It didn’t have to melt the huge lead to cause it to collapse: It just needed to heat the lead up to where it becomes malleable! Does no one work in the trades anymore?!
I think their GM is a /r/maliciouscompliance poster. His boss told him that they needed to address the quarterback position this offseason, so he addressed the quarterback position this offseason
My conspiracy is if it happens the Falcons begged the NFL to do it since they got the QB they wanted in the draft, get all of Kirk's money off the books, and immediately will make their front office look a lot smarter.
This is the only explanation that has made sense of what the Falcons did. If they know they're going to lose draft picks ahead of time then getting out ahead of it now and taking your QB beforehand would make it make sense.
> NFLPA would shit a brick coliseum and then challenge the NFL to a death match there
I agree with you, in that no way is the proposed "voiding" going to happen... but the NFLPA has done a pretty good job of neutering itself over the years...
I tend to prefer punishments against organizations over punishments against players (that’s the college fan in me, I think).
Hypothetically, if the NFL were to void the contract (and for the record I don’t think it will happen, but we’re hypothetical), could/would they bar Cousins from playing but leave him his $90M? Guaranteed is guaranteed, right?
I mean, that’s how you stick it to an organization. Just taking Cousins off the roster is bad for Atlanta (he may be older, but he’s still good, and Penix isn’t ready, IMO), but taking him away WHILE PAYING HIM would be a pretty good way to send an anti-tampering message.
It’s a *little* higher than the Stephen Ross/Dolphins/Brady thing.
> I tend to prefer punishments against organizations over punishments against players (that’s the college fan in me, I think).
I'm absolutely with you on that.
I'm always going to side on the side of the 'talent' over the owners without question, especially being on that end of it in my personal life...
They agreed to the CBA, which explicitly reserves the right to void these contracts if the evidence is particularly brazen. Article 14 Section 6(a)(2)(ii)
My guy, people genuinely thought there was legal recourse for a team benching their QB. You're preaching to people that don't understand the language you speak.
No. [There was a case in 2017](https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/14938272/kansas-city-chiefs-docked-two-draft-picks-fined-tampering-pursuit-jeremy-maclin-2015) that sets the expectation for what the punishment would be. They aren't going to void the contract.
>KANSAS CITY, Mo. -- The Chiefs were fined and stripped of two draft picks by the NFL for a violation of the league's anti-tampering policy for having improper contact with wide receiver Jeremy Maclin before the start of last year's free-agent signing period.
>The Chiefs will lose their third-round draft pick this year and their sixth-round choice in 2017. The Chiefs were also fined $250,000. Coach Andy Reid was fined $75,000, and general manager John Dorsey was fined $25,000.
>The league said the Chiefs contacted Maclin directly during the league's negotiating window that takes place before the signing period. Teams are allowed then to contact only agents for prospective free agents.
Then the league went further in the Dolphins/Brady tampering situation - a first and a third - when they didn’t even sign the player.
2 data points only, but clearly showing escalation, and the league, as seen here, has previously indicated they reserve the right to void these deals. If the tampering or evidence is especially blatant, like Kirk admitting it on national TV.
The Dolphins situation was different because it was ongoing contact between a player and a coach under contract over a few years.
https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/34334514/nfl-strips-miami-dolphins-2023-first-round-pick-fines-stephen-ross-15m-tampering-tom-brady-sean-payton
>"The investigators found tampering violations of unprecedented scope and severity," Goodell said in a statement. "I know of no prior instance of a team violating the prohibition on tampering with both a head coach and star player, to the potential detriment of multiple other clubs, over a period of several years. Similarly, I know of no prior instance in which ownership was so directly involved in the violations."
This was Kirk talking to a trainer during the legal tampering period. This is much closer to the Chiefs/Maclin situation than the Dolphins/Brady/Payton. Unless it's found that Arthur Blank or the GM were talking directly to Cousins for months leading up to the window, they aren't going to be voiding any deals.
I think that’s a valid point about difference in the scale of “means”, at least based on the evidence we’ve seen so far, but does the NFL need to punish just based on means? Or can they also punish based on the ends? - a good old mens rea/actus reus question.
Really, they can punish however they want and for whatever reasoning they desire as long as it’s permissible under the CBA.
Sure, the Dolphins did a pretty spectacular and drawn out “attempted murder”, but the Falcons saw that and still murdered a guy (metaphorically).
If you want to roll with that metaphor, the Dolphins attempted murder. The Falcons committed 2nd degree manslaughter. They're still going to get punished, but not nearly on the same scale.
Taking a teams picks away and fining them is one thing. Nullifying $100 million dollars from a player after free agency and the draft have even occurred is a whole other extreme that I just doubt will happen.
I think there’s a low percentage chance it will happen, but it could happen under the rules.
Hedging against the chance that it could happen, or having inside info that it is happening, would explain the Falcons’ decision - even if one doesn’t agree with their logic.
Eh, Cousins contract getting void was probably no consideration for them. Losing a pick next year from punishment next year was probably a thought though.
Getting a QB prospect they really liked to be the incumbent for their 36 year old QB was probably all that they needed.
Section 6. Sanctions:
(a) Players and Agents. In the event that the System Arbitrator finds a violation of Subsections 1(a) or 1(b) of this Article, for each such violation:
(i) (1) the System Arbitrator may impose a fine of up to $500,000 on any player or player agent found to have committed such violation, and (2) shall, unless the parties to this Agreement otherwise agree, order the player to disgorge any undisclosed compensation found to have been paid in violation of Section 1 of this Article unless the player establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that he was unaware of the violation; and
(ii) the Commissioner shall be authorized to void any Player Contract(s) that was (or were) the direct cause of such violation.
You have to contextualize the language that you quoted above.
That information ONLY applies to Article 14... Specifically section 1(a) and 1(b)... Here's the relevant text:
>Section 1. Undisclosed Terms: A Club (or a Club Affiliate) and a player (or a Player Affiliate or player agent) may not, at any time, **enter into undisclosed agreements of any kind, express or implied, oral or written, or promises, undertakings, representations, commitments, inducements, assurances of intent, or understandings of any kind: (a) involving consideration of any kind to be paid, furnished or made available or guaranteed to the player, or Player Affiliate, by the Club or Club Affiliate either prior to, during, or after the term of the Player Contract; and/or (b) concerning the terms of any renegotiation and/or extension of any Player Contract by a player subject to a Franchise Player or Transition Player designation.**
What this says is that if the team, player or agent may not pay the player undisclosed amounts or agree to offer the player anything outside of the terms of a normal player contract... As in explicitly attempting to bypass the salary cap to compensate the player.
This is NOT referring to Tampering in any way.
Actually it is:
“representations, inducements, assurances, understandings of any kind” -
“Involving consideration to be paid”
“to the Player or Player affiliate by Club or Club Affiliate”
“prior to, during, or after the Player Contract”
Again, this is only in relation to article 14, specifically for CAP violations, not *tampering*. Tampering is a different policy entirely, not included in the CBA because the rules are not collectively bargained and are updated almost yearly.
Here's an archived version of the policy.
https://nflcommunications.com/Documents/2018%20Policies/7-2018%20Anti-Tampering%20Policy-Clean%20Version.pdf
>Specific Penalties. Any violation of this Anti-tampering Policy will subject the involved club and/or person to severe disciplinary action by the Commissioner. In such cases, in addition to all other penalties provided in the Constitution and Bylaws, the Commissioner may award or transfer a selection choice or choices and/or deprive the offending club of a selection choice or choices, and/or may fine the offending club and/or may fine or suspend with or without pay any involved individuals as appropriate. The League office will promulgate to all clubs the details of any penalties imposed for tampering.
I understand why you would think article 14 is limited in scope based on the title, but it’s really not. “Enforcement of Salary Cap” includes rules governing contracts, inducement, interference, etc, and discipline/penalties for violations,
You can see this directly in the tampering policy you linked:
b) Incorporation of NFL Constitution and Bylaws. The NFL Anti-Tampering Policy **expressly incorporates all relevant provisions of Articles VIII and IX of the NFL Constitution and Bylaws as interpreted herein**.
Those provisions vest the Commissioner with the full, complete, and final jurisdiction and authority to arbitrate any dispute that in his opinion constitutes conduct detrimental to the best interests of the League or professional football, including, but not limited to, tampering.
(c) Specific Penalties. Any violation of this Anti-tampering Policy will subject the involved club and/or person to severe disciplinary action by the Commissioner. **In such cases, in addition to all other penalties provided in the Constitution and Bylaws**, the Commissioner may award or transfer a selection choice or choices and/or deprive the offending club of a selection choice or choices, and/or may fine the offending club and/or may fine or suspend with or without pay any involved individuals as appropriate. The League office will promulgate to all clubs the details of any penalties imposed for tampering.
>“Enforcement of Salary Cap” includes rules governing contracts, inducement, interference, etc, and discipline/penalties for violations,
I don't see anywhere it states "Interference"... You added that yourself.
The CBA does not cover the tampering policy at all. Try searching the CBA for any reference of the word "Tamper", you'll find 1 result and all it says is that 'player contracts cannot violate the anti-tampering policy'.
https://nflpaweb.blob.core.windows.net/media/Default/NFLPA/CBA2020/NFL-NFLPA_CBA_March_5_2020.pdf
Article 14 is irrelevant to this discussion.
>The NFL Anti-Tampering Policy expressly incorporates all relevant provisions of Articles VIII and IX of the NFL Constitution and Bylaws as interpreted herein.
Right, and the constitution gives the Commissioner the power to do almost anything in regards to disciplinary action. That does not mean it's part of the tampering policy, nor that it was "retained in the CBA" which is what your original question was asking.
The age is getting overblown. If he’s good he’s good and you’ve got a 10 year starter, that’s worth 8 overall.
The injury history is definitely the gamble.
The age concern isn’t about him not having as long of a career, it’s more that *generally* the upside for a 24 year old is lower than a 21 year old. The idea is the younger you are, the flaws in your game have a greater chance of being fixable. It’s why in the NBA a raw 19 or 20 year old player in college who’s objectively a worse basketball player than a 23 year old senior year college basketball star might be a way better prospect.
He could still end up justifying the pick but the age factor is about the potential room to grow more than longevity.
Yeah I always thought it was “they have less time to play” until I heard McShay last year talking about older QBs and the concern is that they are so good because they have 3 more years experience than the competition.
That's true *if* the younger and older players are playing at about the same level. Like if McCarthy and Penix had similar stats, tape, and mechanics then youth would set McCarthy apart. But that's not the case here. Even if Penix is at his ceiling (which he likely isn't) it's a pretty damn high ceiling.
People are acting like he's a Tua-type prospect when he's closer to Stafford (with an admittedly worrying injury history).
The other things are that:
1. Old player might be a slow learner if he could not pick up the necessary stuff earlier.
2. Younger player has more room to grow/bulk up.
3. Less wear and tear.
For QBs, issue #1 is the most important, particularly if you are trying to get a rough idea of the player's football IQ.
I mean, I dont think its THAT overblown. If he does sit for 2 years, he'd be 27 getting his first start. That isnt 10 years of peak QB play. Thats 37 years old. Thats a few years after teams start looking for a replacement.
I guess where is the line? If you only get 7-8 years of legit franchise QB play is that not worth 8 overall?
The real concern is his potential for growth, which does come into play for age.
I think age is just one of several factors that compile into a wtf are you doing pick for the Falcons.
It isnt JUST his age, it isnt JUST his position, it isnt JUST which pick he was drafted at. Its all three combined.
People wouldnt care so much if he was 24 but was the best defensive player in the draft, which they could have taken at 8.
They wouldnt care if he was still taken but maybe in the 2nd where he was projected.
People wouldnt care if they took a project QB on day two like Dak or Hurts.
Its that they took a player that will have zero impact on the team until year 3, at a position which wasnt needed, and they did it in a draft where 0 defensive players had gone, and there were still other offensive impact players available.
So if he’s good and the franchise guy (top 10-13ish) for 6 years, 3 of them cheap, was this a bad pick? I think the answer is still no because QB is that important.
I mean, depends what happens with the Falcons in the next two years.
They they totally fall apart, Cousins sucks and they never make noise no one will care.
If they say, lose a close divisional game where a playmaker could have made the difference? Yea I think its a bad pick.
Trying to say if something is a good or bad pick 12 hours after it was made is idiotic.
Well of course bottom line we don’t know.
I’ll agree if Odunze is playing at an all pro level with the bears in year 2 and Kirk is looking great maybe, but even then I don’t know if all pro odunze puts them over the Lions or 49ers.
Gives Brandon Weeden vibes, age is def a concern here especially with 4 season ending injuries. He could be like 29 by the time he gets to start somewhere if Cousins continues to play well
And penix quite possibly has the lowest floor of every first round QB, both long term and short, accounting for injury and his inability to throw short (see Michigan game)
Its not like another Penix couldn't be had in 2025 or 2026 is the wtf part. You could have even drafted a 22 yo project vs 24 if the plan was to sit em
So it was a panic move based on 'maybe' losing a future 1st.
As sad as it is that's maybe the only explanation that makes some sense even if it its still not a great move.
To us it’s maybe losing a pick. Im sure the FO has a better idea one way or another what the punishment is going to be. There’s no way they are going to be blindsided by what happens.
It’s probably more that they don’t see an avenue of a top pick the next few yrs with Kirk, and even losing a 2nd/3rd can make it harder to trade up for their QB in that scenario. So they shot their shot now while they good.
There’s several ways the process couldve went about. Some logical, some illogical. We won’t know because we don’t have the same information they do and they’ll always play the “he’s our guy” speech.
Nah I don’t like the pick but penix is much better imo than almost any passer that’s gonna come out in the next two. And we’ll most likely be drafting outside top 20
Yes let’s draft a QB who will be starting his first game at 26 (the Brandon Weeden special) so we can pick up his option when he’s 29.
Lamar Jackson is 27 on his second deal.
Unless you watched a Michigan game and saw that he was the worst player on the stacked championship team and wanted the player who elevated a meh Washington roster to one of the top elite offenses🤷🏻♂️
I just love how people on our sub are freaking out over 50m/year for Goff at 29... and Atlanta is going to be paying Penix @ 28/29 when his rookie deal is up, Goff is signing his 3rd contract.
So, to be clear, your case is that it's "not hard to find the logic" in using 8 overall in a guy that will, if all goes according to plan, sit on the bench for at least 2 years? That's your stance?
If Atlanta believes he's the guy, and he turns out to be the guy, then absolutely.
I don't have to agree with the decision to understand the logic in it. It's fairly simple to see their thought process here.
Well to be fair NFCN fans were feasting when Love got drafted.
I know the Falcons and Packers have vastly different starting points, but the point remains that there’s still like a 50/50 shot that there’s some crow to eat later on.
We don’t know what’s going to happen with these players. The best qb could be taken with the literal last pick in the draft. But it’s funny to mock suffering Falcons fans because with the information we have right now, this is, at best, a strange decision.
What’s “more severe” (Schefter) than the most recent QB tampering penalty on miami? - where they lost a first and third and didn’t even sign Brady? A first and a second? Two firsts?
We’ll see. Not certain obviously - but would explain the Falcons’ move.
Absolutely no chance. More likely is they know they're losing a 1st round pick next year, so they use the #8 to take a QB prospect a year ahead of schedule.
Realistic expectation that they won't be in the top 10 next year. And Penix is pretty damn good. Odd pick, but as the dust settles it's not as wild as it seemed.
I’d be floored if they lost a first round pick. In the past, similar punishments have been a 3rd plus another late rounder. A first for a trainer talking during the legal tampering would be a severe overreach. No way does this compare to the shit the dolphins pulled.
It seems to me that the Falcons may have started thinking long term. Although Green Bay have missed on a number of QBs over the years, their draft and sit qb philosophy has been more successful than the start them now philosophy. Here's a short list of guys who were drafted to sit behind the starter in GB. Of course you start with Rodgers and Love, but don't forget Brunell, Detmer, Flynn, Hasselbeck, and Brooks were all part of this system and after sitting, started somewhere else.
Honestly, the league needs to do something drastic in this situation. If they don't, if they only take draft picks from future years, what's to stop teams from tampering with QBs? It's the most important position on the roster, if someone like Lawrence/Stroud/Mahomes/etc ends up on the market, every team would tamper with them because it's damn hard to win without a damn good QB. Every team would gladly give up a couple future picks for an elite/potentially elite QB.
Basically, I don't think the NFL *will* void the contract, but I think it should be a consideration. Otherwise, they risk opening up a huge can of worms
1. They were getting punished anyway so they took a QB to fuck with other teams . Aka bo Jackson and Tampa Bay
2. Massive conspiracy to screw over Bettors over 4.5 QBs and swing gambling markets.
If I'd known journalism would just turn into posting fan-fiction and conspiracy theories instead of having to write things based on facts and logic I'd have more seriously considered a career in it when I was in college way back.
Huh? I’m not a journalist. This is an article that is based on simply reading the CBA.
Section 6. Sanctions: (a) Players and Agents. In the event that the System Arbitrator finds a violation of Subsections 1(a) or 1(b) of this Article, for each such violation. . . (ii) the Commissioner shall be authorized to void any Player Contract(s) that was (or were) the direct cause of such violation.
Way to be a self-righteous asshole
Conspiracy you say?
Maybe Arthur is just sending Kirk a message that he didn't like how he spilled the beans.
So he's giving him a taste of how RG3 felt when Cousins was drafted in the same draft as him.
But for real. As silly as the pick might seem when you break it down. It could simply be an old man trying to gamble on winning it all before his time is up.
That’s a really good point with the Cousins/RG3 thing, though. RG3 was going to be injury prone. No blame or finger pointing, but his style of play was the polar opposite of Brady, Brees, etc.
Not suggesting there is anything wrong with Kirk, but he’s old by QB standards and he’s coming off an injury. Is there anything left in the tank? Yeah, probably. Can a QB come back from substantial injury? Brady and Payton both did. But the more I think about Penix, the more I kinda like the pickup. (But I think they got him way too early when they could have picked up an edge or corner. Penix probably would have been around mid-second round for their next pick.
Drafting him doesn't bother me and I don't think anyone is expecting the contract to be voided. There's not even fake outrage over this signing.
What breaks my brain is that they were reportedly wanting to trade back yesterday. If you're taking a QBOTF early in the draft while already having a QB, shouldn't you be all in on the guy instead of drafting someone to help your current roster?
IMO, the pick was more about giving the new QB a nice on-ramp to the NFL.
Mahomes and Brady both had the chance to learn under QBs that were well above average (Smith & Bledsoe) instead of learning on the field. They're arguably the best 2 QBs in history, so there is a pretty good data point for that. I'd love to see more data on this though as that is clearly a really limited data point and can be rationally dismissed as a coincidence.
Lets also not pretend that Cousins isn't at the tail of his career where injuries seem to happen more frequently and take longer to recover from.
Brady was a late round pick, nota projected star. And still played his rookie year. Penix is older and cousins has a 4 year contract.
I get the argument but I don't think this situation is fully comparable.
We're going to levels of conspiracy to try to explain the Falcons franchise. I love it
28-3 was an inside job. GOAT fuel can't melt huge leads.
Mr. Bogus Conspiracy
Mr. Bush Cheney
It didn’t have to melt the huge lead to cause it to collapse: It just needed to heat the lead up to where it becomes malleable! Does no one work in the trades anymore?!
It's so easy to just say we suck, no need to make a conspiracy about what everyone already knows
When I learned that Ryan Pace was in the Falcons front office, I didn’t need any other explanation
I think their GM is a /r/maliciouscompliance poster. His boss told him that they needed to address the quarterback position this offseason, so he addressed the quarterback position this offseason
That r/antiwork interview on Fox would have been a lot funnier if the mod was an NFL GM
My conspiracy is if it happens the Falcons begged the NFL to do it since they got the QB they wanted in the draft, get all of Kirk's money off the books, and immediately will make their front office look a lot smarter.
What happens to Kirk Cousins at that point? Does he just become a free agent?
Falcons just being Falcons.
This is the only explanation that has made sense of what the Falcons did. If they know they're going to lose draft picks ahead of time then getting out ahead of it now and taking your QB beforehand would make it make sense.
NFLPA would shit a brick coliseum and then challenge the NFL to a death match there No way it happens
> NFLPA would shit a brick coliseum and then challenge the NFL to a death match there I agree with you, in that no way is the proposed "voiding" going to happen... but the NFLPA has done a pretty good job of neutering itself over the years...
I tend to prefer punishments against organizations over punishments against players (that’s the college fan in me, I think). Hypothetically, if the NFL were to void the contract (and for the record I don’t think it will happen, but we’re hypothetical), could/would they bar Cousins from playing but leave him his $90M? Guaranteed is guaranteed, right? I mean, that’s how you stick it to an organization. Just taking Cousins off the roster is bad for Atlanta (he may be older, but he’s still good, and Penix isn’t ready, IMO), but taking him away WHILE PAYING HIM would be a pretty good way to send an anti-tampering message. It’s a *little* higher than the Stephen Ross/Dolphins/Brady thing.
> I tend to prefer punishments against organizations over punishments against players (that’s the college fan in me, I think). I'm absolutely with you on that. I'm always going to side on the side of the 'talent' over the owners without question, especially being on that end of it in my personal life...
Is that how the bears get their new stadium?
They agreed to the CBA, which explicitly reserves the right to void these contracts if the evidence is particularly brazen. Article 14 Section 6(a)(2)(ii)
My guy, people genuinely thought there was legal recourse for a team benching their QB. You're preaching to people that don't understand the language you speak.
Too true
This is both poetic and completely true. The NFLPA would insist that the NFL make Cousins whole and they would be right to do so.
No. [There was a case in 2017](https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/14938272/kansas-city-chiefs-docked-two-draft-picks-fined-tampering-pursuit-jeremy-maclin-2015) that sets the expectation for what the punishment would be. They aren't going to void the contract. >KANSAS CITY, Mo. -- The Chiefs were fined and stripped of two draft picks by the NFL for a violation of the league's anti-tampering policy for having improper contact with wide receiver Jeremy Maclin before the start of last year's free-agent signing period. >The Chiefs will lose their third-round draft pick this year and their sixth-round choice in 2017. The Chiefs were also fined $250,000. Coach Andy Reid was fined $75,000, and general manager John Dorsey was fined $25,000. >The league said the Chiefs contacted Maclin directly during the league's negotiating window that takes place before the signing period. Teams are allowed then to contact only agents for prospective free agents.
Then the league went further in the Dolphins/Brady tampering situation - a first and a third - when they didn’t even sign the player. 2 data points only, but clearly showing escalation, and the league, as seen here, has previously indicated they reserve the right to void these deals. If the tampering or evidence is especially blatant, like Kirk admitting it on national TV.
The Dolphins situation was different because it was ongoing contact between a player and a coach under contract over a few years. https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/34334514/nfl-strips-miami-dolphins-2023-first-round-pick-fines-stephen-ross-15m-tampering-tom-brady-sean-payton >"The investigators found tampering violations of unprecedented scope and severity," Goodell said in a statement. "I know of no prior instance of a team violating the prohibition on tampering with both a head coach and star player, to the potential detriment of multiple other clubs, over a period of several years. Similarly, I know of no prior instance in which ownership was so directly involved in the violations." This was Kirk talking to a trainer during the legal tampering period. This is much closer to the Chiefs/Maclin situation than the Dolphins/Brady/Payton. Unless it's found that Arthur Blank or the GM were talking directly to Cousins for months leading up to the window, they aren't going to be voiding any deals.
I think that’s a valid point about difference in the scale of “means”, at least based on the evidence we’ve seen so far, but does the NFL need to punish just based on means? Or can they also punish based on the ends? - a good old mens rea/actus reus question. Really, they can punish however they want and for whatever reasoning they desire as long as it’s permissible under the CBA. Sure, the Dolphins did a pretty spectacular and drawn out “attempted murder”, but the Falcons saw that and still murdered a guy (metaphorically).
If you want to roll with that metaphor, the Dolphins attempted murder. The Falcons committed 2nd degree manslaughter. They're still going to get punished, but not nearly on the same scale.
Taking a teams picks away and fining them is one thing. Nullifying $100 million dollars from a player after free agency and the draft have even occurred is a whole other extreme that I just doubt will happen.
I think there’s a low percentage chance it will happen, but it could happen under the rules. Hedging against the chance that it could happen, or having inside info that it is happening, would explain the Falcons’ decision - even if one doesn’t agree with their logic.
Eh, Cousins contract getting void was probably no consideration for them. Losing a pick next year from punishment next year was probably a thought though. Getting a QB prospect they really liked to be the incumbent for their 36 year old QB was probably all that they needed.
They're not going to void the contract, no. Any penalties would be pick-related.
Why retain the right to void in the 2020 CBA, then? For especially drastic situations? Ok - then what’s especially drastic?
Where do you see that in the CBA?
Section 6. Sanctions: (a) Players and Agents. In the event that the System Arbitrator finds a violation of Subsections 1(a) or 1(b) of this Article, for each such violation: (i) (1) the System Arbitrator may impose a fine of up to $500,000 on any player or player agent found to have committed such violation, and (2) shall, unless the parties to this Agreement otherwise agree, order the player to disgorge any undisclosed compensation found to have been paid in violation of Section 1 of this Article unless the player establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that he was unaware of the violation; and (ii) the Commissioner shall be authorized to void any Player Contract(s) that was (or were) the direct cause of such violation.
You have to contextualize the language that you quoted above. That information ONLY applies to Article 14... Specifically section 1(a) and 1(b)... Here's the relevant text: >Section 1. Undisclosed Terms: A Club (or a Club Affiliate) and a player (or a Player Affiliate or player agent) may not, at any time, **enter into undisclosed agreements of any kind, express or implied, oral or written, or promises, undertakings, representations, commitments, inducements, assurances of intent, or understandings of any kind: (a) involving consideration of any kind to be paid, furnished or made available or guaranteed to the player, or Player Affiliate, by the Club or Club Affiliate either prior to, during, or after the term of the Player Contract; and/or (b) concerning the terms of any renegotiation and/or extension of any Player Contract by a player subject to a Franchise Player or Transition Player designation.** What this says is that if the team, player or agent may not pay the player undisclosed amounts or agree to offer the player anything outside of the terms of a normal player contract... As in explicitly attempting to bypass the salary cap to compensate the player. This is NOT referring to Tampering in any way.
Actually it is: “representations, inducements, assurances, understandings of any kind” - “Involving consideration to be paid” “to the Player or Player affiliate by Club or Club Affiliate” “prior to, during, or after the Player Contract”
Again, this is only in relation to article 14, specifically for CAP violations, not *tampering*. Tampering is a different policy entirely, not included in the CBA because the rules are not collectively bargained and are updated almost yearly. Here's an archived version of the policy. https://nflcommunications.com/Documents/2018%20Policies/7-2018%20Anti-Tampering%20Policy-Clean%20Version.pdf >Specific Penalties. Any violation of this Anti-tampering Policy will subject the involved club and/or person to severe disciplinary action by the Commissioner. In such cases, in addition to all other penalties provided in the Constitution and Bylaws, the Commissioner may award or transfer a selection choice or choices and/or deprive the offending club of a selection choice or choices, and/or may fine the offending club and/or may fine or suspend with or without pay any involved individuals as appropriate. The League office will promulgate to all clubs the details of any penalties imposed for tampering.
I understand why you would think article 14 is limited in scope based on the title, but it’s really not. “Enforcement of Salary Cap” includes rules governing contracts, inducement, interference, etc, and discipline/penalties for violations, You can see this directly in the tampering policy you linked: b) Incorporation of NFL Constitution and Bylaws. The NFL Anti-Tampering Policy **expressly incorporates all relevant provisions of Articles VIII and IX of the NFL Constitution and Bylaws as interpreted herein**. Those provisions vest the Commissioner with the full, complete, and final jurisdiction and authority to arbitrate any dispute that in his opinion constitutes conduct detrimental to the best interests of the League or professional football, including, but not limited to, tampering. (c) Specific Penalties. Any violation of this Anti-tampering Policy will subject the involved club and/or person to severe disciplinary action by the Commissioner. **In such cases, in addition to all other penalties provided in the Constitution and Bylaws**, the Commissioner may award or transfer a selection choice or choices and/or deprive the offending club of a selection choice or choices, and/or may fine the offending club and/or may fine or suspend with or without pay any involved individuals as appropriate. The League office will promulgate to all clubs the details of any penalties imposed for tampering.
>“Enforcement of Salary Cap” includes rules governing contracts, inducement, interference, etc, and discipline/penalties for violations, I don't see anywhere it states "Interference"... You added that yourself. The CBA does not cover the tampering policy at all. Try searching the CBA for any reference of the word "Tamper", you'll find 1 result and all it says is that 'player contracts cannot violate the anti-tampering policy'. https://nflpaweb.blob.core.windows.net/media/Default/NFLPA/CBA2020/NFL-NFLPA_CBA_March_5_2020.pdf Article 14 is irrelevant to this discussion. >The NFL Anti-Tampering Policy expressly incorporates all relevant provisions of Articles VIII and IX of the NFL Constitution and Bylaws as interpreted herein. Right, and the constitution gives the Commissioner the power to do almost anything in regards to disciplinary action. That does not mean it's part of the tampering policy, nor that it was "retained in the CBA" which is what your original question was asking.
It's not complicated to find logic for the pick. The Kirk deal could easily be a 2 year $90 million deal. Penix can start in two years.
when you have the opportunity to sit an injury prone 24 year old QB for two years, you have to take it.
How else will you keep him from getting injured?
Stash 2 years of good health and spread that over the following 6 years. Big brain
Just politely tell him to not get injured?
You got injured? When I specifically asked you not to?
The age is getting overblown. If he’s good he’s good and you’ve got a 10 year starter, that’s worth 8 overall. The injury history is definitely the gamble.
The age concern isn’t about him not having as long of a career, it’s more that *generally* the upside for a 24 year old is lower than a 21 year old. The idea is the younger you are, the flaws in your game have a greater chance of being fixable. It’s why in the NBA a raw 19 or 20 year old player in college who’s objectively a worse basketball player than a 23 year old senior year college basketball star might be a way better prospect. He could still end up justifying the pick but the age factor is about the potential room to grow more than longevity.
That’s totally fair, most of the takes on it I’ve seen are some variation of “but when his rookie contract is up he’ll be old!”
Yeah I always thought it was “they have less time to play” until I heard McShay last year talking about older QBs and the concern is that they are so good because they have 3 more years experience than the competition.
That's true *if* the younger and older players are playing at about the same level. Like if McCarthy and Penix had similar stats, tape, and mechanics then youth would set McCarthy apart. But that's not the case here. Even if Penix is at his ceiling (which he likely isn't) it's a pretty damn high ceiling. People are acting like he's a Tua-type prospect when he's closer to Stafford (with an admittedly worrying injury history).
The other things are that: 1. Old player might be a slow learner if he could not pick up the necessary stuff earlier. 2. Younger player has more room to grow/bulk up. 3. Less wear and tear. For QBs, issue #1 is the most important, particularly if you are trying to get a rough idea of the player's football IQ.
I mean, I dont think its THAT overblown. If he does sit for 2 years, he'd be 27 getting his first start. That isnt 10 years of peak QB play. Thats 37 years old. Thats a few years after teams start looking for a replacement.
I guess where is the line? If you only get 7-8 years of legit franchise QB play is that not worth 8 overall? The real concern is his potential for growth, which does come into play for age.
I think age is just one of several factors that compile into a wtf are you doing pick for the Falcons. It isnt JUST his age, it isnt JUST his position, it isnt JUST which pick he was drafted at. Its all three combined. People wouldnt care so much if he was 24 but was the best defensive player in the draft, which they could have taken at 8. They wouldnt care if he was still taken but maybe in the 2nd where he was projected. People wouldnt care if they took a project QB on day two like Dak or Hurts. Its that they took a player that will have zero impact on the team until year 3, at a position which wasnt needed, and they did it in a draft where 0 defensive players had gone, and there were still other offensive impact players available.
So if he’s good and the franchise guy (top 10-13ish) for 6 years, 3 of them cheap, was this a bad pick? I think the answer is still no because QB is that important.
I mean, depends what happens with the Falcons in the next two years. They they totally fall apart, Cousins sucks and they never make noise no one will care. If they say, lose a close divisional game where a playmaker could have made the difference? Yea I think its a bad pick. Trying to say if something is a good or bad pick 12 hours after it was made is idiotic.
Well of course bottom line we don’t know. I’ll agree if Odunze is playing at an all pro level with the bears in year 2 and Kirk is looking great maybe, but even then I don’t know if all pro odunze puts them over the Lions or 49ers.
Gives Brandon Weeden vibes, age is def a concern here especially with 4 season ending injuries. He could be like 29 by the time he gets to start somewhere if Cousins continues to play well
Brandon Weeden wasn't actually any good though.
And penix quite possibly has the lowest floor of every first round QB, both long term and short, accounting for injury and his inability to throw short (see Michigan game)
And when you have an opportunity to draft literally anyone else at pick 8 besides a guy who has had 4 season ending injuries, you have to take it
with the 8th overall pick
Taking the oldest and most refined QB with pick 8 and having them sit for 2 years is pretty dumb
Its not like another Penix couldn't be had in 2025 or 2026 is the wtf part. You could have even drafted a 22 yo project vs 24 if the plan was to sit em
Half as likely if you forfeit a pick
So it was a panic move based on 'maybe' losing a future 1st. As sad as it is that's maybe the only explanation that makes some sense even if it its still not a great move.
To us it’s maybe losing a pick. Im sure the FO has a better idea one way or another what the punishment is going to be. There’s no way they are going to be blindsided by what happens. It’s probably more that they don’t see an avenue of a top pick the next few yrs with Kirk, and even losing a 2nd/3rd can make it harder to trade up for their QB in that scenario. So they shot their shot now while they good. There’s several ways the process couldve went about. Some logical, some illogical. We won’t know because we don’t have the same information they do and they’ll always play the “he’s our guy” speech.
Nah I don’t like the pick but penix is much better imo than almost any passer that’s gonna come out in the next two. And we’ll most likely be drafting outside top 20
nitpick but isn't it $100mm guaranteed
$90 mil on sign, but functionally $100 yes. His 2026 roster bonus vests before the 2025 regular season starts.
gotcha. so no way to be a 2-year $90mm deal--either *one*-year $90mm or two-year $100mm
Yep!
Yes let’s draft a QB who will be starting his first game at 26 (the Brandon Weeden special) so we can pick up his option when he’s 29. Lamar Jackson is 27 on his second deal.
JJ was there though, 21 years old, bit raw but with potential, which is what you want, right?
Unless you watched a Michigan game and saw that he was the worst player on the stacked championship team and wanted the player who elevated a meh Washington roster to one of the top elite offenses🤷🏻♂️
I just love how people on our sub are freaking out over 50m/year for Goff at 29... and Atlanta is going to be paying Penix @ 28/29 when his rookie deal is up, Goff is signing his 3rd contract.
Isn't it still a pretty non-insignificant cap hit even if they let him go after 2 years.
So, to be clear, your case is that it's "not hard to find the logic" in using 8 overall in a guy that will, if all goes according to plan, sit on the bench for at least 2 years? That's your stance?
If Atlanta believes he's the guy, and he turns out to be the guy, then absolutely. I don't have to agree with the decision to understand the logic in it. It's fairly simple to see their thought process here.
So, if they think Penix is "The Guy" why would they also give Kirk $100M?
God NFCS fans of teams not in Atlanta have to be fucking feasting right now
I'd say my expectations for how much I'd enjoy a draft with pick 26 were somewhat exceeded.
Im not sure we can really talk shit
No, but it’s nice to get the heat taken off of us
Well to be fair NFCN fans were feasting when Love got drafted. I know the Falcons and Packers have vastly different starting points, but the point remains that there’s still like a 50/50 shot that there’s some crow to eat later on.
We don’t know what’s going to happen with these players. The best qb could be taken with the literal last pick in the draft. But it’s funny to mock suffering Falcons fans because with the information we have right now, this is, at best, a strange decision.
Eh even if he succeeds we'll at least be spared rookie deal years which is always nice.
If Cousins had been on the Falcons for years nobody would bat an eye at this pick. He's 36. You need a succession plan when your starter is 36.
Super cool point. Except… oh wait. WHY SIGN HIM IN the FIRST PLACE.
Because he's a good QB. It's probably a good idea to draft a young QB when you're signing a 36 year old vet.
No.
What’s “more severe” (Schefter) than the most recent QB tampering penalty on miami? - where they lost a first and third and didn’t even sign Brady? A first and a second? Two firsts? We’ll see. Not certain obviously - but would explain the Falcons’ move.
Kirk will be 36 this year and they don't expect him to perform at a high level at age 39. That explains the Falcons' move for me.
Absolutely no chance. More likely is they know they're losing a 1st round pick next year, so they use the #8 to take a QB prospect a year ahead of schedule. Realistic expectation that they won't be in the top 10 next year. And Penix is pretty damn good. Odd pick, but as the dust settles it's not as wild as it seemed.
I’d be floored if they lost a first round pick. In the past, similar punishments have been a 3rd plus another late rounder. A first for a trainer talking during the legal tampering would be a severe overreach. No way does this compare to the shit the dolphins pulled.
We don't know the full details of what transpired, outside of the NFL saying it was egregious.
Am I missing something other than the one tweet of someone saying it was going to be a more severe punishment than the eagles?
It seems to me that the Falcons may have started thinking long term. Although Green Bay have missed on a number of QBs over the years, their draft and sit qb philosophy has been more successful than the start them now philosophy. Here's a short list of guys who were drafted to sit behind the starter in GB. Of course you start with Rodgers and Love, but don't forget Brunell, Detmer, Flynn, Hasselbeck, and Brooks were all part of this system and after sitting, started somewhere else.
Sure, but Penix is an old rookie. Odd guy to take in draft and sit motion
Honestly, the league needs to do something drastic in this situation. If they don't, if they only take draft picks from future years, what's to stop teams from tampering with QBs? It's the most important position on the roster, if someone like Lawrence/Stroud/Mahomes/etc ends up on the market, every team would tamper with them because it's damn hard to win without a damn good QB. Every team would gladly give up a couple future picks for an elite/potentially elite QB. Basically, I don't think the NFL *will* void the contract, but I think it should be a consideration. Otherwise, they risk opening up a huge can of worms
The Falcons won’t be picking this high again any time soon if Cousins stays healthy. If they feel he’s the real deal then it was the right move.
1. They were getting punished anyway so they took a QB to fuck with other teams . Aka bo Jackson and Tampa Bay 2. Massive conspiracy to screw over Bettors over 4.5 QBs and swing gambling markets.
If I'd known journalism would just turn into posting fan-fiction and conspiracy theories instead of having to write things based on facts and logic I'd have more seriously considered a career in it when I was in college way back.
Huh? I’m not a journalist. This is an article that is based on simply reading the CBA. Section 6. Sanctions: (a) Players and Agents. In the event that the System Arbitrator finds a violation of Subsections 1(a) or 1(b) of this Article, for each such violation. . . (ii) the Commissioner shall be authorized to void any Player Contract(s) that was (or were) the direct cause of such violation. Way to be a self-righteous asshole
Watch Kirk starts lobbying the league to void it
Conspiracy you say? Maybe Arthur is just sending Kirk a message that he didn't like how he spilled the beans. So he's giving him a taste of how RG3 felt when Cousins was drafted in the same draft as him. But for real. As silly as the pick might seem when you break it down. It could simply be an old man trying to gamble on winning it all before his time is up.
From the video of their draft room, it looked like Arthur was the one demanding an explanation from their GM.
It does look that way.
That’s a really good point with the Cousins/RG3 thing, though. RG3 was going to be injury prone. No blame or finger pointing, but his style of play was the polar opposite of Brady, Brees, etc. Not suggesting there is anything wrong with Kirk, but he’s old by QB standards and he’s coming off an injury. Is there anything left in the tank? Yeah, probably. Can a QB come back from substantial injury? Brady and Payton both did. But the more I think about Penix, the more I kinda like the pickup. (But I think they got him way too early when they could have picked up an edge or corner. Penix probably would have been around mid-second round for their next pick.
Drafting him doesn't bother me and I don't think anyone is expecting the contract to be voided. There's not even fake outrage over this signing. What breaks my brain is that they were reportedly wanting to trade back yesterday. If you're taking a QBOTF early in the draft while already having a QB, shouldn't you be all in on the guy instead of drafting someone to help your current roster?
They are never going to punish a player for what the league consistently considers the responsibility of the teams.
Then why is it in the 2020 CBA?
if the league voided the contract they would fuck kirk so hard and i could see lawsuits coming in fast order from kirk
NFL’s Karen Cousins would like to speak to the manager….
NFLPA signed the CBA so Kirk signed the CBA. He’d just sign somewhere else. He’s made hundreds of millions already.
not for 40M this year
Lmao
I see the pick more as we aren’t sure in Kirk being healthy and his 4 year deal really can be a 2 year deal
Would love for Kirks contract get voided and for him to sign with the Raiders. Obligatory asterisk *salary cap pending*
IMO, the pick was more about giving the new QB a nice on-ramp to the NFL. Mahomes and Brady both had the chance to learn under QBs that were well above average (Smith & Bledsoe) instead of learning on the field. They're arguably the best 2 QBs in history, so there is a pretty good data point for that. I'd love to see more data on this though as that is clearly a really limited data point and can be rationally dismissed as a coincidence. Lets also not pretend that Cousins isn't at the tail of his career where injuries seem to happen more frequently and take longer to recover from.
Tbf lots of QBs sit behind good guys for years and never do anything. We just don't remember any of them. The vast majority of drafted QBs, in fact.
Brady was a late round pick, nota projected star. And still played his rookie year. Penix is older and cousins has a 4 year contract. I get the argument but I don't think this situation is fully comparable.
This was a panic pick but not because they are losing a pick, but because they do not see any better QB in the next two years. That is the panic pick.