backups "backup money" and starters "starter money" (the implication being that neither Brown or Clancy were expected to start).
4. To me, therefore, the wisdom of the moves to restruct Brown's and Clancy's contracts should be evaluated on the basis of whether or not they should start. That's in the hands of the coaches.
Personally, I like Brown better than Wells at LG because he's a more forceful run blocker. And I don't want to lose Clancy because I feel we should be 3-deep in quality depth at NT. But they pay the coaches big bucks to make those kinds of decisions, and I defer to them.
5. My guess is that Kendrick is 95% likely to be gone, but something might still be worked out with Milford. My reasoning: It would be tough for Clancy to leapfrog Watson and Branch to become a starter. Things are less deep on the O-line, and it would be easier for Brown to outcompete Wells at LG for a starting spot.
6. All of this begs the question - If Alan Faneca and the Steelers aren't compatable and Kendrick Clancy and Milford Brown don't seem to fit with the Cardinals, wouldn't a trade make a great deal of sense?
7. When a team puts itself in a position where it may have to cut a couple of talented players, it's natural for many of us to automatically feel that "we've somehow failed." There's some truth to that, but it's also possible that an infusion of talent (by addition or player development) can make a talented player less valuable relative to the other guys at his position.
It's premature to beat up on Cardinal management. If, later on, these personnel decisions turn out to backfire, there will be plenty of time to throw rocks then.
Last edited:
I disagree. They've done nothing but lose with the exception of one season in AZ. In fact, I think it's premature to attribute anything positive to them.
seesred
Registered User
IMO both these guys weren't getting much playing time considering who we signed and who we picked. We all knew that some vets at higher prices would be asked to restructure or take cuts.It is obvious that Wiz and Graves think that these two will not be much of a help compared to many others on the grey line.
It's actually good for the players as they can catch on with another team way before training camp. In this area the Cards were more than fair.We can't keep everybody, every year. Just watch the cuts that have already happened and the ones that are coming.
The biggest reason is this...these guys can't BOWL!
GBR
40
It's actually good for the players as they can catch on with another team way before training camp. In this area the Cards were more than fair.We can't keep everybody, every year. Just watch the cuts that have already happened and the ones that are coming.
The biggest reason is this...these guys can't BOWL!
GBR
40
- Joined
- May 14, 2002
- Posts
- 87,525
- Reaction score
- 38,773
The claim in the article is Clancy is too small to play NT in a 3-4 and that's why they want him to take a paycut.
Goodell said the suspension could be reduced to six games if Johnson has no further involvement with law enforcement and undergoes counseling.
"I am looking at it like a six-game suspension, because I definitely am very confident that I'm capable of doing everything that he's asked me to do and more," Johnson said.
SI.com
- Joined
- May 14, 2002
- Posts
- 87,525
- Reaction score
- 38,773
So why are we asking them to take paycuts, why not just cut them if they can't play the new system?
Then why don't they say that instead of talking about restructuring because they don't have any cap room? Are the Cardinals afraid of hurting someones feelings? Of course actually being forthright about anything is contrary to normal football operations at all levels.
kerouac9
Klowned by Keim
Who did we sign or pick at OG? Right now we have these guards on our roster, according to ESPN.com:
61 Elton Brown OG 25 6-5 340 2 Virginia
67 Milford Brown OG 27 6-5 330 5 Florida State
76 Deuce Lutui OG 24 6-4 338 R USC
74 Reggie Wells OG 26 6-4 318 4 Clarion
1) Why can't we take four guards into the regular season? We did last year.
2) How on earth can anyone say right now that Elton Brown is a legit backup at any guard position?
By all reports, Kendrick Clancy has been starting at NT or DE for this team during the OTAs and minicamps. It's difficult to say that Watson or Branch have "earned" their jobs since one is a rookie and the other hasn't shown that he can be effective for more than 1/3 or so of the plays during a game.
RON_IN_OC
https://www.ronevansrealty.com
Clancy on the Cards might be the best option they had...but, please don't try to compare his talent to Tank Johnson. Tank is superior to Clancy.
kerouac9
Klowned by Keim
I wish that we could be more specific when we're talking about things. We're talking about Clancy and M. Brown taking pay cuts. There's been talk about Berry/Warner/Okeafor restructuring contracts. The difference?
Pay cuts = Less money altogether.
Restrucuring = More money now, maybe a little more money total.
Of course Milford Brown and Kendrick Clancy would prefer to get released. They stand to likely make more money on the FA market (even now, when teams have tons of money) with a new signing bonus than sit around waiting for their deals to come up.
Pay cuts = Less money altogether.
Restrucuring = More money now, maybe a little more money total.
Of course Milford Brown and Kendrick Clancy would prefer to get released. They stand to likely make more money on the FA market (even now, when teams have tons of money) with a new signing bonus than sit around waiting for their deals to come up.
- Joined
- May 14, 2002
- Posts
- 87,525
- Reaction score
- 38,773
BigRedArk
ASFN Lifer
Oh ok thanks for clearing that up for me. You're right of course. Who needs depth? Players never get hurt especially not Cardinal players.
Elton Brown is a great backup G. NT's in the 3-4 aren't that important and seldom get hurt.You yourself advocated playing Branch at DE. Why not keep Clancy so you have the option of playing him there and slotting him in as a quality 4th NT? Cut Clancy and aren't you locking him in at NT fulltime?
Also cutting players because you need cap room rather than because they aren't good players or worth the money they make is stupid. Ever heard of a guy named Garrison Hearst?
Last edited:
RugbyMuffin
ASFN IDOL
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2003
- Posts
- 30,485
- Reaction score
- 4,877
Because they are both solid players, that this team can use next year.
But it has to be at the right price.
The situation is what it is. You can argue about who the Cardinals signed, and how much they paid, etc., etc.
The fact of the matter is here we are in a situation where two players need to re-structure their contracts. Clancy and M.Brown are the most expensive and expendable players on the roster.
If Clancy leaves then we will have to make do with our two enormous but young DT's.
If Milford Brown leaves then we have Leckey, E.Brown, O.Ross, Gandy who can all play the guard position if something happens to Wells.
As a sidenote: Wells is not going anywhere. In this system he is perfect were he is.
Who said he's willing to back up Watson and Branch? He knows he can start elswhere (Bears?), so why take a paycut and become a backup?Oh ok thanks for clearing that up for me. You're right of course. Who needs depth? Players never get hurt especially not Cardinal players.
Last edited:
Because they can afford to pay back-ups back-up money, if the player insists on getting staring money for back-up work, they are free to go.
I think Clancy will go and Milford will take less.
- Joined
- May 14, 2002
- Posts
- 87,525
- Reaction score
- 38,773
Hang on you can't have it both ways. They can't not fit the system, and be solid players.
You can't say Ross and Gandy are depth at Guard when they're current our starting Right and Left tackles? I get that Brown isn't the get out and move type of guard Whiz wants, so cut him. If he can't play the system get rid of him, don't ask him to take a paycut, especially since he's not all that highly paid to begin with.
I like both Watson and Branch, I can see why they want size in the middle there, I guess I'm just very leery of trusting a rookie and a 2nd year guy to completely man the middle. To be fair, Watson has clearly lost a ton of weight so it's reasonable to assume he'll have more stamina this year.
kerouac9
Klowned by Keim
Russ, I'm not sure where you're getting this from. According to Urban's blog, Brown is going to get $2.35 million this season, while Wells will be paid $1 million and Lutui will be paid $360,000.
Personally, because the starters are being paid so little, I think this team can afford the "luxury" of an expensive backup whom we know can play.
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2005
- Posts
- 46,247
- Reaction score
- 11,851
He is definitely not twice the player though. I'd much rather have Clancy for a full year, than Tank for half the year. (or 10 games)
- Joined
- May 13, 2002
- Posts
- 38,462
- Reaction score
- 25,362
How do we know that?
Has everyone forgotten how much Wells struggled at LG last year? Yeah, he might start pulling more, but he's not going to be doing that every play. And, he was straight-up outmuscled by a lot by DTs last year. Just watch the Bears game again, if you can stomach it.
My opinion is that these decisions about who is better in the new "system" could've been made on the FIELD, and in PADS, in August instead of now. I'd like to see roster decisions based on football alone.
Green also made cuts for nonfootball reasons and was crucified for it. I hope these work out better, obviously. But, when you follow a team that never seems to get it right, questioning things is second-nature after a while.
- Joined
- May 14, 2002
- Posts
- 87,525
- Reaction score
- 38,773
Wells signed a 5 year 17.6 million contract when we matched Buffalo's offer. The bonus was 5 so that makes his average salary around 2.5? Since we matched Buffalo not our own, the salary is probably not straight across the board as we usually do but is it really only 1 million now in the 2nd year of the deal? I'm assuming it's much closer to 2 million which puts his caphit above Brown I thought but maybe I'm wrong.
I'm not advocating cutting Brown by the way I'm saying if we're really telling him to take a paycut because he's a backup in THIS system, we should cut him. I don't think we're really telling him that, we're telling him we need caproom and since we're demoting you, we're asking you for the caproom.
I'd like to keep both guys but with Clancy it's clear he's not taking a paycut, and I kind of doubt Brown will agree to it either.
- Joined
- May 14, 2002
- Posts
- 87,525
- Reaction score
- 38,773
That's precisely what I don't like, the timing of this. It's easy to say the Cards are being nice giving the guys more time to catch on elsewhere, but that is not in the best interests of the Cards.
IIRC Clancy was starting in the recent minicamp? Watson has a history of having to take plays off for stamina reasons, hopefully the new skinnier Gabe solves that but what if it doesn't? What if they decide Branch is better at DE than DT?
If we go into camp and still feel Brown and Clancy are making too much money for backups fine, but if we cut them now to free up caproom I think it's a mistake. We don't need the caproom now, and we don't yet know that they really don't have a chance of playing much this year, it's just too early and the coaches are not familiar enough with any of these players IMHO to know that.
- Joined
- May 13, 2002
- Posts
- 38,462
- Reaction score
- 25,362
According to Urban, Clancy was still first team as of yesterday.
