Jimmy Graham: TE or WR money?

  • 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.

CGI_Ram

Hamburger Connoisseur
Moderator
Joined
Jun 28, 2010
Messages
48,187
Name
Burger man
Cook went down this same road, temporarily.

Me? He's a TE. Sorry Jimmy. TE money.

----

http://espn.go.com/blog/new-orleans-saints/post/_/id/7628/where-graham-ranks-among-receivers

Throughout the great Jimmy Graham debate, I've maintained that he is in fact a tight end -- but he deserves to be paid as much as a top wide receiver.

Specifically, I would rank Graham among the top 10 overall pass-catchers in the NFL today. And he's even more valuable in a New Orleans Saints offense that loves to exploit mismatches.

That ranking is obviously hard to quantify. You can get into some extreme apples-to-oranges comparisons when trying to measure Graham's value against smaller, speedier weapons such as Percy Harvin or DeSean Jackson.

And, yes, I've seen the evidence of how Graham's production has declined when he's matched up against No. 1 cornerbacks instead of linebackers and safeties -- especially against New England and Seattle last season.

Still, I think it's impossible to diminish the monster numbers that Graham has consistently produced for three straight seasons. Since 2011, Graham's 36 touchdown catches lead the NFL, regardless of position. He's averaging 90 catches, 1,169 yards and 12 touchdowns per season in that span. And he has played through two significant injuries to his wrist (in 2012) and his foot (in 2013). At a grievance hearing Wednesday, the NFLPA argued that Graham should officially be labeled as a wide receiver instead of a tight end for franchise-tag purposes. At stake is whether the Saints will be required to offer him a one-year franchise-tag salary of $7.053 million as a tight end or $12.132 million as a wide receiver.

Graham was held quiet in two playoff games last season, but I dispute the notion that he comes up small in big games. He combined for 11 catches, 131 yards and 3 touchdowns in two pivotal December showdowns against the Carolina Panthers last season. He was huge in the 2011 postseason.

So where exactly does Graham rank among current NFL receivers? Put another way: If a draft were held tomorrow, with all receivers and tight ends eligible, where would Graham be selected?

Fittingly, I got different responses when I ran the idea past two of ESPN's scouting Insiders, Matt Williamson (top 10) and K.C. Joyner (not in the top 20).

"I think he's a top-10, top-12 NFL pass-catcher, and that's being conservative. If you're inside the 20, I might take Graham over all of them," said Williamson, who said his standard for comparison was: "Who is the most difficult to cover?"

Joyner agreed with part of that, saying: "For jump-ball passes, Graham might be the best in the league, especially toward the goal line." However, he added: "When it comes to vertical throws in general, he wouldn't be top 20. When it comes to being utilized as an all-around receiver, the vertical woes would also keep Graham outside of the top 20."

Joyner, who went into further detail in a piece for ESPN Insider, added: "Maybe the best way to put it is he's much like Darren Sproles was for the Saints -- a matchup nightmare in certain situations but also limited in some ways."

So clearly it's a matter of taste. And maybe it would be more accurate to claim that Graham belongs in a "tier" of pass-catchers that fall between the top-7 and top-20 best in the NFL, depending on your preference. Most everyone would probably agree on six receivers who clearly rank ahead of Graham: Calvin Johnson, A.J. Green, Julio Jones, Brandon Marshall, Dez Bryant and Demaryius Thomas in one order or another. After that, I think you could start making a case for Graham against anyone.

Williamson said he would put three others ahead of Graham -- Alshon Jeffery, Josh Gordon and Harvin. However, none of them have shown Graham's consistency yet. Likewise, veterans Larry Fitzgerald and Andre Johnson have clearly been better than Graham throughout their sensational careers, but now they're entering the back end of their primes.

I'd put Graham right in the conversation with all of those guys -- and right in the same ballpark with receiver Vincent Jackson and tight end Rob Gronkowski (who has also battled health issues). And I'm sure people could make cases for DeSean Jackson, up-and-comers likeAntonio Brown, Michael Crabtree, Jordy Nelson, Randall Cobb and Pierre Garcon or veterans like Wes Welker, Roddy White, Steve Smith, Reggie Wayne and Anquan Boldin. And I'm sure I've alienated several fan bases by leaving off some other top names. But my point isn't to come up with a definitive top-10 or top-20 ranking.

My point is simply that Graham has an excellent case for being paid the same as any wide receiver in that impressive tier of playmakers. I'm not talking Megatron or Fitzgerald money (each making more than $16 million per year). That's where Green, Jones and Bryant likely will aim when their next contracts come up.

But I absolutely believe Graham deserves to be paid in the range of the guys who currently round out the top eight among the current highest-paid receivers, according to ESPN Stats & Information: 3. Harvin ($12.9 million); 4. Mike Wallace ($12 million); 5. Dwayne Bowe ($11.2 million); 6. Jackson ($11.1 million); 7. Johnson ($10.2 million); and 8. Marshall ($10 million).

And nobody should call Graham greedy or unrealistic for aiming that high.
 

FRO

Legend
Joined
Jun 1, 2013
Messages
5,308
I think they need to merge the positions. TE used different today than in the past. Some teams use their TEs like WRs.
 

Boffo97

Still legal in 17 states!
Joined
Feb 10, 2014
Messages
5,278
Name
Dave
Unless they figure something out, Tight End is probably going to be a real sticking point in these kinds of negotiations, since not all TEs are even remotely the same. You have receiving TEs, blocking TEs and everything in between.

Maybe designate a receiving TE number that's a lot closer to the WR number.
 

Thordaddy

Binding you with ancient logic
Joined
Apr 5, 2012
Messages
10,462
Name
Rich
I think he needs to put it in his contract if he plays 60% of his snaps out of the line that % needs to be paid as a wr,it's some pretty simple math.
 

LesBaker

Mr. Savant
Joined
Aug 23, 2012
Messages
17,460
Name
Les
I think they need to merge the positions. TE used different today than in the past. Some teams use their TEs like WRs.

I will go one further FRO, they need to have different designations for TE's. If it's a guy who is a hybrid he should be paid a percentage of slot guys, or WR's. Like 75% or whatever. The position has evolved into different things and now many teams carry 3 TE's with different roles.

They can figure out a formula to make it work by fleshing out how many times a guy stays in to block versus goes out in a pattern.
 

SierraRam

Recreational User
Joined
Mar 17, 2014
Messages
2,254
I think they need to merge the positions. TE used different today than in the past. Some teams use their TEs like WRs.

I'm surprised how many TE aren't required to block anymore. Like Les said, you need 3 because one guy just catches passes. If they rework the TE pay scale, Jimmy better watch out. The one demensional guys might get downgraded even further.
 

PrometheusFaulk

Starter
Joined
May 25, 2013
Messages
618
I think they need to merge the positions. TE used different today than in the past. Some teams use their TEs like WRs.

Going one step further, I think there should just be a flat rate for all positions for franchise and transition tags. These positional debates are silly. The tag itself gives ownership enough leverage I think. No need to also create a positional caste system. If the agreed sum is too much to use on your left guard, just sign him to a long term deal already.
 

-X-

Medium-sized Lebowski
Joined
Jun 20, 2010
Messages
35,576
Name
The Dude
Going one step further, I think there should just be a flat rate for all positions for franchise and transition tags. These positional debates are silly. The tag itself gives ownership enough leverage I think. No need to also create a positional caste system. If the agreed sum is too much to use on your left guard, just sign him to a long term deal already.
Interesting thought. I don't know how the logistics would work, but it's an interesting thought nonetheless.
Could you tag Luck, and say, Kuechly, at the same rate?
 

PrometheusFaulk

Starter
Joined
May 25, 2013
Messages
618
Interesting thought. I don't know how the logistics would work, but it's an interesting thought nonetheless.
Could you tag Luck, and say, Kuechly, at the same rate?

Exactly, flat rate. You'd have to make it high to be commensurate with quarterback salaries, but the tag goes to top five players, so you should be paying top five dollars to keep them.

I just think the idea that you have to pay commensurate with position isn't flexible enough to keep up with the idea that the league is becoming more and more about positional flexibility. Is a LEO a LB or a DE? Is a guy who shifts between a nickel and a free safety a safety or a corner? Etc.

Plus, it puts more pressure on owners to poop or get off the pot with their star players, and could make FA and trades more exciting. It's a win for everyone except the owners, who win everything else anyway.
 

-X-

Medium-sized Lebowski
Joined
Jun 20, 2010
Messages
35,576
Name
The Dude
Exactly, flat rate. You'd have to make it high to be commensurate with quarterback salaries, but the tag goes to top five players, so you should be paying top five dollars to keep them.

I just think the idea that you have to pay commensurate with position isn't flexible enough to keep up with the idea that the league is becoming more and more about positional flexibility. Is a LEO a LB or a DE? Is a guy who shifts between a nickel and a free safety a safety or a corner? Etc.

Plus, it puts more pressure on owners to poop or get off the pot with their star players, and could make FA and trades more exciting. It's a win for everyone except the owners, who win everything else anyway.
I like it.

Make it happen, Cap'n.
 

Boffo97

Still legal in 17 states!
Joined
Feb 10, 2014
Messages
5,278
Name
Dave
If they did do such a flat rate system, then owners would insist that it's based on a much lower tier of salaries than top 5.

Plus, only certain positions would EVER get tagged. The best FB in history is probably not worth the average of top 5 salaries in the NFL for a year.
 

PrometheusFaulk

Starter
Joined
May 25, 2013
Messages
618
If they did do such a flat rate system, then owners would insist that it's based on a much lower tier of salaries than top 5.

Plus, only certain positions would EVER get tagged. The best FB in history is probably not worth the average of top 5 salaries in the NFL for a year.

Yep, you wouldn't have silly things like kickers and punters getting tagged anymore. Not a big loss IMO.
 

-X-

Medium-sized Lebowski
Joined
Jun 20, 2010
Messages
35,576
Name
The Dude
If they did do such a flat rate system, then owners would insist that it's based on a much lower tier of salaries than top 5.

Plus, only certain positions would EVER get tagged. The best FB in history is probably not worth the average of top 5 salaries in the NFL for a year.
Yeah, but has a FB ever been tagged? Typically you only see very high profile players even get mentioned with the Franchise Tag. Corners, receivers, QBs, DE's, etc.
 

Boffo97

Still legal in 17 states!
Joined
Feb 10, 2014
Messages
5,278
Name
Dave
Yeah, but has a FB ever been tagged? Typically you only see very high profile players even get mentioned with the Franchise Tag. Corners, receivers, QBs, DE's, etc.
That's what's typical, but without certain positions having much lower pay, that would go from typical to absolutely constant.

There's no way the owners are going to agree to that unless they get something back (such as the universal cost being much lower for those high profile positions... which would make them unhappy.)
 

jrry32

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Jan 14, 2013
Messages
29,825
WR, easily. Graham is a WR in that offense. I've always wondered how teams got away with paying top tier receiving TEs so little when you consider that they play a more pivotal role in the running game than WRs and just as big or a bigger role in the passing game. Kind of crazy.

But the market has been set low and teams have kept it there.
 

PrometheusFaulk

Starter
Joined
May 25, 2013
Messages
618
That's what's typical, but without certain positions having much lower pay, that would go from typical to absolutely constant.

There's no way the owners are going to agree to that unless they get something back (such as the universal cost being much lower for those high profile positions... which would make them unhappy.)

Well, to be frank the tag in general is a sleight to free agency from the players prospective from my point of view. What they should fight for is to remove it all together, but this could be middle ground. The CBA still has a long shelf life but maybe this could be a keep the peace deal? Players Union would have to come harder than they have been.

I dunno. I guess I just feel like this "pay by position" idea is archaic, arbitrary, and leads to these ridiculous types of arguments where a tight end has to pretend he's a wide receiver in order to get paid what any common sense observer would say he's already earned.
 

Mick

Pro Bowler
Joined
May 8, 2014
Messages
1,325
As much as he disappears sometimes, and I know...he has killed my fantasy team with his craptastic performances the past two years when it counts, I say TE money and be thankful for it and shut his trap o_O but that's just my personal angst showing through....I agree about the archaic position/pay thing...the guy is critical to your team, you pay him.
 

Prime Time

PT
Moderator
Joined
Feb 9, 2014
Messages
20,922
Name
Peter
Arbitrator rules Jimmy Graham’s a tight end
Posted by Darin Gantt on July 2, 2014

7ec08738cbeb40b111f9e531d6ba256a.jpeg
Getty Images

Jimmy Graham is officially a tight end.

According to Ian Rapoport of the NFL Network, arbitrator Stephen Burbank’s ruling is out, and Graham has been deemed to be a tight end for the purpose of his franchise tag.

The difference of $5.3 million in tags ($7 million for tight ends, $12.3 million for wide receivers) creates the urgency for an immediate appeal.

The Saints still have until July 15 to reach a long-term deal with Graham, and this ruling gives them a bit of leverage, or at least the high ground. They can come in with something greater than every other tight end in the league as an olive branch, and still be saving money.
 

-X-

Medium-sized Lebowski
Joined
Jun 20, 2010
Messages
35,576
Name
The Dude
Arbitrator rules Jimmy Graham’s a tight end
Posted by Darin Gantt on July 2, 2014

7ec08738cbeb40b111f9e531d6ba256a.jpeg
Getty Images

Jimmy Graham is officially a tight end.

According to Ian Rapoport of the NFL Network, arbitrator Stephen Burbank’s ruling is out, and Graham has been deemed to be a tight end for the purpose of his franchise tag.

The difference of $5.3 million in tags ($7 million for tight ends, $12.3 million for wide receivers) creates the urgency for an immediate appeal.

The Saints still have until July 15 to reach a long-term deal with Graham, and this ruling gives them a bit of leverage, or at least the high ground. They can come in with something greater than every other tight end in the league as an olive branch, and still be saving money.
Duh. Because he *is* a tight-end. Let him hit the open market as a wide receiver and see how many teams (a) sign him as one, and (b) play him as one. Jimmy's my boy from the U, but I don't see how he thinks he has any leverage in this one.
 

RamsJunkie

ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED!
Joined
Dec 3, 2013
Messages
2,073
Duh. Because he *is* a tight-end. Let him hit the open market as a wide receiver and see how many teams (a) sign him as one, and (b) play him as one. Jimmy's my boy from the U, but I don't see how he thinks he has any leverage in this one.


If he hits the open market Im pretty sure he would get paid as much as a top receiver not named Calvin Johnson. some team would give him 10-12 mil a year easy.