<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Several astute readers have pointed out that the Saints’ attempt to trade a second-round pick in 2009 to the Giants for tight end Jeremy Shockey could be hampered by the trade through which the Saints acquired linebacker Jonathan Vilma from the Jets. Under the trade between the Jets and the Saints, New Orleans will be required to cough up a second-round pick if Vilma participates in 85 percent of the defensive snaps this season, and if the Saints sign Vilma to a contract extension. So how could the Saints send a potential second-rounder to the Jets and an actual second-rounder to the Giants. Per Tom Rock of Newsday, the Giants would get the Saints’ first-round pick if the Jets get the second-rounder. If the Giants get the first-round pick, the Saints’ fifth-rounder falls out of the Shockey deal.</div> <div align="center">Source: PFT</div> I think the Saints would probably have this in mind during the course of the season and may purposely play him less to avoid giving up a first, but its an exciting possibility nonetheless.
Jerry Reese was on WFAN this morning talking about this, and his opinion was that there was pretty much "no way the Saints would let it happen". But it would be awesome if it did.
I wonder how Vilma feels about essentially having a cap on how much his team will let him play this season. If the Saints are successful this season and Vilma's an important part of that, could they afford to keep limiting his snaps?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chutney @ Jul 23 2008, 11:18 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I wonder how Vilma feels about essentially having a cap on how much his team will let him play this season. If the Saints are successful this season and Vilma's an important part of that, could they afford to keep limiting his snaps?</div> They'll have him play 84.4% of the snaps.
very few players play 85% of a teams defensive snaps now-a-days....the game is so specialized, they should have no problem keeping him under that number....
The snaps don't matter. All they have to do is not sign him to a contract extension this year. They won't, so this is a non-issue.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (TheBeef @ Jul 23 2008, 10:26 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>very few players play 85% of a teams defensive snaps now-a-days....the game is so specialized, they should have no problem keeping him under that number....</div> From another site... <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AdamJT13)</div><div class='quotemain'>There were 43 linebackers who played at least 85 percent of their team's defensive snaps last season -- Kirk Morrison Patrick Willis Brian Urlacher Keith Bulluck Bart Scott D.J. Williams Will Witherspoon Keith Brooking London Fletcher Kamerion Wimbley James Farrior Derrick Johnson David Thornton E.J. Henderson Calvin Pace Thomas Howard DeMarcus Ware Antonio Pierce Joey Porter DeMeco Ryans Lofa Tatupu Ernie Sims Omar Gaither Stephen Cooper Thomas Davis Terrell Suggs Michael Boley Julian Peterson Angelo Crowell Nick Barnett Scott Fujita Mike Vrabel Morlon Greenwood A.J. Hawk Clark Haggans Jon Beason James Harrison Barrett Ruud Daryl Smith Gerald Hayes Gary Brackett John DiGiorgio Lance Briggs</div> It doesn't matter though. The Saints will never let it happen. They can afford to take him out of meaningless plays/situations.....etc. Worse comes to worse, they can always sit him for a game or two when/if they have the playoffs locked up. But there is no way they'll play him enough to let that pick become a 1st rounder.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Thoth @ Jul 23 2008, 10:34 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Why is this in the Giants forum? Shouldn't it be in the Nets forum?</div> We can only resist for so long.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Vintage @ Jul 23 2008, 10:46 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (TheBeef @ Jul 23 2008, 10:26 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>very few players play 85% of a teams defensive snaps now-a-days....the game is so specialized, they should have no problem keeping him under that number....</div> From another site... <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AdamJT13)</div><div class='quotemain'>There were 43 linebackers who played at least 85 percent of their team's defensive snaps last season -- Kirk Morrison Patrick Willis Brian Urlacher Keith Bulluck Bart Scott D.J. Williams Will Witherspoon Keith Brooking London Fletcher Kamerion Wimbley James Farrior Derrick Johnson David Thornton E.J. Henderson Calvin Pace Thomas Howard DeMarcus Ware Antonio Pierce Joey Porter DeMeco Ryans Lofa Tatupu Ernie Sims Omar Gaither Stephen Cooper Thomas Davis Terrell Suggs Michael Boley Julian Peterson Angelo Crowell Nick Barnett Scott Fujita Mike Vrabel Morlon Greenwood A.J. Hawk Clark Haggans Jon Beason James Harrison Barrett Ruud Daryl Smith Gerald Hayes Gary Brackett John DiGiorgio Lance Briggs</div> It doesn't matter though. The Saints will never let it happen. They can afford to take him out of meaningless plays/situations.....etc. Worse comes to worse, they can always sit him for a game or two when/if they have the playoffs locked up. But there is no way they'll play him enough to let that pick become a 1st rounder. </div> 2 points to make....thats 43 out of 200 LBs, not a high %....2nd, how many of those guys had escalator clauses tied to 85% of snaps?....not many, if any
It looks like every team has at least one LB anchoring the core, that plays more than 85% of his teams snaps. I think the Saints envision Vilma in that role, but obviously they'll make sure he doesn't reach that level this season. btw, does this say anything about the Jets, that they'd include such a pointless stipulation in the trade?
Let's look at it in terms of starting LBers (which is all that matters, because I doubt anyone approaches that number without starting)... Teams that run a 3-4? Dallas, San Fran (will try it, again), Arizona (“?), Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Ravens (we'll count them), Chargers, Dolphins, Patriots, Jets = 40 starting LBers 22 teams run 4-3 = 66 LBers. 106 starting LBers, roughly..... Thats not a majority that play 85%, but its still a reasonable amount. Then you look at the names.... Vilma has the talent/ability to play at the level as many of those LBers (in the correct scheme). The Saints won't let this happen this year. But in the future? I wouldn't be surprised... Edit: In my original post, I wasn't arguing that Vilma would reach it this year. I stated he wouldn't. I just posted it to show some of the names, give an idea of how common it was, etc....
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chutney @ Jul 23 2008, 12:00 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>It looks like every team has at least one LB anchoring the core, that plays more than 85% of his teams snaps. I think the Saints envision Vilma in that role, but obviously they'll make sure he doesn't reach that level this season. btw, does this say anything about the Jets, that they'd include such a pointless stipulation in the trade?</div> That they're Giant fans at heart?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chutney @ Jul 23 2008, 11:00 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>It looks like every team has at least one LB anchoring the core, that plays more than 85% of his teams snaps. I think the Saints envision Vilma in that role, but obviously they'll make sure he doesn't reach that level this season. btw, does this say anything about the Jets, that they'd include such a pointless stipulation in the trade?</div> Not really. They couldn't get a 2nd rounder for Vilma.... they just attached this scenario to the trade in case the Saints did end up playing him a lot (which, would have been plausible had they not made this Shockey deal). IOW, if the Saints were off to a good season, needed Vilma to lock up a division/playoff spot/bye/whatever, they might have been willing to go from a round 3 to round 2 (late round 3-late round 2) to make a run at the Super Bowl (easier to achieve with HFA) by playing Vilma more. Its plausible, at least. But the Shockey trade ensures that won't happen. No way the Saints will want to bump that up to a round 2 pick AND THEN lose a 1st in the Shockey trade.
find the numbers from 20 years ago, I bet almost all starting LBs played 85%....the more specialized the game gets, the less frequent it will happen....any team could restrict to 85%, it wouldnt be hard....consider that teams spend half their snaps in the nickle in todays NFL....
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (TheBeef @ Jul 23 2008, 11:10 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>find the numbers from 20 years ago, I bet almost all starting LBs played 85%....the more specialized the game gets, the less frequent it will happen....any team could restrict to 85%, it wouldnt be hard....consider that teams spend half their snaps in the nickle in todays NFL....</div> You do understand that I am agreeing with you in this thread, right.....?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Vintage @ Jul 23 2008, 11:12 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (TheBeef @ Jul 23 2008, 11:10 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>find the numbers from 20 years ago, I bet almost all starting LBs played 85%....the more specialized the game gets, the less frequent it will happen....any team could restrict to 85%, it wouldnt be hard....consider that teams spend half their snaps in the nickle in todays NFL....</div> You do understand that I am agreeing with you in this thread, right.....? </div> yes....im expounding as I go, but not arguing persay....
Vilma can play 100% of the snaps this season on offense, defense and special teams. The Giants will still get a 2nd and a 5th.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ghoti @ Jul 23 2008, 11:22 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Vilma can play 100% of the snaps this season on offense, defense and special teams. The Giants will still get a 2nd and a 5th.</div> I didn't read the O.P. very carefully. I read something similar on another board that had it listed as an "or" proposition.... If he plays 85% OR gets an extension..... I wonder which is right. Edit: went to the Turd's website, you have it correct.... *assuming the turd is correct too.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Vintage @ Jul 23 2008, 12:25 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ghoti @ Jul 23 2008, 11:22 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Vilma can play 100% of the snaps this season on offense, defense and special teams. The Giants will still get a 2nd and a 5th.</div> I didn't read the O.P. very carefully. I read something similar on another board that had it listed as an "or" proposition.... If he plays 85% OR gets an extension..... I wonder which is right. Edit: went to the Turd's website, you have it correct.... *assuming the turd is correct too. </div> I heard Jerry Reese say it on the radio. He was laughing about it not being hard for the Saints to just not give him an extension this year. He actually called this scenario "impossible".
