Rochesterfan

@SectionC3 Since they closed the other thread. Here is my response: Is a journalist working on these things more knowledgeable than you who have read one section of the CBA. Again - please show me anyone interpreting the CBA your way as opposed to the multiple reports over the last several years showing that once the date passes - the contract is set and cannot be discussed until the end of the NFL year. I understand what you are saying, but you seem to be alone in your understanding and have nothing to stand on other than your interpretation. Here is another her article from when Bell was on the Tag last year: Bell's contractual status Players with unsigned tenders can't be traded until signed. I dealt with this particular aspect of Bell's situation while an agent. One of the players I helped represent was cornerback Jimmy Hitchcock. The Patriots informed us during the 1998 NFL Draft, after they used a first-round pick to select Tebucky Jones, a safety who would be moved to cornerback, that a trade with the Ravens had been worked out for Hitchcock. Since Hitchcock didn't want to be dealt to a team that drafted a cornerback in the first round, we advised him to refuse to sign his restricted free-agent tender. His refusal killed the trade. Hitchcock subsequently signed his tender for a trade to the Vikings, who hadn't used a high draft choice on a cornerback. Essentially, Bell has a de facto no-trade clause or veto power of a trade. By CBA rule, franchise players who don't sign long term by the mid-July deadline are prohibited from signing a multi-year contract until after the 2018 regular season, which ends on Dec. 30. This prohibition on signing a long-term deal also applies to any team acquiring Bell in a trade. Now just show me one recent article or point of view of anyone in the NFL circle saying he can sign a deal with the new team. I get it you read the one section of the CBA on way, but I am telling you the people that may actually know something and have actual sources to talk to in the league office are all pointing out the same message above. This is not the first issue with a player not signing the tag after the July drop dead date and these guys have a lot more information and data to draw on. Sorry to keep ruining your day. ?

The article I read yesterday talked about multiple times not very recently where this has occurred. See below It is something he can request and Clowney has more leverage- since they are trying to trade him rather than keeping him. from CBS Sportsline: What Clowney should be fighting over Clowney should be making a clause that would prohibit the Texans from using a franchise or transition designation on him in 2020 (i.e.; a prohibition clause) more of a priority over increasing his 2019 pay through a grievance. He isn't restricted to just playing for his franchise tender with the Texans now that the long term deal deadline has passed. Clowney is allowed to negotiate his one year salary and other conditions relating to his franchise player status. It is customary for franchise players who don't get long term deals to play for the tender amount. The lone exception is Jason Pierre-Paul. The edge rusher signed an incentive laden one-year deal with the Giants in 2015 worth up to the prorated amount of his franchise tag after severely injuring his right hand during a Fourth of July fireworks accident that kept him from being physically cleared to play football until seven weeks into the season. Obtaining a prohibition clause won't be easy. A few franchise players have been able to negotiate a provision preventing a franchise or transition designation for the following year. It hasn't happened in over a decade though. A franchise player hasn't gotten this type of provision since 2008 when the Titans gave defensive tackle Albert Haynesworth a conditional prohibition clause. It was triggered by Haynesworth making the Pro Bowl, having at least 60 percent defensive playtime, or 53 percent defensive playtime and the Titans winning at least 10 games or ranking in the top five in total defense. Conditional prohibition clauses were also agreed to by teams in 2007. Linebacker Lance Briggs' clause with the Bears required him to have at least 75% playtime on defense. Patriots cornerback Asante Samuel's provision was contingent on him having at least 60% playtime on defense or the Patriots winning at least 12 games. Offensive tackle Jeff Backus and cornerback Nate Clements received the last unconditional prohibition clauses in 2006 with the Lions and Bills respectively. An inability for the Texans to restrict Clowney, who was named to the Pro Bowl for a third consecutive year in 2018, again would ensure him getting his true market value next year. On the open market, Clowney conceivably could command more than the five-year, $105 million contract averaging $21 million per year and containing $65 million in guarantees ($48 million fully guaranteed) the Cowboys gave defensive end DeMarcus Lawrence as a franchise player in April. Clowney proposing to drop the grievance in exchange for the prohibition clause may make sense, especially if his camp and/or the Texans believe he has a pretty good chance of his challenge prevailing. It's never happened before but it would be interesting to know whether any franchise player places enough value on having a prohibition clause that he would take a one year salary that's slightly less than his franchise tender in order to get one.

I think there are also questions about time attacking the QB as a rusher versus playing true LB. There was also discussion about if the rule him an OLB and then trade him to a 4-3 team where he plays DE what impact does that have. I think in the end because of a potential trade - he will get switched to DE and have over a 17 million dollar tag - making the trade slightly harder and future negotiations slightly higher, but mirrors closer to what he has done.

You might be able to, but prior to signing his Tag this year - Clowney will have the option to try and get conditions- like no team can Tag him a second time- attached. Sometimes teams agree - sometimes they don’t- in this case if you are trading him - that might be the only way to get him to sign the original franchise tag.

I also believe that his grievance has not been solved - so he can not and will not sign a Tag until that is solved and that could impact teams as it is an additional 2 million if he is qualified as a DE. That will also impact future contracts for Clowney and there is talk that once the grievance is decided that Clowney will work to negotiate in the Tag that he can not be tagged again. I still think we are days to a week away on getting everything finalized before a Tag is even available to sign. Nope he can sign it up until week 9 or 10 and still get his year of service in.

Agreed - you can really hear the influence Marv had on him and his own spiritual journey. I think he is is one of very few coaches that can weather this storm and keep the team together and moving forward. I don’t think they will be good, but they will fight as a team. I love his demeanor and his attitude on this.

Has his grievance been heard yet? He has requested arbitration to decide if he is a DE or OLB. He was assigned OLB money for the Tag by the NFL and has countered that he is a DE - it is a difference of 2 million a year. Until that is decided - he can’t sign the franchise tag and he can’t be dealt. I think it is a waiting game until he gets all the pieces in a row.

You might be be able to franchise him again - it depends on a couple of things: 1st he is fighting the franchise tag as OLB and looking to be tagged as a DE +2 million dollars for the initial tag - until that grievance is completed - he will not move onto part 2. 2nd - prior to signing the tag - once number 1 is completed - he can request stipulations - especially prior to be traded - if he wants to. They can not talk money as that is set by the tag, but they can ask for clauses like if he makes the ProBowl - he can not be tagged a second time or even flat out not to be tagged a second time if they want him to sign. These stipulations are sometimes agreed to and sometimes not and that can impact a holdout and prevent him signing his tag. There have been multiple cases where teams have agreed not to franchise a player a second time to get him in and under contract. Until all of this plays out - no one is trading for him because his current salary isn’t even set yet - for him to sign a tag.

I have already contradicted with actual reported info - on the other hand you have only given your opinion that differs from everyone else. Show me a case that went you way and I will believe it. Up until now it has not happened and has been reported by multiple outlets that it can’t happen per the CBA. Yeah a sharp lawyer that lost 2 appeals that were found baseless and his client had to go back and do exactly what the league and NFLPA agreed to. Plus it made his client look like a whining idiot and forced the GM to demand he return an lo and behold - AB backs down totally like a baby.

Whatever - you read it how you want - the same thing as CBS is being reported everywhere and you are alone standing out their with your opinion. You understand that places like CBS, ESPN etc - have actual lawyers versed in the CBA and understanding this. You also realize this this was discussed with the same issues every year when a player passes the July deadline and it is always reported that after that date no financial contract can be discussed even after a trade, but you know best. For example - Bell last year.

From CBS Sportsline on trading Clowney: The CBA prohibits any discussion about a new contract or even agreement in principle and impacts both the agent and the team with potential fines/loss of draft picks. See Below: The Bills do have one advantage in Gaines that already negotiated an extension as GM of the Texans that was blocked by O’Brien. So the Bills already know what parameters the Clowney camp is looking for. Trade difficulties Rumors of the Texans trading Clowney began gaining traction last week. A Clowney trade is easier said than done. Several factors complicate a trade. Since players with unsigned tenders can't be traded until under contract, Clowney essentially has veto power on being dealt. The multi-year contract restriction also applies to any team acquiring Clowney in a trade. The inability to sign Clowney long-term in conjunction with a trade should limit the draft choice compensation the Texans can get in return. Under ordinary circumstances, the Texans would likely able to get something between the second round pick the 49ersgave the Chiefs for Ford and the first round pick the Seahawks received from the Chiefs to get Clark. If trade talks become serious, Clowney should make it abundantly clear he won't exercise his de facto no trade clause provided the one year contract he signs has language preventing him from being designated as a franchise or transition player in 2020. Insistence on this clause would be an additional complication. A team must have enough salary cap room to absorb Clowney's current franchise tender of $15,967,200 in order to trade for him. Just over half of the NFL's 32 teams have enough cap space to fit in Clowney's franchise tender. Practically speaking, the number is less because of the change of salary cap accounting on September 5 when all players under contract start counting instead of the top 51 players. $2 million to $4 million of cap room is routinely lost with the change, which teams are already factoring into their cap management. To make matters worse, the CBA also expressly prohibits any discussions about a new contract or any type of agreement in principle now that would go into effect after the regular season ends. The penalties would be an effective deterrent from violating the rules. Clowney and his agents, Bus Cook and Donald Weatherell, would be subject to a fine up to $500,000. Commissioner Roger Goodell could impose a fine for as much as $6.5 million on the team where up to two first round picks could also be forfeited. The team employees involved could be facing a year suspension and would have the same financial exposure as Clowney and his agents.

Correct, but even if he “agrees” to a new potential deal it can’t be signed until after the season and if he decides that he no longer wants to be there - he can not sign what was “agreed” to. Also if he has a great season (or a miserable season”) the team or the player could change what was discussed. No team can sign him and ensure that he is there longer year - they only know what the player is looking for in a potential contract.

While I agree with this totally for the entire roster - the only difference is it does appear Miami is willing to part with their #1 - top players at LT and/or WR and Buffalo probably is not. Buffalo would like to add Clowney and win this year - so we are looking at parting with 3rd or 4th WR or 2nd/3rd tackle. I think our RB position is better set depending on what we are willing to trade, but I honestly think if Miami is really willing to trade almost any piece they could put together a better package than the Bills would be willing to put together. If Miami was trying to win and make this trade - then yes I think the Bills win hands down, but the teams are in totally different places right now. This is part of the reason the trade is not done as Clowney has already once nixed a supposed trade to Miami. We will see.

Wade could not do almost anything Dimarco does. Dimarco is a special teams leader and a big, willing blocker on short yardage/goal line. Wade is an athletic open field runner - that does not play special teams because he is still learning the basics like taking a handoff.

The entire bolded section is wrong - sorry. He can’t sign a contract other than his franchise tag. He can verbally agree to a deal for next year, but can’t sign anything until after the season. So no matter what he is a potential 1 year rental and could be one and done if he decides the team is not a fit after the trade. He also can not be traded until he signs his tender. Technically he is unsigned, but he is held by the Texans - he has already used his leverage once to block a trade to Miami and is probably holding up anything else happening right now. What you say is true - if the trade had been done in the early summer, but by this time the deadline to sign an extension has passed and it is only the franchise tag for this year.

Depends on what year they are drafting a QB. The talk earlier in the off season by the dolphins reporters was to expect this to be a 2 year slide targeting Lawerence in 2021 and acquiring picks to set that up. if you get Lawerence in 2021 - you are talking 2022/2023 before that QB is most likely ready to shine. If they suck and get Hebert or Tua this year - not sure they are in a better place than with Rosen. We will have to see - it just seems they are willing to (and already have) ripped it to the studs and the piece to build it back up is still unknown. It is a risk for them, but I get it - just not sure it fits in a workable time frame to be logical.

But does it makes sense if you then lost your younger, better LT and potentially your best receiver. Seems like that that would be the potential for a multi year rebuild where just as you are getting good 2021-2022 this guy is over 30 and becoming a potential FA.

We have the GM that negotiated with Clowney’s team in Houston and had a deal minus Bill O’Brien - I think we know what he is looking for.

Boy you are right - Mario did nothing as a Bill - almost 40 sacks his first 3 years, multiple ProBowl, all pro, and anchor to two of the top sack defenses of all time and probably one of the best Bills defenses since the mid 60’s. Boy I hope we do not get that kind of production from other players. Sarcasm off Mario was fine and if the get Clowney it will be a major boost to the team. We will have to wait and see.

Its ok - he will change names and try again.

Love the idea - just a few to many to get any real discussion on. Maybe a few less with offense, Defense, and overall - could include officials, calls, mvp stuff Really appreciate the effort - lots of work, but I think it will be helpful.

I think the first 3 years Mario most definitely lived up to the contract. He made those defenses under Jim and Pettine come alive with pressure. He got sacks, pressures, and helped keep containment on QBs allowing Hughes and Dareus to make plays. Yes his last year was a mess, but Rex ruined that entire defense and no one was playing hard at the end.

You mean invisible in the multi-time prowbowl/nfl all pro type player? 43 sacks over 4 years - with basically nothing the last year where no one gave anything for Rex (essentially 13 sacks a year before Rex ruined him). That type of invisible - if I could get that from Clowney - sign me up.

If you look at 0:25 and 0:26 seconds in the video there is the perfect shot of the ref with the flag already out and starting to throw it and the ball is just arriving at the receiver. That is how how you can be sure whatever he saw had occurred well before the the final contact. The 2 announcers were from the Redskins feed - so of course they were like what the heck - I mean Joe T has not been a relevant announcer for over a decade - this is like Tasker questioning calls in a Bills game. The problem is the limited view we have compared to the refs and people assume all the time that the tape is correct, but our view of the tape is very limited and the refs are focused on a specific area/player group. In the end though - I agree the rule change was stupid and we are seeing the exact reason why - ticky-tack hand fight occurs on every play and you have just inserted a rule to point that out and it will be enforced inconsistently and cause more problems than it solves. Good job Coaches - getting what you want when you don’t know the issues it will cause - stupid.

It got pointed out that the OPI was earlier in the route where the receiver pushed off to gain the separation that caused the later contact. I believe they made the correct call - you just can’t see it from the game film - because that part was prior to the downfield view. The ref had already started pulling the flag and throwing it well before the late contact. It was actually the correct call - just hard to see in the context of the game and rule change. There is a beautiful view of the ref with the flag getting ready to throw it just before the contact occurs. It is obvious after the fact that they called the receiver push off and that was seen on review and upheld. That lead to the defensive PI, but that was not called - so it stayed as just OPI and was correct.