tukafan21

It's fair to point out, but like you said, there just isn't a way this is the case. How could the team not hold up their side of some deal short of them saying, "don't worry, no matter what we'll give you a contract offer that you'd accept before week 1 starts" As that's not something they could say as it would screw them even worse in their negotiating position than they already did by turning down that trade. Not saying they're offering something fair, maybe they're not, but there is not way they had some sort of deal with Burns that they're now reneging on.

Yes, players get hurt in practice at times, but the risk is supremely small in doing so. I'd have had no issue with Jones or Bosa holding out if I was a fan of their teams, just as I wouldn't have had issue with Burns doing it either. I take issue with Burns playing the "I'm doing what's best for the team" card all offseason to then threaten to sit out the week before the game, it screams dirty negotiating tactics to me. Had he been holding out, we'd have been preparing for months to play without him, but by doing what he did, he's holding our defense hostage with this threat because he knows we're not ready to play without him. It's the opposite of doing what's best for the team, even if he plays in the end, because he's causing a serious distraction at the moment. And again, stop comparing Burns to any of these players as not a single one of them is a fair comparison. Bosa/Jones completely held out so their teams knew what was up the whole time. While Evans/Higgins just aren't even remotely similar situations as neither team wants to bring them back next year anyways, so holding out by either of them only hurts themselves as they can't show out for a new contract by another team in the offseason, all they could have done would be to hold out to force a trade.

Huge difference between Burns and those 2 guys Evans is 30 and was never going to hold out as he knew the Bucs weren't going to re-sign him anyways, he just put a deadline on it to eliminate contract talk during the season. Higgins is a key cog on a very real SB contender who also knows there is about a 99% chance they won't re-sign, holding out would do him no good when his path to a big contract is balling out this year and hitting free agency next year. Burns is a player the team wants to keep and is also looking at a contract that likely would be about 30% more per season than Higgins would be looking at, all while playing a position that is much more physically demanding on your body and thus more likely to see an injury. And nobody has said he discussions haven't been productive or amicable, but I struggle to see a scenario where after all this time we couldn't agree to a deal before they flew to Atlanta, and then are able to work one out tonight or in the morning. If Burns was going to play without a new contract (as everyone assumed he would all offseason if one wasn't reached) he wouldn't have done what he did this week and threaten not to play. The only way I think he plays tomorrow is if this was literally a plan between the team and Burns the whole time, so the Falcons didn't think he'd play, but I don't see that being likely either.

I don't think so, I don't think he plays without a deal done, if he travels and then ends up not playing, it will be a significantly larger cloud hanging over the team tomorrow than if he just didn't make the trip. This whole situation is really starting to make me angry with how Burns has handled it. If he was going to hold out, just do it from the start and I'd have no issue with him doing so. Really not a fan of him talking all summer about how we're building something here and he knows it's important for him to be here and be a part of it, only to threaten to hold out in the days leading into the first game. If I'm running the team and he's not signed before the game starts tomorrow and playing, then he's never suiting up for the Panthers again, he'd be inactive until a trade is able to be worked out (and again, I've been someone who has been screaming for months to just pay him what he wants, so I don't say this lightly).

You can't say you get what I'm saying, agree with it, but say you were only saying what you did to simplify it. Because the details on that particular aspect of contracts is EXACTLY what matters here. You're saying that the only thing hat matters is the guarantee, but it's not because of what I laid out. The practical guarantee matters, which you seem to acknowledge, so you can't then state "the only thing that matters is the guaranteed number" in the way you did. They're two completely different things that 100% change things.

You tell him, "we love you, we think you're going to be one of the best pass rushers in this league for a while. But we're not waiting for you to use the reigning defensive player of the year's contract to use as leverage over us, as you're not there as a player yet. This is what we're willing to offer you, if you think you're worth more because you think someone significantly more accomplished than you will get much more, then we have to trade you" The agents and the players understand the business, he's not going to get upset at them telling him that because there isn't anyone in the world who knows the slightest bit about football who could look at what they've accomplished in their careers so far and deny those facts. If he wants to turn down TJ Watt money while trying to get closer to Bosa money, then he's out of his mind and at that point we should be trading him. $28-30 million a year should be more than enough to get it done for Burns and should be low enough to make us okay with it. Guarantees can be figured out with smart contract structure, that we haven't been able to get that done yet is a reflection on the front office in my opinion, not Burns.

Again, no it's not, it's why I'm thinking at this point we just need to go out and use Tepper's very deep pockets to steal one of the better cap managers in the league, say from the Saints or Eagles. Like I posted a little earlier, guaranteed money matters, but the "realistic guaranteed" money is what matters more, and that comes down to how the contract is structured. Teams can structure these contracts with the guaranteed money, but in a way that there is no way for the team to get out of it before other portions of the contract become guaranteed. For example.... Say a team signs someone to a 4 year, $100 million dollar contract with only $40 million guaranteed paid upon signing..... It can be structured to where year 1 and 2 have the player's salary being the vet minimum while year 3 is a salary of say $40 million and then $20 million in year 4. The player can't be cut after year 1 as they'd then have paid the player the $40 million guaranteed money while then taking on a $30 million dead cap hit. No team is cutting an elite player after 1 bad season when they'd then have to carry a $30+ million cap hit while doing so. They then also worked the contract so that Year 3 with the big salary is guaranteed if the player is on the roster Day 1 of the league year following the first year of the contract. At that time they then are able to re-structure the contract to convert that $40 million salary to a roster bonus. If the player is performing as expected, it can be done in an extension that really pushes that cap down the road, if not, it can be done with voidable years to still push it down the road without actually extending the player. In that example, they only got $40 million guaranteed, but in reality, it was actually an $80 million guarantee with how it was structured because everyone knew there was no way they'd be cut after one season and thus trigger the extra $40 in guaranteed money.

This is a completely irrelevant post to the discussion at hand though. The question is whether Fitt put himself in a terrible place from a negotiation stand point or not, and there is literally no way of framing where things stand right now without that answer being a resounding yes. Sure, maybe it works out, but he's the one who put himself behind the 8 ball on this particular negotiation.

Eh, I get what you're saying as that's the current situation, but it's also a bit of a revisionist history by judging only from where things stand currently. A big part of the reason the Rams are even in the position they are right now, looking at a potential Top 5 pick, is because they own their own pick next year for the first time in years. If we made that trade last year and they still had 2 more years without their Firsts, it's a guaranteed certainty that their offseason plays out entirely differently. They'd have kept Ramsey and pulled a Saints offseason by working cap magic to kick the can down the road and put a more competitive team on the field this season, no question about it. They went into this season likely telling themselves that if they had a hot start, they'd use those draft picks to trade for players at the deadline (like maybe a Mike Evans) and if they didn't, they'd stay status quo and end up with a high draft pick.

I've disagreed with CRA on some posts here today, but this isn't one of them. There is no way to frame this situation without the realization that Fitterer screwed himself on these negotiations, regardless of what Burns is asking for. He turned down 2 first round picks for him, it became public, and now we're 22 hours away from the season kicking off and it's not even known yet if Burns is going to be willing to play. He should have either made that trade, worked out an extension with Burns before turning the trade down, traded him before/during the draft, or signed him LONG before now. Letting it get to this point, no matter what he's asking for, has put Fitterer in a downright terrible negotiating position, it really doesn't get much worse.

The problem with the way you're putting it is that it only works that way when looking at everything individually, not the collective. There are only so many players at every level, for example, let's say each position really only has 3 truly ELITE players, then each position has another 7 great players, another 10 really really good, another 10 that are pretty good, etc, etc. Yes, in a vacuum and when looked at individually, only those 3 elite players in a position group should get that very top end money, then a step down for the next 7, another step down for the next 10, and even within those groups there is a sliding scale of course. When the options are overpaying for someone in that second level or not having anyone in the Top 25 of a position, teams overpay because it's better than the alternative. Sure, sometimes you can pass on the overpay and use the same money towards 2 other players who can be more effective for you than the 1, but that's not always the case. When you have someone with Burns' upper end potential, you overpay to keep him because it's better than the alternative of losing him. As the saying goes, sometimes a bird in the hand is worth 2 in the bush

I'm not going to bother with digging into it with all these contracts, but there is also a difference between guaranteed money and "guaranteed" money with how teams structure contracts these days to manipulate the cap. A lot of time there aren't actual guarantees, but the contracts are written in a way that there are essentially non-guaranteed guaranteed money. They'll do something where Year 3 of the contract isn't guaranteed at signing, but it becomes guaranteed if you're on the roster on Day 1 of the league year after the first year of the contract. Those are the type of things where even if the player has an injury or epic bust of a season, they aren't going to cut the player before year 2 starts solely because of the dead money hit they'd have to take. That's a way for players to get "guarantees" that aren't actually considered in the guaranteed money up front when the deal is signed. Same thing with how contracts can be structured to where some of the early years of the contracts are full salary payments, knowing they won't/can't be cut due to dead money hits, and in each offseason the team takes that upcoming year's salary, re-structures it as a roster bonus and then vet min salary for the season to keep pushing the cap down the road. Miller is on the back end of his career, so that guarantee seems right, but it wouldn't shock me if the Chubb deal had some of the above things in the structure of the contract to where he knows he's actually "guaranteed" more money than that in the end.

I'm definitely not against it, I just hope that when the time comes, we don't feel the need to do that and can use that money elsewhere. There is a very real possibility that Mingo shows #1 potential by the end of the year, if he does that and TMJ has his best year yet, I think we could look at them as the Top 2 next year and put that $15-20 million towards another need. The other problem with going after him is that it seems very unlikely that he'll ever hit unrestricted FA. Unless the Bengals need to use their franchise tag on someone else, I'd be shocked to see them let him walk away for free, they'll tag him to be able to trade him for a good draft pick. I don't really want to have to give up our 2nd rounder and then give him a $20 million a year deal on top of it, not when we're already lacking draft picks at the moment.

No, the delusion is thinking Higgins isn't a clear cut #1 WR in this league, which he is, even if he's the #2 on his current team. I said this the other day, people really struggle to differentiate the difference between a #1 in real life football and in fantasy football. No, Higgins is not a #1 WR in fantasy football, just a high end #2. But there are 32 teams in the NFL, to think Higgins isn't AT WORST a Top 20 WR and quite probably a Top 15 is just people kidding themselves. And any WR in the Top 20 in today's NFL is easily a #1 WR, with Higgins likely solidly in the Top 15 at the position, it's clear as day that he's a #1. In the 4 weeks that Chase was out injured last season, Higgins had 26 catches, for 371 yards and 2 TDs. Extrapolated out across 17 games, thats 110 catches for 1,576 yards, and 8.5 TDs. That would have been good for 3rd in both catches and yards in the league last season. In what world are those NOT #1 WR numbers?

I was already okay with giving him 28-30 before this, hadn't realized how much the cap had really risen since Watt's deal, this makes it seem even more of a no brainer to give him the money.

That's literally how the sport works though Are you saying because he might blow up over the next 3 years and thus be able to hold out again and demand more money, you don't want to re-sign him right now? Maybe one of the craziest arguments I've ever heard. He might be so good that we have to do this again in 3 years, so let's just avoid having 3 years of his great play so we don't have to deal with that. You do realize that you're basically saying there is no point to ever signing good players out of fear of them holding out at some point, right?

In what way? My friends are all die hard Lions fans and have always talked about the Lions in this way our whole lives. They love the team, love to watch them, hope they win, but never allow themselves to get too far ahead of their skis because it's still the Lions. They've won 1 playoff game since 1957 and that came in 1991. It's not hard to love your team but never really get too high of expectations when that's been the case your whole life of 35+ years of watching the Lions operate. They've watched the franchise throw away the careers of the best RB in league history and one of the best WRs in league history.

Lions fans have been able to stay loyal by giving up on hope, accepting that their franchise is going to screw things up, and enjoying any little bit of good they get each season. Seriously, I'm from Michigan and live half an hour north of downtown, all my friends are Lions fans. Even during the Stafford and Calvin years, they never really allowed themselves to have legitimate hope going into seasons and once things started going well they just accepted something bad would happen at some point. Watched the game last night with a few Lions fans and even with how excited they were, right away last night they said how amazing it is, how they finally have real hope for the first time in their lives about the Lions, but they still figure they'll end up crapping out in spectacular fashion at some point, just maybe in the playoffs for a change.

I'm actually not very worried about Ickey I think with how the pre-season went for him, they're going to run a lot of TE sets next to him to give him some chips and help the first few weeks. Just like the team did last year early to help build his confidence and get him into a groove. So Ickey with help and Bryce's mobility in the pocket, I think we'll be good there.

Depends how you mean it I'm personally in the camp of saying we just need to pay the man what he's asking for, that in 2 years it will be borderline top 10 for pass rushers anyways (plus I think he's going to break out for 15+ sacks this year). If his play doesn't live up to it, I won't say we overpaid, because we do need to pay that to get him longterm right now in this market, but I'll say that he's not playing like he is being paid to and I'll put it on him. Unless he's asking for like $32 a year and we give it to him, it will always be on him to live up to the contract, not about whether Fitterer made a bad deal. I understand why the team is trying to get it lower, but paying 28-30 a year for him is a completely fair and justifiable price for him right now in this market. But yes, the people who don't want to give him that number right now will of course say we overpaid for him if that happens.

That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard of You'd rather give up yet another first round pick to get to pay $30 million (and thus likely not able to pay Brown at the same position next year) over just paying that $30 million to Burns and then still keeping our 2025 first round pick and then able to re-sign Brown? That's basically taking Chris Jones over Burns (who is 4 years younger), Brown, and a 2025 First (remember we don't have our 2nd that year anymore either)

But the argument isn't about the cost/value balance, it's about who is the better player. If you want to talk about value per cost, then I'm not sure all that many elite and top dollar guys would even make that list. Far too many players who are outperforming their contracts that would be further up the list. But again, the NFL isn't a sport where you re-set rosters every year and can just pay for the value you want to pay for. You're limited to choosing from the select player pool allowed to you, which is why everything can't be viewed in a vacuum of X dollars for Y player's value. When you turn down paying Y player X dollars because you don't think the value is there, you don't just get to then spend X dollars on Z player that you think has that value, because 99% of the time in this league, when dealing with players like this, there isn't that Z player even available. I don't understand why so many people struggle to recognize this in today's NFL.

I think people under rate how important a "one dimensional pass rusher" can be and it's asinine to use that as the excuse to not pay him. First, it's not like there are elite pass rushers with well rounded skill sets beyond pass rushing that become available with any regularity to make the argument that we shouldn't pay Burns while waiting for one of them to fall in our lap instead. Second, an elite, even if one dimensional, pass rusher can unlock so much else for the rest of the defense. Their pressure alone can help the DBs by forcing QB's to get the ball out quickly. The need of double teams opens things up for the rest of the line and pass rushers to get to the QB. If you're truly elite at rushing the passer (which I think Burns is right there and will be moving forward), then the rest of it doesn't matter. Sure it would be great if you're also great against the run, but even if not, you're then worth the money for the trickle down affect to the rest of the defense. This is yet again another instance of people thinking real life NFL is anything remotely close to Madden where you can manipulate the system to make any trade you want or make sure you can sign any FA you want. It doesn't work that way, you can only get the players who are available at the time, and pass rushers of Burns ability don't hit the open market, if you want one, you have to "overpay" to get/keep them.

I never said he didn't have a great season last year, but that's irrelevant when discussing who the best player on the team is right now. If I told you both Luvu and Burns would play 17 games this season (contract distraction aside) and said you HAD to bet your life savings on who would be the better player for us this year. Are you really putting the money down on Luvu? No chance in hell