Billy Goat

Could be opening up room in 2025 because most deals signed in FA this year will have smaller cap hits for 2024 and bigger in the following seasons.

These cuts we've been making have opened up a nice chunk of cap for 2025 but not that much for 2024.

I was thinking that but I guess if the Bengals have tagged Higgins as basically a one year rental and don't intend to extend him they'd maybe think having Burns on a 1 year rental would give them a better chance of winning.

I think it would be a straight swap but not sure the Bengals would want him. They're paying Hendrickson a lot the next two seasons.

The players they've released so far have negligible cap savings.

Best chance we've got of getting comp picks in the near future is if Evero becomes a HC. Outside of those potential two 3rds for him we won't be getting any for players leaving.

That's my issue. No other reporter has reported this and they probably wouldn't even if they were told it because they know it's disingenuous to suggest the market for Burns is around a 3rd rounder. Her reporting it makes it seem like there's an ulterior motive rather than her just doing her job.

Why does she care so much about this situation?

What would this mean for Bozeman? Do they cut him, keep him as a backup or move him to LG (where he played for the Ravens for two seasons)?

Seattle got a 1st and 2nd for Frank Clark not too long ago and he was given $105m over 5 years. The salary cap has increased by $70m since then as well. That "league source" should put down the crack pipe.

This guy thinks getting $50,000 from cutting Hurst was done to get some more cap room to extend Burns?

Personally I think it's more likely a team competing to win will offer him a deal we are not prepared to match and a trade gets done for less than two 1sts.

That panthersontap tweet isn't accurate. Off the top of my head I can remember Seahawks trading Frank Clark after putting the non-exclusive tag on him. There's probably lots more.

Yes that's the other side to this. Really you want to know what you're doing with Burns before free agency. It would be foolish to tag him not knowing if you're going to trade, extend him or let him play under the tag. Before you know it you get to training camp and have no new pass rusher and Burns holding out

Tag and trade looking the most likely scenario at this point. Maybe they liked what they heard from some interested teams at the combine?

There's only two players on that list you'd absolutely want to keep.

Just remembered they traded for Darnold the year before Purdy's draft. He still managed to draft a QB in round 3 that year, couldn't get them to use a 7th rounder on Purdy but could get a crappy CB from Baylor? Yeah right....Then after the draft he could get them to waste more draft capital on Mayfield. Sounds legit.

Just watched the soundbite. I noticed he also had to mention that he told his players not to jump on his pump fake and they all did and Rhule did his little "I told you so". The guy is an absolute slime ball. If he was made of chocolate he'd eat himself. Maybe he did say Purdy should be on the board but that doesn't men he would've drafted him. He traded away 3 picks for Darnold before the draft even got going.

Most players at that stage of their career signing their first big contract will go to whoever writes the biggest cheque, so there's always a chance. I doubt he becomes a FA though.

Doesn't the whole lateral move thing make that pretty much a non-starter? Most teams with good coaches under contract aren't going to willingly let them walk out the door if they don't have to.

Not really fussed about the structure. It's fairly common across all sports. The Kroenke's own my football (soccer) team and the manager and sporting director report directly to Josh Kroenke but he just writes the cheques and lets them get on with it. That's what Tepper needs to do. What's gone before doesn't fill you with hope but there's always a chance he changes.

Canales.