Slay and Snacks

[dll2000]

Both are threatening to hold out. 

Do you think they will a) miss camp or b) miss any season games? 

What is your level of concern?

Should Lions give extensions or not? 

My brief thoughts are few players are willing to sit games.  It wouldn’t be ‘Patriot way’ to give in.   However, coach doesn’t have respect of that locker room and media that Belichick does. So he could lose guys making the tough calls. But if he isn’t tough he sets a bad precedent with lasting repercussions. But if he is and loses his two best players or they play unhappy or loses locker room he may have a throw away season and end up getting fired soon.  Tough calls indeed. 

Also, while Slay would probably be fine, it would probably really increase injury risk for a big guy like Snacks.  

On other hand with salary inflation extensions often turn into bargains if player remains good for 3+ years.    Might not be a great policy never to extend with two years remaining anymore if you have space to put cap ramification into early years.  You can still cut them if they fall off with little dead money.  

[Rockcity2]

I think they should pay snacks a little more just for how he transformed this team in his little time here...hes a little unpaid anyway imo unlike slay

I love slay but if I could get say a 1strp I'm doin it.. if not I call his bluff.. but I also feel if they don't pay him he just coasts through the season just to get the money.. that's kinda why I think you trade him. Jmo

[diehardlionfan]

In my view it’s simple.

Are they worth it?

If yes, pay the men. 

If no, then don’t.

Nobody wins if everybody gets bent and twisted.

Edited July 14, 2019 by diehardlionfan

[Karnage84]

14 hours ago, diehardlionfan said:

In my view it’s simple.

Are they worth it?

If yes, pay the men. 

If no, then don’t.

Nobody wins if everybody gets bent and twisted.

It does set a dangerous precedent moving into the future. When you're structuring the cap and looking towards the future, the plan probably factors in key players with 1 year left on their deal and solid guys that you want to keep who would otherwise be heading into FA. Creating the expectation that guys can restructure their deals at any time could lead to having to redo a 4 year contract after one year or a rookie demanding better compensation two years into their five year contract.

The way to counteract that is to include more guaranteed money in contracts in exchange for shorter contracts.

I don't think that the Lions have a lot of choice when it comes to either player. Our secondary already does have some challenges in its depth. Losing your only solid guy who is a PB caliber player is going to really set things back. Snacks really helped to settle the line.

Weeks 1 - 7 (6 Games): Rush Yds Against 836 yards or 139.33 yds/gm

Weeks 8 - 17 (10 Games): Rush Yds Against 925 yards or 92.5 yds/gm

It wasn't an instant impact as the Seahawks and Vikings ran all over them week's 8 and 9. There was also a blip like the Rams game. Otherwise, the Lions did quite well in this stretch handling the run game. If they're able to continue that while also improving against the passing game, this is going to be a very difficult defense to play against.

We finished the season at #10 overall with an avg of 110.1 yds/gm.

If the Lions kept going with their Wk 1-7 avg, we would have finished as the 29th (best?) defense against the run. If we could maintain our later season defense, we would have been the #5 best defense.

[dll2000]

3 minutes ago, Karnage84 said:

It does set a dangerous precedent moving into the future. When you're structuring the cap and looking towards the future, the plan probably factors in key players with 1 year left on their deal and solid guys that you want to keep who would otherwise be heading into FA. Creating the expectation that guys can restructure their deals at any time could lead to having to redo a 4 year contract after one year or a rookie demanding better compensation two years into their five year contract.

The way to counteract that is to include more guaranteed money in contracts in exchange for shorter contracts.

I don't think that the Lions have a lot of choice when it comes to either player. Our secondary already does have some challenges in its depth. Losing your only solid guy who is a PB caliber player is going to really set things back. Snacks really helped to settle the line.

Weeks 1 - 7 (6 Games): Rush Yds Against 836 yards or 139.33 yds/gm

Weeks 8 - 17 (10 Games): Rush Yds Against 925 yards or 92.5 yds/gm

It wasn't an instant impact as the Seahawks and Vikings ran all over them week's 8 and 9. There was also a blip like the Rams game. Otherwise, the Lions did quite well in this stretch handling the run game. If they're able to continue that while also improving against the passing game, this is going to be a very difficult defense to play against.

We finished the season at #10 overall with an avg of 110.1 yds/gm.

If the Lions kept going with their Wk 1-7 avg, we would have finished as the 29th (best?) defense against the run. If we could maintain our later season defense, we would have been the #5 best defense.

That’s what makes this so hard.  Those two guys are key players that team cannot do without.

Both players are severely underpaid by current market standards, but they are two years out and no team wants to renegotiate contracts with two years remaining.  Other players quickly want to do same thing and it becomes a domino effect on your team that makes cap planning too difficult. 

From player point of view waiting to free agency puts them on wrong side of 30 where it is hard to get decent contracts.  

Both sides have valid concerns and points. 

[Karnage84]

10 minutes ago, dll2000 said:

That’s what makes this so hard.  Those two guys are key players that team cannot do without.

Both players are severely underpaid by current market standards, but they are two years out and no team wants to renegotiate contracts with two years remaining.  Other players quickly want to do same thing and it becomes a domino effect on your team that makes cap planning too difficult. 

From player point of view waiting to free agency puts them on wrong side of 30 where it is hard to get decent contracts.  

Both sides have valid concerns and points. 

Yep, 100% agreed. Patricia and Quinn aren't exactly on solid ground either. They need to show that this ship is moving in the right direction. As long as it appears that things are going to plan, they'll be given enough rope to do what they deem necessary. If it is more of the same or a clear step backward, they aren't going to be around to see things through. Losing two key guys like this can't help the W/L bottom line.

Edited July 15, 2019 by Karnage84

[dll2000]

26 minutes ago, Karnage84 said:

Yep, 100% agreed. Patricia and Quinn aren't exactly on solid ground either. They need to show that this ship is moving in the right direction. As long as it appears that things are going to plan, they'll be given enough rope to do what they deem necessary. If it is more of the same or a clear step backward, they aren't going to be around to see things through. Losing two key guys like this can't help the W/L bottom line.

That's a catch-22.  If you plan on being here long term you want to set right precedents with team. However, if you don't give in for these cases you are much more likely to get fired and not be here long term.

Much easier to make tough calls with job security of a Belichick.  Those guys know ahead of time he is not giving in and have to make decisions based off that.

 

[Karnage84]

30 minutes ago, dll2000 said:

That's a catch-22.  If you plan on being here long term you want to set right precedents with team. However, if you don't give in for these cases you are much more likely to get fired and not be here long term.

Much easier to make tough calls with job security of a Belichick.  Those guys know ahead of time he is not giving in and have to make decisions based off that.

 

Exactly. Which is why I would rather see the team come out publicly in support of Quinn and Patricia. Say things like "they have a plan and we are going to allow them to see it through; we'll be giving them the resources to do the job right, etc.". It says to the team and the fanbase that they expect some bumps and bruises along the way but we're moving towards building a solid foundation for a lot of future success. This gives them the ability to make the tougher decisions and possibly let a guy like Slay or Snacks choose to sit out as opposed to giving in.

If they've been given 3 years to get things on track, let's see the full extent of the plan before making any decisions. We're not going to panic and blow everything up at 7-9.  It also doesn't mean that they can't be fired if they go 2-14.

A lame duck coach or GM is already set up to be unsuccessful. The players and assistant coaches won't buy in to the same extent because they aren't going to be there. They'll be looking ahead at other situations and just trying to get through to the next chapter. The Texans' should have just bit the bullet on Cesario and paid the Patriots whatever the compensation was going to be. Everyone knows that is where he is going to wind up. All four of those guys know they have no shot at that job. They're delaying the whole thing by another year. Doesn't make sense to me.

[diehardlionfan]

On 2019-07-15 at 9:36 AM, Karnage84 said:

It does set a dangerous precedent moving into the future. When you're structuring the cap and looking towards the future, the plan probably factors in key players with 1 year left on their deal and solid guys that you want to keep who would otherwise be heading into FA. Creating the expectation that guys can restructure their deals at any time could lead to having to redo a 4 year contract after one year or a rookie demanding better compensation two years into their five year contract.

The way to counteract that is to include more guaranteed money in contracts in exchange for shorter contracts.

I don't think that the Lions have a lot of choice when it comes to either player. Our secondary already does have some challenges in its depth. Losing your only solid guy who is a PB caliber player is going to really set things back. Snacks really helped to settle the line.

Weeks 1 - 7 (6 Games): Rush Yds Against 836 yards or 139.33 yds/gm

Weeks 8 - 17 (10 Games): Rush Yds Against 925 yards or 92.5 yds/gm

It wasn't an instant impact as the Seahawks and Vikings ran all over them week's 8 and 9. There was also a blip like the Rams game. Otherwise, the Lions did quite well in this stretch handling the run game. If they're able to continue that while also improving against the passing game, this is going to be a very difficult defense to play against.

We finished the season at #10 overall with an avg of 110.1 yds/gm.

If the Lions kept going with their Wk 1-7 avg, we would have finished as the 29th (best?) defense against the run. If we could maintain our later season defense, we would have been the #5 best defense.

I can’t disagree with anything you said.

i simply believe it’s in the teams best interest to do something. Sign them to extensions. Restructure existing deals moving money forward with big guarantees. 

Its setting a precedent however you can’t under estimate the power of goodwill and being fair.  

[Karnage84]

7 hours ago, diehardlionfan said:

I can’t disagree with anything you said.

i simply believe it’s in the teams best interest to do something. Sign them to extensions. Restructure existing deals moving money forward with big guarantees. 

Its setting a precedent however you can’t under estimate the power of goodwill and being fair.  

I do think it's going to happen. More so for Slay than Snacks. However, I do think they'll both get their money when all is said and done.

I just don't like the precedent it does set for guys moving forward. However, it is something that you can command when you're near the best in the league at your respective position. I just hope that those moves help us win more games and in doing so, builds up more credibility and time for Patricia/Quinn to see things through.

[Karnage84]

Apparently the Lions will be meeting with Drew Rosenhaus this week to discuss these contracts.

I'll let you guys search for the link. At least it looks like there is movement.

[SimbaWho]

Pay Snacks.

Trade Slay and a 2nd rdp for OLB Jadeveon Clowney. 

Pay Clowney. 

[Nnivolcm]

4 hours ago, SimbaWho said:

Pay Snacks.

Trade Slay and a 2nd rdp for OLB Jadeveon Clowney. 

Pay Clowney. 

That front would be fun to watch.

[Karnage84]

18 hours ago, Nnivolcm said:

That front would be fun to watch.

We'd have nobody in the secondary making any plays. I do believe that Walker is on the way up and Diggs is underappreciated. We aren't even sure about our #2 WITH Slay.

[BarryTheBest]

14 hours ago, Karnage84 said:

We'd have nobody in the secondary making any plays. I do believe that Walker is on the way up and Diggs is underappreciated. We aren't even sure about our #2 WITH Slay.

This is true, but that front would be sooooo tremendous. I am not avocating for this.. However, with the way Patricia uses his safties coupled with the depth and versatility we have in that spot, they could probably run with Coleman and Melvin be fine. Obviously the game plan changes a great deal because you dont have the ability to all but eliminate the best receiver, but that front with Patrcia's ability to coach defense would cover up a lot of deficiencies to be sure.