AROUND THE NFL

Daily Briefing

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

More on Brady in NEW ENGLAND.

AFC WEST

KANSAS CITY

It looks like the Chiefs will get the traditional Thursday opener, with an assist from the Royals. Michael David Smith of ProFootballTalk.com:

The Kansas City Royals have changed their schedule to clear the way for the Chiefs to host the NFL’s opening game on Thursday, September 10.

The Royals had a game scheduled for that day, which would have made things tricky for the Chiefs to play as well because the two teams’ stadiums are next to each other and share parking. But this week the Royals announced that they’re moving their Thursday game to a Tuesday doubleheader that week.

“Today, the Royals announce a schedule change during the series against the Oakland Athletics this September in order to accommodate the Kansas City Chiefs potentially opening at home at Arrowhead Stadium on Thursday, September 10,” the Royals said in their statement.

In 2013 the defending champion Ravens had to open on the road because the Baltimore Orioles refused to move their scheduled home game. There will be no such issue in Kansas City.

The NFL has not confirmed that the Chiefs are hosting the Thursday night opener, which usually but not always goes to the Super Bowl champions.

LAS VEGAS

For public consumption, Coach Jon Gruden is ardently is backing QB DEREK CARR.  Paul Gutierrez of ESPN.com:

Las Vegas Raiders coach Jon Gruden joined general manager Mike Mayock in giving quarterback Derek Carr a vote of confidence Thursday.

“I really think Derek is a heck of a player and I got a lot of respect for what he has done with some tough circumstances,” Gruden told a group of Raiders beat reporters at the NFL combine in Indianapolis.

“So I’m not going to answer every media rumor out there. I just can’t do it. I’m just going to listen to my Sirius Rock n’ Roll classic vinyl [station] and keep working. But I love what Derek Carr did, love what he brings to our team and anxious to continue to build around him.”

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.

– – –

A long look at Brady, the Patriots and possible replacements from Bill Barnwell of ESPN.com.  Full thing here, edited version below:

What happens next is uncertain. Brady’s contract voids in two weeks, and the Patriots are not allowed to use the franchise tag on him. For the first time since he took over as the Patriots’ starter in 2001, there’s a realistic chance he will play somewhere else. Belichick has signed veteran backups and drafted guys who might have eventually taken over for Brady if the timing had been right, but this is another animal altogether.

How do you replace the greatest football player of all time? Let’s run through why the Patriots are left with limited options and whom they can choose from, starting with the move they made to reward Brady last August that might have backfired:

The Brady deadline

OK, deadline might be a strong word, but the Patriots would greatly prefer to get any Brady deal done by 4 p.m. ET on March 18. Do you remember when the Pats handed Brady a “two-year, $70 million extension” last August? Well, the deal Brady signed wasn’t for two years, wasn’t going to net $70 million and wasn’t an extension. Beyond that, the deal was exactly as you heard.

– – –

We know this for sure because Brady’s contract is set to explode on the first day of the league year, which voids the remainder of the deal. The Saints have pursued a similar track with Drew Brees, and the Patriots followed in kind with Brady’s deal. Once Brady’s deal voids, the Pats will be responsible for $13.5 million in dead money for Brady on their 2020 cap, regardless of what happens. Even if they re-sign Brady after March 18, they would be on the hook for both the $13.5 million in dead money and whatever his new deal looks like in 2020.

On the other hand, if the Patriots re-sign Brady before the new league year begins, the dead money will get folded back into his new deal. The team would still owe $6.75 million on its cap for his old contract in both 2020 and 2021, but that’s a far more manageable sum with which to work.

Is $13.5 million an insurmountable sum? Not in a league in which the salary cap is likely to rise north of $200 million. The Patriots, who are projected to have $44 million in cap room, would find a way to pay a starting quarterback and field a competitive team in 2020 with that dead money on their cap. It’s also enough to potentially keep them from retaining someone like Devin McCourty or adding a key player like Austin Hooper to their roster. Without the ability to use the franchise tag on Brady and with this $13.5 million time bomb looming on their cap, they are going to feel significant pressure to re-sign Brady before the league year begins. It’s no surprise that Brady’s camp has repeatedly leaked its interest in exploring its options in free agency. It’s exactly what the Patriots don’t want and precisely what is likely to generate the best offer for the future Hall of Famer.

With that in mind, March 18 will serve as a de facto deadline for the Patriots.

The incumbent to replace Brady

If Brady leaves, New England will be left with former Browns starter Cody Kessler and 2019 fourth-round pick Jarrett Stidham on the roster. Kessler posted competent numbers while going 0-8 for the 1-15 Browns in 2016, but he posted a passer rating of 72.8 on 154 pass attempts for his 2017-18 time with the Browns and Jaguars. He was signed in September and is regarded by the league as something close to a replacement-level quarterback.

Before adding anybody else to their roster, the Patriots would be moving forward with Stidham as their starting quarterback. Nobody would have expected a sixth-round pick to turn into the greatest player ever, of course, but the recent track record for fourth-round picks isn’t particularly exciting. Thirty-one quarterbacks were taken in the fourth round between 1995 and 2015, and just two of them have made it to the Pro Bowl. Kirk Cousins has two trips under his belt, and David Garrard made a lone visit during his time starting for the Jaguars.

– – –

Stidham represents a particularly unusual case. Most quarterbacks improve steadily during their college career and post their best campaign in their final year before turning pro. That was decidedly not the case for Baylor transfer Stidham, who regressed badly between 2017 and 2018.

The Patriots probably believe that the quarterback who appeared to be ascending before 2018 is truer to Stidham’s future than the guy who stumbled in his final year with the Tigers. They haven’t typically targeted passers like that in the past — passers like Garoppolo and Ryan Mallett had their best seasons just before leaving school — but Hoyer is an example of someone who took a step backward in his final year as an amateur and then looked better after studying behind Brady. New England will obviously hope Stidham’s lone year of matriculation behind the team’s longtime starter will pay off in the years to come.

Even if the Patriots are optimistic about Stidham, it’s incredibly unlikely that they’ll go into 2020 without adding at least one viable starter to their quarterback room.

The free-agent options to replace Brady

Let’s take a look at the players the Patriots will be able to target in free agency.

Teddy Bridgewater

2019 team: Saints | Age entering the 2020 season: 27

Pros: Bridgewater’s accuracy and ability to work through his progressions in the pocket make him arguably the closest comp for Brady’s biggest on-field strengths. Bridgewater has also followed in Brady’s footsteps and done a solid job of protecting the football; after his rookie season, he has thrown just 13 interceptions on 668 pass attempts for an interception rate of 1.9%. The Louisville product threw just two picks on 196 pass attempts filling in for Drew Brees last season, with Bridgewater completing nearly 68% of his passes while winning all five of his starts.

What might make Bridgewater most appealing to the Patriots, though, is his age. At 27, Bridgewater still has the bulk of his career to come. While passers such as Jameis Winston and Marcus Mariota are in the same age range, Bridgewater has the highest floor of the younger signal-callers. If he can re-create his 2019 form with the Patriots, he would give the Pats a quarterback they can win with in 2020 and beyond.

Cons: Any team has to be concerned about the catastrophic knee injury Bridgewater suffered during the 2016 preseason. The injury happened during practice, and Bridgewater has generally done a good job of avoiding hits as a pro, but he has thrown only 221 pass attempts over the past four seasons. At the very least, New England would need to give Bridgewater’s knee a thorough look before committing to him on a long-term deal.

With that in mind, the Patriots might hold reservations about Bridgewater’s size. It’s worth remembering that they famously chose 6-foot-4, 225-pound Brady over 6-foot, 200-pound Louisiana Tech quarterback Tim Rattay, in part, because Brady was the bigger passer. Belichick has drafted 11 quarterbacks during his time in New England, and 6-2, 215-pound Bridgewater is smaller by height, weight or both than each of those 11. Belichick might not pass up a franchise quarterback for the want of an inch or 10 pounds, but the Patriots would likely prefer a bigger quarterback if all else was equal.

Philip Rivers

2019 team: Chargers | Age: 38

Pros: Rivers offers the Patriots a plug-and-play solution like no one else in this class. The veteran’s experience and meticulous preparation allow him to handle just about everything from the moment the play is called to the moment the ball is out of his hands. Rivers’ ability to set and reset protections would come in handy for a Patriots team that is likely to lose left guard Joe Thuney and fill-in center Ted Karras to free agency, while center David Andrews’ future remains uncertain after he missed all of 2019 with a pulmonary embolism.

Although the Pats’ line struggled in 2019, the upside with players such as Isaiah Wynn and Marcus Cannon when healthy should make Rivers look much better than he did in Los Angeles. And although Rivers did throw 20 interceptions, a league-leading seven of those picks came in the final five minutes of the game while his team was trailing. He was forced to make desperate throws to try to push the Chargers back into the game. With a better defense, Rivers wouldn’t be put in a position to make those sort of passes. In 2018, for example, he threw 12 interceptions in 16 games and just one pick while trailing during the final five minutes.

Cons: The Patriots have long prided themselves on Brady’s ability to move the ball steadily down the field without turning it over. Rivers is much more of a boom-or-bust quarterback, and New England would have to change its offense to account for that. While you can imagine a scenario in which Julian Edelman serves as the new Keenan Allen for Rivers, the Patriots don’t yet have anything at tight end and would need N’Keal Harry to step up as a downfield threat in the vein of Mike Williams.

Rivers would also be one of the most expensive options on the market — he would likely expect to take home something at or in excess of $30 million per season. The Patriots can use voidable years to try to reduce his short-term cap hit, but that would only create a future dead money mark down the line for Belichick, just like the one he’s dealing with now for Brady. At 38, Rivers would also be only a short-term solution for the Patriots.

There’s also a chance Rivers’ decline in 2019 could end up as a permanent problem. It’s fair to note that he was affected by a dismal offensive line, but even when you take out the plays on which he was pressured, he ranked 21st in QBR and 25th in passer rating. Joe Flacco, who will likely be available for a few million dollars on a one-year deal after he’s cut by the Broncos, posted a nearly identical passer rating and a better QBR when teams didn’t pressure him in Denver. I would almost certainly rather have Rivers than Flacco, but if Rivers is a below-average starter even with improved pass protection, the Patriots would probably regret paying him $30 million per season.

Jameis Winston

2019 team: Buccaneers | Age: 26

Pros: Winston still has tantalizing upside. When he gets hot, there are few quarterbacks in the league who have the 2015 first overall pick’s ability to threaten defenses at every level. Winston is also a quietly adept scrambler for his size and has been able to play through injuries. He has missed just three games to injury in five years.

There are obvious negatives with Winston, and I’ll get to them in a moment, but the argument would be that the Patriots could acquire a quarterback in the prime of his career who might be able to turn the corner with better coaching and more stability in Foxborough, Massachusetts. The Patriots have taken shots on players with off-field issues when Belichick felt the upside was worth the risk. A 26-year-old starting quarterback to replace Brady would be more valuable than any risk Belichick has taken with the Patriots before.

Cons: To start, there are the turnovers. Winston has 88 interceptions and 50 fumbles in 72 games. For context, Brady has 36 interceptions and 26 fumbles over that same five-season time frame. There’s always a chance that Josh McDaniels & Co. could fix those issues, but we have a sample of more than 2,500 pass attempts in which Winston has made inexplicable decisions with the football.

Last season was supposed to be when Winston got an upgrade by swapping out coach Dirk Koetter for Bruce Arians. Instead, Winston threw 30 picks and posted a career-high interception rate of 4.8%. After adjusting for era, he posted the fifth-worst interception rate for a quarterback with 300 passes or more since the merger. If the Patriots sign Winston, every television network will be waiting for him to throw a first-quarter pick-six before cutting to an unamused Belichick.

And while the Patriots have taken risks in the past, Winston’s off-field baggage is considerable. He has been accused in multiple sexual assault cases and already has one NFL suspension in his past. It’s possible that the market simply won’t develop for Winston and the Patriots would bring him in as a low-cost option, but it’s difficult to see a scenario in which the Pats are excited to sign him.

Ryan Tannehill

2019 team: Titans | Age: 32

Pros: With the Titans rumored to be going after Brady, one way to get back at former Patriot Mike Vrabel would be to sign Tennessee’s breakout passer. Tannehill didn’t have much of a market when the Dolphins were looking to trade their longtime starter, but Tannehill flourished in the play-action-heavy scheme of first-year offensive coordinator Arthur Smith.

Across 12 games last season, Tannehill led the league in passer rating (117.5) and yards per attempt (9.6), was third in completion percentage (70.3%), and finished ninth in Total QBR (62.2). He was much better than Brady over the same time frame, and Tannehill should still have several years of above-average play remaining.

Cons: Before 2019, Tannehill had completed 62.8% of his passes, averaged 7.0 yards per attempt and posted a passer rating of 87.0. What we saw from him in Tennessee was a massive leap unsupported by his level of play over nearly 3,200 pass attempts in Miami. History is littered with quarterbacks who looked decent, pieced together a dominant season, and then returned to earth for the remainder of their careers, with guys such as Andy Dalton and Case Keenum as examples.

The Miami version of Tannehill is still a competent starter, but he is going to be expensive. It wouldn’t be shocking to see him hit $30 million per season with two guaranteed years on his new contract if the Titans let him leave. You would pay that much for the Tannehill from 2019, but the guy who was competent in Miami wouldn’t excite the Patriots. Injuries have also been a problem for Tannehill, who tore his ACL in 2016 and in 2017 before missing five games in 2018 with a nerve problem.

Marcus Mariota

2019 team: Titans | Age: 26

Pros: Mariota will likely come cheap and won’t require any sort of long-term deal if the Patriots are willing to give the former Heisman Trophy winner a shot at their starting job. Mariota’s numbers and style of play are reminiscent of Tannehill’s performance in Miami, with the Oregon product coming in right around league average when he has been on the field with the Titans. He would likely be looking at a one-year deal in the $8 million range, and the Patriots could tack on several years as a team option at a reasonable salary if Mariota excels.

It’s reasonable to think Mariota might benefit from stability, given that he famously cycled through five offensive coordinators in five seasons with the Titans. Guys such as Jason Michael and Terry Robiskie haven’t been coordinators since leaving Tennessee, either. McDaniels & Co. would bring another new scheme, but they could get the most out of Mariota.

Cons: It’s just as easy to note that coordinator after coordinator wasn’t able to unlock the potential Mariota seemed to hold at Oregon or in small spurts at the professional level. The Titans ranked 30th in the NFL in points per possession during Mariota’s six weeks as a starter in 2019 and then fourth in the NFL once Tannehill took over. Injuries also cost Mariota time in each of his first four seasons. The Patriots once flirted with the extreme tempo of the Chip Kelly offense Mariota ran in Oregon, but would they really risk upsetting their offense and exposing their defense to do so again with Mariota?

Taysom Hill

2019 team: Saints | Age: 30

Pros: While it’s unlikely that the Patriots would turn their offense over to Hill as a full-time starter, the Saints’ gadget passer could take some of the focus off whomever they start and serve as a weapon on trick plays and in the red zone. New England could transition to more of a run-focused attack after Brady, and Hill can serve as an effective runner and can help create running lanes for Sony Michel and the rest of the Patriots’ backs.

Cons: Although Saints coach Sean Payton has said all the right things about Hill, it’s telling that New Orleans barely used Hill when Brees went down; he played just 49 offensive snaps during Bridgewater’s five starts. Acquiring Hill would likely cost the Patriots a second-round pick, assuming the Saints tender Hill, the only restricted free agent on this list, as such. It also wouldn’t give the Patriots a short- or long-term solution for handling the majority of their dropbacks.

Case Keenum

2019 team: Washington | Age: 32

Pros: Keenum was excellent during the 2017 season with the Vikings, when he completed nearly 68% of his passes and posted a passer rating of 98.3 while helping push the Vikings to the NFC Championship Game. He hasn’t been quite as impressive in subsequent stints with the Broncos and Washington, but even in 2019, he posted a passer rating of 91.3 for a hopeless team when Dwayne Haskins and Colt McCoy combined to hit a mark of just 74.3. Keenum is likely to nab a two-year deal in the $14 million range, which would be cheap for New England.

Cons: Keenum rarely had to carry the Vikings when they were trailing in the second half during that 2017 season, and outside of that one campaign, he has looked more like a solid No. 2 quarterback than somebody to trust with a starting job. Size is even more of a concern for 6-1 Keenum than it is for Bridgewater; the only quarterback under 6-2 to throw passes for the Patriots in the Belichick era is Doug Flutie, who tossed 10 as a 43-year-old backup for Brady in 2005.

Blake Bortles

2019 team: Rams | Age: 28

Pros: Bortles’ size (6-5, 236 pounds) and athleticism are still pluses. The Patriots’ most recent run-in with Bortles also didn’t go well, as the former third overall pick threw for 376 yards and four touchdowns in a 31-20 win over the Patriots in Week 2 of the 2018 season. Nobody is expecting that the Patriots will happily turn things over to Bortles, but after spending a year learning under Sean McVay, he would be looking at a one-year deal for not much more than the league minimum.

Cons: Even when Bortles was posting the best numbers of his career, they were often a product of garbage-time performance and the magic of Allen Robinson. Bortles’ accuracy and decision-making were below-average in Jacksonville, and his mechanics were wildly inconsistent.

The idea of the Patriots signing Bortles on a one-year deal to compete as a backup could make some sense, but anything more than that might be seen as a cry for help.

Joe Flacco

2019 team: Broncos | Age: 35

Pros: With the Broncos likely to release Flacco, the Patriots could add a veteran who always seemed to exceed expectations against New England in the postseason. Flacco won two of his four battles with Brady, and while he was 4-of-10 for 34 yards in one of those, the 35-year-old could plausibly be 4-0 against the Pats in the postseason.

Flacco threw four touchdown passes in the 35-31 loss to New England during the 2014 playoffs, when the Patriots used an unbalanced line to trick the Ravens with a tactic that was outlawed after the season. In the other loss, Flacco drove the Ravens into the red zone late in the fourth quarter down 23-20, only for Lee Evans to drop a would-be touchdown catch and Billy Cundiff to miss a 32-yard field goal that would have forced overtime. If the NFL had already banned the reporting tactic or if kicker Justin Tucker had arrived a year earlier, Baltimore might have made two additional Super Bowl trips with Flacco.

Cons: What I wrote above is a generous interpretation of events, and Flacco has been a below-average quarterback since his Super Bowl XLVII run during the 2012 playoffs. While Flacco once held the sort of arm strength that scared opposing safeties, he has turned into a quarterback who almost always seeks out an easy checkdown without ever threatening to create bigger gains. Brady was also comfortable taking the easy completions, of course, but he combined that accuracy with an infinitesimal interception rate, something Flacco doesn’t have. Injuries in recent years also make Flacco little more than a last-gasp option for the Pats.

The trade options to replace Brady

The Patriots could also pursue a number of options via trade. One logical candidate is Andy Dalton, who has been linked to the Bears and would be available on what amounts to a one-year deal for $17.5 million. New England could try to get Dalton to restructure that deal as part of a trade, and wouldn’t need to give up much more than a late-round pick to acquire the longtime Bengals starter.

I wouldn’t be too optimistic about Dalton, however. He isn’t much bigger than Bridgewater, and the Red Rifle has struggled with his accuracy. Over the past three seasons, Dalton has completed just 60.3% of his passes despite averaging just over 7.9 air yards per target. The latter figure ranks 22nd among 41 qualifying passers, but the former mark is 36th in the league. Dalton would make sense at about half of his current price.

It appears the Panthers are likely to keep Cam Newton and the Lions intend to hold on to Matthew Stafford, but both veterans could come available if their teams fall in love with young passers in the 2020 NFL draft. Newton is on a one-year, $18.6 million contract, and Stafford’s contract might be more dealable than it seems; the Lions would owe anywhere from $18.8 million to $32 million in dead money, depending on when Stafford would be traded and how the league executes rarely seen cap rules for the final year of the collective bargaining agreement. Neither veteran is likely to hit the market.

On the other hand, the Patriots could take fliers on a pair of players who should be extremely available. Josh Rosen, the No. 10 pick in the 2018 draft, has now failed to impress with both the Cardinals and Dolphins and should qualify as deeply distressed goods after posting a passer rating of 63.5 on 502 pass attempts. The Patriots could offer him a far superior offensive infrastructure. Although Miami might be reticent to deal its backup within the division, Rosen is likely about to become the third-stringer and has no future there. A late-round pick could get the job done, and Rosen has less than $5 million left on his rookie deal, which would include offsets if the Patriots moved on.

At the other end of the financial spectrum is Nick Foles, who famously upset the Patriots in Super Bowl LII just over two years ago. Foles’ first season with the Jaguars was a disaster, as he fractured his collarbone in the first quarter of Week 1, missed 10 games, then lost his job back to Gardner Minshew after just three starts. Foles’ upside is clear, but the former Eagles and Rams starter has more than $21 million in guarantees remaining on his deal. A new CBA would give the two teams more options, but Jacksonville would need to pay some of Foles’ guarantees and/or attach a draft pick to shed his contract onto the Patriots. His injury issues would make him a dangerous long-term option for Belichick & Co., though he could offer a short-term solution.

The best quarterback at least adjacent to the market is Dallas starter Dak Prescott, who is likely to attract the franchise tag from the Cowboys in the coming days. This isn’t really the place for a lengthy Prescott analysis, but the 26-year-old just finished 10th in passer rating and fourth in QBR for a Cowboys team that ended the season second in offensive DVOA. Prescott isn’t peak Brady, but he’s better than anybody else New England could plausibly add in free agency or via trade this offseason.

Understandably for a player who was vastly underpaid during his rookie deal, Prescott is looking to approach the top of the market with his new contract, which would come in around $35 million per season. The Cowboys can keep Prescott with one of two franchise tags. The exclusive franchise tag would cost $33 million and ensure that no team can negotiate with him. Crucially for a team that might need to franchise Prescott again in 2021, though, the Cowboys can hand Prescott the non-exclusive franchise tag and pay him somewhere closer to $28 million.

The non-exclusive tag would allow teams to negotiate with Prescott and offer him a contract; the Cowboys would have the right to match and receive two first-round picks if they decide against keeping their starting quarterback. While there’s a scenario in which the Patriots could go after Prescott and send away what are likely to be two late first-round picks, I’m not sure Belichick would be willing to outlay a top-of-the-market deal and two first-rounders for Prescott. And despite their protests, the Cowboys might match any offer sheet for Prescott anyway.

If Brady did sign with the 49ers, there’s also the small matter of one Jimmy Garoppolo, who would then be up for trade on what amounts to a three-year, $76.3 million deal with no guarantees. The Patriots require no introductions to their former second-round pick, although their feelings toward Garoppolo might have changed after seeing him start 24 games with the 49ers. With both teams missing second-round picks, New England might need to send its first-rounder to get a deal done. Of course, the chances of what would amount to a Brady-Garoppolo swap are remarkably slim.

Likewise, if the Raiders end up signing Brady, the Patriots could respond with a move for Derek Carr. Carr had a solid season in 2019, finishing ninth in the NFL in passer rating and 10th in QBR for an Oakland team that didn’t have much to work with at wide receiver. He won’t excite Patriots fans, but he’s a reasonably high-floor option and would come on a three-year, $58.5 million deal with no remaining guaranteed money. There are worse moves New England could make for a late-round pick, especially if guys like Rivers and Bridgewater get snapped up early in free agency.

The draft options to replace Brady

New England could also add to Stidham and Kessler by using a draft pick on a quarterback. The Pats pick 23rd, which means they have no realistic shot of ending up with someone like LSU’s Joe Burrow or Alabama’s Tua Tagovailoa. It would be a major surprise if Oregon’s Justin Herbert or Utah State’s Jordan Love fell all the way to 23, and Georgia’s Jake Fromm and Washington’s Jacob Eason might not be worthy of a first-round pick.

It’s possible that Belichick could try to move up from No. 23 to grab someone like Love if he falls out of the top 10, but I’m skeptical. While Belichick trades up more frequently than most observers think, there’s nothing in his draft history suggesting he’s likely to package multiple first-round picks to move up. The Patriots don’t have a second-round pick after using it to acquire Mohamed Sanu, which also costs them a significant draft asset.

They are projected to get a pair of compensatory picks at the end of the third round for losing Trey Flowers and Trent Brown, but I don’t see the sort of haul they can offer to compete with teams like the Colts or Jaguars in moving up to grab a passer. It’s more likely that New England would trade down and draft someone like Fromm in the second round as opposed to moving up for a quarterback.

I don’t know how much we can realistically suss out from Belichick’s history with quarterbacks to try to figure out which player the Patriots might target in the draft. They seem to value size, although not at the sort of level a team like the Broncos does. They’ve gone after four-year starters like Garoppolo yet also drafted and promoted Cassel, who threw 33 college passes. Brady’s accuracy has kept the Patriots going on offense for years, but Belichick has drafted quarterbacks such as Brissett and Mallett, who weren’t particularly accurate at the college level. About the only thing I can rule out, unfortunately for Pats fans, is the idea that they’re somehow going to trick the Bengals into letting them draft Burrow.

The Brady replacement, and the one I’d pick

After all that, the most likely starting quarterback for the Patriots in Week 1 of the 2020 season is still Tom Brady. Of the available options, the Pats give Brady the best chance of winning another Super Bowl, let alone whatever comfort he enjoys from playing his first 20 seasons in New England. And while players such as Carr and Tannehill produced better numbers in 2019, there’s not a quarterback who projects as a clearly superior choice with the Patriots’ roster in 2020 than Brady. It still makes the most sense for both sides to reunite on a deal.

If Brady does leave, though, the Patriots could look toward acquiring his replacement from the team that adds him. If the Titans sign him, New England would target Tannehill. If the Raiders sign him, the Pats would be in line to go after Carr. If the 49ers somehow pull off a Brady move, New England would be the best landing spot for Garoppolo. The Chargers have already moved on from Rivers, but if Brady ends up in Los Angeles, the status quo elsewhere in the league could leave Rivers as the best option remaining for the Patriots.

It’s not up to me, but of the available options, I’d choose Bridgewater. The knee is obviously a concern, and Bridgewater played well behind one of the league’s best offensive lines and with a brilliant mind calling plays in 2019, but nobody in this group offers his combination of youth, accuracy, intelligence and possible upside. I’m not sure Bridgewater will be the best passer in this group in 2020, but he’s likely to produce the most value over the next five seasons if he can stay healthy.

What happens next could define the decade for the Patriots. Teams such as the 49ers and Packers have managed to swap out one Hall of Famer for another, but ask Bills, Broncos and Dolphins fans about what has happened to their franchises after Jim Kelly, John Elway and Dan Marino left town. They’ve combined to win one Super Bowl and cycled through quarterback after quarterback, with Peyton Manning’s free-agent stint in Denver one of the rare exciting runs. Fail to replace a legend the first time and you might spend the better part of 20 years trying over and over again to solve the same problem. Unless they can persuade Brady to return, the Patriots are two weeks away from facing the most difficult question of the Belichick era in New England.

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.