for display only
Big Blue Interactive The Corner Forum  
Back to the Corner

Archived Thread

29 year-old Jared Odrick released by Jags

Big Blue '56 : 2/20/2017 3:19 pm
was 2 years into a 5 year FA contract..Injured last year, only played 6 games..Can play inside and out..Jags save 8.5 mil on cap

Quote:


The Jacksonville Jaguars have released defensive end Jared Odrick two years into his five-year, $42.5 million contract, according to Odrick’s agent, David Canter.

Odrick, a first round pick by the Dolphins in the 2010 draft, spent his first five seasons in Miami. He racked up 16.5 sacks over four seasons of consistent play.

He signed with Jacksonville as a free agent prior to the 2015 season. Odrick had a solid first season with the Jaguars, with 5.5 sacks, three pass deflections and one forced fumble. In 2016, Odrick was placed on injured reserve with a shoulder injury and only played in six games. He finished with 12 tackles, one sack and one forced fumble.




Link - ( New Window )
So the Jaguars  
pjcas18 : 2/20/2017 3:22 pm : link
now have like 85M in cap room.

so many teams with so much space hard to see the Giants keeping JPP and certainly not winning any bidding wars.
TC is getting rid  
BigBlueDownTheShore : 2/20/2017 3:22 pm : link
of all the cancer in J'ville
Jared Odrick  
jacob12 : 2/20/2017 3:25 pm : link
In 2015 Odrick led Jacksonville in sacks.
RE: So the Jaguars  
The_Boss : 2/20/2017 3:28 pm : link
In comment 13365899 pjcas18 said:
Quote:
now have like 85M in cap room.

so many teams with so much space hard to see the Giants keeping JPP and certainly not winning any bidding wars.


Which is why many think if the NYG are going to keep JPP, they're going to have to convince him before 3/9.
If Hank leaves for more money,  
Diver_Down : 2/20/2017 3:30 pm : link
Odrick would be worth a short-term contract if his health checks out. Perhaps, he'll be receptive to a 2 year prove-it deal to reestablish his market value.
RE: So the Jaguars  
Milton : 2/20/2017 3:30 pm : link
In comment 13365899 pjcas18 said:
Quote:
now have like 85M in cap room.

so many teams with so much space hard to see the Giants keeping JPP and certainly not winning any bidding wars.
How can you say "it's hard to see the Giants keeping JPP" when they can easily tag him? Why is that so hard to see?
RE: RE: So the Jaguars  
BigBlueDownTheShore : 2/20/2017 3:35 pm : link
In comment 13365909 Milton said:
Quote:
In comment 13365899 pjcas18 said:


Quote:


now have like 85M in cap room.

so many teams with so much space hard to see the Giants keeping JPP and certainly not winning any bidding wars.

How can you say "it's hard to see the Giants keeping JPP" when they can easily tag him? Why is that so hard to see?


They should tag him, but I doubt they will.
Not sure if it's true  
TrueBlue56 : 2/20/2017 3:42 pm : link
But, I have heard (can't recall where) that the Giants and jpp had an agreement last year that they would not tag him this year if he agreed to the 1 year contract
RE: Not sure if it's true  
Diver_Down : 2/20/2017 3:55 pm : link
In comment 13365913 TrueBlue56 said:
Quote:
But, I have heard (can't recall where) that the Giants and jpp had an agreement last year that they would not tag him this year if he agreed to the 1 year contract


I remember vaguely that this was the case. I don't remember where I heard/read it. But of course, any "Gentleman's Agreement" has no bearing unless it is stipulated in writing (contract).
RE: If Hank leaves for more money,  
robbieballs2003 : 2/20/2017 3:55 pm : link
In comment 13365908 Diver_Down said:
Quote:
Odrick would be worth a short-term contract if his health checks out. Perhaps, he'll be receptive to a 2 year prove-it deal to reestablish his market value.


The problem is that Odrick can sign with a team right now so we most likely won't be able to see what happens with Hankins first.
RE: RE: So the Jaguars  
pjcas18 : 2/20/2017 4:00 pm : link
In comment 13365909 Milton said:
Quote:
In comment 13365899 pjcas18 said:


Quote:


now have like 85M in cap room.

so many teams with so much space hard to see the Giants keeping JPP and certainly not winning any bidding wars.

How can you say "it's hard to see the Giants keeping JPP" when they can easily tag him? Why is that so hard to see?


Because with 35M using 17.5M on one player, and then 6M for draft picks (min) leaves 14M to fill out the rest of the roster and the Giants need OL help, TE help, WR help, and maybe even LB help (Keenan Robinson) and that means no one other than a draft pick or roster player replaces Hankins.

Just not sure financially tagging JPP is going to work out.
RE: RE: RE: So the Jaguars  
pjcas18 : 2/20/2017 4:00 pm : link
In comment 13365921 pjcas18 said:
Quote:
In comment 13365909 Milton said:


Quote:


In comment 13365899 pjcas18 said:


Quote:


now have like 85M in cap room.

so many teams with so much space hard to see the Giants keeping JPP and certainly not winning any bidding wars.

How can you say "it's hard to see the Giants keeping JPP" when they can easily tag him? Why is that so hard to see?



Because with 35M using 17.5M on one player, and then 6M for draft picks (min) leaves 14M to fill out the rest of the roster and the Giants need OL help, TE help, WR help, and maybe even LB help (Keenan Robinson) and that means no one other than a draft pick or roster player replaces Hankins.

Just not sure financially tagging JPP is going to work out.


sorry that leaves like 12M to fill out the rest of the roster.
RE: RE: If Hank leaves for more money,  
Diver_Down : 2/20/2017 4:01 pm : link
In comment 13365919 robbieballs2003 said:
Quote:
In comment 13365908 Diver_Down said:


Quote:


Odrick would be worth a short-term contract if his health checks out. Perhaps, he'll be receptive to a 2 year prove-it deal to reestablish his market value.



The problem is that Odrick can sign with a team right now so we most likely won't be able to see what happens with Hankins first.


You are absolutely right and the key word is "we" in your response. We have no idea of how Jerry values Hank. We have no idea if any talks have taken place. We are all just spit-balling.

But with the speculation that passes for discussion, there is the possibility that Hank is determined to maximize his earnings (and why shouldn't he?). Jerry might have already had discussions with Hank's agent and the two sides are no where close to how they value Hank. With Jerry's mantra, of always investigating all options, Odrick might certainly qualify as option to investigate if his health checks out.
What I found interesting was that Demps was on the radio  
robbieballs2003 : 2/20/2017 4:10 pm : link
The other day and they talked about how he was such a vital part of their top ranked defense. He was asked if he had contract talks with the team yet and he said it was way too early in the procesd for that. I thought that was very surprising.
If in fact in oral agreement was made with JPP re  
Big Blue '56 : 2/20/2017 4:12 pm : link
not tagging him this year if he signed for the amount he did last year, then no way JPP signs the tag until he absolutely has to which can fluck us royally..If he feels betrayed by what we might have heard was an oral agreement between them, then kiss amicability good-bye, imo
I thought Odrick was more suited to be a 3-4 DE than a 4-3 DT  
Ivan15 : 2/20/2017 4:12 pm : link
I thought that was why he had a good year at Jax in 2015.

What defense will Jax play?

If he is really a 3-4 DE, the Giants shouldn't have interest unless they want another Chris Canty.
RE: I thought Odrick was more suited to be a 3-4 DE than a 4-3 DT  
Diver_Down : 2/20/2017 4:26 pm : link
In comment 13365929 Ivan15 said:
Quote:
I thought that was why he had a good year at Jax in 2015.

What defense will Jax play?

If he is really a 3-4 DE, the Giants shouldn't have interest unless they want another Chris Canty.


Jax has played a 4-3 for years. Perhaps they are switching it up to a 3-4? But I doubt it. They retained their existing defensive coordinator who was keeping what Gus Bradley installed which is a variation of a 4-3 with a Leo position (weakside edge player - sole responsibility is to rush and cause disruption in the backfield).

JPP  
djstat : 2/20/2017 4:41 pm : link
would be missed but not as much as you think.
RE: JPP  
The_Boss : 2/20/2017 4:55 pm : link
In comment 13365939 djstat said:
Quote:
would be missed but not as much as you think.


I disagree.
Okwara is raw. Yes he had a great game vs Dallas, but not much thereafter. Odi and Wynn are JAG's. OV's going to face doubles all year without JPP opposite him, even if we draft a DE. Our sacks/pressures along the DL will be WAY down next year.

Resigning JPP should be priority #1 this spring.
RE: JPP  
pjcas18 : 2/20/2017 4:58 pm : link
In comment 13365939 djstat said:
Quote:
would be missed but not as much as you think.


It depends entirely on who replaces him.

and I'm not 100% positive, but I don't believe the JPP replacement is on the current roster.
RE: RE: JPP  
Milton : 2/20/2017 5:04 pm : link
In comment 13365951 pjcas18 said:
Quote:
I'm not 100% positive, but I don't believe the JPP replacement is on the current roster.
The JPP replacement may still be in high school.
RE: RE: RE: JPP  
pjcas18 : 2/20/2017 8:03 pm : link
In comment 13365960 Milton said:
Quote:
In comment 13365951 pjcas18 said:


Quote:


I'm not 100% positive, but I don't believe the JPP replacement is on the current roster.

The JPP replacement may still be in high school.


then the poster was correct, the Giants won't miss JPP as much as people think
'hard to see the Giants keeping JPP'...  
Torrag : 2/20/2017 10:15 pm : link
...False. We'll tag him first as a negotiating tactic then if we can't make a long term deal he'll be traded or forced to play under the tag. And all the I won't play under the tag is BS...you will or you won't earn your service time. And if you dog it who'll pay you next year?
RE: 'hard to see the Giants keeping JPP'...  
pjcas18 : 2/21/2017 2:18 am : link
In comment 13366105 Torrag said:
Quote:
...False. We'll tag him first as a negotiating tactic then if we can't make a long term deal he'll be traded or forced to play under the tag. And all the I won't play under the tag is BS...you will or you won't earn your service time. And if you dog it who'll pay you next year?


False? who are you Dwight Shrute? The franchise tag is far far worse for the Giants than it is for JPP. He signs it and gets 17.5M (or around there) guaranteed for one season. Of course he says he doesn't want to play on it, no one says they want to play on it. he need an average year to be a FA again and get a contract with another 20 or 30M guaranteed. Giants not in the drivers seat on this one. JPP is not a UDFA, he's made some cash.

he'd have made over 50M in his career from contracts alone if he plays next year on the FT.

The FT might be applied by the Giants as a bargaining tool but JPP playing under it means somewhere else on the team is under-funded or someone else is cut (DRC, Vereen, etc.)

simple math.
Odrick  
Jimmy Googs : 2/21/2017 7:20 am : link
not a good player...
'The franchise tag is far far worse for the Giants than it is for JPP'  
Torrag : 2/21/2017 9:58 am : link
False again. The worst case scenario is JPP not playing for the Giants next year in a season where a title is winnable. An acceptable outcome is getting compensation for him in some manner if he walks.

In my view those are the only two outcomes where we aren't aren't huge losers.

We have the cap room to pay him the $17.5M if necessary.

All this is academic anyway. He'll be tagged as a negotiating stance if required in an attempt to moderate his contract demands. I've said all along imo a 4/$60M deal is likely the end game here.
this  
pjcas18 : 2/21/2017 10:07 am : link
is tangential.

Quote:
The worst case scenario is JPP not playing for the Giants next year in a season where a title is winnable


the options of JPP on the tag, it is unquestionably worse for the Giants. The only bad things for JPP are injury or poor play and guess what he still gets $17.5M.

The downside for the Giants is they lose a massive investment if he's injured, and if he plays poorly it's wasted money and if he plays well, guess what they risk losing him as even more likely when that 17.5M could be almost half the guaranteed money he would have gotten on a long-term deal.

I want to sign him too, but having him play on the FT will hamstring the team into not being able to sign players they need to fill other holes (OL, WR, TE, DT) or force them to cut players they might not have wanted to cut (DRC, Vereen, for example)
Odrick looked like a better fit at 3-4 DE  
JonC : 2/21/2017 1:16 pm : link
.
'will hamstring the team'...  
Torrag : 2/21/2017 2:29 pm : link
...that's a steaming load. If he isn't signed you lost your best DE and they're doesn't look to be an in house solution. So right there you may spend that money somewhere else but your team is going to be worse. Why? because it's a critical position you'll be downgrading. Probably the most important position on that side of the ball considering our scheme.

Let's not forget applying the franchise tag if a deal can't be reached initially is a tactic. It could lead to better terms for us on a long term deal. It could lead to a trade. But even if it leads to JPP playing the year at $17.5M that's still the best option for the Giants.
The money simply doesn't  
pjcas18 : 2/21/2017 2:35 pm : link
work. Re-sign JPP yes. Have him play on the FT, no.

The Giants have about $31.5M in cap room per OTC. If they pay JPP 17.5M that leaves $14M, minus 6M more or less for rookies.

that leaves $8M for upgrades at OL, TE, WR, DT, LB (re-sign Robinson?) backup QB, K.

the money simply does not work. You are not improving the team one bit on offense except through the draft and to rely on draft picks to contribute day 1, outside of maybe a 1st/2nd round pick (sometimes) is not a solid strategy for a contender. Plus you're then forcing Reese's hand in the draft to pick need instead of need/BPA and that's simply not Reese's MO.

The best case scenario is re-signing JPP where year 1 (and most years) would have less than a 17.5M cap hit, him playing on the FT is not a desirable situation for the Giants.
'him playing on the FT is not a desirable situation for the Giants...'  
Torrag : 2/21/2017 2:40 pm : link
I never said it was desirable...I said and I maintain it's better than the other option ie him walking without us garnering significant compensation to alleviate the loss. How do you guarantee that? You tag him and work the problem from there.
I never disagreed that JPP  
pjcas18 : 2/21/2017 2:43 pm : link
playing on the FT is better than him walking.

I simply said it's a) not desirable for the Giants and b) much better for JPP than it is the Giants.

the Giants do not want JPP to play on the FT. He may wind up doing it, and if he does it's better than him walking, but it will impact the team's ability to improve in other areas.

I don't see how that's even debatable.
RE: I never disagreed that JPP  
Big Blue '56 : 2/21/2017 2:58 pm : link
In comment 13366826 pjcas18 said:
Quote:
playing on the FT is better than him walking.

I simply said it's a) not desirable for the Giants and b) much better for JPP than it is the Giants.

the Giants do not want JPP to play on the FT. He may wind up doing it, and if he does it's better than him walking, but it will impact the team's ability to improve in other areas.

I don't see how that's even debatable.


Well then I'll say it. The FT is NOT better than him walking..It would hamstring what we'd need to do forOffense
RE: RE: I never disagreed that JPP  
pjcas18 : 2/21/2017 3:01 pm : link
In comment 13366849 Big Blue '56 said:
Quote:
In comment 13366826 pjcas18 said:


Quote:


playing on the FT is better than him walking.

I simply said it's a) not desirable for the Giants and b) much better for JPP than it is the Giants.

the Giants do not want JPP to play on the FT. He may wind up doing it, and if he does it's better than him walking, but it will impact the team's ability to improve in other areas.

I don't see how that's even debatable.



Well then I'll say it. The FT is NOT better than him walking..It would hamstring what we'd need to do forOffense


to me that's debatable. It depends who replaces JPP. If it's Okwara and the defense is closer to 2015 than 2016 then no it's not better to let him walk. If it's an unnamed player who is close to JPP in production and the defense still plays at a competent level and the offense is improved them I agree.

But it's about the personnel. The Giants NEED two solid DE's at least.
'It would hamstring what we'd need to do forOffense...'  
Torrag : 2/21/2017 4:37 pm : link
...at the expense of maintaining the defense we finally got straightened out this year? Bad decision '56. When our offense was good...no playoffs. When our defense is good we win championships. History doesn't lie.
RE: 'It would hamstring what we'd need to do forOffense...'  
Big Blue '56 : 2/21/2017 4:51 pm : link
In comment 13366986 Torrag said:
Quote:
...at the expense of maintaining the defense we finally got straightened out this year? Bad decision '56. When our offense was good...no playoffs. When our defense is good we win championships. History doesn't lie.


We disagree. If all but JPP are in place with a few upgrades in FA, we should be solid enough on D to be quite effective..It would be better if he was here, but far from catastrophic if he isn't..Houston did rather well without Watt, though they're certainly better with him
tagging JPP  
fkap : 2/21/2017 5:02 pm : link
is NOT a slam dunk good move. anyone who thinks so is mistaken.

it MAY be a good move, but that is far from certain.

it will absolutely kill half the available cap space for this year, and leave you up in the air for the future. You can sign/resign 4 top tier players, OR you can tag JPP and sign/resign 2 other players.

The best thing JPP ever did was not cave the last time we tagged him. IF he had caved, he'd be seeing far less money over all. the best thing for him is to sign a tag, and then get more money next year.
'If all but JPP are in place with a few upgrades in FA'...  
Torrag : 2/21/2017 5:28 pm : link
You contradict yourself. Don't sign JPP sign other defensive upgrades? They'll cost the same and you'll get less impact. Spend the money on a difference maker.

Frankly if we sign JPP, Whitworth and Robinson and draft well we can win it all. And yes we can afford that with a couple of contract tweaks...hello Eli.
RE: 'If all but JPP are in place with a few upgrades in FA'...  
Big Blue '56 : 2/21/2017 5:43 pm : link
In comment 13367044 Torrag said:
Quote:
You contradict yourself. Don't sign JPP sign other defensive upgrades? They'll cost the same and you'll get less impact. Spend the money on a difference maker.

Frankly if we sign JPP, Whitworth and Robinson and draft well we can win it all. And yes we can afford that with a couple of contract tweaks...hello Eli.


You can sign 2 or 3 good players for what you pay JPP, imo..A tag is a hard 17 mil. If you sign 2 or 3 good players for that, you can play with the numbers. Not so with the FT
We can create some wiggle room with the cap if needed.  
Torrag : 2/21/2017 5:59 pm : link
You almost always can. The window is now. I don't want to see JPP walk at this time. I have some issues with him as you know but sometimes you have to go for the brass ring.
Back to the Corner