2026 Detroit Lions Offseason Thread

[MichiganCardinal]

1 hour ago, Jason_R said:

Decker burned the bridge. 

I love that comment honestly. Like “hell no I’m not calling him right now that’d be bull**** politicking, but when the time is right I’ll give him a call.”

That’s a way better way to handle beef than crying to the media, even though it gives us as fans a glimpse behind the curtain.

[Jason_R]

Hope everything is OK. 

[sagnam]

Lions forced Frank Ragnow to pay back part of his signing bonus when he retired

 

I’m not a fan. Signing bonus should be the players money at signing. I don’t care if they retire the next day. Milestone bonuses are different obviously.

[sagnam]

Oh boy

 

[MichiganCardinal]

I don't know what Rod Wood or the Lions gained from that interview.

I think the Lions are generally in the right here. Signing bonuses come with conditions. It's not as if I could sign a contract with a company and receive a $5,000,000 bonus, then realize after three months I can just invest that money wisely and work as a minor league groundskeeper for the rest of my life, so I quit and pocket the bonus. The company is going to want at least a pro rated portion back, and I'm guessing that's detailed directly in the contract they signed.

Of course it's nuanced. Calvin and Barry you could have (and should have) worked with them on some PR agreements to keep them in the fold in exchange for them keeping their money. OTOH, Ragnow ostensibly left you high and dry in June.

Anzalone comes across as a lot of sour grapes about not getting the money he wanted last season. Yes, in my hypothetical above I'm typing at a computer for a company. You are putting your life on the line for a company. No doubt about it, they're not the same and you deserve immense respect. But at the end of the day, yep, you said it, "business is business." The contract says what the contract says. If you don't like it, negotiate the ability to retire whenever you want and keep your signing bonus. I bet you none of the 32 teams will agree to that, even if some of them have historically not sought repayment.

But back to my first point, why is this a story? Ragnow seemed perfectly happy fishing and hunting off into the sunset. He wasn't making public statements about the Lions wronging him. There was no Lions reputation to defend. I don't know why Rod Wood needs to make a public comment. "Our precedent goes all the way back to Barry Sanders. And if Barry Sanders paid back money... And I think the reality is, they're not paying back their money, they're returning our money. [Be]cause they were paid in advance for services that they hadn't completed."

Seriously, it's not even making a one-day story into a two-day story, it's making a zero-day story into a one-day story. He could have easily declined to comment on Ragnow's contract and wished him well in retirement.

[Hongbit]

Not a good look at all.  This doesn’t seem to be something that other teams do in this situation. 

[Nate7474]

As much as it is a bad look I don’t see an issue with clawing that money back. In the corporate world if you sign on with a company with a signing bonus many times it would be owed back if you don’t fulfill the contract. Now could exceptions be made sure but where and how do you draw that line. 

[Hongbit]

14 minutes ago, Nate7474 said:

As much as it is a bad look I don’t see an issue with clawing that money back. In the corporate world if you sign on with a company with a signing bonus many times it would be owed back if you don’t fulfill the contract. Now could exceptions be made sure but where and how do you draw that line. 

True but if other companies in your industry choose not to claw back and you’re the only on that decides to do it, that can become an issue competing for talent.  

[Mr.TaterSalad]

53 minutes ago, Hongbit said:

Not a good look at all.  This doesn’t seem to be something that other teams do in this situation. 

It's a very bad look when you're the only ones doing it. If this were standard practice in the NFL it would be a nothingburger. But it appears we are the only ones doing this in the NFL. We already had to overcome the stigma of being owned by the worst ownership group in sports history. Shelia has worked hard to overcome that. But now to add the cheap moniker onto this organization, it's simply a bad look.

[Jason_R]

If this was not allowed by the language of the contract, the player and the agent would say this is not allowed by the language of the contract. Evidently it is allowed by the language of the contract, and I have no problem with parties to a contract abiding by the terms of the contract. 

[MichiganCardinal]

I don't think it's Lions exclusive, though the Lions do have more surprise retirements than most NFL teams.

Jake Plummer got into a long, drawn out dispute with the Bucs over his bonus, which the Bucs effectively won. The Patriots refused to pay Antonio Brown a signing bonus even though they had no legal right to withhold it. This year, Drew Dalman retired from the Bears and is subject to return a portion of his $6MM signing bonus.

What I don't get is why Rod Wood made it a story. The reverse is always going to be more well known, because Irsay in Indy looks like a good guy billionaire for not clawing back Andrew Luck's signing bonus. (When in fact, it might be just as likely that he realized it was better to keep Luck in his good graces in case he unretired). Likewise, Benson in NOLA looks like such a nice owner when it's published that Carr was allowed to keep his money. (When in fact, it looks likely it was negotiated to avoid Carr medically retiring and creating a messy drawn out arbitration over both the signing bonus and his fully guaranteed money). In both of those cases the team wasn't very good anyway, and wasn't seriously injured by not getting the cap relief. Whereas the Lions needed (or at least wanted) the cap relief.

So why would Wood make a story out of the reverse, painting Sheila to be greedy, or at least justifying what the public will perceive as greed? I don't get it. I seriously doubt the Bears will make a public comment on whether they are clawing back Dalman's money, especially if they are. Because there is no benefit.

Edited Tuesday at 08:25 PM by MichiganCardinal

[Motown Bombers]

The Lions aren’t the only ones, they’re the only ones who get chastised for it. The 49ers and Dolphins have done it. Hell, the Bears may do it this year. 

[Motown Bombers]

About Anzalone, the Lions literally revived his career and extended him when everyone wanted to run him out of town. 

[CMRivdogs]

Is this the contract Ragnow was playing under when he first announced his retirement or is it a "new contract"when he decided he was coming back?  If it's the latter and he did not pass the physical or whatever then I think the Lions are right for seeking a portion of what he received from the team.  

Trusting A-I on this, he received a $6 million signing bonus in 2021 (his last contract) also a $18 million option bonus in 2022. (That looks like part of his extension) The contract runs out at the end of 2026. 

You could argue that he did not fulfill the terms of his contract, especially when he retired in late Spring 2025.

From Overthecap.com

Quote

Ragnow signed a four year contract extension with the Lions worth $54 million back in 2021. At the time Ragnow had two years remaining on his rookie contract so the new contract ran six total years and would keep him under contract to Detroit through 2026. As part of the contract Ragnow received a $6 million signing bonus which would be prorated at $1.2 million per year from 2021 through 2025. In addition he received an $18 million option bonus in 2022 that would be prorated at $3.6 million from 2022 through 2026.

https://overthecap.com/lions-force-c-frank-ragnow-to-repay-portion-of-bonus-money#google_vignette

[Hongbit]

54 minutes ago, Motown Bombers said:

The Lions aren’t the only ones, they’re the only ones who get chastised for it. The 49ers and Dolphins have done it. Hell, the Bears may do it this year. 

Circumstances are different.  
 

The 49ers asked a guy who quit after playing one year in the league who was freaked out over concussions (even though he never got one in the NFL).  

The Dolphins asked Ricky Williams to repay when he decided he wanted to smoke weed more than he wanted to play.     These are not the same situation as doing it to veteran franchise stalwarts like  Barry, Calvin, and Frank.  

[holygoat]

https://x.com/TJLang70/status/2039001811864932461

[Motown Bombers]

56 minutes ago, Hongbit said:

Circumstances are different.  
 

The 49ers asked a guy who quit after playing one year in the league who was freaked out over concussions (even though he never got one in the NFL).  

The Dolphins asked Ricky Williams to repay when he decided he wanted to smoke weed more than he wanted to play.     These are not the same situation as doing it to veteran franchise stalwarts like  Barry, Calvin, and Frank.  

They aren’t different. None of them honored their contracts. The Lions made all of those players the highest paid at their positions. The Lions have to be the only employer that’s required to still pay employees after they quit. 

[Motown Bombers]

17 minutes ago, holygoat said:

https://x.com/TJLang70/status/2039001811864932461

Ironically, if the Lions cut Ragnow, it would be expected the Lions pay him everything he’s guaranteed in his contract. 

[sagnam]

Lions sign S Chuck Clark

[Mr.TaterSalad]

13 hours ago, sagnam said:

Lions sign S Chuck Clark

I'm the last the seasons Clark played one mostly full season, last year, playing 15 games. He blew out his ACL and didn't play in 2023. He injured his ankle in 2024 and finished the season on IR playing only 11 games that year. I don't know that I'd call him injury prone, but playing one full season in the past three given that he is 30 years old concerns me at least a tiny bit.

 

[Mr.TaterSalad]

13 hours ago, sagnam said:

Lions sign S Chuck Clark

In the last the seasons Clark played one mostly full season, last year, playing 15 games. He blew out his ACL and didn't play in 2023. He injured his ankle in 2024 and finished the season on IR playing only 11 games that year. I don't know that I'd call him injury prone, but playing one full season in the past three given that he is 30 years old concerns me at least a tiny bit.

 

[Sports_Freak]

17 hours ago, Motown Bombers said:

They aren’t different. None of them honored their contracts. The Lions made all of those players the highest paid at their positions. The Lions have to be the only employer that’s required to still pay employees after they quit. 

Players who sign contracts should never be allowed to hold out. They should be sued for breach of contract. I've yet to see a team refuse to pay a player under contract and just say..."they're not worth the money we agreed to pay them...."

[KL2]

45 minutes ago, Sports_Freak said:

Players who sign contracts should never be allowed to hold out. They should be sued for breach of contract. I've yet to see a team refuse to pay a player under contract and just say..."they're not worth the money we agreed to pay them...."

Teams have a remedy though to end contracts early - and teams frequently refuse to pay players under the contract. It's called a cut. What's the players' remedy?

Edited 22 hours ago by KL2

[Motown Bombers]

19 hours ago, KL2 said:

Teams have a remedy though to end contracts early - and teams frequently refuse to pay players under the contract. It's called a cut. What's the players' remedy?

That’s not true. Teams are required to pay the player the guaranteed money per the contract. The Lions can’t just cut Goff and not expect to pay anything. The remedy is in the contract they negotiated. 

[RedRamage]

21 hours ago, Sports_Freak said:

Players who sign contracts should never be allowed to hold out. They should be sued for breach of contract. I've yet to see a team refuse to pay a player under contract and just say..."they're not worth the money we agreed to pay them...."

I disagree in the NFL where most contacts are not guaranteed. Decker being an obvious example here. The Lions seem to have wanted him to take a pay cut. They were "refusing" to pay the play under the contract. When he didn't agree to that the team cut him, "breaking" the contract. Teams in the NFL are allowed to do this, and they do it all the time. 

The players don't have the same luxury. They can't go to a team and say: "Hey, I think I've out performed my contract so I think you need to pay me more, and if you're unwilling to do that, I'm going to void the contract and go sign with a different team." Holding out is really their only leverage.