Giff wrote:Sets a bad precedent. I can't believe he even had the balls to ask.
Yeah, now the next 33 year old Texans lifer who is upset with a Ryan Fitzpatrick-esque QB after a career full of mostly complaint-free suck will know not to play this game.
Playing hardball just seems - doesn't seem like the smart play here to me. I think I would have thrown him an easy bone and avoided a complete mess, but then again I haven't squandered a shit ton of NFL talent over the past 5 or so years.
Pack a vest for your james in the city of intercourse
New England has hardball-ed their way into a pretty shitty roster. But I guess they are carrying a broken Amendola off of the field with their pride intact.
Pack a vest for your james in the city of intercourse
Giff wrote:Sets a bad precedent. I can't believe he even had the balls to ask.
Yeah, now the next 33 year old Texans lifer who is upset with a Ryan Fitzpatrick-esque QB after a career full of mostly complaint-free suck will know not to play this game.
Playing hardball just seems - doesn't seem like the smart play here to me. I think I would have thrown him an easy bone and avoided a complete mess, but then again I haven't squandered a shit ton of NFL talent over the past 5 or so years.
Getting mad at a player who wants a chance to do something in the twilight of his career will never make sense to me.
Like sure, we wouldn't want to switch employers if we thought it'd further our careers.
"We're not the smartest people in the world. We go down the straightaway and turn left. That's literally what we do." -- Clint Bowyer
Gunpowder wrote:New England has hardball-ed their way into a pretty shitty roster. But I guess they are carrying a broken Amendola off of the field with their pride intact.
Not sure whether this is orange intended or not. I like the roster a lot. Especially on defense.
PJ just begging to be in jail. As relatively bad as they were, I honestly believe his skills would have been the missing link between a final four run.
brian wrote:Johnny Football in Las Vegas is the gift that keeps on giving.
At least Tim Couch, Brady Quinn and Brandon Weeden's red flags only began flying when they threw their first NFL pass.
And none of them were photographed rolling up bills in a washroom.
Don't we all do this now? Among the coolnoscenti, it's a new thing to keep your money in an aluminum tube instead of a wallet. Prevents damage in case you go overboard, or spill a drink.
No way there are even 10 teams that would swap qbs with Dalton. Worst case if the guy wins a super bowl ala flacco does he really get a bigger deal than that? I like the belichick hardball play in this situation. Best case if he gets hurt or they miss playoffs you still get your guy long term at half the pay. And generally I'm ok with Dalton at qb but I like him a lot more when I've got cap space to win without a playmaker at qb.
Me too. But I cannot really get all fired up if they followed the Kaep extension model either. For all of my issues with Dalton in the playoffs and what not, they have won a lot with him at QB from the jump, and their regular season success with him at QB is unprecedented in Bengals history - (three playoffs in three years, and his first three years to boot). If Mike Brown looked at that, and the relative difficulty in finding someone better and decided a team friendly extension was the play, I am good with that.
That all pre-supposes that the extension is as team-friendly as I am guessing it is. If they cannot cut bait in a year or two without a lot of dead money, that would be unfortunate. But Mike Brown has never done deals where that is an issue, and I am guessing he did not start with this contract.
Deadspin hit it on the head about these NFL contracts. Of course as all swampers (and really anybody who pays attention) knows, the headline amounts will never actually be paid out to the player, given the non-guaranteed nature of most NFL contracts. But, the NFL writers and the headlines continuously seem oblivious to that fact.
HaulCitgo wrote:No way there are even 10 teams that would swap qbs with Dalton. Worst case if the guy wins a super bowl ala flacco does he really get a bigger deal than that? I like the belichick hardball play in this situation. Best case if he gets hurt or they miss playoffs you still get your guy long term at half the pay. And generally I'm ok with Dalton at qb but I like him a lot more when I've got cap space to win without a playmaker at qb.
An approach like this is why I'm OK with the Chiefs and Alex Smith waiting around as long as possible. I don't think Smith is going to be as good as he was last year and is he really worth what his cap number would be? Especially if you think Aaron Murray -- who was rumored to be a first round pick in last year's draft (weak QB class but still) -- could be the guy of the future?
"We're not the smartest people in the world. We go down the straightaway and turn left. That's literally what we do." -- Clint Bowyer
If there was supposed to be a link there, I didn't see it, so I'll have to withhold some judgment but just because a contract doesn't have a lot of guaranteed money upfront doesn't necessarily make it "team-friendly". I'm guessing there's several escalating roster bonuses and the like in there and Cincinnati might well be in the same position they were going to be this upcoming offseason in a couple of years, albeit with some additional data on which to judge Dalton.
I don't really think they were ever going to be able to let him walk regardless though.
brian wrote:If there was supposed to be a link there, I didn't see it, so I'll have to withhold some judgment but just because a contract doesn't have a lot of guaranteed money upfront doesn't necessarily make it "team-friendly". I'm guessing there's several escalating roster bonuses and the like in there and Cincinnati might well be in the same position they were going to be this upcoming offseason in a couple of years, albeit with some additional data on which to judge Dalton.
I don't really think they were ever going to be able to let him walk regardless though.
I edited my post to include the link, but here it is, too.
OK, so the deal is structured pretty much identically how I would have expected -- backloaded and cap-friendly for the first two or three years -- I don't see it as especially team-friendly (or unfriendly for that matter), this is just how most contract extensions are structured these days.
They're essentially paying Dalton 2 years, $25M for '14 and '15 and will have to make a serious decision on him again after the 2015 season. His salary and bonus numbers for 2016 aren't THAT onerous especially since the cap is supposed to jump quite a bit in a year or two, so you could argue it's a 3 year, $40M-ish deal also.
All things considered, probably the deal they had to make, though the idea of making him play under his rookie deal this year and using the franchise tag if necessary for next year wouldn't have been much different financially.
HaulCitgo wrote:Since when is a franchise tag an option on a QB? That number would have to be about $25 mil.
I don't have the numbers right in front of me, but I would have guessed about $20M or so. But they only owed Dalton $1M this year so excluding the cap hit involved for 2015 in paying him $1M this year and $20M next year, they would have only paid him $21M over two years vs. $25M that they're paying him now. If you were extremely unsure about his long-term prospects as their QB, it's not that crazy a move (it also wouldn't have precluded them from making a long-term deal after this season either, though the risk is that the price tag goes up if Dalton has a great season of course).
The point that I think gunpowder and I were making is that this extension didn't necessary have to get done this offseason. It's not especially onerous from the Bengals perspective of course, but neither was it completely necessary.
ETA: Franchise tag cost for QB this year was $16.1M. Next year it would have likely been in the $17M-$18M range.
It's really not even that backloaded. As a practical matter, they'll pay him about $15 mil each year (A little less now, a little more later). They can search for his replacement now before cutting him in two years.
Pack a vest for your james in the city of intercourse
HaulCitgo wrote:Since when is a franchise tag an option on a QB? That number would have to be about $25 mil.
I don't have the numbers right in front of me, but I would have guessed about $20M or so. But they only owed Dalton $1M this year so excluding the cap hit involved for 2015 in paying him $1M this year and $20M next year, they would have only paid him $21M over two years vs. $25M that they're paying him now. If you were extremely unsure about his long-term prospects as their QB, it's not that crazy a move (it also wouldn't have precluded them from making a long-term deal after this season either, though the risk is that the price tag goes up if Dalton has a great season of course).
The point that I think gunpowder and I were making is that this extension didn't necessary have to get done this offseason. It's not especially onerous from the Bengals perspective of course, but neither was it completely necessary.
ETA: Franchise tag cost for QB this year was $16.1M. Next year it would have likely been in the $17M-$18M range.
Right, that's all I was saying, but even I didn't think it would only pay out $25 mil over the first two years. I think this is a great contract IF the Bengals have deluded themselves into thinking they'll go anywhere with Dalton. If he blows up (and if he does I'll blow Kranepool AND a goat), they have him under a great long term deal. It's a bet against him Flacco-ing, which he's not going to do because he sucks but still.
Pack a vest for your james in the city of intercourse
From Cincinnati's perspective, It's probably worth the $25M to kick the can down the road a couple of years, especially since they don't have any other options for the time being, but I wouldn't really call it a "team-friendly contract" either.
From Cincinnati's perspective, It's probably worth the $25M to kick the can down the road a couple of years, especially since they don't have any other options for the time being, but I wouldn't really call it a "team-friendly contract" either.
I consider the ability to kick the can down the road given that there is no obvious replacement for him and allowing the them the flexibility to cut bait if he continues to suck under the spotlight without dead money to be team-friendly, I guess.
JaMarcus Russell and Jared Lorenzen would like to have a word with you.
(Mitchell was pretty big even when he was playing. I think he went about 6-5, 260 or thereabouts. Not hard to see how he could get to 3 bills and then some.)
