The Weird, Wacky and Awesome World of the NFL - General Banter thread V3

Shedite27

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120323770#Comment_120323770

If I'm a GM, I'd never do these type of deals. Do they every work out? Middling Veterans going to another team?

Just keep shooting in the draft until you get your Allen/Mahomes/Lamar etc

eagle eye

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120324060#Comment_120324060

How long do you think a coach will keep his job in that situation?

Carr is a significant upgrade on what they've had the last two years. He's been above average his whole career despite being on some awful teams. He's made some receivers look better than they've shown when they left the Raiders. Players like Amari Cooper, Nelson Agholor, Jared Cook and Michael Crabtree never performed to the same level after leaving the Raiders.

Give him a good offensive line and he'll do damage.

Carr is a good leader too. He's been asked about his OL many times over the years and he's always backed them or blamed himself when they've been poor.

Shedite27

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120324435#Comment_120324435

Yeah I understand it from the coach's position, that's why I said "If I'm a GM...."

I guess it comes down to what the drive is, if it's just keep a job and have an income for 3/4 years you can understand it, most coaches aren't keeping their jobs more than 3/4 years anyway with 8-8 records and a veteran QB acquired via trade like Goff, Ryan, Carr, Cousins, Tannehill, Wentz. I think to build something special you need to take a shot with a Ridder, Malik, Zach Wilson, Fields and hope it works out.

I'm not sure Carr gets that New Orleans team any more wins than the 7 they got last year with Winston/Dalton. I certainly don't think they're contenders. Why not take a shot with a young guy, if it fails, you've a top 5/10 pick in 2024 draft to build something big

eagle eye

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120324903#Comment_120324903

Well I think he's a lot better than Goff, Tannehill and Cousins. Putting Wentz in that category is ridiculous. Ryan is an old guy, he looked done while still in Atlanta.

You have to remember that Carr has been with a Raiders team which has been awful for most of his time there.

If you remember the season he had a pretty decent roster he got injured when he was one of the favourites for MVP.

That season he got injured early in the second last game of the season and the Raiders fell apart as soon as he went down which shows how valuable he was.

Carr is 31 now, he's got plenty of football left in him. If the Raiders can protect him I think we'll see big things from him. He's got the receivers in Olave, Shaheed and Thomas, if he can stay healthy. He's also got Kamara out of the backfield.

He's also got a coach he's worked with before.

Shedite27

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120325081#Comment_120325081

I'm not putting him in the same category now, I mean Indy giving up a 1st rounder for Wentz as a veteran, Washington giving up a 2nd+3rd for Wentz as a veteran, Indy giving up a 3rd for Ryan as a veteran. Point is they rarely work out for those mid-level guys.

I like Saints, and they've a very soft division, but Kamara's getting suspended, Thomas will inevitably be injured, Juwan Johnston is leaving in FA, not convinced they're getting to the playoffs with Olave, Shaheed and Adam Trautman. I'd be very surprised if he passes last years 7 wins

Foxtrol

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120324903#Comment_120324903

Agree - as a GM that is where you should be aiming for. If you dont have an at least close to elite QB you're spending every year hoping and praying that everything falls perfectly for you to be a contender - FA, draft, trades, injuries, form etc.

Even from a coach perspective, where does being mid-tier get you? Nearly all their contracts are guaranteed at signing so they dont have much to lose, as if they get fired not matter if they play it safe or be aggressive get to walk straight into another HC jobs.

I'm not surprised NO went for Carr though, they've been deluded for a few seasons about their team and they're dragging out a very much needed rebuild. I'm sure they think they're just a mid-tier QB away despite being significantly over the cap before signing Carr or anyone else in FA.

Foxtrol

The level of collusion regarding Lamar is incredible already.

All these teams dying for a decent QB refusing to even speak a 26 year old former MVP who is available for just 2 firsts.

Really setting that marker that owners do not want to get into anything close to a fully guaranteed contract (unless you're the Browns and really want a deviant).

eagle eye

What's the world coming to? Daniel Jones four years $160 million with $82 guaranteed and $35 million more in incentives. That's insane imo, he's worth about half that.

Barkley franchise tagged after they got that deal signed.

Blut2

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120327911#Comment_120327911

The problem isn't the two firsts trade price for Jackson. Its the fact hes insisting on a contract in excess of $230mn, *fully guaranteed*. And that as a QB that relies on his legs and is entering his 6th season in the NFL already - so one whos a very risky bet for all that guaranteed money.

It doesn't require collusion for most GMs to see that as a bad deal. Just common sense.

eagle eye

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120328126#Comment_120328126

And especially a guy whose played 12 games in each of the last two seasons.

Xavi6

The Jones deal makes the Mahomes contract look like even better business.

Shedite27

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120328126#Comment_120328126

Man, if I see Daniel Jones is costing your team $40m a year, I'd bite your hands off for 5 years of Jackson at $50m a year. Kyler has $38 of $46m guaranteed, that's 83% guaranteed. If all it takes is another $8m guaranteed to get Lamar, that's market value.

The alternative isn't just "pay someone less", it's playoff versus missing the playoff.

This is 100% collusion by the owners.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120327935#Comment_120327935

I think they should have left Jones walk personally, but form a business perspective...

• Only $82m is guaranteed, so if they need to replace him at some point, it's not excessive.
• Salary Cap has gone up 24% in 2 years, so $40m a year now is about the same hit to a team as $32m 2 years ago. In 2021 that's what Goff, Cousins, Wentz got, seems about his level.
• This was the type of deal everyone preferred when they redid the rookie contracts way back when. In the past someone like Jones would have earned a packed by year 4. He's "only" earned about $6m a year to this point of his career. In the past he'd have earned double that by now, this is the way the owners wanted it

Christy42

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120328274#Comment_120328274

Mahomes knows he has more endorsements but also he can look at what Kansas has done for him. He started off with Reid, Hill and Kelce which made a massive difference to his development. Not that he isn't great by himself but Kansas have really put in the effort to get the most out of him. I think that earned them a hometown discount. A lot of teams seem less interested in winning and would nearly be more interested in Mahomes for his star power as opposed to playing ability. I think Mahomes knows this and is happy where he is, remember he has stated he called up the Chiefs because he was worried the Texans would take him.

Foxtrol

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120328126#Comment_120328126

I've no problem with teams negotiating with him and deciding not to meet his demands but all these QB needy teams leaking immediately that they aren't interested in even talking to him stinks that they all spoke beforehand and agreed to take this approach.

Even the Ravens choosing to take the risk of this type of tag is fishy when the first few hours just happen to fall perfectly for them. If you were to write a script to scare players away from pushing for a highly guaranteed contract it is what is happening with Lamar.

Shedite27 covered my thoughts on other QB options that show going to what Lamar wants isnt a stretch. The other one is Watson, even taking the Browns going rouge out of it - there were other teams who were willing to offer more draft capital and give huge guarantees for a player with all that baggage, bans hanging over him, and time already out of the league. Some of those teams are now leaking they won't even speak with Lamar, who has significantly fewer red flags.

Foxtrol

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120328924#Comment_120328924

It isn't as if Mahomes is a martyr either - barring catastrophic Alex Smith like injury he basically guaranteed a contract for half a billion dollars by the time he is 36. It is basically a rolling 3 year guaranteed contract which means even in a terrible situation he's set up for generational wealth. For example if he got a horrific injury in OTAs next Friday and was never going to be the same player again he is guaranteed ~$120m from the Chiefs, and if he had a similar horrific injury two offseasons from now the Chief's would owe him even more than that that in guarantees (~$140m).

Chiefs have also shown they'll renegotiate contracts of their stars and I'm sure there is a handshake agreement that if the cap continues to skyrocket that they'll redo his deal.

eagle eye

Mahomes is awesome but it'll be interesting to see how he does without Orlando Brown protecting his blind side next season.

I don't think there's any chance he stays in Kansas now, he'll get offered a lot more money elsewhere.

Texans and Falcons are likely looking at new QBs whether that's through the draft or signing an FA and I'm sure they'd love to protect him and with their cap space they can well afford to.

There's talk about the Bears moving on from Fields which I think is a year too early but again if they do then they can easily afford to pay Brown big money.

Brown is worth the money in my opinion. I'd love to see him in New England.

Blut2

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120330227#Comment_120330227

If a friend of mine decided to jump off a cliff and he got terribly injured, and myself and his 31 other friends all decided not to do likewise is that conspiratorial collusion? Or is it us seeing a terrible decision and deciding "nope, thats not for me".

The idea that 31 NFL owners are all acting in collusion is a huge leap of faith when its far more likely they're just acting rationally. Lets look at the key points:

• Jackson is a run dependent QB, entering his 6th season in the NFL, whos missed significant chunks of the last two seasons to injury
• Jackson thinks so highly of himself that he refuses to get an agent, and is instead negotiating on his own behalf. Which would suggest (and is apparently the case) that hes not going to negotiate realistically
• The Watson contract is objectively terrible value for the Browns and Jackson is on the record as saying he expects an even higher (massive) amount of guaranteed money

Its completely logical for the Ravens to have told Jackson to go out and see what he can get on the open market because they know the lack of demand will soften his cough and make his demands more reasonable. And its completely logical for other teams to not want anything to do with him given the above factors.

Jackson has far worse red flags in terms of ego/attitude, and in terms of likely injuries/age impacting his play style, than Watson had. Both which are of far more relevance to NFL team management than sexual assault claims, unfortunately.

Foxtrol

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120331198#Comment_120331198

That is simply a stupid comparison, there is no upside to jumping off a cliff, however there is clearly significant upside in signing Lamar or the Ravens would be letting him walk.

I agree it is completely logical for some teams to not want anything to do with Lamar, it however is far, far from 'rational' for practically all the QB needy teams to refuse to even speak to Lamar and hear directly what he is looking for and that they all also completely coincidentally leaked this news simultaneously to different journalists. This isn't even a situation where Lamar's agent could have been discussing things behind the scenes with teams for weeks, they're all coincidentally flat out refusing to try to speak a 26 year old former MVP who can be got at a draft capital discount.

Thanks for using the term 'because they know' regarding why the Ravens made their move - I fully agree and it is my whole point. If they believe Lamar is their future, enough to be working hard to keep him and offer him the huge deal they did, then why would they risk him getting away on a huge discount unless they 'knew' what all the other teams were thinking. It only takes one team for them to lose their star asset for cheap but they 'knew' what was going to happen due to collusion.

Blut2

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120331602#Comment_120331602

Theres plenty of upside to jumping off a cliff too - lots of people do it every day into the sea.

As far as I'm aware its only a handful of teams who've announced theyre not interested in Lamar, not practically all of the teams in the NFL. Which, again, is perfectly rational give his circumstances, and his apparently incredibly hard to meet demands.

The Ravens 'know' other teams likely won't be interested because they know how outlandish Jackson's demands are after dealing with them for months, and how difficult hes apparently being to negotiate with.

Its slightly hilarious to think that all 31 other NFL teams are engaged in a grand conspiracy against him based on zero evidence of that. Occam's razor would suggest its actually down to that hes a high risk, injury prone, high ego athlete demanding the most expensively guaranteed contract ever in the history of the sport, and insisting on negotiations entirely through him and not an agent. Which is a combination that results in teams not being interested until his expectations are dampened. Because we actually have ample evidence of all of that.

eagle eye

Lamar is looking for a fully guaranteed contract. He's missed a chunk of games the last two seasons. There's a higher likelihood that his career could end at any time than most QBs in the league.

I'm sure a lot of teams would be in for him and give him the money he's looking for but not the guaranteed money.

As it stands the Ravens think they are in the best position but if he decides he's not going to play for them then it all changes. I don't think there's any chance he'll play for $32.4 million.

Teams know there's a better deal to be had in a few months. Why give up two first rounders when you'll get him for less later on. And he'll back off the guaranteed money as well because there's no offers now.

I do think he's personally decided he's not staying in Baltimore by now. I think he has too much pride to let it look like they beat him.

Foxtrol

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120331903#Comment_120331903

Out of the things you keep on listing to complain about Lamar, the only thing that wasn't the case with Watson last year was that he had an agent and you add on top of it all the additional negatives for Watson - looming ban, terrible character, toxic lockerroom presence, time out of the game, bad PR, significantly higher cost in draft capital etc. He had teams lining up to speak with him, including ones that came straight out that they wouldnt speak with Lamar when they had better QBs in the room last year.

How would they know if 'his expectations are dampened' if they're refusing to speak with him? Again, it might be perfectly rational to choose not to pay him, it isnt rational to not even to speak to him. Even simultaneously leaking the news immediately isn't rational. If you believe giving Lamar a fully guaranteed contract is idiotic, why help other teams know that you aren't speaking with him? Why would a team presume the Ravens have put all the options they could on the table (every team has different cap levers to pull).

I'm not saying there is a grand conspiracy specifically against Lamar, I'm saying there is clear collusion against players pushing for fully guaranteed contracts. Lamar will just be the fall guy, like Kaepernick.

Stopping guaranteed contracts becoming the norm is incredibly important for owners, due to the potential huge impact to their personal finances - goes far beyond the impact to the team finances. It is naive to think that this hasn't been discussed amongst the owners, especially post the Watson deal where a few were vocal in public about the precedent. These rich men go into rooms together with the specific purpose of discussing ways to make more money and to protect their investments.

eagle eye

Any business person with a bit of savvy isn't giving a fully guaranteed contract to an injury prone QB.

To think there's some grand collusion about that is ludicrous.

I'm not saying these guys aren't meeting up to make as much money as they can, we all know that's happening.

The word stupid is synonymous with the Cleveland Browns since the franchise came back into existence. Giving that contract to Watson is the epitome of lunacy. Only the Browns would do that. They are not in the Lamar stakes so he's not getting a fully guaranteed contract.

It's smart to back off and see how things shake out. Once you know what he is likely to take you can then make an offer you hope won't be matched.

Blut2

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120336982#Comment_120336982

Watson isn't nearly as injury prone in his NFL career to date, and also isn't as reliant on his run game as a QB approaching 30. And by all accounts isn't as difficult to deal with for management. Hes also already being held up as an outlier who was a terrible deal for his team, so using him as a yardstick isn't going to be realistic as Jackson is apparently slowly discovering.

Other teams will know when Jackson's expectations are dampened when its been a few months and nobody has negotiated with him. Or his expectations won't dampen and he'll languish in Baltimore, either way.

You started off by literally saying there is a grand conspiracy specifically against Jackson. One which would require 31 NFL teams, and hundreds of staff, to be aware of and keeping quiet about. Which there exists absolutely zero evidence for, unlike his problems as a player and negotiator - which there are a hell of a lot of evidence for.

Huge guaranteed contracts are bad for every player whos not a top ten QB. The NFL players as a group get a fixed % of league revenue every year, if QB1s get a higher percentage then its the fringe players who're going to suffer - team owners won't be paying out any more money out of their own pocket. Which is another reason why the idea of some massive conspiracy against Jackson is pretty hilarious, he would have zero impact on owners personal finances. You should probably go read up on the how the CBA works before coming up with mad conspiracy theories.

I'll finish with a quote from the Athletic's article on trade moves for Jackson today, which fairly succinctly lists out his problems:

[quote]

But lets also not ignore other potential challenges. Jackson is representing himself, adding a layer of difficulty to the negotiations. The Ravens have gained no traction after more than a year of contract talks with Jackson. There is a sense around the league that Baltimore will match just about any deal for Jackson, and teams may not want to waste time potentially negotiating a contract for the Ravens. Jackson is also coming off consecutive uneven seasons, where he struggled for a stretch in the middle of the year and then missed the final month-plus of two seasons with injuries. Around the league, Jackson is still a polarizing player in many respects.[/quote]

Foxtrol

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120337492#Comment_120337492

What did Lamar do to hurt you to just be making things up now?

'Approaching 30'... Lamar turned 26 two months ago.

Regarding injury history, Watson tore the same ACL twice and had another sprain on that same knee. As for Watson 'isn't as difficult to deal with for management' - the guy was using the media claiming he was going to sit out the season to force a trade before the assault allegations came out and he ended up then sitting out by mutual consent (one of the few times that phrase can be used for him).

If guaranteed contracts were bad for most players then why are the NFLPA fighting for them? Their goal is for fully guaranteed money to become the norm for all players, like it is in many other sports.

It is you who needs to go 'read up' on how NFL contracts work before posting. NFL teams have to put player guaranteed money into 3rd party escrow, which they can't touch. Most owners either aren't wealthy or liquid enough to be able to do this for large fully guaranteed contracts, especially if fully guaranteed contracts became the norm. Even the owners that have the cash, they don't want hundreds of millions sitting in an account not working for them when they can be using it elsewhere to get a bigger return. It absolutely impacts their personal wealth.

eagle eye

The NFLPA are always fighting for better deals, conditions and money for their players, that's their job.

I'm sure the owners would be happy to give guaranteed money if they didn't have to pay them so much.

For example they offer $250 million with $150 million guaranteed so they'll meet you half way, you take $200 million and they'll guarantee the lot.

Do you think the players would go for that?

Expecting the owners to guarantee top dollar when there's no certainty that they'll get full value for their money is ridiculous. If you want more guaranteed then take less.

Foxtrol

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120341160#Comment_120341160

Fully agree on the role of the NFLPA, I was highlighting it to show why the claim of the other poster that guaranteed contracts are bad for other players.

In the current environment, players are consistently weighing up total contract vs guarantees - some go for more guarantees and others would rather the higher possible earnings. What most big deals are doing now is high total contract and rolling guarantees, so basically a continuous 3 year guaranteed contract throughout.

It isn't 'ridiculous' at all to expect owners to fully guarantee contracts - it is done in most sports. Players don't get to rip up contracts if they sign a bad deal, why should only one side have that power? All players can do is sit out if they want a new deal and most fans rage when that happens.

I say this every year but it is weird how fans nearly always side with the rich owners rather than the players they claim to support.

Blut2

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120341087#Comment_120341087

Lamar did nothing to hurt me, I just find it hilarious when someone tries to blame vast conspiracies that would involve hundreds of people for things that have very obvious real world explanations. If you'd posted about the moon landing being a hoax I'd be replying with just as much bemusement.

Jackson turns 27 this season, thats approaching 30 by any normal unit of measurement. But again, you're using Watson as a barometer (like Jackson is doing himself..) which isn't what other GMs are doing, Watson is an outlier thats already being held up as a terrible decision by the Browns. Jackson is entering his 6th season in the NFL, turning 27 this season. Other QBs with his style of play all declined rapidly as they aged. RG3 - fell off a cliff in his 4th year in the NFL, aged 26. Cam Newton - fell off a cliff in his 6th season in the NFL, aged 27. Michael Vick - fell of a cliff in his 9th season in the NFL, aged 31 etc.

Jackson has missed 25%+ of the last two seasons and with aging his injuries are only likely to become more frequent with longer recovery times. Hes the worst NFL QB amongst his peers currently to give a fully guaranteed contract to, as far as injury risk goes. Which is a huge part of the problem.

The NFLPA is fighting for fully guaranteed contracts to become the norm for all players, yes. But theres a world of difference between a fringe player getting a fully guaranteed contract (which they should) and a QB1 on $50mn a year getting one. And as things stand every QB1 getting a fully guaranteed contract will just serve to screw over the fringe players.

"Most owners aren't wealthy" - what? Literally every single non-Packers NFL owner is a billionaire. They're probably the wealthiest groups of 31 humans on the planet that regularly finds themselves in one room together. They're also the owners of hugely valuable assets, that they would have no problem getting large bank loans against to cover putting money in escrow - with the interest on it written off against their taxes. The money placed in escrow, as an alternative, also does still accumulate interest. Any opportunity cost on it is as such is marginal.

Foxtrol

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120341583#Comment_120341583

Come on, Lamar isn't turning 27 for 10 months. He is nowhere near 'approaching 30'. You're reaching so hard here that it is taking away from some of your fair criticisms of him.

Why would you need hundreds of people? It just takes owners who are QB needy to say to their GMs not to talk to any player via trade who wants a fully guaranteed contract and to leak it. That is ~10 non-owners, men who already have plenty of far juicier secrets that don't come out.

Do you really believe billionaires invest their money in the hope of 'marginal' returns above the interest rate in escrow accounts? Hope you're not a financial advisor.

Blut2

If you don't think an athlete whos 27 this season is approaching 30 then you've got a different grasp of aging to most people, I'd wager. Particularly when said athlete is negotiating a contract in question that will bring him well into his 30s.

You'd need hundreds of people because its owners, GMs, and senior coaching staff who would all have to be told they're not allowed sign Jackson, at the very least. Most likely social contacts too, given how people operate. For tens of different teams.

Billionaires do lots of different things with their money, including losing lots of it very quickly. Earning crica 5% p.a., with no risk of decrease in value of the principal, these days on money in an escrow account is far from a bad return given the current performance of stocks and real estate. Any financial advisor advises their clients to have a diversified portfolio which always includes some no risk, low return assets - mostly with worse returns than this.

You've got quite a few clangers here to support your grand evil conspiracy, from the "huge impact to their personal finances" to the "Most owners aren't wealthy". But in the real world we have plenty of evidence of billionaire owners financing vast sums of guaranteed money not being an issue, for example Mahomes escrow account for one has about $120mn in it currently, part of a now cheap historical contract, with apparently no bankrupting of the Hunt family. A team would absolutely be willing to do more than that for Jackson if they deemed him worth it. But they don't, and thats his problem.

eagle eye

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120342327#Comment_120342327

I agree with you as regards the guaranteed contracts but not about how many people need to be involved as regards deciding about blocking a player being signed. There's nobody being signed anywhere without talking to the owner so it's only them who have to know about it.

I don't think that's happening, well certainly not about one player. There certainly are meetings and private decisions made between the owners but they'd be about things that affect them all and most importantly that affect the value of their assets which is all they really care about.

A 26 year old or 27 year old is not a 30 year old. He's got three to four years before he gets there and that's a long time in football and even moreso in a football career.