Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Falcons restructure Matt Ryan's contract


Mr. Scot
 Share

Recommended Posts

Their cap situation has always been worse than the raw number because they have so few people in the number (41 per Spotrac).  They have about $6M in cap space but need 10 more players.  While the top 51 evens that out, it can't when you have less than 51 signed.

It will not age well next year, either.  Next year they have 21 accounting for a cap number only $21 million below the projected cap of $209M

Even now, Ryan's contract is NEVER a bargain to unload.  His cap hit finally overtakes his potential dead cap in 2022, but even then his dead cap is over $40M. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, mrcompletely11 said:

I dont think Denver goes qb.  I also think SF and NE are way too far back to move to 2,3, 4.  Aint no way the last 3 have the ammo to go up that high

Denver has been in talks for many QBs and wanted Fitz also. Lock still acts like a rookie. I heard he puts in no film or lift time. They have soured on him, no matter the fluff. SF is 12th with future picks. NE could do the same about trading future 1s/2s. Bill always has comps and is used to drafting late. Loins and Philly could trade up for a QB too. Goff and hurts are not good enough not to stay put if you love Wilson Fields etc.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Basbear said:

Denver has been in talks for many QBs and wanted Fitz also. Lock still acts like a rookie. I heard he puts in no film or lift time. They have soured on him, no matter the fluff. SF is 12th with future picks. NE could do the same about trading future 1s/2s. Bill always has comps and is used to drafting late. Loins and Philly could trade up for a QB too. Goff and hurts are not good enough not to stay put if you love Wilson Fields etc.  

Dude Goff is there for 2 years due to his contract and philly is rolling with hurts.  How many firsts would it take SF or NE to move to 2,3,4?  I just dont think they have enough.  We stay at 8 and might have our choice of the next 3 depending if the Jets stay with Darnold.  If nothing else Lance will 100% be there at 8 if thats our guy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, mrcompletely11 said:

Dude Goff is there for 2 years due to his contract and philly is rolling with hurts.  How many firsts would it take SF or NE to move to 2,3,4?  I just dont think they have enough.  We stay at 8 and might have our choice of the next 3 depending if the Jets stay with Darnold.  If nothing else Lance will 100% be there at 8 if thats our guy.

I dont know Loins or Phillys plan, just believe neither Goff or Hurts are good enough to pass on Wilson/Lance/etc. Just like when the panthers took Cam with Jimmy was last years first pick, Cards took Murray with 10th overall Rosen last yr.  3 firsts is the going rate I believe for either SF or NE. SF could flip Jimmy for a pick too. Offset some of the cost. It could a QB musical chairs type of effect. Cam only had 3.5 million in guarantees, they could cut him or its a great spot for a rookie QB. 

Teams could trade for Beaguals pick, Lions pick, Phillys pick too. Its doesnt have to be #4, just before the panthers #8.  

Edited by Basbear
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the QB draft freakout crew can officially chill now.  I personally thought the possibility of the Falcons drafting a QB in the top 5 was less than 10%.  Again, we don't have to worry about he teams ahead of us, rather the teams behind us.  Ryan is still relatively young, not injury prone and actually puts up decent numbers every year.  It would be stupid for the Falcons to kick him to the curb.  Cap relief?  Sure and they got him to restructure to help with that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Shocker said:

Trading out...but QB still going there

People keep saying this but I dont see it.  Where are they going and what are they getting?  At their position they have their choice of the top talent at every position on defense.  Something they need.  You think they are going to drop back to the teens?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, mrcompletely11 said:

People keep saying this but I dont see it.  Where are they going and what are they getting?  At their position they have their choice of the top talent at every position on defense.  Something they need.  You think they are going to drop back to the teens?

They could use the extra picks and the defenders will drop.  Agree they need defense but also need RB and OL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Shocker said:

Well obviously QB needy teams like us, WFT, Lions there are ton out there.  

The Lions could potentially draft a QB, but I don't know that I'd call them QB hungry.

There are others though...

Edited by Mr. Scot
  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • I don't think it's any weird or unique clause, it's the offset language, same thing so many contract disputes are over. It just means that including it, if a player is cut and then signed by another team, the original team would be able to subtract how much they're getting paid by the new team from what they still owe him on their guaranteed money. For example, it's why Russell Wilson signed for the minimum last year with the Steelers as that was included in his Denver contract.  So if he signed with the Steelers for $1 million, he'd get $1 million less from the Broncos, if it was $2 million, he'd get $2 million less, basically he couldn't make any more money than he was already going to make, so you sign for the minimum to not take unnecessary cap room from your new team while giving extra cap room to your old one. The problem with trying to include it in rookie deals is that a team trying to include it, it says they think they don't really believe the player will make it 4 years with the team before they cut them.  And this usually comes up with one or two rookies in most seasons, the difference is it's usually handled much more quietly and not as public and ugly as this one. The other difference is that it's happening with the Bengals, which I believe I saw are one of the few (or only?) team that doesn't have protections for rookies in rookie and mini camps to be able to participate even if they haven't signed their contract yet.  The other teams have injury protections that allow them to still play, but the Bengals do not, which is also why this one is so public and ugly, as most the time this happens, the rookie is still participating in the rookie and subsequent mini camps, giving them more time to get the contract done before training camp when they'd then hold out.
    • adamantium? adam? adam thielen super bowl game winning catch ?
    • You're really gonna pass up the opportunity to make a joke about skidmarks in underwear here?  Alright fine.
×
×
  • Create New...