NFL 2022 Week 1: Leviathans in Fall

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, Mexal said:

But really, biggest issue that is never discussed but has massive impacts on certain teams like the Bengals on why fully guaranteed contracts are bad is that the CBA rules dictates that all guaranteed money must be put in escrow until it's paid out. This has major implications on teams that aren't owned by billionaires with multiple businesses and multiple revenue streams of cash. Mike Brown is not a billionaire. He only has one stream of revenue. To pay Joe Burrow a $200m+ fully guaranteed contract will have significant ramifications on the rest of the team. Add in another player or two commanding that kind of money and it's over for small market teams. This is never discussed but it's a major factor why some teams pay massive fully guaranteed contracts and others try very hard to structure their contracts where they get a lot of cash up front (to incentivize them to not worry about massive guaranteed money) but little stated guaranteed money. Everyone always assumes the Bengals are cheap but they pay out a shitload of cash, it's just they're "cheap" because they don't give out massive guarantees; this is the biggest reason why.

I think people became more aware of this after the Raiders traded Mack. Not sure if it was ever confirmed, but there was wide speculation that they had to trade him because Davis didn't have the money to put into escrow.

I have to disagree with your conclusion though. Assuming nothing changes with the CBA and escrow rules, fully guaranteed contracts will not hurt small markets so much as they'll force cash poor owners to sell, and that's kind of inevitable anyways. And that's a good thing, especially for the players. 

[Mexal]

19 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I think people became more aware of this after the Raiders traded Mack. Not sure if it was ever confirmed, but there was wide speculation that they had to trade him because Davis didn't have the money to put into escrow.

I have to disagree with your conclusion though. Assuming nothing changes with the CBA and escrow rules, fully guaranteed contracts will not hurt small markets so much as they'll force cash poor owners to sell, and that's kind of inevitable anyways. And that's a good thing, especially for the players. 

Nah. Mike Brown isn't selling the Bengals and as a family run team that has put their entire life into it, I'm ok with that. I do appreciate a family that has loyalty to their team and their city. The worst thing that could happen is they sell the team and they're moved to LA where no one fucking likes their team. Maybe it's good for the players who get more money but it fucking sucks for the fans.

[Jace, Extat]

40 minutes ago, Mexal said:

Sure. Or he tears his ACL again. That’s the risk with a one year deal.

And? That's kinda the argument for getting that fully guaranteed deal. 

Classic American worker strategy. If the employer won't give you what you want, fold immediately. Sometimes you have to assume risk to seek a greater reward. 

 

 

[Mexal]

5 minutes ago, Firebrand Jace said:

And? That's kinda the argument for getting that fully guaranteed deal. 

Classic American worker strategy. If the employer won't give you what you want, fold immediately. Sometimes you have to assume risk to seek a greater reward. 

 

 

Well, no. That's the argument against one year deals. Ravens will still offer him like $240m deal with $150m in guarantees. He wants $240m fully guaranteed. It's his choice to turn that down but it's clear the NFL is ignoring Watson's contract as an aberration and if they continue to do that, he's not going to get what he wants.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

30 minutes ago, Mexal said:

Nah. Mike Brown isn't selling the Bengals and as a family run team that has put their entire life into it, I'm ok with that. I do appreciate a family that has loyalty to their team and their city. The worst thing that could happen is they sell the team and they're moved to LA where no one fucking likes their team. Maybe it's good for the players who get more money but it fucking sucks for the fans.

Mike Brown on the whole has been a terrible owner, and realistically he won't have the resources to compete going into the future. You'd be better off with someone coming in who can afford to lose money. The Vikings were bought by outsiders and many fans feared they'd move the team, but those fears went by the wayside quickly and the Wilfs have in turn been very good owners, even if they're evil slumlords in their other business ventures. 

Can't say it will happen, but it seems your real issue should be with the NFL's ridiculously low relocation fee. Just make it more financially prudent to expand rather than relocate and your fears should largely be removed. Or better yet, make it so the municipalities own a controlling stake in the teams. Private owners are frankly the least useful people in the overwhelming majority of sports franchises.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

8 minutes ago, Mexal said:

Well, no. That's the argument against one year deals. Ravens will still offer him like $240m deal with $150m in guarantees. He wants $240m fully guaranteed. It's his choice to turn that down but it's clear the NFL is ignoring Watson's contract as an aberration and if they continue to do that, he's not going to get what he wants.

I haven't heard any word that it's fully guaranteed or no deal. Given what we do know, Lamar is clearly insulted that the Ravens valued him as much as the Rams valued Stafford, which is a joke. 

[Jace, Extat]

If he hits FA he will get a fully guaranteed contract. 

[Rhom]

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

Lamar is clearly insulted that the Ravens valued him as much as the Rams valued Stafford, which is a joke. 

But Stafford did turn out to be the missing piece on a Super Bowl team… I love Lamar’s game (and he’s a genuinely good kid.  I can show you video of post Heisman Lamar throwing a football with my neighbor’s five year old in their basement.) but I don’t know that he’s a final piece for any team just yet.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

8 minutes ago, Rhom said:

But Stafford did turn out to be the missing piece on a Super Bowl team… I love Lamar’s game (and he’s a genuinely good kid.  I can show you video of post Heisman Lamar throwing a football with my neighbor’s five year old in their basement.) but I don’t know that he’s a final piece for any team just yet.

Final piece? He's the fucking centerpiece. Lamar probably adds more value to his team than any other player in the league. He's the Shohei Ohtani of the NFL.

[briantw]

I’m just going to sit here and hope the Ravens and Bengals somehow manage to fuck things up with their franchise QBs.  Bengals have like four more years of Taylor, so that’s a great start.  We all know they’ll be too cheap to fire him for at least another two years. 

[Nictarion]

1 hour ago, briantw said:

I’m just going to sit here and hope the Ravens and Bengals somehow manage to fuck things up with their franchise QBs.  Bengals have like four more years of Taylor, so that’s a great start.  We all know they’ll be too cheap to fire him for at least another two years. 

Taylor is never going to be a top coach, but he’s perfectly fine. Would I rather have a Sean Payton? Sure. But we can win with Taylor as evidenced by last year. And he did a good job rebuilding what was an absolutely terrible roster left over from Marvin Lewis. Prior to Taylor we never used to hit on free agents like Trey Hendrickson, DJ Reader, Chidobe Awuzie, etc, who are all now some of the top players at their positions. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

Never go full Mike McCarthy...

[dbunting]

5 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

Never go full Mike McCarthy...

Stop it

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

2 hours ago, dbunting said:

Stop it

What? You know your coach is clown shoes....

[briantw]

8 hours ago, Nictarion said:

Taylor is never going to be a top coach, but he’s perfectly fine. Would I rather have a Sean Payton? Sure. But we can win with Taylor as evidenced by last year. And he did a good job rebuilding what was an absolutely terrible roster left over from Marvin Lewis. Prior to Taylor we never used to hit on free agents like Trey Hendrickson, DJ Reader, Chidobe Awuzie, etc, who are all now some of the top players at their positions. 

Burrow is also on pace to be sacked over a hundred times this year.  Sure, some of that is on Burrow for holding onto the ball too long, but a lot of it is Taylor making it very obvious when the team is running passing plays.  

[Mexal]

25 minutes ago, briantw said:

Burrow is also on pace to be sacked over a hundred times this year.  Sure, some of that is on Burrow for holding onto the ball too long, but a lot of it is Taylor making it very obvious when the team is running passing plays.  

Jets game was much better in that regard. We'll see what happens tonight.

[grozeng]

25 minutes ago, Mexal said:

Jets game was much better in that regard. We'll see what happens tonight.

Are we at the point where the Jets are a good indication of your team improving an area of their game?  Despite putting money into it, the Jets pass rush still isn't very good.

[Mexal]

6 minutes ago, grozeng said:

Are we at the point where the Jets are a good indication of your team improving an area of their game?  Despite putting money into it, the Jets pass rush still isn't very good.

I mean, their front 4 is feisty but no, that wasn't necessarily what I meant. There were a ton of articles (very true articles) pointing out that the Bengals have a tendency to pass when in shotgun and run when under center at a clip that's like 80-90% accurate (their pass game is more of a spread and their run game is more a wide zone under center so it's pretty disconnected). As such, it was pretty clear when to load the box and when to sit back in cover 2. In the Jets game, they were a bit less predictable and it helped open up the offense.

[grozeng]

I'm a Jets fan, so I was just excited someone was using them as a yardstick for improvement

[briantw]