Not shocking. Writing was on the wall like Fournette.
If it was, trading a 4th and eating a ton of money was INSANE! Why not bring in Jameis? I mean, also you declined his 5th year option that should be motivation enough.I guess this truly was a "sign the vet to motivate the kid" move, but its gonna be rough if Trubisky does more of the same again
https://www.si.com/nfl/bears/news/bears-reportedly-to-name-trubisky-starter
I think many here would agree with this.Not shocking. Writing was on the wall like Fournette.
Miami took their shot at landing at franchise QB at a discounted rate.
If he ends up in NE I’ll be not pleased.
At 23, that's a pretty good landing spotRosen to Tampa's... practice squad.
https://www.sportingnews.com/us/nfl/news/nfl-practice-squad-salary-2020-rules/19kdnd4srtase1osdcuczpyjlnTl;dr: there are two types of players that can qualify to be on a practice squad. (Up to six "veteran" players can be on the practice squad, regardless of experience.)I am surprised he still qualifies for Practice squad. Guess he didn't start enough games.
A source confirmed that the Saints explored the idea of a unique sign-and-trade deal with an unspecified team to help them fit Clowney's salary under the cap, as the NFL Network first reported. However, the NFL said such a deal would not be allowed.
The idea was for another team to sign Clowney and pay his signing bonus -- then immediately trade Clowney and his remaining salary to the Saints in exchange for a draft pick. The other team essentially would have been "buying" a draft pick, which the NFL has never allowed.
The NFL Network reported that the Saints were prepared to send a second-round pick and a player to the unspecified team. However, a source said it never reached the point of a finalized offer since they reached out to the league for permission first.
Apparently was ClevelandHad to be the Pats, right?
Jerry Jones would buy the # 1 pick whenever he wants.Why doesn’t the NFL allow this?
Theoretically it is probably easier to go from Mitch to Foles and be done with it than it is to go from Foles back to Mitch.I guess this truly was a "sign the vet to motivate the kid" move, but its gonna be rough if Trubisky does more of the same again
https://www.si.com/nfl/bears/news/bears-reportedly-to-name-trubisky-starter
Gilmore won’t be a FA until he’s 31 so he ain’t getting that, at least not from us. Will be interesting to see how Pats handle it. He is such a valuable player right now but you don’t pay a premium for someone’s post-prime years.If Ramsey is getting this, what is Gilmore worth?
View: https://twitter.com/RapSheet/status/1303697546691440645
It's crazy that Gilmore's contract doesn't even crack the top 10 highest for a corner anymore.Yeah if I'm the Pats I may offer a 2-3 year extension right now, maybe make it fully guaranteed so that there is more chance he doesn't try to totally max out, so maybe adding 2 years and $32-38M guaranteed, something like that. He would still probably be more likely to test free agency I would guess, but you never know - he'll have made close to $90M in his career upon the completion of his Pats contract.
It's why JC Jackson's development is so crucial. By basically every metric, Jackson is a legit stud CB in his own right, and will make transitioning away from Gilmore much, much easier.Gilmore won’t be a FA until he’s 31 so he ain’t getting that, at least not from us. Will be interesting to see how Pats handle it. He is such a valuable player right now but you don’t pay a premium for someone’s post-prime years.
It was a great signing. One of BB's only huge FA splashes ever.It's crazy that Gilmore's contract doesn't even crack the top 10 highest for a corner anymore.
Jalen Ramsey, LAR, 5/105
Darrelle Revis, TB, 6/96
Byron Jones, MIA, 5/82.5
Nate Clements, SF, 8/80
Xavien Howard, MIA, 5/75
Josh Norman, WAS, 5/75
Trumaine Johnson, NYJ, 5/72.5
Darrelle Revis, NYJ, 5/70
Xavier Rhodes, MIN, 5/70
Patrick Peterson, ARZ, 5/70
Yup. Can’t nail a FA signing any better. It was pretty much the direct reason why we got #6 and we obviously came so close the year before.It was a great signing. One of BB's only huge FA splashes ever.
Jebeezus, both Miami corner signings are awful for that amount of money. Byron Jones for 5/$82.5m and Howard for 5/$75m?It was a great signing. One of BB's only huge FA splashes ever.
Am I wrong to be excited about this extension...as a Falcons fan? The Saints are going to be in cap hell already when Brees retires - sooner rather than later - and running backs age in dog years. That doesn't seem like the best use of limited resources.
That's not even close to what I wrote.You want contracts for rookies slotted by position? I'm not even sure where to begin there.
Then help me out with this, as I'm not reading it correctly I guess:That's not even close to what I wrote.
Is there any way to flip this structure so that in proportional terms, rookie running back contracts are much bigger and second and third contracts are much smaller? For example, what if there were a standard set of very generous incentives in all running back contracts (regardless of year)...
So my first question and certainly not ‘not even close’ to what was stated. The semantics don’t matter how you want to word them - if you’re baking in incentives based on position, you’re slotting each pick differently based* on their position. The point of slotting is entirely defeated and you then get the positional debates we see with hybrid guys and the franchise tag - is he a DE or a LB? He’s listed as a TE/FB, so he’s a RB if you want to argue, so let’s give him this contract. Well, if RBs get it, why don’t CBs? Or QBs?It is asking to keep the rookie contracts slotted by draft position, but to include additional standardized incentives for each position to be baked into the contract.
...if the amount of money other players are getting remains proportionately constant, and the amount of money running backs get over the course of their careers generally remains constant - with much of it just getting shifted from the back end of their careers to the front - then why wouldn't they support this sort of change?Also, it’s not about RBs (read:their agents) and GMs finding common ground. It’d require a change to the CBA. Anyone want odds on all the rest of players that can’t benefit from it voting for it?
This can be said about virtually every pro athlete in any of the four major sports. Players are almost universally paid for past production and paid less early on; it's no different in any business, when you start out you make shit by the end of it, you're probably overpaid and getting out performed by someone on the other end of the cycle. Sometimes it works out, sometimes it doesn't. As to your objection, you can parse the distinctions all you like, you're talking about messing with the slotting system based on a position the player plays; once that cat is out of the bag it's defeated slotting and opens up all others. As to other positions being in the same situation or not, all I'll say is I don't have issue, nor does seemingly anyone else in the league, with how it works. So if you'd like to analyze the other positions, have at it; I'd argue OL, WR, CBs and DL all are able to make immediate impacts while on rookie deals and some get overpaid on their second or third, just like RBs do. You're making a cursory blanket statement that I don't think holds water.My objection was to your implication that I was suggesting a structure for all NFL contracts by position, rather than just looking to carve out an exception for running backs. Because I don't think the whole system needs to be retooled - it's specifically running backs that are getting paid too little at the start of their careers and too much toward the end.
Proportionately constant from an owner/player standpoint or from an individual and his peer? I assume you mean the latter, so the simple immediate answer is that under a capped system, the more one player makes, the less that is left for others. Let's say year one of the rookie deal they are NLTBE incentives, I guess?, since there's no baseline to work with. So he hits them and then gets a $5M bump; that $5M hits the books the following season. I'm not exactly sure how multi year incentives work, but I assume they'd then now be classified as LTBE for year 2. So that's another $5M that needs accounting for. Now there's $10M less for the team to spend on other positions. And so on. When they get into later contracts, the numbers and terms can be played with to spread that out and half any NFL deal is funny money to begin with.So I have no earthly clue why 95%+ of the union members that will see no benefit from it would agree unless they get something in return....if the amount of money other players are getting remains proportionately constant, and the amount of money running backs get over the course of their careers generally remains constant - with much of it just getting shifted from the back end of their careers to the front - then why wouldn't they support this sort of change?
But if you do indeed acknowledge that there's an inherent unfairness in running back compensation, maybe it's worth spitballing possible ideas to fix it in ways that could benefit both players and teams?