2023 NFL Offseason Thread

#202
#202
  • Like
Reactions: Plecoptera
#203
#203
I’ll be interested to see how this contract is structured and the other details. Based on the linked article Hurts has $179 million guaranteed. The 179 is probably guaranteed at signing with an additional amount that is guaranteed after a certain period. Probably some incentives to get the final number higher. If I’m Lamar Jackson I go to the Ravens and ask for the Hurts contract. He’s got a better chance of getting this one compared to the Watson contract. Of course if he had an agent he’d already have a good contract.
 
Last edited:
#204
#204
n_huffhines said:
Somebody made a good point about this. You're paying him like he's on the very top tier of QB's and he's probably not that, but he has a good case for best QB in the NFC, which may not change for a few years.
Click to expand...
Good point about Hurts being one of the best in the NFC. Plus he seems to be improving as a passer.
 
#205
#205
Plecoptera said:
I’ll be interested to see how this contract is structured and the other details. Based on the linked article Hurts has $179 million guaranteed. The 179 is probably guaranteed at signing with an additional amount that is guaranteed after a certain period. Probably some incentives to get the final number higher.
Click to expand...
Once upon a time, Dak Prescott had a ridiculous contract. Currently, even after a subpar season, he’s practically cost effective. Give it less than a season and Philly fans will be bragging how cheaply they locked him up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Plecoptera
#206
#206
butchna said:
Once upon a time, Dak Prescott had a ridiculous contract. Currently, even after a subpar season, he’s practically cost effective. Give it less than a season and Philly fans will be bragging how cheaply they locked him up.
Click to expand...
Good point. The cap keeps going up and qb contracts are going to raise as well. Big contracts from a few years ago look like bargains now. I’ll be curious what Herbert and Burrow get.
 
  • Like
Reactions: butchna
#207
#207
Plecoptera said:
Good point. The cap keeps going up and qb contracts are going to raise as well. Big contracts from a few years ago look like bargains now. I’ll be curious what Herbert and Burrow get.
Click to expand...
At some point, sanity will prevail and the powers that be will turn the franchise tag into a highly sought designation. My idea would be that franchises could only apply the tag to one player for the length of a GUARANTEED contract which would not count against the salary cap. Prolly would necessitate a minimum number of years so they couldn’t continue their policy of slapping it on a different player nearing the end of their contract each season. There would be growing pains, but eventually it would be the way to retain your franchise QB whilst building the rest of your team.
 
  • Like
Reactions: peaygolf
#208
#208
butchna said:
At some point, sanity will prevail and the powers that be will turn the franchise tag into a highly sought designation. My idea would be that franchises could only apply the tag to one player for the length of a GUARANTEED contract which would not count against the salary cap. Prolly would necessitate a minimum number of years so they couldn’t continue their policy of slapping it on a different player nearing the end of their contract each season. There would be growing pains, but eventually it would be the way to retain your franchise QB whilst building the rest of your team.
Click to expand...
I like that! Good idea.
 
  • Like
Reactions: butchna
#211
#211
butchna said:
At some point, sanity will prevail and the powers that be will turn the franchise tag into a highly sought designation. My idea would be that franchises could only apply the tag to one player for the length of a GUARANTEED contract which would not count against the salary cap. Prolly would necessitate a minimum number of years so they couldn’t continue their policy of slapping it on a different player nearing the end of their contract each season. There would be growing pains, but eventually it would be the way to retain your franchise QB whilst building the rest of your team.
Click to expand...

I like what you're trying to do, but not counting an entire contract against the cap makes the QB an even more advantageous position, and it already has that status by a mile. Gotta tweak that, IMO.

I like the idea that if you draft the player, 10% of their contracts after the rookie contract do not count against the cap. That will help with retaining all drafted players and not be an incentive weighting things even more in favor of QB's
 
#212
#212
n_huffhines said:
I like what you're trying to do, but not counting an entire contract against the cap makes the QB an even more advantageous position, and it's already has that status by a mile. Gotta tweak that, IMO.

I like the idea that if you draft the player, 10% of their contracts after the rookie contract do not count against the cap. That will help with retaining all drafted players and not be an incentive weighting things even more in favor of QB's towards QB's.
Click to expand...
It’s bowing to the reality that having a legit QB is paramount to CONTINUED success. No dynasty or long running successful team has achieved it otherwise. It would make franchising any player other than your established QB a foolhardy move, but would legitimize the tag for it’s supposed purpose. There are players a franchise supposedly couldn’t afford to lose, so this designation was the price of business for greenlighting true free agency. There was immediate bisching from notables like Troy Aikman (odd considering he was never slapped with it cuz Jerry always was proactive in signing him early), and it’s become a mockery stalling tactic. Can’t come to an agreement? Slap the tag on anyone after you’ve resigned your most important positions. That’s how Robbie Gould gets tagged. You sign your most important position and it’s GUARANTEED for the length of the contract. So franchises are forced to designate wisely. Ravens sign Lamar for 5 years? They have to ride or die for those 5 years…career ender be damned. In that hypothetical, Lamar gets taken care of and you have to develop the next guy on his rookie deal. I agree that it wouldn’t fly. Franchises want to be saved from themselves. But it would legitimize the franchise tag and remove it’s contentious, current farcical status and it would allow competent teams to build contenders without gutting it all after 2-3 efforts.
 
#213
#213
butchna said:
It’s bowing to the reality that having a legit QB is paramount to CONTINUED success. No dynasty or long running successful team has achieved it otherwise. It would make franchising any player other than your established QB a foolhardy move, but would legitimize the tag for it’s supposed purpose. There are players a franchise supposedly couldn’t afford to lose, so this designation was the price of business for greenlighting true free agency. There was immediate bisching from notables like Troy Aikman (odd considering he was never slapped with it cuz Jerry always was proactive in signing him early), and it’s become a mockery stalling tactic. Can’t come to an agreement? Slap the tag on anyone after you’ve resigned your most important positions. That’s how Robbie Gould gets tagged. You sign your most important position and it’s GUARANTEED for the length of the contract. So franchises are forced to designate wisely. Ravens sign Lamar for 5 years? They have to ride or die for those 5 years…career ender be damned. In that hypothetical, Lamar gets taken care of and you have to develop the next guy on his rookie deal. I agree that it wouldn’t fly. Franchises want to be saved from themselves. But it would legitimize the franchise tag and remove it’s contentious, current farcical status and it would allow competent teams to build contenders without gutting it all after 2-3 efforts.
Click to expand...

So a team could potentially have 5 tagged players at the same time, and it's not just a year, it's 5 years? Nice that the $ is guaranteed, but we're going from restricting 32 players for 1 year each to restricting 160 players for basically their entire primes. I'm not sure either side would want this.

How would you even establish the price for tagged players? For example, if you tag a QB, it's based on the top 3 QB contracts, or something like that....but there wouldn't be any superstar contracts happening in the open market to establish the price, because literally every good QB would get tagged. Since there are 22 positions, you're probably tagging all the great QB's, DT's, DE's, T's and WR's and then also about the top 5 or 6 players at every other position.
 
Last edited:
#214
#214
n_huffhines said:
So a team could potentially have 5 tagged players at the same time, and it's not just a year, it's 5 years? Nice that the $ is guaranteed, but we're going from restricting 32 players for 1 year each to restricting 160 players for basically their entire primes. I'm not sure either side would want this.

How would you even establish the price for tagged players? For example, if you tag a QB, it's based on the top 3 QB contracts, or something like that....but there wouldn't be any superstar contracts happening in the open market to establish the price, because literally every good QB would get tagged. Since there are 22 positions, you're probably tagging all the great QB's, DT's, DE's, T's and WR's and then also about the top 5 or 6 players at every other position.
Click to expand...
I don’t know where you went off the road to get here. 😳 ONE franchise tag! Used exclusively on ONE player! Fully guaranteed and doesn’t count against the salary cap. But that tag can’t be utilized again until THAT contract is completed. I could see some franchises not even using theirs if there’s not a true franchise player on the roster. There would be some trial and error horror stories, but eventually you’d have far more Mahomes, Allens and Burrows than David Carrs. As previously stated, I don’t expect this would come to fruition…way too practical and grounded.
 
  • Like
Reactions: n_huffhines and peaygolf
#215
#215
n_huffhines said:
Somebody made a good point about this. You're paying him like he's on the very top tier of QB's and he's probably not that, but he has a good case for best QB in the NFC, which may not change for a few years.
Click to expand...

What about Stafford?
 
#216
#216
mad4vols said:
What about Stafford?
Click to expand...

Hurts last year > Stafford any year, and now he's old and brittle and has what for weapons?

Stafford has a SB and he deserves it, but Hurts had as close to a perfect season and playoff run as you can have last year, and they lost because his team couldn't stop KC. He was better in that run than Stafford was in his.
 
#217
#217
butchna said:
I don’t know where you went off the road to get here. 😳 ONE franchise tag! Used exclusively on ONE player! Fully guaranteed and doesn’t count against the salary cap. But that tag can’t be utilized again until THAT contract is completed. I could see some franchises not even using theirs if there’s not a true franchise player on the roster. There would be some trial and error horror stories, but eventually you’d have far more Mahomes, Allens and Burrows than David Carrs. As previously stated, I don’t expect this would come to fruition…way too practical and grounded.
Click to expand...

Ultimately, I like variety in all sports. I don't want every team to look the same. I don't want their roster construction goals to be the same. And the contract edge for QB's would be far too advantageous not to pursue for all teams. We have teams with modest QB's doing very well and going deep in the playoffs every year, and sometimes they get in the SB, and I love that. It gives hope to teams that don't have the QB. You can win a SB with Nick Foles, even now in this era. That's awesome. If Brady's contract doesn't count against the cap, forget about it. Add another $30m worth of players to the Patriots. Do the Eagles even get past the Falcons in the divisional round if the Falcons have another $34M worth of guys?
 
#218
#218
n_huffhines said:
Hurts last year > Stafford any year, and now he's old and brittle and has what for weapons?

Stafford has a SB and he deserves it, but Hurts had as close to a perfect season and playoff run as you can have last year, and they lost because his team couldn't stop KC. He was better in that run than Stafford was in his.
Click to expand...
You aren’t wrong. I’d say right now you have a case that Goff is #2 in the NFC after Hurts.
 
#219
#219
mad4vols said:
You aren’t wrong. I’d say right now you have a case that Goff is #2 in the NFC after Hurts.
Click to expand...

I do like Stafford and I don't want to **** on him. How many times did we beat him? Weren't we 2-1? Easy to like a UGA QB like that. I always liked the arm.
 
#221
#221
n_huffhines said:
I do like Stafford and I don't want to **** on him. How many times did we beat him? Weren't we 2-1? Easy to like a UGA QB like that. I always liked the arm.
Click to expand...

Technically 1-1 he only played like two series his freshman year in 2006
 
#222
#222
@n_huffhines made me think of a great what if when Georgia get decimated by underdog Tennessee in 2007. Fulmer probably doesn’t survive, Fulmer gets fired and UT doesn’t hire Kiffin
 
  • Like
Reactions: n_huffhines
#225
#225
n_huffhines said:
Ultimately, I like variety in all sports. I don't want every team to look the same. I don't want their roster construction goals to be the same. And the contract edge for QB's would be far too advantageous not to pursue for all teams. We have teams with modest QB's doing very well and going deep in the playoffs every year, and sometimes they get in the SB, and I love that. It gives hope to teams that don't have the QB. You can win a SB with Nick Foles, even now in this era. That's awesome. If Brady's contract doesn't count against the cap, forget about it. Add another $30m worth of players to the Patriots. Do the Eagles even get past the Falcons in the divisional round if the Falcons have another $34M worth of guys?
Click to expand...
A team with a “modest QB” can do one-offs…no long term success. Nick Foles got hot in the playoffs one year and has never been even a viable stop-gap in the regular season. Not a model any reasonable fan would sign off on. If a GM wants a legacy of winning, they identify their franchise QB and tailor around him. KC, Philadelphia, Cincy, Buffalo et al would never trade places with Atlanta. And if a team can secure their QB AND pay the market for elite Edges, WR’s and OL? The GAME benefits from the resultant quality.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement



Back
Top