RedRamage

Yeah, assuming it's true this is a bad crime and a bad, bad look for any team that would take him on. In theory he could rehabilitate himself over a few years and maybe make a comeback, but given he was never a star player and is already 29 I don't see that being likely.

Hey Mike, domestic abuse happens every day. I'm assuming you've never thoughts about mundane things during this time because your focus has always been on the victims of this abuse, right?

No, the Lions aren't legally guilty of anything. But public opinion =/= legal standing. If the court of public opinion says Sutton is guilty and a despicable person, the Lions be keeping him on the roster are also guilty (in the court of public opinion) by not disassociating themselves. Depends on if they are only paying him in season or if it's split over 12 months. My wife, a teacher, gets paid year round even though she only teaches ~9months.

Which again is part of the problem. This makes sense legally speaking, but optically the narrative is this guy threw his gf out a third story window and now is evading police... but the Lions are still employing him? Still paying him? Do they not care about women!?!? Do they not care about stopping domestic violence?!?

Saying we don't know all the facts is not "defending" him. And based on the information that is coming out, it's looking more and more like Sutton is attempting to evade the police. We still don't know all the fact, but it definitely not looking good and not leaning in his favor.

Which again is why I want that other special status... Based on what info is being thrown around it certainly seems likely that there's fire tied to this smoke. But we don't know for sure, and independent of this situation there may be other situations where it's less clear if there's fire or not. A team is in a catch-22... if they cut the player and he's found innocent, they potentially lost out on his talent. The player gets a public black eye because he was cut and losing out on his salary. But if a team doesn't cut the player right quickly and he's found guilty the team gets the black eye for paying and associating with a bad individual. A temporary status protects the teams and the players and the image. "We're temporarily disassociating ourselves from this player until all the facts are known and he has his day in court. If he's guilty, he's gone and doesn't get back pay. If he's innocent he's restore to full status and gets his back pay."

A.) I have no idea. I'm sure they tried to call more than once and left a message if they were able. That doesn't mean that Sutton say a number, recognized it as the same number, and figured it was an important call (ie, not a spam/scam call) and decided to ignore it. It does mean that Sutton has voice messages turned on, and if he does that his mailbox isn't full, and if it isn't that he actually checked and listened to his voice message. Now IF he really did throw his gf out a 3rd story window, he's got expect the police are looking for him and then it might be reasonably to think he's trying to hide from the police. But again this is conjecture. We don't know. Once we do know and if he is evading/hiding, then I'll be in agreement with GoBLue: Cut him now. B.) The except list still pays the player. I want a way for the team to NOT pay the player until the situation gets settled. Then if the player is found not guilty and the team wants to keep him, he gets all the money that was in escrow. If he's found guilty or if at any point the team wants to void the contract the money goes back to the team.

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."