2025 Offseason Thread

[rmcjacket23]

At first it seemed like a situation where Stewart was being petty, but the more that comes out, the more you realize how fucked up the Bengals are being. All Stewart is asking for is the same language/protections their 1st round pick last year and every 1st round pick that has signed so far this year have gotten. Props to him for standing up for himself.

So here's the thing for me... the Bengals position is, I think pretty clearly, the "correct" position and is one that I'd like to see all 32 NFL teams adopt and aggressively force the players to accept.

The players argument, simply, is "you gave out contracts that reward people for being shit human beings in the past, and so I want that same reward going forward". Any way you break it down, that's the "player side" in this dispute. If the player wants to go full Aaron Hernandez, he wants his guaranteed $ regardless of whether he's in prison or not.

I'd like to hear the NFLPAs position on the morality of their position. Precedent, by definition, is a cop out. We all know this. You use precedent as an argument when you don't have a moral one to stand on your self. Precedence is oftentimes the hinderance of growth.

And I think its odd that fans so frequently complain about how many criminals are in the NFL, how they commit crimes and never get punished for it, etc., and then simultaneously back the players in an effort to make sure they get paid all $ they're owed even if they do something off the field that prevents them from contributing to the team or to the league. That's an odd position to take in my opinion.

 

[rmcjacket23]

This is fully on the Bengals.

What type of shit is that to pull on the contract?

So lets reframe the question and see if it changes things...

If Stewart were to rape somebody (hypothetically of course) and get suspended by the league, do you believe that the Bengals should be able to void remaining guaranteed $ on his contract?

If yes, then you're on the Bengals side. If no, then you're on the player side.

Obviously this is a somewhat extreme example, but it really comes down to the idea that if a player does something on or off the field that rises to suspension level, should the Bengals still have an obligation to pay out the rest of his contract regardless of what he did?

And this isn't quite the same, but its under similar context that the Patriots had to pay out several million $ to Aaron Hernandez family AFTER he was not only imprisoned as a serial killer for some time, but also after his death, because of gtd $ that still existed on his contract. Most teams use contract language that doesn't make this an issue any longer for non-rookie contracts. Apparently the Bengals haven't been using it for first round pick contracts, but want to start doing so.

To which I personally have zero issue with.

 

[rossihunter2]

So here's the thing for me... the Bengals position is, I think pretty clearly, the "correct" position and is one that I'd like to see all 32 NFL teams adopt and aggressively force the players to accept.

The players argument, simply, is "you gave out contracts that reward people for being shit human beings in the past, and so I want that same reward going forward". Any way you break it down, that's the "player side" in this dispute. If the player wants to go full Aaron Hernandez, he wants his guaranteed $ regardless of whether he's in prison or not.

I'd like to hear the NFLPAs position on the morality of their position. Precedent, by definition, is a cop out. We all know this. You use precedent as an argument when you don't have a moral one to stand on your self. Precedence is oftentimes the hinderance of growth.

And I think its odd that fans so frequently complain about how many criminals are in the NFL, how they commit crimes and never get punished for it, etc., and then simultaneously back the players in an effort to make sure they get paid all $ they're owed even if they do something off the field that prevents them from contributing to the team or to the league. That's an odd position to take in my opinion.

because it's not just about guys who want to go full aaron hernandez, it's also about minor legal issues or even non-football injuries

and it's common language in contracts for at least 21 other NFL teams

the problem is, the other players who sign those terms are given something else in terms of the way their deals are structured to get more guarantees early on in their deal and better cash flow structures

the bengals have historically not included the language but also had less guaranteed early in their rookie deals - they now want to add the language but not compromise in the way other teams have, Walter Nolen and Grey Zabel (the picks before and after Stewart) both signed deals with that language included

for context, it's the same language that allowed the broncos to void guarantees in Ja'wuan James' contract when he had an injury at a private gym

the bengals structure their contracts differently to the rest of the NFL (see what they did with the chase and higgins deals vs other top WR structures), Stewart is asking for a compromise or to sign the same deal the Bengals gave their last 3 1st round picks

 

[rossihunter2]

If Stewart were to rape somebody (hypothetically of course) and get suspended by the league, do you believe that the Bengals should be able to void remaining guaranteed $ on his contract?

they can already do that with language that already exists in the contract if it's really serious - they don't need this new clause that's more about any minor infraction or legal issue

and if it's guaranteed salary, players don't get that money if they're suspended anyway (one of the reasons the ravens were waiting to see if the league might suspend tucker, would get them out of paying some of the guarantees left in his deal)

 

[Deebo813]

So here's the thing for me... the Bengals position is, I think pretty clearly, the "correct" position and is one that I'd like to see all 32 NFL teams adopt and aggressively force the players to accept.

The players argument, simply, is "you gave out contracts that reward people for being shit human beings in the past, and so I want that same reward going forward". Any way you break it down, that's the "player side" in this dispute. If the player wants to go full Aaron Hernandez, he wants his guaranteed $ regardless of whether he's in prison or not.

I'd like to hear the NFLPAs position on the morality of their position. Precedent, by definition, is a cop out. We all know this. You use precedent as an argument when you don't have a moral one to stand on your self. Precedence is oftentimes the hinderance of growth.

And I think its odd that fans so frequently complain about how many criminals are in the NFL, how they commit crimes and never get punished for it, etc., and then simultaneously back the players in an effort to make sure they get paid all $ they're owed even if they do something off the field that prevents them from contributing to the team or to the league. That's an odd position to take in my opinion.

I knew you would side with the bengals lol

 

[CanadianRavensFan]

So here's the thing for me... the Bengals position is, I think pretty clearly, the "correct" position and is one that I'd like to see all 32 NFL teams adopt and aggressively force the players to accept.

The players argument, simply, is "you gave out contracts that reward people for being shit human beings in the past, and so I want that same reward going forward". Any way you break it down, that's the "player side" in this dispute. If the player wants to go full Aaron Hernandez, he wants his guaranteed $ regardless of whether he's in prison or not.

I'd like to hear the NFLPAs position on the morality of their position. Precedent, by definition, is a cop out. We all know this. You use precedent as an argument when you don't have a moral one to stand on your self. Precedence is oftentimes the hinderance of growth.

And I think its odd that fans so frequently complain about how many criminals are in the NFL, how they commit crimes and never get punished for it, etc., and then simultaneously back the players in an effort to make sure they get paid all $ they're owed even if they do something off the field that prevents them from contributing to the team or to the league. That's an odd position to take in my opinion.

You're forgetting that the whole dispute is being caused by the bengals trying to have their cake and eat it to. Many teams have the language they want to insert but they front load their contracts to give players more money up front. The bengals want to have even payments while also inserting this new language into their contracts

 

[rmcjacket23]

I knew you would side with the bengals lol

Well and the majority of NFL teams, since most teams do similar with contract language.

 

[rmcjacket23]

You're forgetting that the whole dispute is being caused by the bengals trying to have their cake and eat it to. Many teams have the language they want to insert but they front load their contracts to give players more money up front. The bengals want to have even payments while also inserting this new language into their contracts

Which I have no issue with. Compensation tied to on-field output is a problem? Why is upfront $ so critical when a) the entire contract is guaranteed and b) football-related injuries allow them to continue to collect?

 

[rmcjacket23]

because it's not just about guys who want to go full aaron hernandez, it's also about minor legal issues or even non-football injuries

and it's common language in contracts for at least 21 other NFL teams

the problem is, the other players who sign those terms are given something else in terms of the way their deals are structured to get more guarantees early on in their deal and better cash flow structures

the bengals have historically not included the language but also had less guaranteed early in their rookie deals - they now want to add the language but not compromise in the way other teams have, Walter Nolen and Grey Zabel (the picks before and after Stewart) both signed deals with that language included

for context, it's the same language that allowed the broncos to void guarantees in Ja'wuan James' contract when he had an injury at a private gym

the bengals structure their contracts differently to the rest of the NFL (see what they did with the chase and higgins deals vs other top WR structures), Stewart is asking for a compromise or to sign the same deal the Bengals gave their last 3 1st round picks

So a) if they are "minor legal issues" that warrant suspension, then they're probably not minor, otherwise they wouldn't be suspendable. I could use similar example for somebody like a Rashee Rice. Sure, he "lost $" when he was suspended, but a large chunk of his contract value was a signing bonus that the Chiefs can't recoup, and I think it's valid for the Chiefs to have a desire to void that deal IF they wanted to based on the actions he took.
b) I have no issue with the lack of "concessions" in terms of upfront $, because, again, on a fully gtd rookie contract, I don't think that matters other than to allow for the player to lose less if he fucks up off-the-field. The players desire in that case is purely financial, not moral, which is why I'm less inclined to side with the player.

And candidly, slightly biased on rookie contract players bitching about upfront $, when the % of signing bonus $ as part of the total contract is absurdly front heavy already. Gigantically more than established veterans who are earning significantly more in terms of both totals and guarantees. I certainly am not opposed to a more realistic structure that's commensurate with how league-wide contracts look.

 

[gtalk12]

So lets reframe the question and see if it changes things...

If Stewart were to rape somebody (hypothetically of course) and get suspended by the league, do you believe that the Bengals should be able to void remaining guaranteed $ on his contract?

If yes, then you're on the Bengals side. If no, then you're on the player side.

Obviously this is a somewhat extreme example, but it really comes down to the idea that if a player does something on or off the field that rises to suspension level, should the Bengals still have an obligation to pay out the rest of his contract regardless of what he did?

And this isn't quite the same, but its under similar context that the Patriots had to pay out several million $ to Aaron Hernandez family AFTER he was not only imprisoned as a serial killer for some time, but also after his death, because of gtd $ that still existed on his contract. Most teams use contract language that doesn't make this an issue any longer for non-rookie contracts. Apparently the Bengals haven't been using it for first round pick contracts, but want to start doing so.

To which I personally have zero issue with.

I wouldn't sign a contract that's worded differently than the people who were signed before me. If it was simply off the field conduct then I would understand. However, where it get's weird for me is the "on the field" conduct.

First thing I would like to know is what "on the field" conduct even means for the Bengals? Is this clearly outlined? Is this something that they decide at any given moment?

If I was him, I'd ask for the same exact contract you gave to the last few 1st round picks.

 

[rmcjacket23]

I wouldn't sign a contract that's worded differently than the people who were signed before me. If it was simply off the field conduct then I would understand. However, where it get's weird for me is the "on the field" conduct.

First thing I would like to know is what "on the field" conduct even means for the Bengals? Is this clearly outlined? Is this something that they decide at any given moment?

If I was him, I'd ask for the same exact contract you gave to the last few 1st round picks.

Right but I guess my point is... if what you did in the past was "bad", is the argument that you just have to continue to keep doing it because you fucked up before? That's the dangerous part of "precedence".

 

[ravenslord]

I’d take clowney over jaire, also Ramsey in a trade.

Absolutely fuckin right!

 

[rossihunter2]

So a) if they are "minor legal issues" that warrant suspension, then they're probably not minor, otherwise they wouldn't be suspendable. I could use similar example for somebody like a Rashee Rice. Sure, he "lost $" when he was suspended, but a large chunk of his contract value was a signing bonus that the Chiefs can't recoup, and I think it's valid for the Chiefs to have a desire to void that deal IF they wanted to based on the actions he took.
b) I have no issue with the lack of "concessions" in terms of upfront $, because, again, on a fully gtd rookie contract, I don't think that matters other than to allow for the player to lose less if he fucks up off-the-field. The players desire in that case is purely financial, not moral, which is why I'm less inclined to side with the player.

And candidly, slightly biased on rookie contract players bitching about upfront $, when the % of signing bonus $ as part of the total contract is absurdly front heavy already. Gigantically more than established veterans who are earning significantly more in terms of both totals and guarantees. I certainly am not opposed to a more realistic structure that's commensurate with how league-wide contracts look.

my point being that it wouldnt require a suspension to void the guarantees with the language

rookies often want the money earlier because they're poorly paid compared to veterans so the earlier cash is better financially for both planning, investing and security

and with regard to financials vs morals, why shouldnt they want better financial outcomes, and why shouldn't they use their leverage to get better financial outcomes?

 

[rmcjacket23]

I wouldn't sign a contract that's worded differently than the people who were signed before me. If it was simply off the field conduct then I would understand. However, where it get's weird for me is the "on the field" conduct.

First thing I would like to know is what "on the field" conduct even means for the Bengals? Is this clearly outlined? Is this something that they decide at any given moment?

If I was him, I'd ask for the same exact contract you gave to the last few 1st round picks.

And without knowing, I'd use like Earl Thomas as an example of "on the field" conduct that would warrant a team suspension that a team would potentially like to void future guarantees for.

 

[rossihunter2]

And without knowing, I'd use like Earl Thomas as an example of "on the field" conduct that would warrant a team suspension that a team would potentially like to void future guarantees for.

which the ravens were able to...

 

[rmcjacket23]

my point being that it wouldnt require a suspension to void the guarantees with the language

rookies often want the money earlier because they're poorly paid compared to veterans so the earlier cash is better financially for both planning, investing and security

and with regard to financials vs morals, why shouldnt they want better financial outcomes, and why shouldn't they use their leverage to get better financial outcomes?

Then you can fight for the specifics of the language you want, as opposed to saying "I want exactly what somebody else before me got".

I don't think we can say they're "paid poorly" because it would depend on the performance. There's a shit ton of rookies who are wildly overpaid. Several first rounders who would be out of the league entirely within a couple years if they didn't have fully gtd contracts. And a lot of guys that would never in a million years get the same level of guaranteed $ as a street FA.

I have zero issue with the financial argument. I'm pointing out that once you understand the disagreement, the party taking the moral high ground is the team, not the player. I think its almost impossible to argue that the Bengals contract structure isn't totally fair in the context of what they're asking for. It's just ironic to me that fans almost universally side with players on the moral positions because they think the league just wants to fuck everybody over all the time, when in this case, its almost entirely the polar opposite.

 

[rmcjacket23]

which the ravens were able to...

Sure, after like 18 months of NFLPA grievances and legal fees. Seems like a pretty smart move by a franchise to want to cut through all that bullshit before it happens, rather than after it.

 

[CanadianRavensFan]

Which I have no issue with. Compensation tied to on-field output is a problem? Why is upfront $ so critical when a) the entire contract is guaranteed and b) football-related injuries allow them to continue to collect?

Upfront money is important because a) it's worth more than money in a year from now due to how inflation works and b) in the event that he does something stupid he loses out on less money.

Stewart has no reason right now to sign the contract that the bengals are presenting to him, so if the bengals want him to sign they have to give him a reason to sign otherwise he can just sit out a year and re-enter the draft next season and get drafted by a team that is going to negotiate with him in good faith.

 

[rmcjacket23]

Upfront money is important because a) it's worth more than money in a year from now due to how inflation works and b) in the event that he does something stupid he loses out on less money.

Stewart has no reason right now to sign the contract that the bengals are presenting to him, so if the bengals want him to sign they have to give him a reason to sign otherwise he can just sit out a year and re-enter the draft next season and get drafted by a team that is going to negotiate with him in good faith.

I understand why upfront $ is important. If you look at all first round contracts, including his current offered one, he's already getting a disproportionately high amount of $ upfront already. Certainly more than he would get as a UFA. So I'm not sure that holds a lot of weight.

In terms of losing less $ by doing something stupid, he could simply just not be a retard and collect all of it. Doing something stupid would be 100% voluntary would it not?

Stewart isn't sitting out. It costs him too much $ to do so. He'll not make a dime this year (which is comical considering he's focused on getting more $ now), and there's pretty much no scenario where his next contract will be bigger than his current one. I personally would bet against him even being a first round pick next year at all. This isn't a Andrew Luck-type player that can slot in at the top of the draft regardless of year. He could easily go 20-30 picks later in a better draft class.

 

[purplepittabread88]

he did miss kicks that he wouldnt have historically missed

2 extra points
3 other kicks inside the 50
and he was only just over 50% outside the 50

his total field goal % was 73.3% which was 30th in the league (of qualifying kickers) and well below average

his long of 56 yards was only good enough for 19th in the league

the standard of kickers around the league has massively improved over the last 5 years
and tucker had a poor season by most metrics

you can directly link at least the Eagles loss to Tucker's missed kicks, but im sure there are other games that people remember

also bengals evan mcpherson is not a pro bowler and was one of the few kickers who statistically was worse than tucker last year in terms of FG%

im not saying Loop's going to be the guy for sure, but he's got the tools

I get Tucker was ass last season and I'm actually in the pro Loop camp myself, I didn't mean that as in a defense of keeping Tucker, I meant it in as a Tucker had a season that every good kicker ever has had at some point. His fg % wasn't great on long kicks but we kept putting him out there because he's JT and we thought the problem would get fixed out. Tucker has always suffered from a stat perspective from all the really long kicks we have him try (ex a 65 yarder as time expires, no reason not to, but other teams just chuck it deep or knee)


That said, the range for Tucker to miss and keep missing was low 50s last year- but still, I'm just trying to say most other teams wouldn't have the guys attempt deep shots when they are missing often.

Just in general probably about 60% of teams lose one game a year because of there kicker. Yea tuckers misses against Philly hurt especially because it was close when it happened, but they also physically dominated us for 3 quarters on both sides of the line. (Eagles + Jalen always suck in the first anyway)

Saying I agree we had to rid of Tucker 100%, just was trying to make the point most people don't realize how painful even a relatively "above average" kicker is at points