Signings, Cuts, Trades

[Believe Dat]

I still hold firm that when I went to the open practice at the stadium, Boykin was without question the most dominant player on the field.

I think boykins lack of targets falls squarely on the coaches, he was almost never a true read it seemed. In edgars break down he certainly screwed up against Houston when he was an early read, but in general it did seem like he’s just running fades and posts all day while Lamar’s first 3 reads are some combo of andrews, Hollywood, and Boyle.

with Hayden hurst being gone I’d really like to see Boyle become much less pass oriented and have Boykin absorb like 90% of Boyle and hursts target share. This is where I become tentative with Greg Roman, because if we can’t expand the roles of the WRs it’s gonna hamstring Lamar’s growth terribly and leave him leaning on TEs and RBs for the rest of his career because he’s been conditioned. I’m not sure if Roman CAN incorporate the WRs more

1000%, the guy is open a ton. He needs to be more involved in the game plan instead of being 4th or later in the progression. Obviously Hollywood and Mark Andrews should get their touches, but Miles can play.

 

[rossihunter2]

I still hold firm that when I went to the open practice at the stadium, Boykin was without question the most dominant player on the field.

I think boykins lack of targets falls squarely on the coaches, he was almost never a true read it seemed. In edgars break down he certainly screwed up against Houston when he was an early read, but in general it did seem like he’s just running fades and posts all day while Lamar’s first 3 reads are some combo of andrews, Hollywood, and Boyle.

with Hayden hurst being gone I’d really like to see Boyle become much less pass oriented and have Boykin absorb like 90% of Boyle and hursts target share. This is where I become tentative with Greg Roman, because if we can’t expand the roles of the WRs it’s gonna hamstring Lamar’s growth terribly and leave him leaning on TEs and RBs for the rest of his career because he’s been conditioned. I’m not sure if Roman CAN incorporate the WRs more

this is where David Culley becomes really important as the pass coordinator this offseason (and WR coach) in the same way that Roman was the TEs coach but also basically the running game coordinator

David Culley's job other than teaching the WRs is to help design passing game concepts which you'd assume would include Boykin - we were a pretty successful passing team last year but it's time to evolve further which obviously with the trade of Hurst requires us be more of a WR-oriented passing attack

 

[JAAM]

Depending on what happens during the draft, how would you guys feel about making a trade for Kenny Stills or signing him if he gets cut? I’d like a group of Hollywood, rookie WR, Stills, Snead and Boykin.

 

[Simba]

Depending on what happens during the draft, how would you guys feel about making a trade for Kenny Stills or signing him if he gets cut? I’d like a group of Hollywood, rookie WR, Stills, Snead and Boykin.

I've always really liked Stills as a player, so no issues here. Nothing great about his game but does a little bit of everything and has turned into a solid blocker as well, which we really value. Obviously would need to work on the contract if we acquired him via trade, but I'd think you could get him for a late rounder next year if you wanted him.

 

[rossihunter2]

Depending on what happens during the draft, how would you guys feel about making a trade for Kenny Stills or signing him if he gets cut? I’d like a group of Hollywood, rookie WR, Stills, Snead and Boykin.

if he's cut then sure... i dont want to give up capital to get him unless we're talking a super late pick

 

[JAAM]

if he's cut then sure... i dont want to give up capital to get him unless we're talking a super late pick

He carries a 6 million cap hit so I agree. Would be an excellent signing after the draft IMO

 

[rmcjacket23]

He carries a 6 million cap hit so I agree. Would be an excellent signing after the draft IMO

Yeah no way am I trading for him at $7M a year. I'd give up a 6th or 7th rounder for half that price.

I'm not really buying the Texans are seriously shopping him either. They have Cooks and Fuller, but Fuller is a lock to miss many games, and their depth is pretty limited behind those guys. They don't need the cap space either.

I'm sure they'd gladly ditch him for like a day 2 or early day 3 pick, but I can't see any team giving up that for him.

 

[rossihunter2]

Yeah no way am I trading for him at $7M a year. I'd give up a 6th or 7th rounder for half that price.

I'm not really buying the Texans are seriously shopping him either. They have Cooks and Fuller, but Fuller is a lock to miss many games, and their depth is pretty limited behind those guys. They don't need the cap space either.

I'm sure they'd gladly ditch him for like a day 2 or early day 3 pick, but I can't see any team giving up that for him.

Unfortunately for them, the only team that would give up decent draft capital for Kenny stills is the texans lol

 

[rmcjacket23]

Unfortunately for them, the only team that would give up decent draft capital for Kenny stills is the texans lol

While the Texans obviously botched this offseason top-to-bottom, I'm a little surprised Hopkins is getting off scott-free in the criticism department.

Pretty clear he was gonna hold out for a new contract. 3 years into a 6 year old deal and he's already unhappy with the deal. Made $49M over the last three years, which is way, way up there with the highest paid WRs in the league.

I get why he's doing it (because he's only making like $12-13M a year over the next three years, and the WR market has blown up), but I also understand why teams are deciding to take a hard stance with players who are going to hold out halfway into a contract. If it were the last year of his deal, I'd totally get it. If they guys are going to be unhappy with their deals after 2-3 years, then why are you signing contracts for longer than 2-3 years?

Like maybe I'm naive, but I doubt the Texans would have had a problem with giving Hopkins a 3 year, $49M, fully guaranteed deal back in 2017. That's basically what happened anyway.

That way, he'd have a ton more leverage. He could go into 2020 as a free agent, meaning he can get market value, or worst-case scenario, he gets tagged by Houston at $17.8M a year, which is over a $5M pay raise from his current deal.

What it looks to me is that Hopkins and his agent realized they got the short end of the original deal, and now they want to back out of it.

 

[JoeyFlex5]

While the Texans obviously botched this offseason top-to-bottom, I'm a little surprised Hopkins is getting off scott-free in the criticism department.

Pretty clear he was gonna hold out for a new contract. 3 years into a 6 year old deal and he's already unhappy with the deal. Made $49M over the last three years, which is way, way up there with the highest paid WRs in the league.

I get why he's doing it (because he's only making like $12-13M a year over the next three years, and the WR market has blown up), but I also understand why teams are deciding to take a hard stance with players who are going to hold out halfway into a contract. If it were the last year of his deal, I'd totally get it. If they guys are going to be unhappy with their deals after 2-3 years, then why are you signing contracts for longer than 2-3 years?

Like maybe I'm naive, but I doubt the Texans would have had a problem with giving Hopkins a 3 year, $49M, fully guaranteed deal back in 2017. That's basically what happened anyway.

That way, he'd have a ton more leverage. He could go into 2020 as a free agent, meaning he can get market value, or worst-case scenario, he gets tagged by Houston at $17.8M a year, which is over a $5M pay raise from his current deal.

What it looks to me is that Hopkins and his agent realized they got the short end of the original deal, and now they want to back out of it.

You’re right, but what you’re missing is that dhop has kinda played himself into an area where he can get away with this shit, and BOB has done the opposite and shown himself incompetent for years now

 

[Charm City]

You’re right, but what you’re missing is that dhop has kinda played himself into an area where he can get away with this shit, and BOB has done the opposite and shown himself incompetent for years now

And why wouldn't dhop try to hold out for a better contract. He just saw Julio Jones pull the same stunt with the Falcons and get rewarded for it.

 

[RavensMania]

Thing is the NFL owners have been pulling this shit in reverse on the players for years. Giving them these big contracts and structuring them so they. can be cut in a few years so they never see the entire contract anyways.

 

[rmcjacket23]

You’re right, but what you’re missing is that dhop has kinda played himself into an area where he can get away with this shit, and BOB has done the opposite and shown himself incompetent for years now

I mean, sort of.

He got traded because Bill is largely a moron. A better GM would have told Hopkins to kiss his ass, and he either shows up and plays or he doesn't and gets paid. That's what I would have have done if I were the GM.

A lot of players play themselves into positions where they're underpaid. That would be true for probably like 25% of the players playing on rookie contracts. The difference, in this case, is that Hopkins wasn't signing a rookie contract that was largely negotiated without him as part of the CBA. He negotiated his contract with his agent. Is he going to sell the idea that, in 2017, he thought making $13M in 2020 was a good idea?

 

[rmcjacket23]

And why wouldn't dhop try to hold out for a better contract. He just saw Julio Jones pull the same stunt with the Falcons and get rewarded for it.

Well, not really.

Julio's original contract paid him through 2020, and he tried to hold out in 2018, and was basically rebuffed. He ended up getting $3M more in 2018 than he was supposed to get, but that's because they took it out of his 2019 salary. The team didn't face any cap impact, nor did it increase $ on his deal.

He was a full year later than Hopkins to be successful with this, and the Falcons largely did it to lower his 2019 cap impact, because they were in salary cap hell at the time.

Hopkins hold out so far as only managed to get him traded to an inferior team in a much, much, much harder division. He hasn't gotten paid yet. Maybe he will, or maybe he won't, because the Cardinals are under no obligation to give him an extension on a deal that has 3 years left.

 

[rmcjacket23]

Thing is the NFL owners have been pulling this shit in reverse on the players for years. Giving them these big contracts and structuring them so they. can be cut in a few years so they never see the entire contract anyways.

True, but players also know that, and they collectively bargain for the idea that they don't get fully guaranteed contracts.

Like I said in another post... he got away with this because Bill O'Brien thinks he can coach his way to greatness and doesn't need to keep talent. A smarter GM would have told Hopkins to pound sand, and his options would have been play and get paid, or sit and not get paid. There wouldn't have been a trade or any extension given.

And as I said earlier already... if you know the day you sign the deal that you're going to be unhappy with the deal 50% of the way through, don't sign the deal. I think you're seeing that trend of players desiring like 2,3,4 year deals more often, because they're realizing, what's the point? What's the point of a 5-6 year contract when one of the two sides is likely to be unhappy with it after year 2 or 3? Ownership is in a win/win situation with longer contract structures. If the player plays great, they'll likely have him for cheaper on the back end. If he plays poorly, the can cut him and not have to worry about it.

So if the players want to maximize their leverage, shorten the deal. If the team is only willing to give you $40M guaranteed, why are you signing an $70M total contract?

Maybe teams won't like that, but I'd like to see the players make more of an effort to do it. The really good players generally have no problems getting 2 or even 3 years guaranteed on a deal. So why aren't you just signing a 2-3 year deal then? Fans say the "fully guaranteed" contracts can't happen. I think for 5-6 years, absolutely not. I think for 2-3 years, teams would be super willing to do it.

 

[RavensMania]

@rmcjacket23 there are definitely positives and negatives the the shorter deals. Sure you can get another big deal depending on your age, but many players will take health into account. I'm a huge advocate for the 3 year deal though, especially the way EDC is doing it. I do agree that BOB thinks he's better than he is and he really never should have been allowed to be GM and HC and I'm betting after this season, he's relieved of his job/s.

 

[Deebo813]

True, but players also know that, and they collectively bargain for the idea that they don't get fully guaranteed contracts.

Like I said in another post... he got away with this because Bill O'Brien thinks he can coach his way to greatness and doesn't need to keep talent. A smarter GM would have told Hopkins to pound sand, and his options would have been play and get paid, or sit and not get paid. There wouldn't have been a trade or any extension given.

And as I said earlier already... if you know the day you sign the deal that you're going to be unhappy with the deal 50% of the way through, don't sign the deal. I think you're seeing that trend of players desiring like 2,3,4 year deals more often, because they're realizing, what's the point? What's the point of a 5-6 year contract when one of the two sides is likely to be unhappy with it after year 2 or 3? Ownership is in a win/win situation with longer contract structures. If the player plays great, they'll likely have him for cheaper on the back end. If he plays poorly, the can cut him and not have to worry about it.

So if the players want to maximize their leverage, shorten the deal. If the team is only willing to give you $40M guaranteed, why are you signing an $70M total contract?

Maybe teams won't like that, but I'd like to see the players make more of an effort to do it. The really good players generally have no problems getting 2 or even 3 years guaranteed on a deal. So why aren't you just signing a 2-3 year deal then? Fans say the "fully guaranteed" contracts can't happen. I think for 5-6 years, absolutely not. I think for 2-3 years, teams would be super willing to do it.

Ive always wondered why the really good players dont do the 2-3 yrs thing.. i know revis kinda did it in a way but thats all i can remember

 

[rossihunter2]

I mean, sort of.

He got traded because Bill is largely a moron. A better GM would have told Hopkins to kiss his ass, and he either shows up and plays or he doesn't and gets paid. That's what I would have have done if I were the GM.

A lot of players play themselves into positions where they're underpaid. That would be true for probably like 25% of the players playing on rookie contracts. The difference, in this case, is that Hopkins wasn't signing a rookie contract that was largely negotiated without him as part of the CBA. He negotiated his contract with his agent. Is he going to sell the idea that, in 2017, he thought making $13M in 2020 was a good idea?

you're also assuming that Hopkins was actually being difficult and refusing to play under his old contract rather than just asking the question of the front office which is his right to do... given that all this came out after the trade and there were no signs of friction beforehand on DHop's side, it would suggest to me that maybe the narrative that Hopkins was threatening a holdout etc. might not be so true...

 

[RL52TheGreatest]

Ive always wondered why the really good players dont do the 2-3 yrs thing.. i know revis kinda did it in a way but thats all i can remember

Didn't Revis take a bunch of 1 year deals with teams? I remember him being a glorified "merc" at the CB position after he left the Jets lol

 

[rmcjacket23]

you're also assuming that Hopkins was actually being difficult and refusing to play under his old contract rather than just asking the question of the front office which is his right to do... given that all this came out after the trade and there were no signs of friction beforehand on DHop's side, it would suggest to me that maybe the narrative that Hopkins was threatening a holdout etc. might not be so true...

I mean... I think we're going to figure this out pretty soon. If Arizona redoes his deal, or extends him even further, then you pretty much know the trade demand was real. Arizona has literally no incentive whatsoever to sign him to an extension... they get him for WELL below market value right now, owe him no guaranteed money, and they control him for 3 years.