Fantasy Football News and Rumors

[SmokingMonkey]

Hm...

Callahan
McCarthy
McVay
McDaniel
McDermott
O'Connell
Shanahan

Celtic mafia

The list is long, but distinguished

 

[averagejoe]

he wouldn't be my first choice if I was the Bears

Who would be?

 

[TREFF]

The list is long, but distinguished

So's myJohnson

-Slider

 

[SmokingMonkey]

Who would be?

Dan Quinn

A move similar to Bienemy going to be OC in WAS

 

[HaroldSeattle]

 

[eaglesnut]

View attachment 352204

Top 5 talent
Top 5 rb
Old top 5 rb
1b runner
Overused midget - spent
Underused top 5 talent
Piece of shit. Actually pieceS of shit at this point.
1b
Meh
Meh
Eww
Spent
Elite Backup
Big nothing
Spent

 

[TREFF]

View attachment 352204

Luckily for them, there are plenty of teams in need, (including their current teams in most cases) and little to nothing who are all that exciting coming in via the draft.

I'd expect Barkley, Jacobs, and maybe Singletary to receive decent offers to stay. But, with that many openings out there, most will probably be with new teams. Hopefully a couple bidding wars driving the $, and therefore the commitment to the RB's, up where it belongs

 

[Bandit]

View attachment 352204

Does anybody know if Barkley and Jacobs had it worked into their deals that they wouldn't be tagged this year? I know that they both ended up signing one year deals instead of the franchise tender, but I thought I remembered seeing something about not being able to be tagged again this year but maybe I'm crazy.

 

[TKOSpikes]

sorry buddy i know it hurts

lots of us around here were cheering for the Bills

Texan loss was fine they went way further than expected and now see some of what they will need

as for you and my Sis sorry man we know the pain is real

Nobody circles the wagons like the Buffalo Bills.

 

[femurov]

Does anybody know if Barkley and Jacobs had it worked into their deals that they wouldn't be tagged this year? I know that they both ended up signing one year deals instead of the franchise tender, but I thought I remembered seeing something about not being able to be tagged again this year but maybe I'm crazy.

Barkley can get tagged. Not sure about Jacobs.

 

[TREFF]

Does anybody know if Barkley and Jacobs had it worked into their deals that they wouldn't be tagged this year? I know that they both ended up signing one year deals instead of the franchise tender, but I thought I remembered seeing something about not being able to be tagged again this year but maybe I'm crazy.

Josh Jacobs makes franchise-tag history — and sets himself up for nearly $26 million over two years

Yes. there's value in withholding services.

www.nbcsports.com

The Raiders still have the ability to tag Jacobs again in 2024. But the one-year price tag will be at least $14.16 million, a 20-percent raise of his salary in 2023. Barkley is on track for a salary of $12.12 million next year, if tagged again.


Considering neither technically signed the franchise tender, both were 1 year, non-franchise contracts, I don't know that he typical rules of back to back franchise tags and the corresponding salary increases due to being franchised multiple times, back to back, would apply-such as it did with Kirk Cousins in Washington. This article makes it sound like it would for Jacobs, but not for Barkley?

 

[femurov]

Josh Jacobs makes franchise-tag history — and sets himself up for nearly $26 million over two years

Yes. there's value in withholding services.

www.nbcsports.com

The Raiders still have the ability to tag Jacobs again in 2024. But the one-year price tag will be at least $14.16 million, a 20-percent raise of his salary in 2023. Barkley is on track for a salary of $12.12 million next year, if tagged again.


Considering neither technically signed the franchise tender, both were 1 year, non-franchise contracts, I don't know that he typical rules of back to back franchise tags and the corresponding salary increases due to being franchised multiple times, back to back, would apply-such as it did with Kirk Cousins in Washington. This article makes it sound like it would for Jacobs, but not for Barkley?

Looks like it is the same. When you franchise a player, the cost is the average of the top 5 salaries at that position. But if the player's salary x 20% is more than the tag, they use that number. Jacobs just signed a bigger contract last year.

 

[redskinsfan1963]

panthers have signed bucs dc as head coach.

 

[Bandit]

Looks like it is the same. When you franchise a player, the cost is the average of the top 5 salaries at that position. But if the player's salary x 20% is more than the tag, they use that number. Jacobs just signed a bigger contract last year.

Neither Barkley or Jacobs signed their franchise tenders last year. They both signed one year deals with the franchise amount guaranteed and then some extra incentives on top of that. So I don't think it's clear if that counts as being franchised with the extra 20% rule applying. I thought they both had it written into their contracts that they couldn't be franchised again this year, but I can't find that anywhere. I'm sure there will be a lot more talk about it once the new league year comes in March.

 

[TREFF]

Neither Barkley or Jacobs signed their franchise tenders last year. They both signed one year deals with the franchise amount guaranteed and then some extra incentives on top of that. So I don't think it's clear if that counts as being franchised with the extra 20% rule applying. I thought they both had it written into their contracts that they couldn't be franchised again this year, but I can't find that anywhere. I'm sure there will be a lot more talk about it once the new league year comes in March.

I guess the overall point would be yes, they can be franchised, neither secured a deal that says they couldn't be. What's up for debate is what that franchise $ value would be, an aggregate of the top 5, or %20 higher than the previous year, whichever is greater..if I understand the rules correctly

 

[Bandit]

I guess the overall point would be yes, they can be franchised, neither secured a deal that says they couldn't be. What's up for debate is what that franchise $ value would be, an aggregate of the top 5, or %20 higher than the previous year, whichever is greater..if I understand the rules correctly

See that's what I thought. It wouldn't make sense for them to do what they did unless there was some kind of deterrent to being franchised again this year. Maybe if you're hit with the tag it counts whether you sign the tender or not? Hell if I know.

 

[femurov]

See that's what I thought. It wouldn't make sense for them to do what they did unless there was some kind of deterrent to being franchised again this year. Maybe if you're hit with the tag it counts whether you sign the tender or not? Hell if I know.

Yeah, I don't think it matters if you were tagged for the 20%. Actually, I think the % goes up if you are tagged the year before.

 

[Barilko]

Nobody circles the wagons like the Buffalo Bills.

Now there is a quote that is used quite often in my family households

 

[TREFF]

Yeah, I don't think it matters if you were tagged for the 20%. Actually, I think the % goes up if you are tagged the year before.

It does, its a trigger that is supposed to keep players from continuously being tagged. It's why Kirk Cousin made SOO much money his final couple year in Washington.

"An "exclusive" franchise player must be offered a one-year contract for an amount no less than the average of the top five salaries at the player's position as of a date in April of the current year in which the tag will apply, or 120 percent of the player's previous year's salary, whichever is greater.

For any player to be tagged in two straight years, the team must pay 120 percent of the player's previous salary. If tagged in three straight years, the team must pay the player 144 percent of his previous salary, or an average of the top 5 salaries at the highest-paid position (likely QB), whichever is higher."

The distinction between the first year, and the second consecutive year being, that the option of the 'average of the top 5 paid players at his position' is no longer an option, and it's straight %120 of his previous salary (which by definition was already in the middle of that top 5 or greater, being an average of that number the year before, or 120% of his previous year, under the original franchise number terms )

And since neither actually signed his franchise tag, nor did they play under it given that they signed one year deals, it would be my assumption that IF they were to be franchised, it would still be as a first time..which would be likely significantly lower than it was last year now that Zeke and Henry are no longer skewing the average of the top five.

But I could be totally wrong and since they missed the free agency period while under the franchise tag, not being able to negotiate with other teams, perhaps it would count, and the '24 offseason would be franchise tag #2?? F if I know

 

[jarntt]

Fantasy football site employee fired after shock $150,000 cheating scandal

A high-stakes fantasy football platform that hosts massive contests for some of the biggest payouts in the industry had an employee change a lineup to put in a player who had already scored a touch…

nypost.com