Mr. WEO

you've come to the right place...

Scroll up to see the post I was responding to. It wasn't yours. I'm not sure what you are talking about now: the fact that the whole contract was guaranteed or that the guarantee amount is 230 million. If they offered him a 150 million a 50 million a year for 3 years all guaranteed, would that be a big deal? If they offered him a 10 year contact at 500 million (Mahomes money) and 200 million guaranteed, would that be better? What the owners "don't care about" is that the Browns are paying this one season wonder 230 million all up front. It's not going to change how most of them enter negotiations with their franchise QBs.

lol..10 years??!. The NFL total revenue in 2009 was 8 billion. It doubled in 10 years. For most owners, yeah, it's still a nonstarter---it doesn't "force teams" to do anything. How good is your memory? It was only 4 years ago that Kirk Cousins singed the first NFL "fully guaranteed contract". How many fully backed contracts were demanded after him? And Herbert will command at least 50 million a year. They will want to lock him up for 6-7 years, at least. Josh and Rodgers had 2/3 of their money guaranteed. That's 200+ million the Chargers will have to escrow---without a fully guaranteed contract..... Anyway, back to the original point: to suggest that the owners are pissed off and want to punish the Browns over this is really ridiculous. There is so much money coming in they aren't losing sleep over this. What they did was stupid, not trend setting. They also singed and kept Hue Jackson...

you don't say....

Again, at some point, some owner was going to to it--it has to be the natural progression of how contracts are negotiated and how teams will compete with each other. Why would the owners want to "punish" another for being the first? History shows us that NFL owners are very averse to "punishing" each other. This would be maybe reason 100 on a list of 100 reasons owners would seek retribution.

why can't we just talk about Tremaine Edmunds?

lol, why would they count a year where he refused to play? come on Again, there was nothing preventing them from being the first (someone was going to be, no?). Doesn't mean it will open the floodgates for more---if it does, then clearly the owners don't mind. They could all easily agree not to in the future, amongst themselves.

Those expectations haven't been met in 14 years. Herman was the only bright spot for that program for all those years. It's a program that exited the national championship discussion a while ago. Sark had their first losing record in their last 5 seasons.

They were free to. You'd have to ask them. They probably felt it would be a nonstarter in their negotiations and they weren't willing to hold out over that. Exactly. If "the NFL" wanted to punish the Browns for their stupidity, they would have started to do so decades ago. Plus, Haslam's poor decisions themselves perpetually "punish the Browns". I think there is no chance the owners are telling Goddell to screw the Browns over a dumb contract. Makes no sense.

Players have always been free to demand fully guaranteed contracts. Some owners (the ones who don't worry about putting money in escrow) will offer it (to keep a guy like, say, Herbert--who is worth more than Watson in any case), some won't (those who would rather not)--and they will make their traditional offer which the player can take or holdout, be franchised etc. Anyway, whatever the effect this contract may have on future contracts will have no impact on the the NFL's ultimate decision of the length of the suspension of Watson. It will have nothing to do with "punishing" the Browns or Haslam for the contract.

It wouldn't make any sense at all to link any potential punishment for Watson to the contract the Browns offered him as far a way for the other owners to punish Haslam for the offer. That's what the other poster was suggesting. Owners don't care about dumb contracts by other owners---because all of them are getting "guaranteed money".

correct. So how would a long suspension of Watson change the contract offerings of owners re:huge/fully guaranteed money? I don’t get the connection..,

so coming down hard on a serial molester will discourage other owners from offering fully guaranteed deals in the future?

This is the risk of jumping into a thread at the 69th page...

these guys pumping Jackson at this point have lost their....objectivity.

It could only have the opposite result....

Deceased players "6 feet" under the rest? Nice! Wustoff, Ford and Isotoner could finance the OJ one. And who is "we"? Any naming revenue/etc goes to the Bills.

ever the temperamental artist.

"Silly"? These threads, absent details, invite speculation to fill that void. That should be obvious to you, and beyond debate. We are all encouraged she is out of the hospital and recovering. The discussion of why she was ill is natural, not silly, exercise. If my guess (based on "ICU", and "rehab" and a team of doctors) at a diagnosis is "erroneous", then correct it with fact. That would end all speculation here.

Herman had no losing seasons.

He's not. Someone upstream speculated that it was possible he could.

Dang!--and I KNEW that! Sorry, bro.

"Must" in the vernacular. But yes could be. There's no harm in speculating: such threads naturally encourage it, given no details even in a second thread on the same topic. It's not as though anyone here is infringing on privacy. It's a legitimate topic of discussion.

that she had died?

right about what?