Vernon Davis

Originally posted by DeUh:

Originally posted by buck:
A lot is not going to be sufficient.

Graham must be able to show that he actually functioned as a wide receiver for a substantial majority of his snaps.

I have no idea if Graham's specific grievance has validity, but a working out-of-class grievances are at least theoretically sound.

I do not know if Vernon Davis is asking to be paid as a wide receiver?

He is answering those questions the same way he answered questions in regards of his "holdout".

Jun. 4, 2014

Woohoo! That works for me!" Davis told Maggie Gray on SI Now when asked if he wanted to see Graham win his case.Asked, however, if he should be classified as a wide receiver, Davis said, "You know what? I'm a tight end. I'm a tight end. But I must say, if it happens, then I'm sure every tight end's going to try to follow behind Jimmy Garham. But my role is to play the tight end position. I do everything they tell me to do."
Davis, 30, hasn't taken part in the 49ers offseason workouts because he wants a new contract. The problem is that the tight end market has been stagnant in recent years and Davis is the third-highest paid player at the position. He's the second-highest paid 49er, and his 2014 salary is more than wide receivers Michael Crabtree's and Anquan Boldin's combined salaries.
According to Pro Football Focus, Davis lined up as a traditional tight end 64.5 percent of the time in 2013. He led the team that season in touchdown catches and yards per reception. Davis told The Bee last week he wasn't sure whether he would miss this month's mandatory minicamp. All of the workouts thus far have been voluntary, though Davis did forfeit a $200,000 workout bonus by skipping them.

http://www.sacbee.com/2014/06/04/6457993/vernon-davis-closely-watching.html


Two days later however his answer isn´t that specific anymore.

June 6, 2014

So Davis surely believes he should be paid the same way, given that he previously told NBCSN's Pro Football Talk that Davis sees himself as a receiver?
"I can't speak for myself," Davis said. "I'll let everybody else do that."
By everybody else, Davis possibly means his shareholders.

"He believes that he deserves more, and I believe that he deserves more," Davis told ESPN regarding Graham, who's caught in a franchise-tag fight with the Saints. "He's just a wonderful presence. He's a great player. He has a lot of potential to go above and beyond and just go further. He is one of those guys that is a part of that TE position that are changing the game — Antonio Gates, Jimmy Graham, [Rob] Gronkowski.

"Those guys are some fantastic players. If it was me, if I was the owner of the team, I would give the kid everything he wants because he's that."

More specifically, Davis believes Graham should be paid like a receiver, which is the gist of his pending grievance.

"If you're a guy who's catching a lot of passes and you possess some of the traits that wide receivers have, then yes, I agree," Davis said. "I think that he should get paid like a wide receiver."

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/06/06/vernon-davis-lobbies-for-jimmy-graham-to-get-paid/

Originally posted by DeUh:

Originally posted by buck:
A lot is not going to be sufficient.

Graham must be able to show that he actually functioned as a wide receiver for a substantial majority of his snaps.

I have no idea if Graham's specific grievance has validity, but a working out-of-class grievances are at least theoretically sound.

I do not know if Vernon Davis is asking to be paid as a wide receiver?

He is answering those questions the same way he answered questions in regards of his "holdout".

Jun. 4, 2014

Woohoo! That works for me!" Davis told Maggie Gray on SI Now when asked if he wanted to see Graham win his case.Asked, however, if he should be classified as a wide receiver, Davis said, "You know what? I'm a tight end. I'm a tight end. But I must say, if it happens, then I'm sure every tight end's going to try to follow behind Jimmy Garham. But my role is to play the tight end position. I do everything they tell me to do."
Davis, 30, hasn't taken part in the 49ers offseason workouts because he wants a new contract. The problem is that the tight end market has been stagnant in recent years and Davis is the third-highest paid player at the position. He's the second-highest paid 49er, and his 2014 salary is more than wide receivers Michael Crabtree's and Anquan Boldin's combined salaries.
According to Pro Football Focus, Davis lined up as a traditional tight end 64.5 percent of the time in 2013. He led the team that season in touchdown catches and yards per reception. Davis told The Bee last week he wasn't sure whether he would miss this month's mandatory minicamp. All of the workouts thus far have been voluntary, though Davis did forfeit a $200,000 workout bonus by skipping them.

http://www.sacbee.com/2014/06/04/6457993/vernon-davis-closely-watching.html


Two days later however his answer isn´t that specific anymore.

June 6, 2014

So Davis surely believes he should be paid the same way, given that he previously told NBCSN's Pro Football Talk that Davis sees himself as a receiver?
"I can't speak for myself," Davis said. "I'll let everybody else do that."
By everybody else, Davis possibly means his shareholders.

"He believes that he deserves more, and I believe that he deserves more," Davis told ESPN regarding Graham, who's caught in a franchise-tag fight with the Saints. "He's just a wonderful presence. He's a great player. He has a lot of potential to go above and beyond and just go further. He is one of those guys that is a part of that TE position that are changing the game — Antonio Gates, Jimmy Graham, [Rob] Gronkowski.

"Those guys are some fantastic players. If it was me, if I was the owner of the team, I would give the kid everything he wants because he's that."

More specifically, Davis believes Graham should be paid like a receiver, which is the gist of his pending grievance.

"If you're a guy who's catching a lot of passes and you possess some of the traits that wide receivers have, then yes, I agree," Davis said. "I think that he should get paid like a wide receiver."

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/06/06/vernon-davis-lobbies-for-jimmy-graham-to-get-paid/

Originally posted by VPofCarnage:

Originally posted by crabman82:
just looked it up, he was lined in usual wr spots 67% of the time

Some TEs line up at WR a lot, but almost no WRs line up in TE spots. They should just define a TE by lining up at something like 20% of the snaps at TE to avoid this problem in the future. I don't think any receiver in NFL history has ever lined up at TE spots 20% of the time. That's just a guess though, so I could be wrong.

Originally posted by teylo31:

Didnt the saints place the franchise tag on graham. Doesnt that technically means he is holding out

Originally posted by buck:

Originally posted by teylo31:
Didnt the saints place the franchise tag on graham. Doesnt that technically means he is holding out

I do not think so.

Graham has no existing contract. A player with no valid existing contract can not hold out.

A player who has contract and who does report as required out can be fined.

If Graham does not have a existing valid contract, he is not holding out and he cannot be fined.]

If you want to characterize that as a technicality, you have to admit that it a major technicality.

In my estimation, Graham is not a hold out no matter how you choose to look at it.

Originally posted by ElephantHaley:

Vernon better shut his mouth about him being a WR. All I remember is he pulled his hammy vs Dick Sherman in week 2 "trying" to play WR.

Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:

Originally posted by buck:

Originally posted by teylo31:

Didnt the saints place the franchise tag on graham. Doesnt that technically means he is holding out

I do not think so.

Graham has no existing contract. A player with no valid existing contract can not hold out.

A player who has contract and who does report as required out can be fined.

If Graham does not have a existing valid contract, he is not holding out and he cannot be fined.]

If you want to characterize that as a technicality, you have to admit that it a major technicality.

In my estimation, Graham is not a hold out no matter how you choose to look at it.

so if he doesn't sign the Franchise tag tender..he is free to sign with another team ?

Originally posted by buck:

Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:

Originally posted by buck:

Originally posted by teylo31:
Didnt the saints place the franchise tag on graham. Doesnt that technically means he is holding out

I do not think so.

Graham has no existing contract. A player with no valid existing contract can not hold out.

A player who has contract and who does report as required out can be fined.

If Graham does not have a existing valid contract, he is not holding out and he cannot be fined.]

If you want to characterize that as a technicality, you have to admit that it a major technicality.

In my estimation, Graham is not a hold out no matter how you choose to look at it.

so if he doesn't sign the Franchise tag tender..he is free to sign with another team ?

d

Good question. I do not know the answer.

If Graham does not win his grievance, we will find out what it means if he does not sign his franchise tag tender.

Nevertheless, there is no doubt that right now Graham is NOT a hold out.

Originally posted by CWin4949:
Is VD's stock up or down?

Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:

i will tell you what happens.

That player is tagged and is under contract for that team.

It's up to the player to sign that tender or hold out for a year to become eligible to be a free agent.

So by not agreeing to the TE Franchise tag he would be holding out

Originally posted by buck:

Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:
i will tell you what happens.

That player is tagged and is under contract for that team.

It's up to the player to sign that tender or hold out for a year to become eligible to be a free agent.

So by not agreeing to the TE Franchise tag he would be holding out

I do not know if you are right about this, but you may be.

At some point in the future Graham may be, or may not be, a hold out.

If I remember correctly, you asserted or implied that Graham is a hold out.

Please acknowledge that at this moment Graham is not, and may never be, a hold out.