Brandon Chillar Extended, 4 years/$21M, $7M Guaranteed

LUKE23 · Post #1 » by **LUKE23** » Mon Dec 14, 2009 4:06 pm

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/stor ... LHeadlines

Wow, not a fan of this one.

Newz · Post #2 » by **Newz** » Mon Dec 14, 2009 4:10 pm

Collins and Pickett next plz.

Also, 5 million a year for Chillar seems to be overpaying him a bit. I do like him as a player, but that seems like a little too much.

Oh well, I think TT believes that the guys we have now are going to be a great defense for the next 5+ years, so he is tying as many guys up as he can.

LUKE23 · Post #3 » by **LUKE23** » Mon Dec 14, 2009 4:10 pm

My biggest issue is that he's not even a starter on our D. Why go 4 years for a non-starter?

Post #4 » by **ReasonablySober** » Mon Dec 14, 2009 4:11 pm

What the ****?

Post #5 » by **ReasonablySober** » Mon Dec 14, 2009 4:15 pm

LUKE23 wrote:My biggest issue is that he's not even a starter on our D. Why go 4 years for a non-starter?

Hawk and Barnett are playing well. Bishop was out there much of yesterday. Matthews, Jones and Poppinga are there at OLB.

How do you give a guy 4 years and $7 million guaranteed to play special teams and maybe a half dozen snaps on D?

Unless they think at least one of the MLBs won't be back next year I don't see how this makes any sense at all.

Newz · Post #6 » by **Newz** » Mon Dec 14, 2009 4:17 pm

DrugBust wrote:Unless they think at least one of the MLBs won't be back next year I don't see how this makes any sense at all.

I'm guessing he will be playing a much bigger role next season. If not then the contract is puzzling.

eagle13 · Post #7 » by **eagle13** » Mon Dec 14, 2009 4:19 pm

Good! Chillar >>> Hawk. Chill should start.
Now if $ is a concern - trade Hawk for a 4th. Or cut Poppinga.

Pickett next! Need depth and vet experience.

TT may wait on Collins to see what happens w/ CBA.
IF none then TT will not have to upgrade yet.
IF new CBA happpens - TT tags Collins.

I want Nick back!
Think he will be.

LUKE23 · Post #8 » by **LUKE23** » Mon Dec 14, 2009 4:20 pm

Hawk and Barnett are playing well. Bishop was out there much of yesterday. Matthews, Jones and Poppinga are there at OLB.

How do you give a guy 4 years and $7 million guaranteed to play special teams and maybe a half dozen snaps on D?

Unless they think at least one of the MLBs won't be back next year I don't see how this makes any sense at all.

Agreed. At first glance, this is one of TT's worst moves, in my opinion. I don't care how valuable a guy is on ST, if he's not starting I'm not giving him a four year deal at that money.

Regarding LB's, Hawk/Barnett/Matthews are all back next year correct? Chillar sure as hell isn't playing OLB, so there is no way he starts. He's at best 5th in the LB depth chart, if not worse.

LarryHarris · Post #9 » by **LarryHarris** » Mon Dec 14, 2009 4:20 pm

Very surprising! I like what Chillar had shown earlier this season, but this kind of comes out of nowhere. Maybe they assume Kampman will be gone, Jones (who knows) and Poppinga sucks. So I bet he gets the OLB spot beside Matthews...

Siefer · Post #10 » by **Siefer** » Mon Dec 14, 2009 4:20 pm

DrugBust wrote:
LUKE23 wrote:Unless they think at least one of the MLBs won't be back next year I don't see how this makes any sense at all.

If that's the case, the question then becomes, do we want Brandon Chillar starting on our team? I like him as a player, but who exactly was going to give him anywhere near this amount of money guaranteed ($7 million)?

LUKE23 · Post #11 » by **LUKE23** » Mon Dec 14, 2009 4:21 pm

Good! Chillar >>> Hawk. Chill should start.

Hawk, for a good portion of this season now, has been playing damn well actually. I would take him over Chillar any day.

crkone · Post #12 » by **crkone** » Mon Dec 14, 2009 4:22 pm

Interesting to say the least. They must be expecting to trade someone in the offseason or something.

Post #13 » by **ReasonablySober** » Mon Dec 14, 2009 4:23 pm

Hawk has been one of the defense's best players for a while now. I can't say anything bad about either Hawk or Barnett.

The only thing I can think of is if either of their cap number is set to go up HUGE next season and the Packers don't want to pay it. I'll see if I can find the numbers.

Newz · Post #14 » by **Newz** » Mon Dec 14, 2009 4:26 pm

DrugBust wrote:Hawk has been one of the defense's best players for a while now. I can't say anything bad about either Hawk or Barnett.

The only thing I can think of is if either of their cap number is set to go up HUGE next season and the Packers don't want to pay it. I'll see if I can find the numbers.

Hawk and Barnett have both been playing very well as of late.

As long as this doesn't get in the way of us signing Collins and Pickett, I am okay with it. TT is going to continue to build through the draft regardless, so I don't see Chillar's contract getting in the way of any FA signings or anything like that.

Captain Erv · Post #15 » by **Captain Erv** » Mon Dec 14, 2009 4:29 pm

PFT:

Hawk's salary bumps up to $4.1 million in 2010, and then will have to be restructured before 2011 when it jumps to $10 million.

Newz · Post #16 » by **Newz** » Mon Dec 14, 2009 4:30 pm

Captain Erv wrote:PFT:

Hawk's salary bumps up to $4.1 million in 2010, and then will have to be restructured before 2011 when it jumps to $10 million.

Perhaps they are keeping Chillar now to replace Hawk when his salary is set to jump to $10 million.

(I'm guessing that's what you were hinting at)

Siefer · Post #17 » by **Siefer** » Mon Dec 14, 2009 4:33 pm

Even if we're looking ahead to replacing one of our other LB's (and I certainly hope we can keep Barnett and Hawk), I feel like we could have probably gotten Chillar for less. I wonder, who would have given him anything north of $5 million guaranteed?

Post #18 » by **ReasonablySober** » Mon Dec 14, 2009 4:33 pm

Captain Erv wrote:PFT:

Hawk's salary bumps up to $4.1 million in 2010, and then will have to be restructured before 2011 when it jumps to $10 million.

Yea I just noticed that. So there's no reason for Hawk to take a pay-cut next year but something will obviously have to be done after next year or he'll be cut.

This move still makes no sense.

Captain Erv · Post #19 » by **Captain Erv** » Mon Dec 14, 2009 4:36 pm

Who knows, kind of a puzzling deal, but as someone else mentioned we really don't sign high profile free agent's anyway so I doubt this has any real negative impact in the future. We do need to get Collins and Pickett locked up though, no excuses.

Post #20 » by **ReasonablySober** » Mon Dec 14, 2009 4:40 pm

Collins, if the year is uncapped, will be back next season. There's an obvious excuse with both, though. They still have to accept offers to return. It's not like you can throw a contract on the table and make a Godfather-esque offer they can't refuse.

Worst case scenario the tags can be used.