NFL 2023

JPRouve said:
I said "fully" guaranteed and in the case of Watson I said that the issue was that it was for a player with terrible PR. So I'm not sure about what you are disagreeing with. And I'm also not sure how you can even start to argue that a player with a bad injury record isn't going to be looked at differently to a player without a bad injury record especially when the former wants a fully guaranteed contract.

And no Jones and Cousins contract aren't very similar, out of 160m only 82m are guaranteed in the case of Jones while every dollars were guaranteed in Cousins contracts.
Click to expand...
I don't think Lamar has a bad injury record. 15, 15, 12, 12 games played in his last four years. Just some unlucky ones, no evidence that it translates to the future (even though a lot of people like to say that because of his running).

And the guaranteed money is similar for Jones and Cousins. Guarenteed money isn't a problem for NFL teams, it's the amount which is guaranteed that is. And in that respect, Watson re-set the market last year, Cousins' deal didn't even if it was fully guaranteed at the time. It's Watson's deal which influenced Lamar's stance on how much he should be getting guaranteed.
 
RobinLFC said:
I don't think Lamar has a bad injury record. 15, 15, 12, 12 games played in his last four years. Just some unlucky ones, no evidence that it translates to the future (even though a lot of people like to say that because of his running).

And the guaranteed money is similar for Jones and Cousins. Guarenteed money isn't a problem for NFL teams, it's the amount which is guaranteed that is. And in that respect, Watson re-set the market last year, Cousins' deal didn't even if it was fully guaranteed at the time. It's Watson's deal which influenced Lamar's stance on how much he should be getting guaranteed.
Click to expand...

Which isn't the important point. The important part is the overall structure of the contract and how flexible it is, in the case of Jones, it's a fairly normal front loaded contract and has nothing to do with a fully guaranteed contract. After two years the Giants will be in a position where they can and will possibly ask Jones to restructure his contract or will be in a position to cut him for a cost inferior to having him in the team, those 78m that aren't guaranteed are a bargaining chip and cap tool that you don't have in fully guaranteed contracts.

In the case of Cousins or Watson, the contract aren't flexible, you can't actually cut the guy and expect to not pay the entirety of the contract. You can't threaten to cut him if he doesn't restructure because you will have a prohibitive cap hit and will have to pay the entirety of the contract. Which isn't the case in a 4 years 160m contract that only has 2 years guaranteed.
 
JPRouve said:
Which isn't the important point. The important part is the overall structure of the contract and how flexible it is, in the case of Jones, it's a fairly normal front loaded contract and has nothing to do with a fully guaranteed contract. After two years the Giants will be in a position where they can and will possibly ask Jones to restructure his contract or will be in a position to cut him for a cost inferior to having him in the team, those 78m that aren't guaranteed are a bargaining chip and cap tool that you don't have in fully guaranteed contracts.

In the case of Cousins or Watson, the contract aren't flexible, you can't actually cut the guy and expect to not pay the entirety of the contract. You can't threaten to cut him if he doesn't restructure because you will have a prohibitive cap hit and will have to pay the entirety of the contract. Which isn't the case in a 4 years 160m contract that only has 2 years guaranteed.
Click to expand...
The precedent is Cousins with the Vikings not Watson
Click to expand...
This is the quote I disagreed with. Lamar's demands are entirely based on and related to what Watson got last season, that's why the Ravens feel he's asking for too much and they want to prove that Watson's contract was an irregularity by the Browns, not the market standard. Just because Cousins was the first one with a fully guaranteed contract doesn't mean he's the precedent, in fact I'd say Lamar is by no means influenced by that contract which is 5 years ago by now.
 
RobinLFC said:
This is the quote I disagreed with. Lamar's demands are entirely based on and related to what Watson got last season, that's why the Ravens feel he's asking for too much and they want to prove that Watson's contract was an irregularity by the Browns, not the market standard. Just because Cousins was the first one with a fully guaranteed contract doesn't mean he's the precedent, in fact I'd say Lamar is by no means influenced by that contract which is 5 years ago by now.
Click to expand...

The issue with Lamar's contract as far as I know is the fully guaranteed part which isn't a precedent set by Watson. Unless I missed something it has been the center of the issue for nearly a year.
 
JJ12 said:
Yeah it’s the speed that they’ve ruled themselves out. It makes sense to just speak to the guy. Stinks of collusion.
Click to expand...
I agree, and as @RobinLFC said, some of those teams are terrible. They'd rather continue to be bad than further open the door on guaranteed money.
 
RobinLFC said:
I don't think Lamar has a bad injury record. 15, 15, 12, 12 games played in his last four years. Just some unlucky ones, no evidence that it translates to the future (even though a lot of people like to say that because of his running).

And the guaranteed money is similar for Jones and Cousins. Guarenteed money isn't a problem for NFL teams, it's the amount which is guaranteed that is. And in that respect, Watson re-set the market last year, Cousins' deal didn't even if it was fully guaranteed at the time. It's Watson's deal which influenced Lamar's stance on how much he should be getting guaranteed.
Click to expand...
Yes because Lamar can argue that he is better than Watson and also hasn't been accused of sexual assault by multiple people. Also, he has not made much money (relatively speaking) so far in the NFL, especially for the level of performance he has given (second most wins after Mahomes I believe). He can also argue that he's better than the guys who came after Watson but took less.
 
JPRouve said:
The issue with Lamar's contract as far as I know is the fully guaranteed part which isn't a precedent set by Watson. Unless I missed something it has been the center of the issue for nearly a year.
Click to expand...
No the precedent set by Watson was the amount that was guaranteed. It's nearly quarter of a billion dollars. That reset the market. People can complain about the Browns anomalous desperation all they want but that's the facts.
 
Andrade said:
No the precedent set by Watson was the amount that was guaranteed. It's nearly quarter of a billion dollars. That reset the market. People can complain about the Browns anomalous desperation all they want but that's the facts.
Click to expand...

Not really the specificity of that contract is that it is fully guaranteed, the 230m are a result of an average and a contract length that the Browns and anyone having Watson would be willing and happy to pay. His AAV isn't out of market and it's going to be even less out of market with future cap increases. The issue with his contract is that it is fully guaranteed, there is no way to impose a restructure outside of one that is already included in the contract and that precedent wasn't created with Watson.

I get why you are looking at the total amount and think that it is the issue but it's not, first because we are talking about franchise QBs in their mid 20s and secondly because all franchises want to keep these guys. Your point could work for almost any other position because they are supposed to have higher turnover and it is easier to find a premium player through the draft but it doesn't apply to QBs.

As an example, ideally the Giants want to pay the entirety of the 195m included in Jones's contract but by not guaranteeing it fully, they create a situation where in 2 years they can entice a successful Jones into extending his contract and prorate part of his wage in the future which creates cap space for 25-26 and the prospect of having more guaranteed money sooner is a good thing for the player.

The issue with Watson's contract is that the Browns have no leverage, it's not the 230m that is an issue it's the absence of leverage when it comes to restructuration or early extension because the player contract is fully guaranteed.


Edit: I also forgot to mention an other issue of the fully guaranteed aspect of contracts, the NFL has escrow rules in place which means that it's difficult for certain owners to even offer them since they may not have the liquidity at the time of signing the contract.
 
Last edited:
JPRouve said:
Not really the specificity of that contract is that it is fully guaranteed, the 230m are a result of an average and a contract length that the Browns and anyone having Watson would be willing and happy to pay. His AAV isn't out of market and it's going to be even less out of market with future cap increases. The issue with his contract is that it is fully guaranteed, there is no way to impose a restructure outside of one that is already included in the contract and that precedent wasn't created with Watson.

I get why you are looking at the total amount and think that it is the issue but it's not, first because we are talking about franchise QBs in their mid 20s and secondly because all franchises want to keep these guys. Your point could work for almost any other position because they are supposed to have higher turnover and it is easier to find a premium player through the draft but it doesn't apply to QBs.

As an example, ideally the Giants want to pay the entirety of the 195m included in Jones's contract but by not guaranteeing it fully, they create a situation where in 2 years they can entice a successful Jones into extending his contract and prorate part of his wage in the future which creates cap space for 25-26 and the prospect of having more guaranteed money sooner is a good thing for the player.

The issue with Watson's contract is that the Browns have no leverage, it's not the 230m that is an issue it's the absence of leverage when it comes to restructuration or early extension because the player contract is fully guaranteed.


Edit: I also forgot to mention an other issue of the fully guaranteed aspect of contracts, the NFL has escrow rules in place which means that it's difficult for certain owners to even offer them since they may not have the liquidity at the time of signing the contract.
Click to expand...
Okay you've told me what my point is but I'm not sure what yours is? Do you think that Lamar is not within his rights to ask for what he is asking for? Do you think the (alleged) collusion is good? I'm not sure where you stand, I've not seen your earlier posts on this.
 
Andrade said:
Okay you've told me what my point is but I'm not sure what yours is? Do you think that Lamar is not within his rights to ask for what he is asking for? Do you think the (alleged) collusion is good? I'm not sure where you stand, I've not seen your earlier posts on this.
Click to expand...

Lamar can ask for whatever he wants and GMs(or owners) are within their right to deny it. If I was an owner I wouldn't give him or anyone that type of fully guaranteed contract at least not under the current cap rules and with a cap space that is that tight. I don't have an issue with the idea of guaranteed contracts but in the case of the NFL, I have little sympathy for QBs who basically take money away from their teammates, often teammates that allow them to earn that much, now they go around asking for fully guaranteed contracts which do not allow teams to build successful teams, they are essentially the only ones benefitting from it.
 
JPRouve said:
Lamar can ask for whatever he wants and GMs(or owners) are within their right to deny it. If I was an owner I wouldn't give him or anyone that type of fully guaranteed contract at least not under the current cap rules and with a cap space that is that tight. I don't have an issue with the idea of guaranteed contracts but in the case of the NFL, I have little sympathy for QBs who basically take money away from their teammates, often teammates that allow them to earn that much, now they go around asking for fully guaranteed contracts which do not allow teams to build successful teams, they are essentially the only ones benefitting from it.
Click to expand...
All sounds very reasonable. Until you factor in that teams very much appear to be colluding against him now. That's all good to you as well?
 
Andrade said:
All sounds very reasonable. Until you factor in that teams very much appear to be colluding against him now. That's all good to you as well?
Click to expand...

I have no idea about whether they are colluding or not, I'm not really into conspiracies especially when I see good reasons for teams to not offer him the contract structure that he wants. If they are I don't really like it, if a team wants to have Jackson under these conditions, they should.
 
JJ12 said:
Yeah it’s the speed that they’ve ruled themselves out. It makes sense to just speak to the guy. Stinks of collusion.
Click to expand...

Surely these GMs have already had discussions with the agent. Don't recall there being a rule on talking to agents. Or perhaps there's enough insider stuff going on all these GMs/teams know what Lamar is seeking/won't budge from.
 
MrMarcello said:
Surely these GMs have already had discussions with the agent. Don't recall there being a rule on talking to agents. Or perhaps there's enough insider stuff going on all these GMs/teams know what Lamar is seeking/won't budge from.
Click to expand...

Teams know exactly what pending free agents want, that's the biggest part of the combine.
 
JPRouve said:
I have no idea about whether they are colluding or not, I'm not really into conspiracies especially when I see good reasons for teams to not offer him the contract structure that he wants. If they are I don't really like it, if a team wants to have Jackson under these conditions, they should.
Click to expand...
The fact that several teams have rushed to state very publicly that they will not even have a conversation with him is extremely odd. There is no good reason for that IMO.
 
MrMarcello said:
Surely these GMs have already had discussions with the agent. Don't recall there being a rule on talking to agents. Or perhaps there's enough insider stuff going on all these GMs/teams know what Lamar is seeking/won't budge from.
Click to expand...
He doesn't have an agent
 
MrMarcello said:
Surely these GMs have already had discussions with the agent. Don't recall there being a rule on talking to agents. Or perhaps there's enough insider stuff going on all these GMs/teams know what Lamar is seeking/won't budge from.
Click to expand...
Lamar is representing himself with the NFLPA offering guidance.
 
Andrade said:
The fact that several teams have rushed to state very publicly that they will not even have a conversation with him is extremely odd. There is no good reason for that IMO.
Click to expand...

There are good reasons for several of them, they have QBs. Also it's mainly speculative reports for example the Raiders didn't rule out Jackson, he is allegedly part of their considerations, the bears have been linked to him for some reason and as far as I know no one ruled them out. Miami have Tua and they said that their HC believes that he is the perfect fit.

So the collusion basically comes down to the Commanders, Falcons and Panthers?
 
JPRouve said:
There are good reasons for several of them, they have QBs. Also it's mainly speculative reports for example the Raiders didn't rule out Jackson, he is allegedly part of their considerations, the bears have been linked to him for some reason and as far as I know no one ruled them out. Miami have Tua and they said that their HC believes that he is the perfect fit.

So the collusion basically comes down to the Commanders, Falcons and Panthers?
Click to expand...
So all the people who know much more about the business than you or I who have remarked that the situation is weird have got the wrong end of the stick? Even if they are not interested, what does it profit a team to loudly state that right after he receives the non-exclusive tag?
 
Andrade said:
So all the people who know much more about the business than you or I who have remarked that the situation is weird have got the wrong end of the stick? Even if they are not interested, what does it profit a team to loudly state that right after he receives the non-exclusive tag?
Click to expand...

I told you that I don't know, I don't exclude potential collusion but I don't consider that it's the only reason and have no reason to act as if it was. Outside of Atlanta all of these teams have good reasons to go in a different direction and make it clear to their one players. All the teams involved not named Falcons would have to jettison pricey contracts, if they have no intention to do so, it's best to let everyone and especially your own players that you count on them, the same applies to Miami with Tua but in this case it's a matter of trusting his talent.

In all of that the only team that I find weird is the Falcons, they have the cap space and unless I'm missing something they only really need a QB. In their case it could be a wait and see approach and attempt to not lose as much draft capital.
 
RobinLFC said:
Click to expand...

As Green Bay fan I’d be fine with this. He’s been brilliant to watch for the time he’s been here but he’s a massive nobhead and I don’t think he’ll produce any more magic here. Wouldn’t be surprised if he does well elsewhere but something hasn’t felt right for a while. Time to move on.
 
I think GB should move on from him, unless they are somehow going to go large and bring some big names in now to become a serious challenger this year.

If Rodgers does move to the Jets, the calibre of QBs between the AFC and NFC is ridiculous.

Lamar, Herbert, Mahomes, Burrow, Allen… even a strong second tier in Lawrence, Watson (maybe), M Jones (maybe) and Tua… the quality of young QBs in the AFC is insanely good.

The NFC essentially has Hurts in the top tier. Maybe Murray. Second tier would be Fields, D Jones (maybe), and Purdy/Lance (maybe).

Even the veteran QBs who did well in the NFC last year are bang average.
 
calodo2003 said:
Is any one of these QBs actually worth that haul?
Click to expand...
No. We don’t even know who’s the guy they want at this point. Weird move because there’s not much between Young, Stroud and Richardson (or Levis even) for me. But they must feel strongly about one of them.

In any case, there’s no Burrow/Lawrence QB in this draft.
 
RobinLFC said:
No. We don’t even know who’s the guy they want at this point. Weird move because there’s not much between Young, Stroud and Richardson (or Levis even) for me. But they must feel strongly about one of them.

In any case, there’s no Burrow/Lawrence QB in this draft.
Click to expand...
Some chatter that they will trade out of the first pick to secure more picks.
 
Apparently Carolina just created $15m dead money with that Moore trade too..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.