Video Matt from AFR HAS to be trolling. He wonders if the Saints may franchise Jameis or MT. (1 Viewer)

[TribuneUK]

How so?
He’s a local Podcast/content creator for our team. Won awards. His opinion is no different than any of our’s.

It logically follows that all our opinions are irrelevant. An argument could be made...

 

[mleg1972]

I think Mascona is just, in his mind, matching the crazy moves that the Saints are doing. I remember him saying he was going to go on a rant if the Saints restructured Carr's contract. Well, they did and he ranted. It's the offseason so all talking heads are speculating at this point.

The Saints haven't restructured Carr's contract.(Yet)

 

[jahsoul357]

The thing is I don’t consider the Baton Rouge guys local. They don’t go to the games. They don’t go to the practices. They don’t go to the press conferences. This is a side gig for them after LSU.

The ones I consider local would be NOF (Underhill/Triplet), Locked on Saints (Ross Jackson), Fox 8 Overtime (Fazende), TP Saints Insider (Duncan/Johson/Walker/Ewing), Inside Black & Gold (Nowak/Gellar)

Yet, he was more correct and honest earlier about the actual state of our team last season than every one of those that you listed. I get he is more of an LSU guy but there are some, because they aren't seeking access, have a better pulse on how the fanbase feels earlier than others..lol.

I don't always agree with him but I'm not going to just be dismissive of him neither. Like him or not, a good chunk of the time, he makes some dang valid points.

 

[ndcc]

OP’s title is misleading. Moscona WAS NOT “wondering” if the Saints would franchise tag CGM or Jameis. He went through the formula of:

<> avg of top 5 salaries at the position

<> 110% of a player’s past year salary

<> or, the HIGHER of the two

He then looked at the numbers and made an honest assessment that the Saints would not franchise tag either.

Moscona then provided some history, informing the viewers that the Saints have only put the “tag” on six (6) players, going as far back as 2004. Drew Brees one of the 6 over those years. Darren Howard, Charles Grant, Jimmy Graham were other notable names.

Yes, Moscona is cynical and sarcastic… no argument from me there. But in fairness, his presentation in that segment was pretty good.

JMO

 

[St. Widge]

OP’a title is misleading. Moscona WAS NOT “wondering” if the Saints would franchise tag CGM or Jameis. He went through the formula of:

<> avg of top 5 salaries at the position

<> 110% of a player’s past year salary

<> or, the HIGHER of the two

He then looked at the numbers and made an honest assessment that the Saints would not franchise tag either.

Moscona then provided some history, informing the viewers that the Saints have only put the “tag” on six (6) players, going as far back as 2004. Drew Brees one of the 6 over those years. Darren Howard, Charles Grant, Jimmy Graham were other notable names.

Yes, Moscona is cynical and sarcastic… no argument from me there. But in fairness, his presentation in that segment was pretty good.

JMO

I think the issue is that the title of the video implies that there was some question of if they would franchise tag Winston or Thomas. It's clearly click bait to get people to click because nobody even thought there was a chance that they would do that. You don't need to look at the numbers because there was zero chance it would happen. Not the least because both players have a poison pill in their contracts that force the Saints to either cut them or negotiate a new deal. So, even if they are going to keep one or both of them, (no chance on MT but Winston is a possibility) they will have to renegotiate their contracts which means they can't use the franchise tag.

 

[ilvdsnts]

OP’a title is misleading. Moscona WAS NOT “wondering” if the Saints would franchise tag CGM or Jameis. He went through the formula of:

<> avg of top 5 salaries at the position

<> 110% of a player’s past year salary

<> or, the HIGHER of the two

He then looked at the numbers and made an honest assessment that the Saints would not franchise tag either.

Moscona then provided some history, informing the viewers that the Saints have only put the “tag” on six (6) players, going as far back as 2004. Drew Brees one of the 6 over those years. Darren Howard, Charles Grant, Jimmy Graham were other notable names.

Yes, Moscona is cynical and sarcastic… no argument from me there. But in fairness, his presentation in that segment was pretty good.

JMO

Agreed, the OP's summary of the take was off, nowhere in that take did he give an opinion that they should or would, only laid out facts about what a franchise tag means and that they would NOT do it.

I've always wondered, if you franchise tag a backup QB, why should he get the avg of the top 5 QBs, shouldn't he get the avg of the top 5 BACKUP QBs since his position is BACKUP QB?

 

[SaintsMan209]

It would be great if the Saints could somehow bring back Ayenomo Ojo as a WR.

 

[Saint Greg]

I think the issue is that the title of the video implies that there was some question of if they would franchise tag Winston or Thomas. It's clearly click bait to get people to click because nobody even thought there was a chance that they would do that. You don't need to look at the numbers because there was zero chance it would happen. Not the least because both players have a poison pill in their contracts that force the Saints to either cut them or negotiate a new deal. So, even if they are going to keep one or both of them, (no chance on MT but Winston is a possibility) they will have to renegotiate their contracts which means they can't use the franchise tag.

Definitely. But think OP piled on by leading us to believe he actually was entertaining the idea. It makes me wonder if OP even watched the video.

 

[SWJJ]

OP’a title is misleading. Moscona WAS NOT “wondering” if the Saints would franchise tag CGM or Jameis. He went through the formula of:

<> avg of top 5 salaries at the position

<> 110% of a player’s past year salary

<> or, the HIGHER of the two

He then looked at the numbers and made an honest assessment that the Saints would not franchise tag either.

Moscona then provided some history, informing the viewers that the Saints have only put the “tag” on six (6) players, going as far back as 2004. Drew Brees one of the 6 over those years. Darren Howard, Charles Grant, Jimmy Graham were other notable names.

Yes, Moscona is cynical and sarcastic… no argument from me there. But in fairness, his presentation in that segment was pretty good.

JMO

But his whole premise is outlandish.

No one on this board was ever under the impression that the Saints would tag Winston or Thomas.

It's pretty easy to make a presentation proving an unlikely topic isn't going to happen.

 

[TenTwo]

he's irrelevant

I think most of them are bad, some just less so than others.

All sports talking heads are irrelevant.

The internet has provided the echo chamber most fans require.

Sports talk is a relic and the “hot take” debate structure has made it even less relevant.

How so?
He’s a local Podcast/content creator for our team. Won awards. His opinion is no different than any of our’s.

Everyone is irrelevant. All we are is dust in the wind.

 

[SweetT]

It logically follows that all our opinions are irrelevant. An argument could be made...

If anyone is headstrong with their opinion regarding a certain topic, then any other opinion that differs from theirs, becomes irrelevant in their eyes. It is relevant to a debate/argument, but irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. Happens thousands of times daily on here.
Here’s how I feel about Matt M. His opinion is more relevant than any one of ours bc he is broadcasting it, in an avenue to reach an audience, while not only putting his name on that opinion, but also putting a face to that name, allowing comments, whether some of the audience blasts his takes. On here, we can hide behind a chosen avatar and anonymity. Not saying that one way is better than the other, I’m just saying that I can respect someone that is willing to put themselves out there like that. Not saying that I don’t respect anyone’s opinions on here, nor do I believe Matt’s is more valid/respect him more, just saying that whether I agree with him or not, that I feel him putting himself out there in that fashion is dope. The production of his show is pretty good. Terrible music intro, but the production is good

 

[Saint Spud]

True dat. This is my first year listening to or watching any of the local sports folks, I don't watch national either......not overly impressed with too many of them.

Stick with guys like Nick Underhill and Ross Jackson. You’re not gonna get clickbait, hot take type stuff. But you’ll get information and analysis that comes a lot closer to reality.

 

[jahsoul357]

Everyone is irrelevant. All we are is dust in the wind.

You my boy, Blue.

 

[TribuneUK]

If anyone is headstrong with their opinion regarding a certain topic, then any other opinion that differs from theirs, becomes irrelevant in their eyes. It is relevant to a debate/argument, but irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. Happens thousands of times daily on here.
Here’s how I feel about Matt M. His opinion is more relevant than any one of ours bc he is broadcasting it, in an avenue to reach an audience, while not only putting his name on that opinion, but also putting a face to that name, allowing comments, whether some of the audience blasts his takes. On here, we can hide behind a chosen avatar and anonymity. Not saying that one way is better than the other, I’m just saying that I can respect someone that is willing to put themselves out there like that.

It's an interesting take. I appreciate the element of perceived accountability, but I think that it's more likely the case that he is willing to 'put his name to things' as a branding exercise for take up of his current and future content. So, in that respect, any personal accountability is a by product rather than the end goal.

I also think that anyone (anonymous or otherwise) can build a degree of relative* relevance based on their ability to calmly and rationally analyse, dissect and present back information in a way that allows views and inputs of others, without needing to be on a billboard (virtual or otherwise) proclaiming that as their business / gift to the world. Just consider the SSF posters who are widely regarded based on those very characteristics, and whose opinions we weigh more heavily when reading through a topic as a result - they have achieved relative relevance without us even knowing their real names, who they actually are or where they come from. Anonymous, but still relevant.

*I also see this stuff we like to debate as irrelevant in the grand scheme of things, and indeed was the intent of my slightly flippant reply earlier. Hopefully no offense caused by doing so.

 

[meily]

he's irrelevant

He has no real information just spews opinions for sake of content, I do not know why anybody listens to him let alone post his videos as if they are factual.