Discuss football with over 60,000 fans. Free Membership. Join now!

 FAQFAQ  RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

FootballsFuture.com Forum Index
FootballsFuture.com Home

Tommy Kelly a top candidate for release
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Oakland Raiders
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
BlackWidow


Joined: 03 May 2012
Posts: 436
PostPosted: Tue Feb 05, 2013 12:20 am    Post subject: Tommy Kelly a top candidate for release Reply with quote

Tommy Kelly - DL - Raiders
ESPN's Bill Williamson classifies Raiders NT Tommy Kelly as a "top candidate" to be released.
Kelly has two years left on his monster seven-year, $50.125 million deal, but his cap number for 2013 is reportedly over $11 million. He's started all 16 games over each of the last five seasons, but Kelly recorded just one sack in 2012 after notching 14.5 in the previous two seasons. The Raiders defensive line should see an extreme makeover with Richard Seymour and Desmond Bryant also set for free agency.
_________________
RIP Layne Staley. Your wings are no longer denied.



[quote="RaidersAreOne"]BlackWidow is a chick? Everything makes so much more sense all of a sudden.[/quote]
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
BlackWidow


Joined: 03 May 2012
Posts: 436
PostPosted: Tue Feb 05, 2013 12:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

See ya! We don't need you or your yellow flags you produce every game
_________________
RIP Layne Staley. Your wings are no longer denied.



[quote="RaidersAreOne"]BlackWidow is a chick? Everything makes so much more sense all of a sudden.[/quote]
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bo_Spice


Joined: 17 May 2009
Posts: 9687
PostPosted: Tue Feb 05, 2013 12:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

He really regressed last season and with his contract there's no reason to bring him back. It's time to move on from the Kelly-Seymour duo and move forward with Bryant, Bilukidi, and hopefully a new nose tackle that we acquire this off-season.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CaliforniaKid7


Joined: 23 Jan 2010
Posts: 6942
Location: California
PostPosted: Tue Feb 05, 2013 1:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bo_Spice wrote:
He really regressed last season and with his contract there's no reason to bring him back. It's time to move on from the Kelly-Seymour duo and move forward with Bryant, Bilukidi, and hopefully a new nose tackle that we acquire this off-season.


yeah, lets hope for a Bryant, Bilukidi, Star/Hill/Knighton rotation.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Bo_Spice


Joined: 17 May 2009
Posts: 9687
PostPosted: Tue Feb 05, 2013 1:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

CaliforniaKid7 wrote:
yeah, lets hope for a Bryant, Bilukidi, Star/Hill/Knighton rotation.


I'd love to see Desmond Bryant at UT with a run stuffing NT next to him and Bilukidi playing NT on passing downs.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
DOCLEW 28


Joined: 10 Nov 2006
Posts: 11136
Location: East Oakland
PostPosted: Tue Feb 05, 2013 2:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

This doesn't mean a thing. Williamson is just guessing like we all are.

But I do hope that they would try and find a trade partner, however unlikely that is with his contract. I would rather get something for him. I can remember Bellicheat being in love with Kelly a while ago. Maybe we can get something out of that sour puss.
_________________

Raider X hooked me with the sig
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
agarcia34


Joined: 24 Feb 2011
Posts: 5611
PostPosted: Tue Feb 05, 2013 2:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Been a long time coming. He just plays stupid football.
_________________
#Dodgers
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Raiiiiidersssss


Joined: 23 Jan 2007
Posts: 5468
Location: The Black Hole
PostPosted: Tue Feb 05, 2013 2:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

this is bing bong beautiful
_________________
MACKiavelli
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
DOCLEW 28


Joined: 10 Nov 2006
Posts: 11136
Location: East Oakland
PostPosted: Tue Feb 05, 2013 6:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

According to reports the team could save about $7M by cutting or trading Kelly.
_________________

Raider X hooked me with the sig
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Rolni


Joined: 08 Jun 2008
Posts: 2882
Location: Europe
PostPosted: Tue Feb 05, 2013 8:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

DOCLEW 28 wrote:
According to reports the team could save about $7M by cutting or trading Kelly.


Those reports are not accurate!
They don't count in his 2012 restructure.

After the 2012 restructure here is his deal:
2012: 825000 salary + 4599267 signing bonus = 5424267 total
2013: 6500000 salary + 4599267 signing bonus = 11099267 total
2014: 7000000 salary + 1725000 signing bonus = 8725000 total

With a cut or trade now we could have 6324267 dead money.
So we can save 4775000 with either move.
_________________
WIN LOSE OR TIE...RAIDER FAN 'TIL I DIE!!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Darbsk


Joined: 21 Oct 2008
Posts: 1462
Location: Wales, UK
PostPosted: Tue Feb 05, 2013 12:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bo_Spice wrote:
He really regressed last season and with his contract there's no reason to bring him back. It's time to move on from the Kelly-Seymour duo and move forward with Bryant, Bilukidi, and hopefully a new nose tackle that we acquire this off-season.


That would be us playing him at NT, not regression. He is and always has been a good penetrating DT or possibly a 3-4 end who can get after the QB. In the right system I beleive he could put up great numbers (as evidenced by 14.5 sacks in 2 seasons here), albeit with a few daft and needless penalties thrown in while trying to guess the snap count.

Shame we didn't get a true run stopping DT next to him and allow him to do his thing, we never fully utilised his skills. I'm not sad to see him go but I don't get why some of you guys are so tough on him, he said himself he didn't want to play NT but did it the best he could for the team for which he should be applauded Sad
_________________
"The fire that burns brightest in the Raiders organization is the will to win."
Mr. Al Davis RIP
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
TiberiusRising


Joined: 03 Jan 2008
Posts: 11247
PostPosted: Tue Feb 05, 2013 12:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Darbsk wrote:
Bo_Spice wrote:
He really regressed last season and with his contract there's no reason to bring him back. It's time to move on from the Kelly-Seymour duo and move forward with Bryant, Bilukidi, and hopefully a new nose tackle that we acquire this off-season.


That would be us playing him at NT, not regression. He is and always has been a good penetrating DT or possibly a 3-4 end who can get after the QB. In the right system I beleive he could put up great numbers (as evidenced by 14.5 sacks in 2 seasons here), albeit with a few daft and needless penalties thrown in while trying to guess the snap count.

Shame we didn't get a true run stopping DT next to him and allow him to do his thing, we never fully utilised his skills. I'm not sad to see him go but I don't get why some of you guys are so tough on him, he said himself he didn't want to play NT but did it the best he could for the team for which he should be applauded Sad


My main issue with him was the penalties and his contract. Wouldnt mind keeping him at the right price.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
McRaider


Joined: 07 Feb 2009
Posts: 243
PostPosted: Tue Feb 05, 2013 12:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

i really hope and expect kelly to be cut. this guy should be paying the raiders for theft.
he was horrible this season and reggie has his eyeballs on his ridiculous contract byebye kelly.
our line will finally see the make over it needs
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
McRaider


Joined: 07 Feb 2009
Posts: 243
PostPosted: Tue Feb 05, 2013 12:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rolni wrote:
DOCLEW 28 wrote:
According to reports the team could save about $7M by cutting or trading Kelly.


Those reports are not accurate!
They don't count in his 2012 restructure.

After the 2012 restructure here is his deal:
2012: 825000 salary + 4599267 signing bonus = 5424267 total
2013: 6500000 salary + 4599267 signing bonus = 11099267 total
2014: 7000000 salary + 1725000 signing bonus = 8725000 total

With a cut or trade now we could have 6324267 dead money.
So we can save 4775000 with either move.
holy Shocked
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
holyghost


Joined: 18 Jan 2007
Posts: 5835
PostPosted: Tue Feb 05, 2013 12:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Darbsk wrote:
Bo_Spice wrote:
He really regressed last season and with his contract there's no reason to bring him back. It's time to move on from the Kelly-Seymour duo and move forward with Bryant, Bilukidi, and hopefully a new nose tackle that we acquire this off-season.


That would be us playing him at NT, not regression. He is and always has been a good penetrating DT or possibly a 3-4 end who can get after the QB. In the right system I beleive he could put up great numbers (as evidenced by 14.5 sacks in 2 seasons here), albeit with a few daft and needless penalties thrown in while trying to guess the snap count.

Shame we didn't get a true run stopping DT next to him and allow him to do his thing, we never fully utilised his skills. I'm not sad to see him go but I don't get why some of you guys are so tough on him, he said himself he didn't want to play NT but did it the best he could for the team for which he should be applauded Sad


I disagree with this man. Vehemently. How was he never utilized? He played UT for years. He gave us exactly what he is and the most he'll ever be. A tweener sized UT with strong pass rush and poor gap discipline, minimal leadership and generally undisciplined play capable of flashing great ability on occasion.
It's all there in the games, just watch em. Noone told him to leave his gap. Noone coached him to ride the blocker off the play. Noone told him to stand up straight and not move while the ball carrier ran by.

In 8 years he was never greater than that and it's not due to misuse.

It's the same thing as a guy like Huff. Does anyone believe if these guys were such good players that even if they were in the wrong position that at least they would consistently flash such skill, this forcing the team to reconsider their use? You can pigeonhole a guy in the wrong place for a couple years, maybe even 4 years. But 8 years, and still nothing emerges in them? Come on...

Every defense plays multiple looks all year long. If Kelly, or Huff, or any of the guys like them were so good as players, it would have shown in the look that is the right fit for them. It didn't. They're inconsistent, physically talented, undisciplined, and mediocre footballers. And they're not going to all of a sudden become something more in a different situation, not by scheme change and not here or elsewhere.

But I do agree with what you are saying if you are saying that the team blew it for themselves by not shielding Kelly's flaws and playing to his strengths. That I can agree with. That way you can get more out of the guy you have, for what he is. Problem with that is the defensive personnel we have assembled over the last 10 years is so disparate and ill fit that it's really really hard to come up with looks that hide all of their weaknesses and accent all of their strengths. They were never built together as a unit, only plucked as superior athletes and tossed together. Turns out a man on man beat em individually defense is in fact the best fit for a group like that. And now we see why that's such a terrible drafting and defensive philosophy. In the modern NFL, at best, you can be mediocre trying to physically outsize and outrace the competition. At worst you can be a defensive abomination. Because most other teams can now match you physically, and then beat you cohesively and strategically.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   

Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Oakland Raiders All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Page 1 of 4

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group