tukafan21

I did like the "and showing the public" part of that post, how dare you not only prove me wrong, but show it to everyone, not cool man, not cool LOL

I actually don't think a ton of rookie QB's were named captains in their first seasons as of late, some get it, but most end up getting it in their second season. But this one was obvious for months, just the way the rest of the team talked about him and how crazy impressive he is off the field, he took over the leadership role of this team the second he stepped into the locker room, it's just who he is. It's one of the reasons I was okay with drafting him, I still hate how small he is as I'll never not be concerned about him holding up long term in this league, but his ability to lead and his mental side of the game has the chance to be Peyton or Brady level type of stuff.

^^^^ lol.... everyone calls this guy out, but according to him, it's everyone else who is crazy and stalks him. I'm sure he's right and the dozens of people who have called him out over the last few months are all the crazy ones. It's okay bud, you just don't understand how the real life NFL works, you're too stuck in how you can run a team in Madden and manipulate the system to get everyone and anyone you want. Cue the stalking claims (even though he's the latest post on the most active thread on the forum) in 3, 2, 1..............

Yes and no, I think people keep forgetting that we'd only be paying him top dollar for one, maybe two seasons. It won't take long for the next batch of pass rushers to surpass the contracts. Parsons is eligible for an extension next year, I'll bet any amount of money right now that he will sign a contract for more than Bosa.

Which when you think about it, makes these DE contracts almost a bargain. The top QB's in the league right now are making $50+ million a year, second most important position then going for max about 30 a year, that's a steal

If it's a player still on a non first round rookie deal and is playing like an all pro or a vet on a low contract who's career took off after signing it, then I have no problem with them doing it because teams have no issue cutting you if you're not performing up to the contract. But if it's a player on a 10-15 million a year deal who just wants a new contract to be paid 15+ a year, then no, I don't agree with them holding out. You signed that huge deal, you need to honor it, if you wanted more, you should have asked for more at the time or wait until you can sign a new one. This also is in regards to regular season hold outs, I have less of an issue when a player is going into the last year of his deal and he holds out of camp while negotiating. That one makes sense as you don't want to risk injury in camp before you get the deal done, but then you gotta show up and play Week 1 if a deal isn't done yet. I'm okay with not risking injury in pre-season/camp, but not once the season starts, especially if it's someone like Burns who would be getting $16 million for the season, you just gotta play out the contract or hope to get a new deal done during the season.

Haven't kept up with the talk about this, but if I'm remembering the order of stuff happening, my issue with not filling that spot yet is that it could have been Corral. Why did we cut Corral to make room for other moves, when we knew we'd then put Sullivan on the IR a day or two later? Originally it was because I thought there was a move they were making that needed the spot right away, but if/since they haven't, it's been a wasted roster spot. Had we kept Corral around this whole time instead, it might have been easier to get him through waivers and onto the PS by cutting him later this week when they inevitably make this final roster move before week 1

I'm sure a few of them have contracts that can be restructured by converting the season's salary into a roster bonus so it can be spread along the rest of the contract while taking the vet minimum on the season to help get the cap down. Keeping highly paid rosters together is much easier than bringing in highly paid talent because you can find ways to keep restructuring and kicking the can down the road. Eventually you'll have to pay the toll, but you hope at that point you're into the re-build like the Saints did with the Brees era.

seriously? they're going to risk losing Bosa over 3.5 per year? that's like a rounding error in cap management in the long run, that's just dumb.

I’ll take their first, Jones, and maybe another 3rd rounder at this point. Or I’d really love to get Adams and their first, but that might not happen and it would hurt our pass rush a lot.

it's not stalking when you post in almost every thread non stop, anytime I open the site, there you are with your terrible takes.

lol... fair point, but if he quotes me and essentially is fighting me while I'm actually agreeing with most of what he's saying, I'm going to call him out for the stupidity of it.

Are you even reading my posts or are you just seeing that it's me and getting angry so posting something completely nonsensical in regards to what you were quoting? Nowhere once did I mention anything about the player taking a pay cut to help the team cap. and you said "I don't understand why people are so against players making the most money they can" but in what you quoted from me, I literally said, "Again, say you don't blame them for asking for the most possible, that's totally fair" Because, and I say this yet AGAIN... All I'm saying is that using the "need to feed their families" argument in defending them is nonsense, that's it. They have made and would make on what we're offering far more than they need to feed their families. I'm not saying he shouldn't be asking for the most possible, and in fact in these threads, I've consistently argued for the team to just pay him more than they want to and get it done with. Because what he's fighting for is what you're talking about, generational wealth, not the ability to feed his family, which you initially said. But keep quoting my posts and responding with something completely irrelevant to what I said, because you like to argue with me for some reason.

Yes, and it is their choice to live that way. They could limit themselves to even as if they made 200k a year salary and live a very nice and comfortable life, and if smart with how you invest, that would probably end up being generational wealth as well. My point is just that using the "need to feed my family" argument when you're talking about someone who has already earned that kind of money is ridiculous. A small fraction of what he's made right now would be enough to "feed his family" I really don't feel bad for any of these superstar athletes who go broke, it's their own fault. The guys making minimum's is different, but the guys who end up getting 10+ million a season and then are broke in short fashion is because they're just dumb with their money. Again, say you don't blame them for asking for the most possible, that's totally fair, but just don't say "they need to feed their families" when we're talking about a guy who has made 14 million already and will make another 16 this year if he doesn't sit out.

Did you mean to quote someone else with this response? Because I'm literally saying the Panthers should be the ones to bite the bullet and sign a deal they don't want to, not Burns. The "we" I was referring to was clearly the team, not as if I was speaking for Burns. My point was that once we turned that down, it was a clear signal to Burns that we would need to meet more at his end than the other, he knew he had the team screwed at that point.

Can't stand the "families to feed" argument when it comes to professional athletes and contract negotiations. If you want to say you can't blame them for trying to get max money, that's fair, but not the need to feed their families. Burns has already made almost $14 million in his career. If you make $100k a year, you make a solid living and feeding your family isn't an issue (making much less than this that is also true, but this makes for easier math). It would take someone making 100k a year to work for 140 years to make that much money. No player who makes that kind of money should ever have to worry about feeding their family, and if they do, it's their own fault and thus not something that you should be saying in support of them looking for a better contract. Burns has already made enough money that if he was smart with it, he could never work another day in his life and his kids (and maybe grandchildren) should be financially comfortable for life. Yes, I know these guys all live a much nicer lifestyle than "normal people" but that is still their choice. The players who make that stupid money, all they have to do is live 1 or 2 years as if they're a normal person making $75-100k a year and in that time alone they'll have saved enough money to have a fun rest of their life regardless of what other future contracts they get.

We. Turned. Down. Two. Firsts. Why is this so hard to figure out? The second we did that and it was known, it meant we were going to have to overpay to keep him, we lost ALL negotiating power. He has us over a barrel, just pay the man because keeping him on an overpay is better than losing him for nothing (wouldn’t even get a comp pick as we’d be flush with cap room that we’d use on another FA).

That was also a deal signed 2 off season's ago though and that's why so many of us are yelling to just give Burns what he wants. It may be an overpay right now, but in 2 years when 10 more players have signed deals for more than him, it will then be a bargain. Once we turned down 2 firsts, we lost all leverage and made it so we HAD to re-sign him, just get it done.

Is it weird that hearing this today makes me a tad more interested in our WRs (particularly Thielen) in my fantasy draft in a few hours? If he holds out, that hurts the defense, we give up more points and end up needing to pass the ball more than planned/expected. Plus I absolutely LOVE Theilen in a PPR if it's a deep league like mine (12 teams, 2 flex, 7 bench) as he's going to get 4 for 40 minimum each game as Bryce's check down guy, can't ask for more from your injury and bye week filler guy from the bench.

Honestly, he probably just assumed a deal would have been done by now, so he said what he did to look like the good team player he was trying to be, never expecting it to get this far and force his hand.

The problem is that we're not going to get the same offer the Rams gave us, a team that is fooling itself thinking it's one player away from contention and thus ending up giving us a Top 10 pick, plus more, for him. Best we could hope for would be for an actual contending team wanting him and get a late first for him. Having said that, I'm not against trading him for 2 firsts still, but I'd rather he stay. I just see a lot of downsides to letting him play out the year without having signed an extension, and none of them are good. There is a very minimal chance that he has the season we're all expecting/wanting him to have and that being a good thing for us if he hasn't already signed his deal.

Underrated is the WR room because we don't have a true #1, but I think we have 4 guys who if they pan out this year could all be a good #2 on most teams with Shenault being a solid gadget guy. Lacks the shiny #1 leading the room, but overall it's a rock solid group that I think people are sleeping on (if they can stay healthy)

The theory you put out here, about Burns' worth because of his run defense should be less than those guys, is just a fallacy based in non-reality about how free agency works in the NFL. What you are saying makes sense if there are regularly available elite players every year in free agency, particularly pass rushers. The problem with your theory is that it couldn't be further from the truth, pass rushers of Burns ability rarely, if ever, hit the open FA market. Even if for the sake of argument, you say that Burns is the exact equivalent to Crosby or Highsmith as a pass rusher, but lacks in the run defense, it doesn't mean that we should be trying to pay Burns less than them because of it. If there were a half dozen elite pass rushers available in free agency every year, and we could then pay one of them more than we want to pay Burns, it would make more sense, but it doesn't work that way. Take run defense out of the equation, solely look at pass rushing ability, players of Burns' ability just don't become available in free agency, they sign long term deals before it gets to that point. Because of that, if by some miracle a player of Burns' pass rushing ability does hit free agency, then some team out there in desperate need of pass rushing will pay him a monster contract to get him, rush defense aside. So in the end, it comes down to........ Are you really going to try and hold Burns' feet to the fire over a few million dollars per season because you don't feel he's an elite run defender? If we don't re-sign him this year and we don't franchise tag him (because c'mon, players on franchise tag rarely works out for the team in the long run), one of 3 things happen next off season..... 1. He balls out, gets 15+ sacks and to keep him from someone stealing him, we have to make him the highest paid defensive player in league history and overpay him more than we would have to right now. 2. He balls out, gets 15+ sacks and we refuse to make him the highest paid defender and someone else does, we just lose him and likely end up not even getting a comp pick for him because we'll be flush with FA money that will be spent elsewhere and thus negate getting a comp pick in return. 3. He doesn't ball out because he struggles with the new scheme and we lose him because someone who runs a 4-3 will still give him a massive contract and then we still lose him for nothing. I don't know about you guys, but none of those options look great to me, I'd much prefer one of the following two options......... 1. We re-sign him now for above his current market value, he balls out and gets 15+ sacks, then when new monster defensive deals are signed in the next 2 off seasons, he falls from being one of the top 3 paid defenders to being borderline top 10 and we have a bargain contract for him. 2. We re-sign him now for above current market value, he struggles in the new scheme and it's proven that he should be in a 4-3 system. So we decide to eat the cap hit and trade him like the Raiders did with Khalil Mack and get 2 Firsts and potentially a few more middle round picks for him.

12 seasons as a HC, only had a winning record 3 times, and has won 2 COY awards. It really doesn't make sense how someone has cobbled together that kind of career in an age where most coaches can't go more than 2 seasons of losing records without getting fired. But it all goes back to my problem with him while he was here, he's a great Monday to Saturday coach, his players all love him and love to play for him, but he's a beyond terrible gamely coach who realistically would have never risen above being a DC.

I’d have no issue with this if we didn’t turn down two firsts for him. It doesn’t matter if he wants more than we feel comfortable giving him, once that was known we had no negotiating power and we have no option but re-signing him. Just get it done, if we passed up 2 firsts and then can’t/don’t re-sign him then people need to be fired immediately.