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!

     

You want to get instantly better? Pick up the phone, call DET and get Taylor Decker


TheBigKat
 Share

Recommended Posts

18 minutes ago, Floppin said:

No way I'd give them Donte.

I'd offer maybe Bouye and a 2022 3rd and 2023 2nd.

I said before week 1 Bouye might be the best trade option if the defense performs well during his suspension and the panthers want a quality Oline. That idea was not well received 🤷‍♂️

  • Pie 1
  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, RJK said:

I said before week 1 Bouye might be the best trade option if the defense performs well during his suspension and the panthers want a quality Oline. That idea was not well received 🤷‍♂️

That was before people saw how the defense performed without him. I mean he's obviously going to make the defense even better but I wouldn't shed a tear if we packaged him with a few picks to pick up a solid upgrade for the O-line.

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Lions are for sure going to try and make it work with both Decker and Sewell before even thinking about a trade. Sewell wasn't good in the preseason at RT but maybe the light is on now that it's the regular season. Alternatively, they could certainly put Decker at RT which is a position he played previously in college. Having two stud tackles would be the ideal situation and it's not like Decker would be overpaid as a RT since they are pretty much in line with LT salaries these days.

Trading Jackson isn't the craziest thing, but only if Fitterer is 100% sure he isn't going to re-sign/franchise him for what is certain to be a very big contract and Bouye regains his 2018 form as a good starter.

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TheBigKat said:

Send them Action Jackson, 2022 5th, 2022 2nd

 

We can't trade a 2nd we don't have.   I'm not against trading for him, but you can't even do what you are suggesting.

Even if you could I would not start trading away pieces of what appears to be an elite D atm.
 

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...