RedRamage

Hope he got that second year guaranteed, otherwise y'all know what's coming in 2025.

So here's a purely thought experiment question... If a player is coming off an injury and knows that teams will want to do a medical work up on him... could he get a medical work up done on is own dime, and publicly release it? I mean I think any team would dumb to rely solely on that, but it might the negotiation process go quicker if a team could see a medical report before the legal tampering period started. They could see the report and go: "Fine, we'll assume for negotiation that this is correct but obvious we have a line in the contract that we want our own docs to look you over before the contact is binding."

Okay, so given that NFL contracts are not guaranteed unless specifically written as such, and given that NFL players, especially fringe players, are cut all the time, why are the players assuming that the second year WILL happen? I mean, unless the Lions are like: "Yeah, we're not gonna put it in writing, but we REALLY like you and we REALLY want you for both years, so consider it a done deal, except not in writing." Which I don't think the Lions are doing. If I was a player and someone offered me less month this year with the potential to earn more money next year, I'd take the contact with more money this year. If I play great this year, I going into next being able to command more. If I play poorly this year on a 2 year deal, I face getting cut and not getting the extra.

Okay, so if I'm following you (and please do correct me if I'm wrong here), you'd saying that the Lions offer back loaded 2 year deals with the second half not guaranteed so that players are more likely to sign with them vs. a team which only offers a 1 year deal. For example Detroit offers two years, $4M the first year, and an unguaranteed $7M the second while Chicago offers $5 for one year. This lures the player to Detroit because hey... (4+7)/2 years equals 5.5M per year instead of only 5. Is this what you're saying?

What leverage are the Lions using to coerce players into taking a pay cut?

You keep ignoring my semi-tongue-in-cheek replies to you. You have created this narrative that the Lions are doing a major wrong by not just cutting a player and instead asking him to take less money. But you're ignoring that this ask doesn't change eliminate cutting. Obviously a team would never say it in these words, but essentially when a team cuts a player, they are saying: We're unwilling to pay you next year the money that your contract calls for because we don't think you will perform well enough to earn that. So, we're cutting you. This is the cold hard business side of the NFL and everyone accepts this. I don't think you see this as a problem, but correct me if I'm wrong. All the Lions are doing here is introducing an additional option for the player. We're unwilling to pay you next year the money that your contract calls for because we don't think you will perform well enough to earn that. Given this, we have two options: If you'd like to stay with the team we're asking you to take a reduction in pay to what we expect your play level to be. If you'd rather not take the pay cut and test the open market we'll cut you. The Lions are not forcing these players to take a pay cut. They have every right to refuse. If they refuse to take a pay cut then one of two things will happen. Either the Lions will keep them on the team for the original agreed upon price (unlikely, but possible) or the Lions will cut them, which we all seem to agree is business as usual for the NFL. I honestly do not see this as a bad thing. Now, IF the Lions are routinely asking everyone on the team to take a pay cut instead of just the players who very likely could end up on the chopping block, then sure... that would an issue. But we haven't seen that.

During legal tampering, can teams talk to players who haven't been officially released?

Or... Instead of straight up cutting Okwara, Harris and Cominsky, the Lions gave them the option to stay on but with a pay cut. If the Lions are going to continue to give job security to role players even after they regress, they'll all want to sign here.

If you phrase it that way, of course not. But if you phrase it this way it's a good thing: "It's the NFL and players get cut all the time and I'm sorry but you're on the chopping block. But, if you want to, we can keep you as long as you accept a pay cut. The choice is entirely yours."

I disagree that with Cousins they're the worst team in the division. The Vikings started out poorly, but were really starting to play well when Cousins went down. Now, obviously this is a major simplification and there's a LOT more to a QB and just the numbers alone, but if we compare Cousins (crudely estimating 17 games played) and Goff merely looking at these stats, the two are similar. I think Cousins could have lead them to the playoffs.

I hate to see him leave, but I would not have wanted to pay that much. He's declined a bit lately and battle injuries last year missing 5 games.

Obviously it all depends on the picks and the veteran, but generally yeah... I agree. Now, if it's a young enough player, then I'd be more inclined to give up some picks for him, but I don't want to give up high draft capital for a guy who's on the downside of his career.

Here's my "hot take" on this... Going from college to the pros is hard. MOST players will not become stars in the NFL. Most draft picks will be "just okay" or worse. So yeah... anytime a class is touted as rich in position 'X,' most of those players will not amount to much.

You know what... I actually love that idea. The "danger" on kick offs was always that you have the kicking team running down the field at full speed while the receiving team was either stopped or even running back towards the other team. On punts the two teams are lined up on the line of scrimmage so you don't have down field collision (expect for the ball carrier). This is why punts are considered safer than kickoffs. Now, "punt-offs" would still be subject to potentially a high number of fair catches, so you would still have a decent number of kicks that ended in a "boring" way, but it brings back the chance of a onside "punt-off" which I like, so that's a good thing.

On a side note (not an onside note mind you), if the NFL had a relationship with the UFL, this would be one of those things where they could have the UFL "play test" the rule change and see how fans like it, how it worked on the field, and how teams game planned around it.

I agree that that's the most to dislike about it. But, given the what they're trying to do, I'm not sure what the alternative is. My understand is that they're trying to: A.) Minimize injuries as much as possible (the biggest injuries being when you have someone running "down hill" for 30 yards slamming into someone who's just turning to start blocking or possibly even running 20 yards "up hill") B) Encourage more (safe) returns instead of touchbacks or fair catches, both of which are pretty boring plays. I think the proposed new rules does accomplish both of those things, at the cost of no real way to do an onside kick with the alignment. I don't love that part, but I do think it will make all non-onside kick kickoffs much more interesting. IF they adopt this change I'd prefer they just turn the onside kick into a 4th and 15, and allow it at any time during the game. A 4th and 15 is gonna be safer than an onside kick I would think, plus it has a built in easy ability to adjust it if the NFL thinks its too successful or not successful enough... just adjust how many yards... make it 4th and 18 or 4th and 13. Single and easy for officials and players to understand without having to make more and more complicated rules surrounding who can be on what side, how far the ball needs to go, etc.

I think this was discussed in a different thread, but I think it might be a big enough topic for it's won thread. I found this video from Pat McAfee where he diagrams things a big and explains the proposed new rule: There's some things I like about it. I think it does a very good job of eliminating the most dangerous part of returns: The coverage guys running down the field and slamming into the return defenders while also encouraging returns. In a lot of ways it's turning kickoffs into a form of a running play... the "defense" (coverage guys) are lined up opposite the "offense" (return defenders) and they have to stay in position until the play starts (punt returner catches the ball) then they try to go tackle the running back (punt returner). I DO think this will lead to more returns and I do think this is a good thing try to create. There are a few things I don't like though... I'm not a fan of a touchback going out to the 35, but that seems to just be for kicks that reach the end zone on the fly. I'm not sure what the rule would be for a kick that bounces in the "landing zone" (0-20 yards out) and then bounces into the end zone. If that was a lot shorter (even to just the 20 yard line) I'd be happier. The 40 yard penalty for a kick that goes out of bounds will apparently also be applied for a kick that doesn't make to the landing zone (0-20) on the fly. I'm okay with that (though I'd simplify it and make it the same yardage as landing in the end zone) IF they get rid of the rule that if the returner touches the ball while being out of bounds and the ball isn't out of bounds then it's considered out of bounds. If you're asking the kicker to land the ball in a small area you can't make that area 10 feet smaller on all edges with this loophole. I also don't like the onside kick rule. At least according to Pat a team has to declare they are doing an onside kick, and then it reverts back to the old rules for the onsides try. Further, onsides can ONLY be done in the 4th Qtr, and can ONLY be done by the trailing team. I don't love that because I do like the threat of a "trick play" for onsides at anytime, but I also don't know how you'd reasonably have an onsides scenario with the new rules.

Yeah, that might have a huge impact on if teams are willing to take a flier on him. I mean from a cash stand point it makes sense, but if he's disrupting the locker room it may not be worth it.

That's kinda how the Pistons won in 2004, wasn't it?

Based on the story it sounds like he's a fit for the Lions... has the love of football, has the mentality the Lions want. And as a side note, he fits in a position that the Lions need. It's exceedingly apparent that this really is a side note for Holmes so I'm not be sarcastic about that. With the exception of one outlier, Mock Draft Database shows most mock having him going mid-20s to end of first round.

Schedule: March 30 Saturday vs the St. Louis Battlehawks at 4 p.m. April 7 Sunday vs the Birmingham Stallions at noon April 14 Sunday vs the Houston Roughnecks at noon April 20 Saturday at the San Antonio Brahmas at 7 p.m. April 28 Sunday at the Memphis Showboats at 3 p.m. May 5 Sunday vs the Arlington Renegades at 1 p.m. May 12 Sunday at the D.C. Defenders at noon May 18 Saturday vs the Memphis Showboats at 4 p.m. May 26 Sunday at the Houston Roughnecks at 2:30 p.m. June 1 Saturday at the Birmingham Stallions at noon It's too bad the UFL didn't schedule a game in Detroit on April 28th, Draft Weekend. I think some of the NFL fans in the city for the event might have be lured into attending a UFL game after the draft. But I don't know if Ford Field is being used extensively for any draft festivities and if so maybe they didn't think they'd have time to prepare it for a game on Sunday. I supposed it's also possible that the NFL didn't want any UFL stuff going on in Detroit even the day after their big draft event.

Yeah, I was a bit disappointed that they glossed over the lows. It think it's important to acknowledge that there are ups and downs even in great season. There was a very slight nod to the 49ers loss at the end when they talked about not being perfect at the end (25:45), but I would have preferred to see more of the lows touched on.

We're very much navigating into political talk here. Let's leave that for the political forum please.

Never! If he takes a big jump he'll probably injury his back when he lands. Seriously though, I don't think he's going to be amounting to much, but I think it's more injury related than skill related.

Pretty much my feeling exactly. On the good news side... he won't have to learn a new team name, so his learning curve will be slightly lower. 😉