Tag:Marcus McNeill
Posted on: July 10, 2010 2:18 pm
 

Ferguson's contract and Marcus McNeill

Tim Sullivan of the San Diego Union Tribune offers a unique take on how the D’Brickashaw Ferguson contract could impact Marcus McNeill’s situation in San Diego:

The signing of left tackle D’Brickashaw Ferguson to a six-year, $60 million contract extension gives the Jets a large leg up in pursuit of the Super Bowl and leaves the Chargers a slightly wobblier stance in their ongoing impasse with their own blindside Pro Bowler, Marcus McNeill.

Granted, San Diego is not New York. Furthermore, the Chargers are neither opening a new stadium in the fall nor scrambling to sell overpriced, underwanted Personal Seat Licenses that have already been deeply discounted. Despite the NFL’s pronounced socialism, individual franchises continue to operate with profoundly different sets of circumstances, debt loads and business models.
One size never did fit all and no one deal necessarily dictates another.

Still, if the Chargers are understandably more risk-averse than the No. 2 football team in America’s No. 1 market, they are also likely to suffer by comparison. Vis-a-vis the Chargers, the Jets appear to be an outfit inclined toward one-upmanship.

Sullivan also points out a very bold Tweet from Alvin Keels, McNeil’s agent: “6 years/$60 million/$35 million guaranteed for D’Brickashaw Ferguson with 2 years left on his (contract). Another premium deal for a Left Tackle.”

McNeil isn’t quite on Ferguson’s level, but undoubtedly, the Jets’ decision to extend their left tackle didn’t do any favors to the Chargers.

--Andy Benoit 

For more NFL news, rumors and analysis, follow @cbssportsnfl on Twitter.

Posted on: June 29, 2010 8:32 pm
 

Will Vincent Jackson be traded?

Could WR Vincent Jackson be on his way out of San Diego? Kevin Acee of the Union-Tribune , after talking to sources, writes that it’s a possibility.

From the article:

No one is predicting he will shipped off soon, and it does not appear other teams have been officially notified the Pro Bowl receiver is on the trading block. But several sources confirmed the Chargers talked with the Seattle Seahawks earlier this month and have made it known Jackson will remain available.

The Seahawks maintain interest, as do “several other teams,” according to one source. Among those teams, sources said, are the Washington Redskins. It is not known whether the Redskins have spoken to the Chargers regarding Jackson.


You’ll recall that Jackson and LT Marcus McNeill didn’t sign their restricted free agent offers, and GM A.J. Smith has given the indication that he’s ready to move on without them. Whichever team signs Jackson, though, better make sure it can offer plenty of money.

--Josh Katzowitz

<i>For more NFL news, rumors and analysis, follow <a href="http://twitter.com/CBSSportsNF
L">@cbssportsnfl</a> on Twitter.</i>


Posted on: June 16, 2010 2:21 pm
 

Don't expect Jackson, McNeill to return soon

Despite giving WR Vincent Jackson and OT Marcus McNeill an extra 24 hours to sign their restricted free agent tender offers, the Chargers now expect to play much of the 2010 NFL season without two of their stars, the San Diego Union-Tribune’s Kevin Acee writes.

“We lost a couple of great players today, and it hurts,” GM A.J. Smith told the paper. “We are trying to build a championship team, and losing the services of both Vincent and Marcus just made that more difficult – but not impossible. In due time, Coach (Norv) Turner will name two new starters. We will rally as a team, compete and try to win as many games as we can.”

It won’t be easy to replace the production of Jackson and McNeill. Jackson is coming off a 68-catch, nine-touchdown season, and every year he’s been in the NFL, his production has improved. McNeill, meanwhile, is a two-time Pro Bowler and will be sorely missed on the offensive line, protecting QB Philip Rivers’ blindside.

Acee expects both players to forgo signing what would be a hugely-reduced contract and then return to the team in mid-November to play the final six games – which would count to their service time as an accrued season. Acee explains how much money Jackson and McNeill will give up:

McNeill will lose $2.568 million as his tender is dropped to $600,000. Should he not report until after the Chargers’ 10th game, which numerous sources have said he will and the Chargers are expecting, he will make $212,000.

Jackson will have his tender dropped from $3.268 million to $583,000 (a $2.685 million reduction). He would make $206,000 if he doesn’t report until six games are left, though it remains unclear how an expected suspension of two to four games for his past DUIs will affect him.


Without them, expect newly-signed WR Josh Reed and OT Tra Thomas to take their places in the lineup.


--Josh Katzowitz

For more NFL news, rumors and analysis, follow @cbssportsnfl .

Posted on: June 14, 2010 3:20 pm
Edited on: June 20, 2010 11:36 am
 

RFA deadline fast approaching

Tuesday is the day where millions of dollars could be won and millions of dollars could be lost. That day is the deadline when restricted free agents must sign their qualifying offers from their previous team. If not, they’ll only make 110 percent of their 2009 salary.

For players like San Diego WR Vincent Jackson and LT Marcus McNeill, that could cost them a bunch of money. According to Kevin Acee of the San Diego Union-Tribune , neither player will sign their tender offer because they want long-term deals. That means both could lose $2.5 million a piece for this season. It also means they both might just sit out the year in protest.

A player like New England Pro Bowl guard Logan Mankins could lose more than $1.5 million, and a guy like Denver sack-master Elvis Dumervil could have to settle for collecting $630,000 rather than the $3.1 million the Broncos have offered.

One player, like Ray Edwards with the Vikings, went ahead and signed his tender offer today, and I expect a few others to ink their names sometime this evening. Unless you’re trying to project some semblance of leverage – which, honestly, most of the players don’t have because of the potential upcoming lock-out when the Collective Bargaining Agreement expires at the end of this season – it doesn’t make sense not to sign a one-year deal.

But I don’t make millions of dollars per year (hint, hint CBSSports.com upper management), so I don’t have that perspective.

On Sunday, Pro Football Talk had an interesting theory, based off something the Boston Globe’s Albert Breer wrote a few days ago. PFT wonders if the smell of collusion is in the air.

One reason this topic has been raised: teams sent letters to the players who hadn’t signed their RFA tenders, which suggests some sort of league-wide memo was passed around on how to handle the scenario. If that’s true – or even remotely true – the NFL Players Association might have something to say about that.

From the NFL owners’ perspective, it makes sense not to re-up their players for long-term contracts, especially with the uncertainty of what happens when the CBA ends. But at the same time, the Colts gave S Antoine Bethea a four-year, $27 million extension last week, so we know it is physically possible to compromise with the players.

Diff’rent strokes for diff’rent owners, one supposes. But if players like Jackson and McNeill sit out the season, everybody – with the exception of San Diego’s 2010 opponents – loses.

UPDATE: According to Lindsay Jones of the Denver Post on her Twitter account, Dumervil has signed his tender.

--Josh Katzowitz

For more NFL news, rumors and analysis, follow @cbssportsnfl.


 
 
 
 
The views expressed in this blog are solely those of the author and do not reflect the views of CBS Sports or CBSSports.com