Multiple Teams In Multiple Years Is A Part Of The New NFL

817Gill said:

One poster made a thread asking if we thought these new 1-2 year deals would become the norm or more common place as they have the last few years. With the signing of Clinton-Dix, I think the topic needs to be rediscussed.

I see people using “he’s been on 4 teams in as many years” as the reasoning for him not being an upgrade at S.

When we traded for Quin you had a segment of fans use this same excuse that it was his “3rd team in 3 years”, now his 4th in 4. Was he perfect? No. Was he still an impactful above league average starter? Heck yeah. Some people try to claim the comparison isn’t valid because Quin JUST signed a deal. So, if Haha signs a big deal next offseason it is? The comparison was completely valid 2 weeks ago.

We need to get used to the new NFL. Guys are more open to becoming mercenaries and taking short deals to become FA’s a year or two later. Adam Schefter spoke on it recently and said guys want to test the market annually as that always nets them their highest value. Market wise, being a free agent drives up your price as teams bid on you. A long term deal keeps you at a fixed rate of pay or fixed rate of increase, while the market is fluid around you. Business wise, unless you are looking at an elite contract, it’s smarter to play the year to year game. Yes injuries are a risk, but there’s a risk to every business move.

Also like Quin showed, it takes one splash season to get PAID in this league. If Haha finishes the season with 4-5 picks like he did in 2016, you don’t think people will be knocking at his door? Also, the Safety market is very wierd, only the elite guys get paid, the others gotta get in where they fit in.

All the analytics point to an above average S, the sole fact that he’s worn 3 jerseys means nothing lol. Suh’s been a mercenary his whole career, doesn’t mean he wasn’t impactful on all his teams. Clinton Dix will be an above average S, a huge upgrade from what we’ve had.

Click to expand...

817Gill said:

Ok a lot to address here I'll go 1 by 1.

The 2018 Green Bay Packers was the low point of the Mike McCarthy years. They went 6-9-1 and the whole coaching staff was let go. On a franchise like Green Bay with floating ownership and upper management, this is about as close as you can get to a regime change. When they traded him is irrelevant, maybe I didn't clarify but the reason he was traded wasn't only schematic. They were just part of the changes that occur when a new regime takes over. They don't sign the last regime's guys to long-term extensions, they trade them and acquire assets to draft their own. If you're one of those guys who feels like every player on a losing team sucks then maybe you see this as a personal blemish on his record, I see it as a part of business in the league. Is Khalil Mack bad because Gruden traded him as part of the regime change? That's an elite player too, not to mention just good players like HHCD. As for the Skins part, I'm not gonna hold it against a guy for not balling out in D.C. How many guys have been studs there recently? It's a dysfunctional mess year in and year out, his 8 game performance in the nation's capital isn't going to outweigh multiple years of film.

1-year prove-it deals benefit the player as much as the team, I think you're looking at it solely from the view of "teams were wary of him and only wanted a prove-it deal". The purpose of the thread was to illuminate that good players in the league also choose to take short-term deals to maximize value and increase chances of a "breakout" year that a non-elite player like Quinn just parlayed into 70M. HHCD probably saw his value take a dip after the end of the 2018 season, and saw a dominant Bears defense who just lost their stud FS to GB. A perfect opportunity to play on a competitive team with a good defense. Though the team went 8-8, HHCD performed well and even outplayed the man the Bears had drafted and signed to a long-term deal the year before in Eddie Jackson. But again, absolutely no-one pays two Safeties (unless you have 2 HOF's) top-dollar as that would be gross negligence cap-wise. Since he was good not elite, he's back in the same position as last year. Take a 1-year chance on a favorable situation to get back on the market and see if you can have that 'elite' season that nets you a big deal. Dallas is a great situation for Clinton-Dix to take a chance. His former coach is here, there is a lot of coverage on the team, and there is potential for winning. We'll see if he can do it.

Lmao sorry for not elaborating, 19th ranked S out of 114 qualifiers lol pretty good if you ask me. Not 19 of 32. Even if it was 32 teams there are two safeties on each team so it would be 19th out of 64th. It's not strictly FS or SS.

Click to expand...

817Gill said:

I don’t like posting this account because it’s new this offseason. They’ve picked up a lot of steam and broke some stories so I feel ok with them so far, they’ve been pretty spot on about most of their updates, here’s what they’ve been saying about us

Click to expand...

gjkoeppen said:

You reply is so full of holes it's funny and I'll use your own logic to prove it.

To start with the packers don't have a "floating" ownership. They have the public that own stock BUT the packers have a president that acts as the owners of other teams do. Yes the board of directors can fire the president but that's like a once every 10-15 year occasion. Then to bring up the previous coaches record (McCarthy) to have ANY baring on what the new coaching staff's schemes is actually funny.

Next the traded Clinton-Dix is irrelevant because new coaches don't sign players from former coaches long term is also funny. If the players are good they do but as it refers to Clinton-Dix they didn't even try to do a long term contract and instead exercised his 5th year option. Again teams don't usually do that unless they think he's worth it. But after 7 games they decide that he really wasn't as good as what they hoped for and traded him away. Now this is half way through the 2018 season and you say because he didn't play very good for the skins that they and every other team had the film of him when he was good. The problem with that is they had to go back to the 2016 season to see that. Two seasons where he didn't play up to those highlights. Again for that half a year for the skins may have been abnger for getting traded to a losing team and he just tanked it proving he may have some character flaws.

Now to use your logic against you. If Clinton-Dix was just using 1 year prove it contracts to maximize his earning potential why would he settle for those smaller 1 year prove it contracts when if teams, if they thought he was so good, wouldn't offer longer term contracts that pay more than a couple of 1 year prove it contracts come out to be? Why didn't teams offer longer bigger contracts, because he hadn't shown anything to deserve that since 2016. So he got offered those 1 year prove it contracts to prove he could return to that 2016 form which he didn't.

Now another thing to use your logic against you. You come up with the big "114 qualifiers". Whoopty doo for all the backup safeties. Yes the are 114 safeties in the league and you're saying that he is using the 1 year prove it contracts because of all the BACKUP safeties in the league is even funnier yet. BTW he comes to play for the Cowboys as either their SS or FS. Now there is 32 starting SS and 32 starting FS. So whichever he ends up playing for the Cowboys being ranked 19th is STILL in the bottom half whether it's the starting SS or starting FS. You can't say 64 starting safeties to make where he sits better when he can't play both at the same time.

Ya Clinton-Dix is just trying to maximize what he can make unfortunately for him it's just smaller 1 year prove it contracts because he's done anything since 2016.
.

Click to expand...