RedRamage

You're conjecturing a lot of things here... We don't know what the police have or haven't done to try to contact him. Are they just calling his cellphone? If it's an unknown number I don't usually pick up when I get a call. Did the police contact his agent or the Lions to ask if they could get them in touch with him? If so, did the agent or the Lions contact Sutton and he still didn't contact the police? I'm loath to take drastic action without proof of guilt. What the NFL needs to do (and other sport too) is have an "administrative leave" sorta situation where a team can put a player on this list. During that time the players paychecks go into escrow and the player is not considered as on the roster. This would let teams evaluate what's going on without penalty to them or the player until the facts are confirmed.

But what if the contract is voided? If there's a clause in the contract that let's the Lions void it if the accusation is proven true do the Lions get all the money back for the cap?

I don't think that's a given. If a team is looking at a closing SB window and their QB goes down in week 3 or 4 or something like that they may be willing to overpay for someone who they may view as more talented. I dunno if they'd go up to a Rnd 2 pick, but I could easily see someone paying a 4, maybe a 3 depending on various circumstances. That said I heard at least one report that the Bears want to question of who the QB is and who the leader of the team is. If Fields was still around that could have an impact on team dynamics. Then the question is if hanging on to Fields in the hopes that the just the right team has their QB go down so they can get a 4, maybe a 3 instead of a 6... is it worth the potential locker room issues?

Where's the part where he allegedly was racist?

Yeah as hard as it is to have a Spring League, when you try to have two of 'em that makes it even harder so they merged and took only the most successful teams (financially speaking) from each league. The Panthers have NOT been great on the field. They did make the playoffs last year, but that's only because their division sucked. And that's not like "Oh, this division isn't quite stacking up to the competition." No, it SUCKED. Not a team in the division finished over .500. So no, I don't expect the Panthers to do very well in 2024. Still, it's something kinda fun to follow during the NFL off season and I'll be watching the games if I've got nothing else going on. Hopefully the merged leagues means the Panthers can pick up some more skilled players from the other teams that folded, but I'm not holding my breath or anything. Part of their issue was inconsistent QB play. Once in a while one of their QBs would have a good game, but this would never carry over to the next game. They were often shuffling who the starter was. Coming in this year they are three new QBs... none of have played in a professional game. They've had various stints on NFL practice squads or even occasionally the active roster, but never played a down.

I don't think there's too much danger of a mid-season fold... but this is just one guys opinion. I don't have any inside information. They have TV deals with FOX and ESPN so there's at least some money backing them. From the merger now they're down to just the best 4 teams (from a marketing/sales perspective) from XFL and the USFL, so in theory there shouldn't be a lot of dead weight teams that are financially failing. The stadiums being used are mostly major stadiums as well, which lends some weight to the idea that they aren't a fly by night league playing in Div. III college stadiums. I did make the trip to one game last season at Ford Field (I'm over on the west side of the state) and it was a lot of fun. Not huge attendance my any stretch of the imagination, but it wasn't empty either. It was kinda nice being able to get up close without having to pay through the nose.

Homes preferences for the draft: 1. Best player available 2. Best player available 3. Best player available 4. Best player available 5. Best player available I've always been of the opinion that a team would balance their needs with the available talent at any given position. And while I do think Holmes takes needs into consideration, I think it's a very low consideration. I really, really don't think Holmes is going to put hardly any weight into needs. His philosophy seems very much to be that you fill holes through FA, but you find and build the stars through the draft. So far it's worked... that doesn't mean it will always work, but until I see it fall apart I guess I'm gonna side with Holmes. I completely agree with you, MC, that those are our needs. But I don't think that Holmes care much that those are our needs.

Isn't he under contract for 1 more year with the Rams vs. through 2024? I might be remembering wrong but I thought Sanders was technically under Lions control even years after retirement. I thought I remember like 3 or 4 years after he retired there was some off the wall speculation that the Lions who trade his rights to someone else if Sanders wanted to come out of retirement because he technically has to fulfill the years left on his contract, not the "date range."

I'd really like to see a guard signed before the draft because I really don't think Holmes drafts for need. I suspect it plays some part in his picks, but only a small part. If there's a RB at 29 that is head and shoulders above everyone else on their board, I wouldn't be shocked at all to see Holmes draft him.

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.