2020 NFL Thread
I'm always baffled at guys balking at the transition/franchise tag. Knowing NFL contracts are not guaranteed, injury is a high probability, incentives might not be reached, etc.., why not take the guaranteed one year deal? you don't paint yourself into a long term deal that doesn't work and the team has flexibility.
- Admin
- #928
Signing bonus for players reasoning, but I mean looking at PotZeke and Amaris contracts if they added another 160 million contract the amount of dead money in a few years would have crippled them. They have to stagger to be able to sign talent around.
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2019
- Messages
- 12,062
- Reaction score
- 11,553
- Handicap
- 20.9
He should if that $175M doesn't include $100M.On what planet does market value start at around 100 million?
He wants 4years and close to double that and reportedly turned down 5 years at 175 million.
Its easy to forget with that ridiculous talent around him and playing in a dreadful division, he has only 1 playoff win I believe.
He knows he's getting 68 the next 2 years. He knows that 3 years ago Cousins was in the exact same situation and got his 2 years on the franchise tag then got 84 million for 3 years after that fully guaranteed. If he's looking at it like it is going to play out like the Cousins situation, which it is if they franchise him next year and don't give him a contract, then he knows he's getting 68 million the next two years. Then he knows he's getting $84 million for the next 3. In 2 years it will probably be more like 3 years $95M-105M guarnateed. It just the nature of the QB market. Hes getting that $152M over the next 5 years. He's better than Cousins and it's 2 years later. If you don't think someone is giving him the Cousins 3 year $84M guaranteed in 2 years you're crazy.
I'm not the one in the room so I don't know what's been turned down. But given the QB market he should want 5 year $175M minimum depending on the guarantees.
Now if the Cowboys don't think he's the guy then the franchise tag and moving on from him next offseason makes sense. But you can't franchise him next year without giving him a ton of money. $5 years - 175M with $100M is going to look cheap if the Cowboys do well next year.
The guys that usually get tagged with a franchise tag are basically getting locked into another year of contract that isn't paying out their current market value. Yes, its guaranteed and getting injured is always a possibility, but these guys only have so many years in the league and an okay year on a franchise tag may kill their get paid contract.
- Admin
- #931
He turned down 5 years at 175.
Without team salary caps like sh***y sports, they can do anything they want. Paying a guy 160+ over 4 years for a single playoff win, despite this talent and in this division is a huge gamble. Can it pay off? Sure. But it hasn’t so far so crippling the team on dead money through the guarantee for a guy that won’t take the 5th is tough for a fail in the post season.
I understand that, but with contracts rarely seen to be played in full and often full of fluff money other than a signing bonus. Giving me $25 mil guaranteed vs a hold out or signing a contract I might not see the full value of, I’m taking the 25 mil and banking in myself
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2019
- Messages
- 12,062
- Reaction score
- 11,553
- Handicap
- 20.9
I agree with your point and if I were the Cowboys I would not budge on wanting the 5 years. No way would I give him the 4 year Russell Wilson Contract. But he is getting the $68M and then another $100 from the Cowboys of someone else the next 3.
It build to an interesting point which I think is what you are arguing here. Who is the first team to move on from a top 10ish QB or a rookie that is a legit NFL starter and decides to start over because they don't want to pay the deal? Maybe it is the Cowboys and Dak. It should have been the Rams and Goff. It could be the Jets or Browns soon if you count either Baker or Darnold. As a Niner fan I love Jimmy G and think he gets criticized way too much for one bone headed play a game. But if he doesn't massively improve I could totally see Shannahan moving on from him.
- Admin
- #934
See that is here the math gets interesting.
As you said he is getting 68 for 2 and then 100 for the next 3.
that’s less than 175 over 5 the Cowboys offered and he walked.
He reportedly wants absurd money for 4 and if I were the Cowboys I wouldn’t strap my team down 3 years from now in dead money either. Wait the 1-2 where they can and that spreads the dead money out a bit further.
There is a reason that dominant teams normally don't get sucked into having half their cap in fantasy players and top 5-10 QBs usually have more than a single playoff win especially if their division is the downright awful.
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2019
- Messages
- 12,062
- Reaction score
- 11,553
- Handicap
- 20.9
Well, I am arguing that the $152M is 100% happening if they don't pay him this year. Whether it is the Cowboys or not is a different argument.
The $175 would be a fluff number. You could make that number $200M with a ripcord in 2 years.
What do you think the number is going to be next winter if the Cowboys make the playoffs? If they franchise him next year don't his agents just say we'll play the franchise tag and move on or you can give us 3-years and $100M now?
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2019
- Messages
- 12,062
- Reaction score
- 11,553
- Handicap
- 20.9
As for this argument. Look at the final 8 of the last 3 years. It's a false narrative because you either have a guy you nailed on his first contract or you have paid him.
The only exception to this in the last 3 years is Tannehill and he still is getting paid and the Colts who were paying Luck, Mariota and Bortles. Tom Brady is the other exception and he is really the only argument for team building. He still got paid Just not quite what he should have because he took team friendly deals..
Only 4 of the last 3 years final 8 either had not paid or did not pay their QB subsequently. 2 rookies who got moved on from. One still got paid. 1 Journeyman who is not that good and still has been paid quite a bit. One backup who was thrust into the role because a guy that was being paid retired.
The rest are either guys who got paid or will get paid.
And the only true exception who still was making quite a bit in Tom Brady.
2019
Niners - Jimmy G 5 year 137M
Vikings - Cousins 3 year 84 guaranteed just got paid again in off season an additional 66m in the off season
Packers - Rodgers 4 year $133M contract
Seahawks - Russell Wilson 4 year $140M
Baltimore - Jackson Rookie pick nailed and he will get paid
KC - Mahomes Rookie pick nailed. Just got richest QB contract ever. 10 years $450M
Houston - Watson Rookie pick nailed. Will be second highest QB shortly.
Tannehill - Just signed 4 year $114M contract that is a fake contract with a ripcord
2018
KC - Mahomes Rookie pick nailed. Just got richest QB contract ever. 10 years $450M
NE - Tom Brady Exception that hurts my arugment
Chargers - Rivers $4-$84M
Colts - They were paying Luck $24m and had Brissett.
Dallas - Dak Getting paid just by what team.
Rams - Goff Rookie and got 4 year -133M after
NO - Brees - 2 year $50M at time.
Philly - Wentz rookie pick Got paid. 4 year $128M
2017
Philly - Wentz rookie pick Got paid. 4 year $128M
Falcons - Matt Ryan 5 year $103m Sign subsequent 5 year $150 extension this year.
Vikings - Cousins 3 year 84 guaranteed just got paid again in offseason an additional 66m in the offseason
NO - Brees - 2 year $50M at time.
Titans - Mariota Rookie moved on.
Jags - Bortles rookie pick. moved on but not before getting a 3 year $54m contract.
Steelers - Big Ben at time on 4 year 84M and got $68m extension
NE - Tom Brady Exception that hurts my arugment
- Admin
- #937
You have said “Dak getting paid” just by what team a few times now. Again it’s important to note the Cowboys offered to pay him. Above his market value at 5/175. He said no.
he wants top 3 QB money and only at 4 years so he can get another large one where he will hold the same team he won’t go long for here for, long term...and that is ******* absurd.
Arguably best offensive line protecting him, playing the weakest defensive division in all of football, I would have done the same thing as the Cowboys. Except I would have brought in Winston, who played behind the worst oline, to compete and show this kid we are not messing around with the agent nonsense.
he wants top 3 QB money and only at 4 years so he can get another large one where he will hold the same team he won’t go long for here for, long term...and that is ******* absurd.
Arguably best offensive line protecting him, playing the weakest defensive division in all of football, I would have done the same thing as the Cowboys. Except I would have brought in Winston, who played behind the worst oline, to compete and show this kid we are not messing around with the agent nonsense.
- Admin
- #938
Welp...it finally happenend. The Redskins are no more
www.nfl.com
Washington retiring nickname, logo; new nickname TBD
Washington announced Monday that it will retire the "Redskins" nickname and logo. A new team name will be announced at a later date.
- Admin
- #939
Welp...it finally happenend. The Redskins are no more
Washington retiring nickname, logo; new nickname TBD
Washington announced Monday that it will retire the "Redskins" nickname and logo. A new team name will be announced at a later date.
I just saw that...
- Admin
- #941
I still remember the Bullets changing to the Wizards and how strange it was.
This one is going to be weird, with how much history this team has.
I guess I have been wrong all these years. I always thought teams chose names to reflect competitiveness and strength, not objects of insults and ridicule. When I see someone refer to the Cleveland Clowns, Cincy Bungles, or New Orleans 'Aints, it's usually an opponent or frustrated loyal fan.
EnglishTurn
Well-known member
- Admin
- #945
While I am not for forced change, I dont think any of those could be thought of as insulting by the masses.
- Admin
- #946
I don't know, I'm guessing the Chiefs wont be far behind, they will be feeling some pressure at a minimum
About twenty years ago, a group of PETA activists approached a local New York state government, demanding that the name of a local body of water be changed from the Fishkill. They felt it was inappropriate to celebrate the wholesale slaughter of fish. A local official patiently explained to them that "kill" is Dutch for "creek" and the name really meant "Fish Creek," and that was that. I doubt things would play out that way today.
Don't forget the Steelers, or, should I say, polluters.
Don't forget the Steelers, or, should I say, polluters.
EnglishTurn
Well-known member
- Admin
- #949
One is considered a pejorative term used to describe Native Americans. The other is Chiefs.
EnglishTurn
Well-known member
Here's a portion of the article on the naming:
Snyder also states that the name was chosen in 1933 to honor Native Americans in general and the coach and four players at that time who were Native American; and that in 1971 coach George Allen consulted with the Red Cloud Indian Fund on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation when designing the logo.
Guess the facts mean nothing these days!
Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk