Scourton isn't signed (& apparently it's a thing)

[Pejorative Miscreant]

33 minutes ago, Khyber53 said:

These are just ripples of a move to redo the rookie deal schedule for second rounders and beyond. These kids coming out of college with NILs are even more money savvy than those before them and they've been working with agents for longer.

And agents will always try to sweeten the deal for their clients, and therefore, themselves.

Well said.  Also, the agent is also not looking at this myopically.  Its not just one contract but it is setting a precedent and more $$$ across the board said agent.  Gotta believe there is a lot of added emphasis and motivation from that standpoint.

[Ornias]

I wonder if this will cause the value of 2nd rd picks to go down? Teams may be more open to trading down. 

[Waldo]

1 hour ago, SmokinwithWilly said:

3rd should be probably half guaranteed. The failure rate is too high for full guarantee at that point in the draft. 

The NFL eats giant bad contracts all the time. I looked and the 3rd starts at 6.7 at pick 67 and 6.1 at pick 96. With the way the NFL cap keeps going up and how they all work the cap it really shouldn't be an issue for any team that can get 1 year out of rookies. 

Maybe it would cut down on teams taking giant leaps on guys they shouldn't? This would have got Hurney fired in 3 years lol

[TD alt]

I really don't know how they should work this out. I can see all sides, and I really don't think there's a black and white here, the entire situation is too complex and all the teams are too intermingled. Regardless of how you think about these contracts, if the NFL does begin guaranteeing larger amounts of money then some type of way they're going to try and shake us--FANS--down for more money, and I ain't gonna pay it because they can't guarantee me good football. 

[frankw]

7 minutes ago, TD alt said:

they're going to try and shake us--FANS--down for more money, and I ain't gonna pay it because they can't guarantee me good football. 

Of course. But they already do that. The billionaire owners hold cities ransom and force taxpayers to fund their stadiums.

For me. I'd rather see a young rookie athlete who will be risking themselves every time they take the field receive a fair contract. At the end of the day these are low end contracts compared to some of the MLB level deals given out to other big name players. I'd certainly rather see that before seeing another billionaire owner receiving taxpayer funds while pocketing tens of billions in annual shared revenue and whose franchises only increase in value even if the teams in question are good or bad.

[TD alt]

1 hour ago, frankw said:

Of course. But they already do that. The billionaire owners hold cities ransom and force taxpayers to fund their stadiums.

For me. I'd rather see a young rookie athlete who will be risking themselves every time they take the field receive a fair contract. At the end of the day these are low end contracts compared to some of the MLB level deals given out to other big name players. I'd certainly rather see that before seeing another billionaire owner receiving taxpayer funds while pocketing tens of billions in annual shared revenue and whose franchises only increase in value even if the teams in question are good or bad.

Sure, I agree with you to some extent. But a lot of us put our bodies and very lives on the line in necessary jobs (remember Covid). And I realize that opens up another real can of worms and questions that won't be answered here, but when the "failure" rate is somewhere around 50 percent, and the median length of a career for a second rounder is four years (per Google AI), is it really fair for them to make millions? Does it really make sense from a purely business perspective? I realize that the question is very much loaded, but at some point we must ponder these questions from all perspectives.

Edited July 16 by TD alt

[Shotgun]

I think all contracts should be fully guaranteed...fug those billionaires and their money.

[Ornias]

1 hour ago, Shotgun said:

I think all contracts should be fully guaranteed...fug those billionaires and their money.

I would be ok with that if they then refunded the cap space if the player gets injured. 

[Shotgun]

10 minutes ago, Ornias said:

I would be ok with that if they then refunded the cap space if the player gets injured. 

Every underperforming player would end up "injured" if that was the case though.  

[Ornias]

21 minutes ago, Shotgun said:

Every underperforming player would end up "injured" if that was the case though.  

Fair enough. Cleveland would have put a hit out on Deshawn. 

[frankw]

2 hours ago, TD alt said:

Sure, I agree with you to some extent. But a lot of us put our bodies and very lives on the line in necessary jobs (remember Covid). And I realize that opens up another real can of worms and questions that won't be answered here, but when the "failure" rate is somewhere around 50 percent, and the median length of a career for a second rounder is four years (per Google AI), is it really fair for them to make millions? Does it really make sense from a purely business perspective? I realize that the question is very much loaded, but at some point we must ponder these questions from all perspectives.

For sure we could have a lengthy discussion about wealth inequality in this country and whether or not politicians corporate executives celebrities entertainers and athletes should realistically be paid what they are. I'm sure we would find ourselves in agreement on most of it. In a perfect world these issues wouldn't exist. Unfortunately we are a heavily flawed society and we look past a greay many things that ultimately make absolutely no logical sense on a daily basis just because it's what we've been told capitalism is supposed to be. But we'll shelve it for another time and another subforum.

[CRA]

2 hours ago, Shotgun said:

I think all contracts should be fully guaranteed...fug those billionaires and their money.

if the guaranteed didn't impact the cap and thus tie our hands in to extent to roster build.....I would agree with you. 

[TD alt]

2 minutes ago, CRA said:

if the guaranteed didn't impact the cap and thus tie our hands in to extent to roster build.....I would agree with you. 

And that's the issue. I'm socially fairly liberal, but I'm also fairly fiscally conservative. I could see giving them guaranteed contracts at smaller amounts, but guaranteeing a multi-million dollar contract for someone that has around half a probability of being in the NFL for four years and hamstringing teams' finances is not necessarily something I'm cheerleading. 

Admittedly all of this is systemic and possibly even structural at present, but the NFL FOs and NFLPA is going to have to go to the grindstone and figure this stuff out. There is a possibility that there will be some "pain" that we, as fans, are going to have to endure because of it, but hopefully it will be better for us on the other side. I'm skeptical though. There is greed on all sides--agents, players, owners--but the preponderance of the greed is on the owners, and I as a fan am not into them taking more out of my pockets than they already are.

[jfra78]

2 mil guaranteed a year isnt a big deal when the cap is 279 mil and probably 300 by the time the contract is up.