AROUND THE NFL

Daily Briefing

The NFL is supposed to have a schedule out in about five weeks, but the DB can imagine that the schedule makers face even greater challenges than usual this year.

With so many QBs on the move, how do you value the exposure right now for teams like the Titans and Buccaneers?  A Saints-Buccaneers game is a no-brainer if it is Brady-Brees, still a good story if it is Bridgewater-Brees, not so much if Winston-Brees.

Conversely, how do you value a JARRETT STIDHAM led Patriots team?  Or an ANDY DALTON Pats?

BRADY

So there was a conversation between TOM BRADY and Bill Belichick this week.  Whispered reports rang from meh to worse.  Charean Williams of Pro FootballTalk.com:

Tom Brady and Bill Belichick finally talked.

They connected by phone Tuesday to discuss the quarterback’s impending free agency for the first time, according to Tom Curran of NBC Boston, and the conversation was “not particularly productive.”

It is unclear whether Belichick and Brady discussed any contract terms.

According to Curran, Belichick was “all business”‘ and spoke as if Brady is “still under contract.”

Brady’s contract expires March 18 when he is scheduled to become a free agent. The Patriots can keep him from entering the market by signing the greatest of all time to a new deal before then.

But it doesn’t sound like the chances of that happening improved after their conversation this week.

Several teams seemingly would have interest in Brady in free agency, with the Titans and possibly the 49ers being thrown out among the possibilities.

Of course, Brady hitting free agency doesn’t preclude the Patriots from signing the six-time Super Bowl winner for another season . . . or more.

Karen Guregian of the Boston Herald heard this:

The two connected by phone Tuesday, and their conversation about Brady’s pending free agency “didn’t go well,” per a source.

It was the first time Belichick had contacted Brady about his contract situation, and the Patriots’ plans going forward. The source wouldn’t shed further light on the discussion, or the particulars, other than noting it wasn’t all that fruitful.

While the contract talks appear to be off to a rocky start, it doesn’t necessarily preclude the team from signing its six-time Super Bowl winner.

But starting off on the wrong foot certainly doesn’t help. The market for Brady’s services has been “very good,” according to the source. Multiple teams have expressed an interest. The latest rumors ensnared the San Francisco 49ers and described an almost fairytale finish, with Brady going home to play for the team he rooted for as a child.

Adam Schefter:

@AdamSchefter

Bill Belichick and Tom Brady have spoken recently, but those talks were not yesterday and the tone of their discussion was “business as usual”, per source. Still many questions left to answer.

More from Guregian on the 49ers:

Tom Curran of NBC Sports Boston said during a SiriusXM NFL radio interview he thought the 49ers were “closing hard on the outside.”

What do my sources say? Curran “might be onto something.”

Translation?

Forget good friend Mike Vrabel and the Titans for a minute. If the Niners’ interest is mutual and real, which appears the case on both sides, they are the greatest threat to lure Brady away from New England.

Between having a roster that was close to winning a Super Bowl last month, having cap maneuverability if GM John Lynch doesn’t pick up Garoppolo’s option in April and Brady’s local roots having grown up in the Bay Area, San Fran would be in the driver’s seat to land the six-time Super Bowl champion.

Easy.

That’s not to say the Patriots are out of the mix. They are in consideration, provided Bill Belichick finally reaches out to Brady about the nitty gritty of a new contract and his plans for the offense going forward. Ditto for the Titans, who are still in the picture, as well. Playing for Vrabel is certainly a draw for Brady.

But going home to the Bay Area, where his parents still live, and the possibility of playing there as opposed to Nashville, which team do you think has the edge?

There’s no question that if the Niners map out a plan for Brady, and how he could get them over the final hurdle, it would be appealing to the GOAT.

But naturally, neither side is publicly letting their complete feelings and intentions known.

At the NFL’s Scouting Combine last week, Niners brass didn’t seem to have an issue moving forward with Garoppolo. But failing to deliver in the final moments of the Super Bowl, and the team’s ability to cut bait before April 1 — when Garoppolo’s $15.7 million in salary would become guaranteed — has ramped up speculation of San Fran making a move for Brady.

If the 49ers trade Jimmy G before April 1, they’d only get hit with a cap charge of $4.2 million, thanks to a low signing bonus. They would also free up $22.4 million in cap space.

So it’s not outlandish for them to kick the tires on Brady, see what he might be looking for, and go from there.

Mike Florio of ProFootballTalk.com takes a victory lap.

Four weeks ago tomorrow, I threw out a “what if?” scenario involving Tom Brady and the 49ers. Setting aside the question of whether the 49ers have interest in Brady, what happens if Brady has interest in them?

It’s an intriguing discussion, given that Brady has won six Super Bowls and that his former understudy, underutilized for much of the postseason after throwing an interception and two other potential picks against the Vikings, had Emmanuel Sanders wide open for a potential touchdown late in Super Bowl LIV and missed him. But with no real steam linking the two, and with the 49ers saying all the right things about Jimmy Garoppolo, I forgot about it.

Then came more recent developments, with Deion Sanders talking about Brady to San Fran on Sunday and Peter King writing about it on Monday and Simms and me kicking it around on Monday and Tom Curran giving real credence to the 49ers as an alternative to what otherwise seems to be a Patriots or Titans proposition for Brady. Next comes Karen Guregian of the Boston Herald, who reports in response to Curran’s Tuesday comments that he “might be onto something.”

And that really would be something.

We’ll know something more about it within the next two weeks. On March 18, free agency begins. Before then, Brady either will or won’t re-sign with the Patriots. If he doesn’t, there’s a chance Brady could indeed be going home to the Bay Area. Which would definitely constitute chaos — and which would be one of the biggest stories the NFL has ever seen.

But Michael Giardi of NFL Network thinks the 49ers talk is coming from the Brady camp – because the market for the QBs services is soft:

@MikeGiardi

They did speak. Don’t know the tenor of it. Do know that the Brady market is not nearly as strong as is being portrayed and this may explain the number of leaks and attempts to link the QB with different organizations, including San Fran. #staytuned

Here are the latest Brady odds at the Westgate Sports Book which still sees New England as the most likely team for 2020:

Destination: Tom Brady

Odds on which team Brady will take his first snap with in 2020 via Westgate SuperBook

Patriots                1-2

Titans                  9-2

Raiders                8-1

Chargers             8-1

49ers                 12-1

Colts                  14-1

Buccaneers       14-1

No snap taken   30-1

Cowboys           80-1

Bears                100-1

Dolphins           100-1

Panthers           100-1

Broncos            100-1

Lions                 200-1

Rams                 300-1

Falcons              300-1

Jaguars             300-1

Giants               300-1

Browns              500-1

Jets                   500-1

Bills                    500-1

Steelers            500-1

Redskins           500-1

Bengals           1,000-1

Vikings            1,000-1

Cardinals           1,000-1

Eagles              1,000-1

Texans             1,000-1

Saints               1,000-1

Seahawks         5,000-1

Packers            5,000-1

Ravens              5,000-1

Chiefs              10,000-1

Commentary from Mike Florio:

The previous odds posted regarding Tom Brady‘s 2020 destination didn’t include the 49ers as a potential wagering option. The latest odds do.

Via ESPN.com, the Westgate Superbook has installed the 49ers at 12-1 to land the six-time Super Bowl winner.

The Patriots remain the favorite to keep Brady, at 1-2. Which suggests that whoever sets these odds really isn’t paying attention like they should be. But at least they’re paying close enough attention to get the 49ers on the board.

The Titans have 9-2 odds, followed by the Raiders at 8-1 and the Chargers at 8-1.

The Colts are the next team behind the 49ers at 14-1, along with the Bucs. “No snap taken” lands at 30-1 (that should be at least 1,000-1).

NFC EAST

WASHINGTON

Apparently the new regime in Washington, led by Ron Rivera, could not mend the organization’s rift with T TRENT WILLIAMS.  John Keim of ESPN.com:

The Washington Redskins have given seven-time Pro Bowl left tackle Trent Williams permission to seek a trade.

“Trent is excited to resume his Pro Bowl career with a team interested in a player of his stature,” Williams’ agent, Vincent Taylor, told The Athletic. “We really appreciate and respect [owner] Dan Snyder for the chance to seek another opportunity. This isn’t about a contract, but time for a change of scenery.”

Williams expressed in a text to ESPN his hope that his time with the Redskins would be ending soon.

“I’m just happy this situation seems to be heading towards an end,” Williams wrote.

Williams has been at odds with the organization for most of the past year, citing concerns over how it handled his medical condition. Williams had a cancerous growth removed from his scalp last offseason. Williams said he had lost trust in the organization, specifically former team president Bruce Allen, as well as the medical staff. But numerous sources said the Redskins believed — and still believe — that money was at the root of Williams’ displeasure.

The Redskins fired Allen after the season as well as head athletic trainer Larry Hess. But those moves, and conversations with new coach Ron Rivera, did not soften Williams’ contract demands. Williams has one year remaining on his contract, which will pay him $12.5 million. But none of it is guaranteed.

Multiple sources said they believe he would like to become the highest-paid tackle, given his résumé. That title currently belongs to Philadelphia’s Lane Johnson, who signed a deal in November worth $18 million per year. Houston could extend Laremy Tunsil, which would push that top number higher. Several sources say Williams wants more than $20 million.

AFC WEST

KANSAS CITY

QB PATRICK MAHOMES on his contract and his desire not to cripple the Chiefs by seeking a maximum deal.  Darin Gantt of ProFootballTalk.com:

Patrick Mahomes is eligible to sign a contract extension now, which by all reason, should make him the highest-paid player in the game. The Chiefs know this, while acknowledging it could take some time.

For his part, Mahomes wants to be careful to make sure that while he gets his, there’s enough left over for the team to compete for another Super Bowl title.

“When you look back on your career at the end of your career, you want to look back and see a lot of success, a lot of wins, a lot of Super Bowl wins hopefully — it’s something where I want to look back and see a lot of success,” Mahomes told Terez Paylor of Yahoo Sports. “Obviously I want to get a contract, obviously I want to provide for my family for a long time and do everything like that.

“But I want to make sure I do it the smart way and do it the right way, and so I don’t know exactly which way that is, yet. I know that my people and the Chiefs’ people will talk about it, and will do it at the right time and for the betterment for the team. But I’m excited to be a Kansas City Chief for a very long time, and I know that’s going to be handled the right way because of the people the Kansas City Chiefs have in their organization.”

The Chiefs have some contract issues at the moment that may not reach Mahomes’ level financially, but are more immediate.

They are expected to franchise tag defensive end Chris Jones if they can’t reach a long-term deal, and they could restructure Sammy Watkins‘ contract (i.e. give him a pay cut from the $14 million he’s due). Mahomes has talked to both, but not necessarily about their finances (because it would be rude for quarterbacks to be in other people’s money).

“I think the biggest thing is, [you’re] talking [to] them as people and I mean, those guys love playing for the Kansas City Chiefs — y’all know that, how they talk about the Kansas City Chiefs,” Mahomes said. “They also want to be able to provide for their families, just like I do, so they’re gonna do what’s best for themselves and for their families. But I know they love playing for the Kansas City Chiefs and love winning championships as much as I do, so I’m excited for them to go out there and have success and hopefully, it’s with the Kansas City Chiefs.”

Eventually, the price of success is that you can’t pay everybody, though it’s clear that paying Mahomes is a factor in every other calculation.

LOS ANGELES CHARGERS

T RUSSELL OKUNG is getting his wish – to get away from the Chargers.

Russell Okung will soon be leaving California.

The Los Angeles Chargers have tentatively agreed to trade the tackle to the Carolina Panthers in exchange for guard Trai Turner, NFL Network Insider Ian Rapoport reported.

The Panthers are in need of an offensive line makeover after last season saw tackle Daryl Williams play on both sides of the line and start at guard as well, with Carolina attempting to weather injuries and also figure out who fits best at certain positions.

Currently standing at 20th in projected cap space (per Over The Cap), the rebuilding Panthers aren’t exactly in need of a ton of room, but will send an in-his-prime guard west for a tackle who is six years older and in the last year of his contract. Okung has been solid for the Chargers, but this could be more about shedding a contract (Turner’s) that carries a $12.8 million cap hit in 2020 and balloons to $15.39 million in 2021, creating cap space for 2021 and finding a stopgap at the position in the meantime.

The Chargers, meanwhile, are getting a rock-solid guard who could become a foundational piece as the team attempts to provide enough protection for whoever is lining up under center (currently it’s Tyrod Taylor, but we’re still free agency and the draft from that becoming certain). Los Angeles’ selection of Forrest Lamp hasn’t panned out due in part to injuries, and with a team that still has enough talent elsewhere to compete in 2020, adding a quality starter at guard is worth it — especially after the team was forced to give starting reps to younger linemen as it dealt with Okung’s injury struggles last season.

All deals aren’t official until the start of the new league year, though, but right now this agreed-upon trade will shift notable linemen to opposite coasts.

This sounds like it leaked from the Chargers with nothing about Okung’s questioning of what the heck the Bolts are doing…

Adam Schefter adds this:

@AdamSchefter

One more reason why Carolina wants OT Russell Okung: Panthers OL coach Pat Meyer worked for the Chargers from 2017-2019, and he has been pushing Carolina to trade for his former left tackle.

AFC SOUTH

HOUSTON

S MIKE ADAMS is retiring.  He was last a Texan.

“Pops” is hanging it up.

Mike Adams is retiring after 16 seasons in the NFL. The veteran safety announced his decision during a Wednesday appearance on Good Morning Football.

Adams’ football journey took him to six different cities professionally, but it began with uncertainty. The Delaware product went undrafted in 2004 before landing with the San Francisco 49ers. He was productive from the start of his second campaign, recording 74 tackles, five passes defended and four interceptions in 14 games in 2005.

Adams was never quite considered a premier safety, but was undoubtedly a productive one, playing in 228 games and recording 935 tackles, 30 interceptions, 83 passes defended and 13 forced fumbles. He spent time in San Francisco, Cleveland, Denver, Indianapolis, Carolina and Houston, serving as a valuable veteran presence in the back end of many different secondaries.

Nicknamed “Pops” for his experience, wisdom and effectiveness among younger teammates over a lengthy career, Adams’ longevity came as a result of his availability, as he played in at least 13 games in all but two of his 16 seasons. He made two Pro Bowls (2014 and 2015) while playing for the Colts before moving to Carolina, where he spent two years. Adams finished his career with a six-game stint in Houston in 2019.

INDIANAPOLIS

Did QB JACOBY BRISSETT really play his way out of the starting quarterback job?  LB DARIUS LEONARD says, “not so fast.”  Kevin Patra of NFL.com:

The NFL rumor mill has all but shipped quarterback Philip Rivers to the Indianapolis Colts before free agency has even started.

No so fast, says Indy linebacker Darius Leonard.

Appearing on the Rapsheet + Friends podcast, Leonard said he hasn’t even considered Rivers joining the Colts, and believes incumbent Jacoby Brissett played better than most believe given the circumstances of last season

“No. I mean, why would I do something like that? No,” he told NFL Network Insider Ian Rapoport of considering Rivers. “I believe in Jacoby. And Jacoby is a pretty good quarterback and showed that early in the season when he had everyone healthy. You can look at any quarterback, and if your receivers go down, of course, your numbers are going to go down. But when he had everybody, he went 5-2. You can look at any other quarterback. I take Tom Brady, for instance, this year he didn’t have [Rob Gronkowski], he didn’t have the big-time receivers this year, so his numbers went down. So, a lot of people don’t give [Brissett] enough credit to what type of quarterback he really is, they just see the numbers he put up at the end of the season, but they don’t see the numbers he did with the receivers he did (have). I don’t feel like the NFL, and people outside the NFL, give him enough respect.”

The Colts have declined all comments on potentially replacing Brissett.

Indianapolis dealt with a litany of skill-position injuries last season, including T.Y. Hilton missing six games, Eric Ebron missing five and running back Marlon Mack sitting out two. Brissett himself battled a knee injury.

The QB generated a passer rating of 98.5 during the first seven games. After the injury to himself and others, that rating dipped to 74.4 over the final seven games, with just one tilt over the 80.0 mark.

Leonard believes the quarterback’s early season play was more indicative of the quarterback he can be than the one that finished out the season.

“There is no question,” the LB said. “I’ve been in Indy for two years, and Jacoby being a backup, I faced him day in and day out. So, I know exactly what type of quarterback he is, exactly what type of leader he is, and it showed early in the season. Everybody knows Andrew Luck retiring, what, a week before the first game. And Jacoby came out, and he did everything he could do to help his team win.”

The question for the Colts is whether they believe Rivers, or any other signal-caller, could be an upgrade upon Brissett. If they stand pat, at least Indy knows the 27-year-old has support from leaders within the locker room.

AFC EAST

NEW ENGLAND

The Patriots are picking up an option on CB JASON McCOURTY.  Nick Shook of NFL.com:

It’s not guaranteed the McCourty twins will be playing together again in 2020, but at least one appears to be headed back to New England.

The Patriots intend to pick up the contract option for cornerback Jason McCourty, NFL Network Insider Ian Rapoport reported, per sources informed of the situation. The option will pay McCourty nearly $4 million, while he’ll account for $5.5 million of the team’s salary cap.

The future for McCourty’s brother, Devin, is not as certain. McCourty is open to leaving for the right situation, the safety told Rapoport, but New England picking up his brother’s option should help the team’s chances of retaining Devin, Rapoport added.

Devin McCourty had a stellar 2019 season, recording 58 tackles, seven passes defended and five interceptions. It was just the third time in McCourty’s career he tallied five or more interceptions in a season.

Devin McCourty made much more money with the Patriots in 2019 than his brother did (nearly twice as much), and he’ll command more on the open market, even at 33 years old. He also didn’t have an option in his contract, unlike his brother.

New England was financially and contractually equipped to take care of Jason McCourty’s situation first before potentially turning to retaining Devin. Both could be back, depending on what Devin decides to do. This could simply be an affordable leverage play on the part of the Patriots, keeping one McCourty twin to convince the other to stay.

It would be interesting, though, if Devin lands elsewhere and we’re left only to view the outcome as the offseason in which the Patriots were able to keep the McCourty twin who has spent just two seasons in New England, and not the one who played his entire career with the Patriots.

THIS AND THAT

CBA

Andrew Brandt, who has been all around the football business, looks at the 2020 CBA proposal for SI.com:

As the NFL and NFLPA teeter on the precipice of a decade-long Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA), I have shared my opinion of the proposed deal through various forums, and will now do so here. My goal is not to criticize or disparage either side of the negotiation, nor to serve either of their agendas. Indeed, both sides have appealed to me to frame the deal in a more positive light, a true sign that the NFL knows they are getting a good deal.

Using my perspective as a former (and current) agent, vice president of the Packers for a decade, an analyst on the business of football and a professor of sports law, I can hopefully provide truly unique insight on this proposed 11-year deal with some depth and nuance, devoid of “hot takes.” It is too simple to call out “winners and losers” from this proposed deal. Rather, I call out the inequities in the deal from the Players side, inequities that could be remedied without significant pain from the Owners side.

As of this writing, the 11-member NFLPA Executive Council, charged with steering the union, has been against the proposed deal by both a 6-5 and a 7-4 vote. As for the 32 player representatives from each team, their vote swung mildly in favor of the deal with a 17-14 vote (with one abstention). Now the proposed deal goes to the full population of 1900 or so NFL players, with a simple majority enough for ratification. Under any analysis, the NFLPA leadership is hardly giving this proposed CBA a ringing endorsement. And with good reason.

* * *

Not Enough for 17

I have read the deal points and I have attended a meeting of NFL certified agents (I am one) where NFLPA leadership explained the terms. And I continue to believe that the Players are not getting enough for relenting on giving Owners the extra inventory of a 17th game. The Owners and their broadcast partners would be getting what they want while the product, the Players, would be sacrificing their physical capital for, in my opinion, hardly enough in return.

Ever since the idea of a 17- or 18-game schedule was first broached, there have been no mixed messages from them. Their reaction was (1) they would never agree to play more than 16 regular season games, and (2) it was disingenuous and hypocritical for Owners to suggest it while espousing the priority of player health and safety. Yet … here we are.

Listen, I get it. I have repeatedly stated that no CBA would happen without additional games, as that was the only bargaining chip that the Players have with true value to Owners. However, the Players needed to use that valuable chip for optimal gain. In my opinion, they have not.

Player leadership has said the Owners, in negotiating this deal, made 17 games “non-negotiable.” Of course they did. They want to grow their business, and adding inventory is an easy and efficient way to grow. But if the Owners chose make 17 games non-negotiable, why wouldn’t the Players then pick their issue to make “non-negotiable?”

For example, what if the Players said they were making one of these two issues “non-negotiable”: (1) a 50/50 revenue split to make the Players equal partners, or (2) an opt-out after four years to renegotiate a better deal.

I know and understand that negotiation with the Owners is difficult, but they have locked thousands of players, most not yet in the league, into a contract that gives the Owners more inventory and long-term cost certainty.

* * *

Too Long

We are entering the final season of the ten-year 2011 CBA, the longest time frame of any CBA in any major professional sport at the time. That deal ensued from a 2006 CBA that (1) swung clearly in favor of the Players, and (2) contained an opt-out provision for the Owners, one they exercised to claw back a much better deal for themselves. It now appears the Owners are on the verge of imposing and even longer term—11 years—on the Players, with no semblance of opt-outs that they strategically leveraged in the prior deal.

It is easy to see why NFL owners want a long deal; it is the same reason NFL teams want long-term deals with individual players: cost certainty and continuity. The Owners are intent on commencing negotiations with their broadcast partners (with the added inventory of a 17th game), who will only buy-in knowing the product that is secure with no potential lockouts, strikes or work stoppages ahead. This, of course, gives the Players some leverage that, in my opinion, they have not taken full advantage of.

There is a narrative of fear of what might happen if the Players reject the current CBA; I believe that fear is misplaced. Could the Owners discontinue all negotiations, despite the broadcast partners wanting 17 games and labor peace, and simply lock players out with revisiting this deal a year from now? And could the lockout continue into the regular season 19 months from now? I suppose, but it is far more likely the Owners will not walk away from their most important partner of all, the Players. And, to make a deal, they would put a better one on the table than the one that was rejected now. The fear of Owners abandoning the Players for the next year is hyperbole; the Players have (had) more leverage than they think.

If the Players could only make only one change about the proposed CBA on the table, I would suggest they make it shorter and/or have an opt-out—even if a mutual one with the Owners—after 3-5 years. With these media renegotiations ahead, which will be massive, the economic landscape of the NFL will look quite different after those deals are made. Further, it is unclear the nature and scope of revenues flowing from (1) sports gambling and (2) biometric data (there is loose language in the proposed deal about both). It would certainly behoove the Players to re-assess the economic landscape and renegotiate terms, as the Owners were allowed to do as part of the 2006 CBA.

Of course the Owners don’t want that, even though they received an opt-out in 2006 and it would be fair for both sides. And aren’t both sides interested in being fair?

* * *

Unequal Partners

Of all the dozens of deal points, the key tradeoff for the Players for giving up the 17th game is the Revenue Split (RS).

As background, the Players and Owners, prior to the 2011 CBA, had a RS that was, net/net, roughly a 50/50 partnership. As mentioned above, the Owners were not happy with that arrangement—the Cap spiked in 2006 and ’07—and they renegotiated a 53/47 RS advantage over the Players. Now, in exchange for the Players giving in to a 17th game, the Owners are willing to give back half (1.5%) of what they took away. Yet, in one of the more starkly unfair parts of this deal, the RS would remain the same, 47%, in 2020.

I cannot recall another renegotiation where one side enters into a long-term deal without improvement—even slight—on the key economic issue of the deal. Can you imagine a player contract where a team keeps the player at the same compensation in a renegotiation, only to improve it a year later. Why would the Owners not even offer 47.5% this year?

The RS increases to 48% in 2021 if the 17th game is not implemented or, alternatively, 48.5% if 17 games are implemented (which, of course, it will be). At that point, after two years of this new CBA, the increase in the RS for the Players stops, leaving 9 years remaining in the deal with no improvement on the RS.

Could the Players, for example, have had that percentage rise, say, to 49% after four years, to 49.5% after six years, and to a 50/50 split after eight years, with the NFL only having to equally share revenues for three of the 11 years?

I am sure Player leadership would say: We tried, and they said no. But again, if Owners made the 17th game, which does not serve the Players, a “non-negotiable,” then the Players could have made either (1) a shorter deal, or (2) a 50/50 split “non-negotiable.” Again, the Players had some leverage here, and the Owners are getting what they want.

And here’s a dirty little secret no one likes to share: the 47%—or 48% or 48.5%—is really not that at all. While the “All Revenue” name suggests, well, all revenue, Players do not share in categories like stadium naming rights revenue and some premium seat revenue.

This is the crux of the deal for the Players, who had been universally and adamantly opposed to the playing more than 16 games. Are they getting enough for the imposition of this extra game (and extra playoff game)? My answer would be yes if this CBA (1) ended in a few years with another renegotiation starting at 48.5% or (2) if the Players made this exact same deal without a 17th game as part of it. Otherwise, no.

A final note on 17 games: Does anyone think that the Owners will not, after this ten-year CBA, insist on an 18th game in the next one? Of course they will.

* * *

Early Money, Long Deal

NFL Owners and team negotiators are very strategic in how they negotiate contracts (I know, I did it for ten years). Whether on an individual player contract or the collective CBA, they offer players “early money” to entice them to sign long-term contracts that provide cost certainty at fixed rates, especially in the latter part of the contract. It is a long-held negotiating strategy of management, in the NFL and beyond.

In this proposed CBA, Owners are enticing Players with $100 million in “new money” in 2020, largely through increases in minimum salaries. The Owners’ strategy is to please the majority of players who, they surmise, will find it hard to turn down an extra $100,000 for the uncertainty of a better deal down the road. It is up to Player leadership, however, to look past the early enticements and diffuse, not instill, any fear mongering about turning down this deal.

And that extra $100 million in 2020, which does not include an increase from 47% on the RS? That works out to just over $3 million per team, hardly enough enticement to lock into a ten-year deal with modest gains.

* * *

Minimum Spending, Marginal Increase

Another aspect of a proposed CBA that I had hoped the Players would address is the minimum team spending requirements. As I have discussed here before, I thought the threshold was too low (89% of Cap) and the accountability period too long (four years). I had hoped for annual or even bi-annual inspections, especially with teams regularly carrying over tens of millions of unused Cap room, often in successive years.

In this new proposed CBA, the percentage moves from 89 to 90% and the inspection periods, over the life of the 10-year deal, are now three years, three years and four years. Again, I know there were other priorities, but this is an area that could have made true progress on holding teams accountable. Without it, Cap numbers and increases can ring hollow.

Finally, one area that received zero changed was the Franchise and Transition Tags, management weapons to (1) take the best free agents off of the market, and (2) leverage star players to accept contracts prior to reaching free agency with the specter of the Tag looming. And, of course, with only one team to deal with, the market value for these elite players’ is limited, affecting all players under the top. The Owners were not budging on this deterrent to market value, and the Players acquiesced.

* * *

Owners’ Easy Gives

Owners continued their 2011 CBA strategy in providing Players non-economic “wins” such as a reduced offseason, less padded practices and added a five-day ”acclimation period” at the start of training camp. Players like it and it is good for Owners’ optics in this age of player health and safety. As for the coaches, universally upset with these provisions, they are not a party in this negotiation and are stuck on the outside again.

There are other soft, albeit important, wins for Players including increased pension allowances for former players with three credited seasons (the threshold had been four credited seasons), increases in the Injury Protection Benefit and matching 401K programs, increases in tuition assistance, and a network of hospitals to test and monitor former players. I do not mean to discount these gains made by Players, but in the scheme of things, these are not arm-twisting gives by the Owners.

Another “easy give” in light of societal tolerance is reducing marijuana testing from four months to two weeks and raising the threshold for a positive test. It begs the question: why have marijuana testing at all? I guess the Owners wanted something in there for appearance sake.

* * *

Other Issues

As for discipline from the “Conduct Commissioner,” Roger Goodell is no longer jury but still (appellate) judge. And, in an under-the-radar footnote to this deal, Owners are given added rights with holdout players, from greatly increased daily fines to an ability to withhold Accrued seasons—which count towards free agency—from disgruntled players.

Finally, I think there are two areas especially important for the Players to protect, especially with a deal lasting over a decade: (1) equitable sharing of gambling revenues, and (2) control and usage of biometric data. The term sheet for the proposed deal contains general language on the issues, but I hope—for the Players’ sake—there is true control of these areas by the Players. Owners profess that gambling revenues will be shared as a percentage of Cap, but I am not convinced gambling revenues, such as the NFL’s deal with Caesar’s Palace now in place, are all shared. As for Players’ biometric data, this world is changing by the day and will look a lot different in a couple of years. I hope Players’ control of their data is protected and not for sale.

I know these deals are hard to negotiate and I know the NFLPA and Player leadership worked long and hard to accomplish this deal. And there are some positives and gains from this deal. But … there are inequities, inequities that have the NFLPA Executive Council against the deal and have the 32 player reps giving it lukewarm acceptance. That seems like a suboptimal way to go into an 11-year deal. While some stoke fear of the unknown if the deal is not accepted now, I think that fear is misplaced. The Owners need a labor deal to display to its media partners that they have (1) labor peace, and (2) added inventory of a 17th game. There is no fire; there is no lockout ahead for at least a year; there are no games to be missed for at least 19 months. And the Owners’ need for a deal is not going away.

Mike Florio of ProFootballTalk.com on the role of NFLPA Executive Director DeMaurice Smith:

In a one-hour interview with NFL Players Association executive director DeMaurice Smith, the full audio of which can be heard below, Smith addresses at length the proposed CBA — from the inception of the discussions to the negotiation process to his response to the various criticisms of the deal.

Along the way, Smith said that he’s “proud of the deal.” And while he’d later add that he won’t be making a specific recommendation to the rank and file as to whether they should vote for it, it’s clear from the conversation that Smith believes the CBA represents the best combination of size of slice (as to the NFL) and size of pie (as to total revenue, including most notably the TV deals) that could be negotiated.

Smith explanation of the CBA comes as the voting window has opened — and as plenty of players with name recognition (but not necessarily much of a role in the process of negotiating the deal) are speaking out against it. In a video posted on Thursday, for example, Texans receiver Kenny Stills makes it clear that he doesn’t share Smith’s pride in the package the players are considering.

Stills, who is not involved in union leadership, encouraged players to vote no, repeating vows made by other players to help younger players pay the bills during a work stoppage.

“We run the show,” Still says. “We run this league. . . . There is no league without the players. . . . Please vote no on this deal, and let’s get some people outside of the NFL’s web to negotiate a real deal for us. Something that we’re proud of. Something that will set up the next generation. And that’ll change the landscape of the NFL forever.”

Like so many of the other comments made on social media by players who didn’t roll up their sleeves and hammer out the proposed CBA, Stills doesn’t delve into specifics as to what he doesn’t like in the deal; instead, there’s simply a vague and persistent sense that (as others not involved in the process have expressed) the players should get more.

His suggestion that they should “get some people outside the NFL’s web to negotiate a real deal for us” is intriguing, to say the least. De Smith came from “outside the NFL’s web” and has served in his current role for more than a decade. He ultimately presided over the negotiations, and he struck a deal in which, as mentioned above, he takes pride.

He applied his skills, judgments, and experiences based on his prior career as a lawyer and, since 2009, as the head of the NFLPA. Thus, as the players deliberate and vote, they need to realize that their decision will be a reflection and at its core a referendum on the judgment of the man they’ve hired to put them in the best possible position.

This isn’t a plea to vote yes or no. The players need to decide what to do, and the decision may differ from player to player. Instead, this is a nuts-and-bolts, is-what-it-is assessment of the situation, because plenty of players still seem to think that the NFL has simply dropped its opening offer on the table on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. That’s simply not the case.

For more, check out the interview. Listen to the questions and the answers. However a given player feels about the deal, it will become clear that: (1) plenty of work has been put into the negotiations; (2) De Smith believes it’s the right time to do a deal; (3) he believes it’s the best deal to be gotten at this time; and (4) a rejection of the deal will plunge the NFLPA into a process that will entail unpredictably and, quite possibly in time, a deal that isn’t nearly as good.

Players who are willing to defer to his judgment will therefore vote yes. Players who aren’t will vote no. It’s that simple.

BROADCAST NEWS

ESPN is throwing big, big bucks at Peyton Manning.  They also want to trade for Al Michaels.  Andrew Marchand of the New York Post:

Thinking large and outside the box, ESPN plans to attempt to acquire Al Michaels from NBC Sports for “Monday Night Football,” The Post has learned.

ESPN would like to team Michaels with Peyton Manning in its dream booth, according to sources. Manning is now ESPN’s top choice as an analyst after Tony Romo agreed to his 10-year, $180 million deal to remain with CBS last week.

ESPN has also shown interest in free-agent quarterback Philip Rivers, according to sources. Rivers, 38, has said he intends to continue playing. NFL free agency officially begins March 18, but agents can start talking to teams on March 16.

Joe Tessitore and Booger McFarland are ESPN’s current MNF team, but the network is strongly considering a change.

If ESPN had been able to sign Romo, it hoped to bring in Michaels as his partner, according to sources.

Besides adding the glamour of a Michaels-Romo combination to the telecast, Disney, which owns ESPN, would have head into its upcoming NFL rights negotiations with the biggest-name broadcast team in the business. Disney hopes to add more NFL and a Super Bowl for ABC/ESPN in the coming years.

The network believes a Michaels-Manning pairing would have the same sizzle as Michaels-Romo. Michaels, 75, is arguably the best NFL TV play-by-player ever, while Manning is one of the greatest quarterbacks in history.

Talks between NBC/Comcast and Disney/ESPN have yet to begin. Since Michaels has two years remaining on his contract, NBC could simply turn down ESPN’s request.

 “Al is under contract for the foreseeable future,” NBC spokesman Greg Hughes said.

ESPN declined comment.

Another complicated aspect for ESPN is that Michaels and Manning may only arrive as a package.

For NBC/Comcast, at first glance, there would seem to be no reason to allow Michaels out of his contract. Why would it want to help Disney, especially with its sights on Super Bowls? Ultimately, it might decide it does not.

However, a deeper understanding of the dynamic inside of NBC’s “Sunday Night Football” booth raises the possibility it could let Michaels explore a return to Monday night to end his career by helping to restore prestige to a position he held for so long.

NBC has already hired Mike Tirico as Michaels’ replacement with the exact timing of the transition not entirely clear. Tirico is supposed to call more games soon, though. The end of Michaels’ contract coincides with the Super Bowl in Los Angeles in early 2022.

Tirico is expected to take over for Michaels full-time after the LA Super Bowl at the latest, but could be adding more games as early as this season.

In 2022, Michaels could retire, but he has shown no real inclination to do that and, in reality, the one-game-per-week NFL season only extends from August through early February. Ultimately, Michaels may not want to be dealt from NBC, as its Sunday games are the top-rated program on TV, a Super Bowl is on the horizon and he has been with this crew for the past 14 seasons.

Meanwhile, Manning is NFL TV’s white whale, having turned down every network since he has retired. It is believed if he ever enters the booth, it would have to be the exact right scenario.

If Michaels didn’t work out, ESPN could try to make Manning happy with others. Manning could be teamed with a co-analyst, though his brother Eli Manning is an unlikely option. Jeff Saturday, a current ESPN analyst and Manning’s former center with the Colts, is someone Manning may have in mind, according to sources.

If NBC gave Michaels the green light, he would likely receive a hefty raise in the process and could add Manning to his collection of analysts that includes Howard Cosell, John Madden and now Cris Collinsworth.

There is precedent for a trade. In 2006, Michaels was set to continue on MNF as it transferred from ABC to ESPN, having agreed to a new deal to remain on the broadcast.

After Michaels’ MNF partner, John Madden, left for NBC, Michaels asked out of his signed contract. ESPN obliged, but it received Oswald the Lucky Rabbit in return.

Oswald was the precursor to the creation of Mickey Mouse. The rights to Oswald, though, were owned by NBC’s parent company then, Universal. It had been important to the Disney family to regain Oswald.

Now, nearly a decade-and-a-half later, ESPN is thinking large. It had a 10-year, $140 million offer it was hoping to present to Romo. It never got the chance. It is still big-game hunting — and it may need more than a lucky rabbit to pull it off.