Jump to content

Joe's next contract


Recommended Posts

Just now, claptonrocks said:

Yes blindside tackle first up..

Jonah has struggled most of 9 the year with his kneecap.

Collins has had the back issues .

 

Hate to think those two are our starters

next season with health concerns..

 

Maybe they both heal up and be productive but its still a major concern imo..

 

 

 

Agreed

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having an elite QB on a rookie contract is a structural advantage in the NFL. We shouldn't give that up lightly. Thus I think they delay extending Joe.

 

Mixon isn't worth is current contract. A rookie would certainly be cheaper than him and may well play better. Would anyone here not trade Mixon straight up for Dobbins or Chubb? Josh Jacobs is entering free agency and probably won't get 12 mil per year like Mixon will cost us next season. Keeping Mixon around next year is like letting Pratt or Bell walk. I'd rather have one of them than Joe. 

 

The NFL is a passing league and we have the best QB and 2 best WRs in the AFCN. We should hang on to all 3 of them. Colleges these days are mostly spread offenses so it's not too hard to find good WRs and RBs or pass protecting OTs. We'll be drafting late in each round for the next few years so we have to think about positional value. Positions like CB or OT make sense for our first round picks. We can find good safeties, LBs, TEs, WRs, or RBs in round 3 and later. 

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, WRAPradio said:

 

image.png.d81a3994980a8f35e83796dc676f8abc.png


So, right now, the top four QBs average about $45m a year.  The first franchise tag is average of top five QBs. 
 

How many (and which) of the QBs are currently scheduled to be free agents after this season?  Lamar Jackson…and who else?

 

The average of the top five QBs will likely be well north of $45m.  A second franchise tag will be twenty percent over that, or the average of the top five, whichever is highest. [20% over $45m is $54m)]. 


I think Joe will be willing to sign an “under market,” but the amount cannot be an embarrassing number.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the Bengals want more years, which I think they will, then the average yearly total must be higher so it isn't too low later in the deal.

 

That's why I think 55 per year is the starting number for Burrow and could be 60-65. But hopefully they get a 6 year or more deal.

 

By the last year the top averages will be 80 and he will be underpaid. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Cricket said:


So, right now, the top four QBs average about $45m a year.  The first franchise tag is average of top five QBs. 
 

How many (and which) of the QBs are currently scheduled to be free agents after this season?  Lamar Jackson…and who else?

 

The average of the top five QBs will likely be well north of $45m.  A second franchise tag will be twenty percent over that, or the average of the top five, whichever is highest. [20% over $45m is $54m)]. 


I think Joe will be willing to sign an “under market,” but the amount cannot be an embarrassing number.

Possibly 6r 300mil..50per

deferred ..

BJ mentioned how salaries go up over that span.

 

If JB takes less than any of those numbers he's leaving some on the table or just sign him to 10yr 450mil like the Chiefs did with Mahomes..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, sparky151 said:

Having an elite QB on a rookie contract is a structural advantage in the NFL. We shouldn't give that up lightly. Thus I think they delay extending Joe.

 

...

 

While the bolded first statement is entirely accurate, I just can't agree with the rest.  Making JB play out his rookie contract, or even much more of it at this point, would be a tremendous slap in the face.  I understand it's a business, but we have something special with JB and both sides should do what's fair and equitable based on reality.  Joe is obviously worth tons more than what he is currently getting paid and the Bengals should reward his impact on this franchise by being proactive in getting out ahead of this.  Plus since salaries continue to go up in a crazy manner, its not a terrible business decision to do it sooner rather than later anyway.  I've been a Bengals fan for decades...almost since day one...and there hasn't been anyone/anything like JB in this franchise.  Yeah, yeah, Kenny, Boomer, Carson, Dalton (I put this in just for Tibor & Go of course)...but none of them have done for this franchise what JB has done.  I used the word "franchise" quite a bit, but that's what JB is.  Just IMHO.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, High School Harry said:

Question from someone who knows zip about the in's and out's of all this stuff...

 

1) Could we trade Mixon?  Would someone take him?

2) If cut someone would pick him up.  Would we get a fairly decent comp pick in the next draft?

 

They could trade him but with his salary I doubt he would have much of a market.  I believe you only get a comp pick if guys who are Free Agents leave, not guys that you cut.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, PatternMaster said:

 

They could trade him but with his salary I doubt he would have much of a market.  I believe you only get a comp pick if guys who are Free Agents leave, not guys that you cut.

If you trade him it is just like cutting him (except for the compensation); the bonus money unallcoated hits the cap like the dead cap money would. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Cricket said:


So, right now, the top four QBs average about $45m a year.  The first franchise tag is average of top five QBs. 
 

How many (and which) of the QBs are currently scheduled to be free agents after this season?  Lamar Jackson…and who else?

 

The average of the top five QBs will likely be well north of $45m.  A second franchise tag will be twenty percent over that, or the average of the top five, whichever is highest. [20% over $45m is $54m)]. 


I think Joe will be willing to sign an “under market,” but the amount cannot be an embarrassing number.

 

The franchise tag number is the average of the 5 highest cap hits at the position. There are several QBs with contractual averages of more than 40 mil per year but they are backloaded. So the QB non-exclusive franchise tag for 2023 is expected to be around 32 mil. 

 

16 hours ago, BlackJesus said:

If the Bengals want more years, which I think they will, then the average yearly total must be higher so it isn't too low later in the deal.

 

That's why I think 55 per year is the starting number for Burrow and could be 60-65. But hopefully they get a 6 year or more deal.

 

By the last year the top averages will be 80 and he will be underpaid. 

 

Typically extensions replace the current contract. So if Burrow is extended for 5 years, it would be for 2023-2027. But the team already has him under contract for 2023, will certainly exercise his 5th year option for 2024 and could tag him for 2025-2027. They ought to wait at least 1 more year before extending him to use their window of surrounding him with talent before they have to start letting other good players go due to the cost of the QB.

 

15 hours ago, esjbh2 said:

 

While the bolded first statement is entirely accurate, I just can't agree with the rest.  Making JB play out his rookie contract, or even much more of it at this point, would be a tremendous slap in the face.  I understand it's a business, but we have something special with JB and both sides should do what's fair and equitable based on reality.  Joe is obviously worth tons more than what he is currently getting paid and the Bengals should reward his impact on this franchise by being proactive in getting out ahead of this.  Plus since salaries continue to go up in a crazy manner, its not a terrible business decision to do it sooner rather than later anyway.  I've been a Bengals fan for decades...almost since day one...and there hasn't been anyone/anything like JB in this franchise.  Yeah, yeah, Kenny, Boomer, Carson, Dalton (I put this in just for Tibor & Go of course)...but none of them have done for this franchise what JB has done.  I used the word "franchise" quite a bit, but that's what JB is.  Just IMHO.

 

I agree on Burrow's value to the franchise. But it's not insulting him to expect him to play on his current contract or a tag. Drew Brees didn't pitch a fit when he was tagged, he just went to work. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, sparky151 said:

 

The franchise tag number is the average of the 5 highest cap hits at the position. There are several QBs with contractual averages of more than 40 mil per year but they are backloaded. So the QB non-exclusive franchise tag for 2023 is expected to be around 32 mil. 

 

 

Typically extensions replace the current contract. So if Burrow is extended for 5 years, it would be for 2023-2027. But the team already has him under contract for 2023, will certainly exercise his 5th year option for 2024 and could tag him for 2025-2027. They ought to wait at least 1 more year before extending him to use their window of surrounding him with talent before they have to start letting other good players go due to the cost of the QB.

 

 

I agree on Burrow's value to the franchise. But it's not insulting him to expect him to play on his current contract or a tag. Drew Brees didn't pitch a fit when he was tagged, he just went to work. 

 

 

I get the perspective of wanting to keep him on his rookie deal for another year to keep getting talent until the guys who have big contracts are offloaded, but keep in mind that every year that passes Joe's cost goes up too, this is especially true if we some how manage to win the SB this year. It hamstrung the Ravens after Flacco won when they could have got him cheaper before that.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Cricket said:

I think Joe will be willing to sign an “under market,” but the amount cannot be an embarrassing number.

I think Burrow and every player should be paid market value for their services. Cincinnati was ranked tops in the NFL in terms of Cap Health, which isn't the same as cap space available in a given year. Cap Health is actually better than cap space...if the front office begins to restructure contracts like the other 31 teams. I would never want them to sink to the bottom in terms of Cap Health. But if they are working the system like their league competitors, then they can sign every core player to an extension and still fall no worse than middle of the pack in terms of Cap Health.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still don't understand all this cap stuff.  It seems like several teams have been in "cap hell" for years and still continue to survive, sign players, generate revenue, and all seemingly unaffected by said "hell".  So...are there really penalties and negative actions involved or is it just a guideline for the honest teams that choose to abide by it?  I'm not asking for details, just a reassurance that there are some negative consequences and a highlight of what those are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, esjbh2 said:

I still don't understand all this cap stuff.  It seems like several teams have been in "cap hell" for years and still continue to survive, sign players, generate revenue, and all seemingly unaffected by said "hell".  So...are there really penalties and negative actions involved or is it just a guideline for the honest teams that choose to abide by it?  I'm not asking for details, just a reassurance that there are some negative consequences and a highlight of what those are.

Look no further then the Rams.....

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mt-bengal said:

Look no further then the Rams.....

And the Saints...they had to cut Trey Hendrikson and many others. Like the Rams they went all in and the cap 'hell' was exasperated by the drop in the cap due to Covid. The Saints went from a very good team to meh. But a team can suck for a year or two , draft well and then reload. In the end, all the teams spend the same amounts over a period of time, or near the same, it is a question of when they pay it, when they allocate it and the value you get for it. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/18/2023 at 3:10 PM, esjbh2 said:

I still don't understand all this cap stuff.  It seems like several teams have been in "cap hell" for years and still continue to survive, sign players, generate revenue, and all seemingly unaffected by said "hell".  So...are there really penalties and negative actions involved or is it just a guideline for the honest teams that choose to abide by it?  I'm not asking for details, just a reassurance that there are some negative consequences and a highlight of what those are.

 

"Cap Hell" is always a prediction. It rarely happens. The Saints are currently projected to have a huge negative amount of cap space for 2023. They'll make some cuts, restructure other players, and be in cap compliance as the league mandates. They won't be big participants in free agency. How good a team they have next year will depend on coaching, health, their rookies, etc. If they fix their QB position, they could be division winners. If they don't, then they'll struggle.

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.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...