(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?

I certainly do believe that if we put the agreed offer on the table before FA began any agent worth his salt would have told him to wait to see how the market plays out.

Given the choice of the two, I am much happier that we chose not to risk losing Allen over Ridley. Do you not think that the FO considered the possibility of losing either guy, replacing either guy, and chose the most prudent avenue?

If we REALLY wanted Ridley, would you think that sacrificing the second round pick was too steep a price for us to make our BAFO while he was still able to negotiate exclusively? Why fart around with a tag in that case, either? Tells me they were willing to risk the loss, or were prepared to replace him via other avenues if someone chose to grossly overbid our offer. We weren't hoodwinked. We knew full well what the probable outcomes would be.

---