(04-11-2024, 12:00 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote:

(04-11-2024, 11:35 AM)NewJagsCity Wrote: Agree with this, and i actually dont think we were that interested in Ridley moving forward. Tagging Allen initially instead of Ridley seems to bear this out. We must have seen something in season that we didnt like. I think the signing backfires on the Tacks.

This feels like the rationalization of a scorned woman. It's much more plausible that Baalke followed his own historical behavior pattern and didn't talk to Allen before tagging him thinking that Ridley would hang around and re-sign in free agency.

---

(04-11-2024, 10:15 AM)NYC4jags Wrote: Folks still just assuming Allen's agent ever had any intention of signing a deal prior to letting the 2024 edge market play out, I see.

Maybe, maybe not. Seems unwise to assume.

Allen signing prior to the tag deadline was always a pipedream IMO

You honestly think that if the offer he signed was on the table he would've walked away from it?

It's possible his team wanted to set the market but we wouldn't cave.  They then seen he was going to play on the tag or take the Burns like offer.  It's pretty much the exact same contract Burns got, almost identical with .5 mil more guaranteed.    He was never going to get a Bosa type contract but we had to beat the one Burns just got being Allen is the better player.   Take our biggest and last offer or play on the tag.  It was a good and fair offer for both sides.

---

The Burns contract was the best thing that happened for Allen. If that never happened it would of likely been a few mil less per year and less guaranteed

---