I_C_Deadpeople Posted March 15 Report Share Posted March 15 2 hours ago, JC said: If they franchise him again next year I think I’ll rip my hair out. If you are going to guarantee two years in full - why not do it now and get an extra two years of control. I think it’s certainly possible. But it will be frustrating and probably a signal that things are changing as much as we would hope or they’re cash poor. They are not cash poor. The league allows each team to have a line of credit up to 50% of the franchise value; now some owners may be over leveraged in other ways and can't access this but the Brown family would have little to no debt. Having said that - the USE of a line of credit today, to be repaid in the future has not really been part of thier make-up. But we have now given several contracts though with large guarantees (and I believe these amounts have to be put in escrow) which no doubt has moved us into the line of credit mode. Up front money and guarantees are now 'normal' practice for contracts so we have no choice but to adjust. For Tee, he may want say $50M up front/guaranteed which means $50M out the door today compared to say $45M - $50M spread out over the next two years if they double tag him. It is a big difference. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|BlackJesus| Posted March 15 Report Share Posted March 15 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sparky151 Posted March 15 Report Share Posted March 15 The NFL has the "funding rule" which requires guaranteed future payments to be put in escrow. It's an obsolete relic from the days when teams folded with players not getting paid. But it hasn't been needed since the depression. Florio checked on it last year to see how much the Browns had put in escrow for Watson. It turned out the answer was zero. It's a league rule, not in the CBA but the owners like having it around so some of them can plead cash flow problems. But it's no longer necessary and doesn't seem to be enforced anyway. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I_C_Deadpeople Posted March 15 Report Share Posted March 15 1 hour ago, sparky151 said: The NFL has the "funding rule" which requires guaranteed future payments to be put in escrow. It's an obsolete relic from the days when teams folded with players not getting paid. But it hasn't been needed since the depression. Florio checked on it last year to see how much the Browns had put in escrow for Watson. It turned out the answer was zero. It's a league rule, not in the CBA but the owners like having it around so some of them can plead cash flow problems. But it's no longer necessary and doesn't seem to be enforced anyway. Zero for the idiot Watson? wow, did not know that. I suppose one could argue each contract is essentially secured by the NFL so no need for escrow. Appreciate your insight on this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sparky151 Posted March 15 Report Share Posted March 15 57 minutes ago, I_C_Deadpeople said: Zero for the idiot Watson? wow, did not know that. I suppose one could argue each contract is essentially secured by the NFL so no need for escrow. Appreciate your insight on this. It's easy enough to circumvent anyway. If Watson is "guaranteed" a salary of 46 mil for 2026, then it could be phrased as the team exercising an option on the first day of that league year to keep him at a salary of 46 mil. If they decline the option, they owe him a 46 mil buyout. So either way he gets the money but until the contingency actually arises on the first day of the league year, they haven't made a decision and therefore don't need to fund anything in advance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|BlackJesus| Posted March 17 Report Share Posted March 17 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T-Dub Posted March 17 Report Share Posted March 17 1 hour ago, BlackJesus said: Oh is Bowers this year's "THE NFL ISN'T READY!!" pre-draft Hall of Fame candidate that's going to score 11 TDs a game & change the sport forever? Narrator voice: "The NFL, as it turns out, was in fact ready." 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Le Tigre Posted March 17 Report Share Posted March 17 Isn’t there always a “generational talent” or two every draft? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sparky151 Posted March 17 Report Share Posted March 17 Yeah, Caleb Williams is getting labeled as a "generational" talent because he's considered better than the draft prospects of 2021-2023 (except maybe for Lawrence). But his college career at USC doesn't really match Daniels at LSU or Fields coming out of OSU. He certainly didn't reach the heights of Burrow at LSU. So I guess a generation these days is 3 or 4 years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T-Dub Posted March 17 Report Share Posted March 17 1 hour ago, Le Tigre said: Isn’t there always a “generational talent” or two every draft? Sure, and I suppose some really are that. It's when they start talking about how no one in the NFL will be able to cover/block/tackle them etc that you have to worry. John Ross was going to run by everyone, until he got hit & reminded everyone it's a full-contact sport and not a track meet. Like I find myself saying every year around draft time, just about every player in the NFL was Billy Badass in college. Most of them are JAG at the next level. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|BlackJesus| Posted March 17 Report Share Posted March 17 Another Rd 1 possibility ... JPJ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|BlackJesus| Posted March 17 Report Share Posted March 17 13 hours ago, T-Dub said: Bowers Follow the betting money 💰 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AmishBengalFan Posted March 17 Report Share Posted March 17 In case anyone cares, here's the # of picks on Days 1 & 2 for each team - including compensatory selections and trades -as of all of the announced trades by midnight Saturday 3/16 (Ties broken in favor of more earlier round picks - AFC-N teams in bold) 6 (1-1-2-3-3-3) ARI 6 (1-2-2-3-3-3) WAS 5 (1-2-2-3-3) GBP 4 (1-2-3-3) ATL CIN LAR PIT TBB 3 (1-1-3) CHI 3 (1-2-2) PHI 3 (1-2-3) BAL DAL DET IND JAX KCC LAC LVR NEP NYG SFF 3 (2-2-3) CAR HOU 2 (1-1) MIN 2 (1-2) BUF DEN MIA NOS TEN 2 (1-3) NYJ SEA 2 (2-3) CFT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|BlackJesus| Posted March 17 Report Share Posted March 17 8 minutes ago, AmishBengalFan said: (1-2-3-3) CIN I wonder if both 3's and maybe a 6 would be enough to get another mid 2nd? 🤔 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|BlackJesus| Posted March 17 Report Share Posted March 17 * I'm also ok with the Bengals using their comp 3rd rd pick on a starting P, Tory Taylor. We have to fix that issue. 💯 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sparky151 Posted March 17 Report Share Posted March 17 1 hour ago, BlackJesus said: * I'm also ok with the Bengals using their comp 3rd rd pick on a starting P, Tory Taylor. We have to fix that issue. 💯 Taylor doesn't seem to be rated very highly by the draft industrial complex. He doesn't get drafted in most 7 round mocks I've seen and is ranked in the 300s overall. He had high volume stats with good efficiency in college due to Iowa's terrible offense. But draft analysts aren't wowed by him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|BlackJesus| Posted March 17 Report Share Posted March 17 Why all those teams in the top 10 should reconsider a QB ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HavePityPlease Posted March 17 Report Share Posted March 17 Sorry if this was posted already but did anyone see this mock? https://www.profootballnetwork.com/ian-cummings-7-round-2024-nfl-mock-draft-march-16/ Not really worth anyone's time, he has us take THREE offensive lineman and TWO WR's (including a first rounder) but of note: Quote Trade: Bengals receive No. 6 pick; Giants receive No. 18 pick, WR Tee Higgins, 2025 second-round pick. Tee Higgins recently requested a trade as a result of his contract situation. He should have plenty of suitors, but the Giants made it clear with the Brian Burns trade that they’re still looking to compete in the immediate. Higgins is not a stable long-term asset at this moment, which is why the trade is more balanced in favor of New York. But the Bengals were still able to leverage Higgins into a trade-up to potentially target another upgrade on the offensive side of the ball. I get a lot of these "experts" have no love or interest in the Bengals, but I always cringe at these high-profile trades they propose that make no sense at all for one of (or both) the teams. Why would the Bengals trade away Tee and a LOT of capital just to move to six and take his replacement (Odunze in this case)? Why would the Giants not just stay put and take Odunze if Higgins is "not a stable long-term asset"? Clearly in this scenario it's way better for the Bengals to either keep Tee or take whatever trade doesn't have them giving up extra picks. Would the Bengals love it if they pick some WR who turns out to be a worthy (or even better?) replacement for Higgins as well as a cheaper long-term asset? Sure. Trading away picks to make that river-boat gamble is pretty dumb IMO but it's also simply not the way the Bengals do business. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|BlackJesus| Posted March 17 Report Share Posted March 17 50 minutes ago, sparky151 said: Taylor doesn't seem to be rated very highly by the draft industrial complex. He seems to be the only one getting any publicity though. During the season I liked the Alabama Punter James Burnip, a 6'5 Aussie, but I have not heard anything about him throughout the draft process. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
claptonrocks Posted March 17 Report Share Posted March 17 8 hours ago, Le Tigre said: Isn’t there always a “generational talent” or two every draft? Sounds about right. I would say Amarius Mims is a generational talent but inexperienced. Whether that talent shows out in the NFL is another matter. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T-Dub Posted March 17 Report Share Posted March 17 5 hours ago, BlackJesus said: Another Rd 1 possibility ... JPJ Like we'd made a sidegrade at best at RT based on his stats, if not downgraded, and why are we benching Volson for a rookie before they even get to camp? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I_C_Deadpeople Posted March 18 Report Share Posted March 18 I would not be surprised if we pick Troy Fautanu at 18. He can play all 5 spots on the OL and could probably start at RT. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted March 18 Report Share Posted March 18 Mock Draft Monday. I'd be fine with it falling like this. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|BlackJesus| Posted March 18 Report Share Posted March 18 1 hour ago, Jamie_B said: Mock Draft Monday. I'd be fine with it falling like this. If we got Murphy and Paul in the first 2 rounds, then running a blacklight over my living room would resemble a murder scene. 💥 💦 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted March 18 Report Share Posted March 18 Just now, BlackJesus said: If we got Murphy and Paul in the first 2 rounds, then running a blacklight over my living room would resemble a murder scene. 💥 💦 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.