2022 Free Agency and Trade Discussion

Saints FS Marcus Maye
Saints FS Marcus Maye
Photo: USA Today Sports Images

NFL Offseason - This is our annual open thread to discuss all the free agent movement, trades, cuts, and other news for the first few days of free agency, starting with the "legal tampering period" that begins at noon Eastern on March 14. This year we will also be producing separate write-ups on the biggest free-agent signings and trades; check out below for links to each of those as they appear.


Buffalo Bills cut OT Daryl Williams, sign C Mitch Morse to a two-year, $19.5-million extension.

Dallas Cowboys re-sign WR Michael Gallup for five years, $62.5 million.

Green Bay Packers cut ER Za'Darius Smith and OT Billy Turner, sign ER Preston Smith to a four-year, $52.5-million extension.

Miami Dolphins re-sign ER Emmanuel Ogbah for four years, $65 million with $32 million guaranteed.

Tampa Bay Buccaneers re-sign C Ryan Jensen for three years, $39 million and $23 million guaranteed.


Arizona Cardinals re-sign James Conner for three years, base value $21 million with $13.5 million guaranteed and a max value with incentives of $25.5 million.

Chicago Bears sign DT Larry Ogunjobi for three years, $40.5 million, including $26.4 million guaranteed.

Cincinnati Bengals sign G Alex Cappa for four years, $40 million.

Cleveland Browns cut WR Jarvis Landry.

Los Angeles Rams re-sign OT Joe Noteboom for three years, base value of $40 million with $25 million guaranteed. Max value with incentives is $47.5 million.

Miami Dolphins sign RB Chase Edmonds for two years, $12.6 million with $6.1 million guaranteed. Click here for an expanded write-up on Edmonds.

Pittsburgh Steelers sign QB Mitchell Trubisky. Click here for an expanded write-up on Trubisky.

Seattle Seahawks re-sign FS Quandre Diggs for three years, $40 million.


Buffalo Bills sign G Rodger Saffold. Details are not yet available.

Cincinnati Bengals sign G/C Ted Karras for three years, $18 million.

Cincinnati Bengals re-sign DT B.J. Hill for three years, $30 million.

Detroit Lions re-sign FS Tracy Walker for three years, $25 million with $17 million guaranteed.

Jacksonville Jaguars sign G Brandon Scherff. Details are not yet available. Click here for an expanded write-up on Scherff.

Jacksonville Jaguars sign LB Foye Oluokun for three years, $45 million with $28 million guaranteed.

Jacksonville Jaguars sign DT Folorunso Fatukasi for three years, $30 million with $20 million guaranteed.

Jacksonville Jaguars (who are having quite the day) sign WR Christian Kirk for four years, $72 million with "a max value" of $84 million, whatever that means. Incentives? Void years? Who knows. Click here for an expanded write-up on Kirk.

New York Jets sign G Laken Tomlinson for three years, $40 million with $27 million guaranteed.

New York Jets re-sign WR Braxton Berrios for two years, $12 million with $7 million guaranteed.

Philadelphia Eagles sign ER Haason Reddick for three years, $45 million with $30 million guaranteed. Click here for an expanded write-up on Reddick.


Green Bay Packers re-sign LB De'Vondre Campbell for five years, $50 million.

Indianapolis Colts re-sign TE Mo Alie-Cox for three years, $18 million.

Los Angeles Rams re-sign C Brian Allen for three years, $24 million.

Miami Dolphins sign WR Cedrick Wilson for three years, $22.8 million with $12.8 million guaranteed.

Miami Dolphins sign QB Teddy Bridgewater.

Seattle Seahawks re-sign TE Will Dissly for three years, $24 million.


Buffalo Bills sign DT Tim Settle for two years.

Jacksonville Jaguars sign TE Evan Engram for one year, $9 million.

Los Angeles Chargers sign CB J.C. Jackson for five years, $82.5 million with $40 million guaranteed. Click here for an expanded write-up on Jackson.

New York Jets re-sign RB Tevin Coleman.

Pittsburgh Steelers re-sign OT Chukwuma Okorafor.

Tampa Bay Buccaneers re-sign CB Carlton Davis for three years, $45 million.


Dallas has agreed to a new three-year contract with ER DeMarcus Lawrence worth up to $40 million, with $30 million in full guarantees. Lawrence had two years remaining in his deal, but was considered a potential cap cut. Instead he'll add a year and more guaranteed money in exchange for a lower cap hit in 2022.

Pittsburgh signs C Mason Cole to a three-year deal. Cole started 14-plus games in two of his three seasons in Arizona, but only started seven of 14 games for Minnesota in 2021.

New York Jets sign TE C.J Uzomah for three years, $24 million. Click here for an expanded write-up on Uzomah.


Jacksonville signs WR Zay Jones for three years and $30 million, with $24 million in guarantees.

L.A. Chargers sign DT Sebastian Joseph-Day for three years, $24 million, with $15 million guaranteed. Click here for an expanded write-up on Joseph-Day.

Carolina signs OG Austin Corbett for three years, $29.3 million. Corbett started every game for the reigning Super Bowl champion Rams over the past two seasons.

Buffalo signs DT DaQuan Jones. Jones has not missed a start in the last four seasons (three with Tennessee, last year with Carolina).


Texans sign OG A.J. Cann (two years, $10.5 million, $4.5 million guaranteed) and re-sign C Justin Britt.

Broncos sign DT D.J. Jones (three years, $30 million, $20 million guaranteed).

Giants sign OL Mark Glowinski (three years, $18.3 million, $11.4 million guaranteed).

Chiefs sign S Justin Reid (three years, $31.5 million, $20 million guaranteed).

Chiefs DE Frank Clark re-works his deal to stay in Kansas City. New contract is two years, $36 million, with $29 million guaranteed.

49ers sign CB Charvarius Ward (three years, $42 million, $26.7 million guaranteed).Click here for an expanded write-up on Ward.


Detroit Lions sign WR DJ Chark for one year, $10 million prove-it deal. Click here for an expanded write-up on Chark.

Jacksonville Jaguars cut LB Myles Jack.

Los Angeles Rams cut P Johnny Hekker.

New England Patriots trade ER Chase Winovich to Cleveland Browns for LB Mack Wilson.

Tennessee Titans cut CB Janoris "Jackrabbit" Jenkins.


Baltimore Ravens sign FS Marcus Williams (five years, $70 million).

Cleveland Browns cut C JC Tretter.

Dallas Cowboys re-sign ER Randy Gregory (five years, $70 million with $28 million guaranteed). Apparently, Gregory's deal with Dallas fell apart and he is now signing with the Denver Broncos instead (five years, $70 million with $28 million guaranteed). Click here for an expanded write-up on Gregory.

Detroit Lions re-sign ER Charles Harris (two years, $14 million).

Los Angeles Rams OT Andrew Whitworth announces his retirement.

Miami Dolphins sign G Connor Williams.

Pittsburgh Steelers sign G James Daniels (three years, $26.5 million).


Atlanta Falcons re-sign K Younghoe Koo (five years, $24.3 million with $11.5 million guaranteed).

Buffalo Bills sign RB J.D. McKissic (two years, $7 million plus incentives).

Denver Broncos re-sign ILB Josey Jewell.

Miami Dolphins re-sign LB Elandon Roberts.

New England Patriots re-sign RB James White.

New York Jets sign CB D.J. Reed (three years, $33 million).

Tampa Bay Buccaneers sign WR Russell Gage.

Washington Commanders re-sign S/CB Bobby McCain (two years, $11 million).


Detroit Lions re-sign WR Kalif Raymond.

Indianapolis Colts re-sign LB Zaire Franklin.

Indianapolis Colts sign CB Brandon Facyson.

Los Angeles Chargers cut OT Bryan Bulaga.

Minnesota Vikings sign LB Jordan Hicks (two years, $10 million plus incentives, with $6.5 million guaranteed).

New England Patriots trade G Shaq Mason to Tampa Bay Buccaneers for a fifth-round pick.

New York Giants sign QB Tyrod Taylor (two years, $17 million).

New York Jets sign FS Jordan Whitehead.

Pittsburgh Steelers sign CB Levi Wallace (two years, $8 million).


Baltimore Ravens sign OT Morgan Moses (three years, $15 million).

Chicago Bears sign C/G Lucas Patrick (two years, $8 million).

Cleveland Browns sign WR Jakeem Grant.

Jacksonville Jaguars sign CB Darious Williams (three years, $30 million with $18 million guaranteed).

Las Vegas Raiders sign DT Bilal Nichols (two years, $11 million).

New England Patriots sign CB Terrance Mitchell (one year, $3 million).

New Orleans Saints sign FS Marcus Maye (three years, $28.5 million).

Seattle Seahawks sign CB Artie Burns (one year, $2 million).

Tampa Bay Buccaneers re-sign WR Breshad Perriman.


Cleveland Browns cut TE Austin Hooper.

Las Vegas Raiders cut DE Carl Nassib.

Washington Commanders cut DT Matt Ioannidis.


Arizona Cardinals sign CB Jeff Gladney, who was cut by Minnesota a year ago due to a domestic violence charge. (He was found not guilty.)

Arizona Cardinals re-sign TE Maxx Williams.

Carolina Panthers sign WR Rashard "Hollywood" Higgins to a one-year deal.

Chicago Bears cut LB Danny Trevathan.

Las Vegas Raiders sign ER Chandler Jones (three years, $51 million). Click here for an expanded write-up on Jones.

Las Vegas Raiders trade ER Yannick Ngakoue to Indianapolis Colts for a package that includes CB Rock Ya-Sin (details to come).

Las Vegas Raiders cut LB Nick Kwiatkoski.

New York Jets re-sign QB Joe Flacco.

Seattle Seahawks sign ER Uchenna Nwosu (two years, $20 million).

Tennessee Titans cut WR Julio Jones.

Washington Commanders sign J.D. McKissic (two years, $7 million), who changes his mind about his previous agreement with the Buffalo Bills.


Baltimore Ravens bring back ER Za'Darius Smith (four years, $35 million). Click here for an expanded write-up on Smith.

Las Vegas Raiders sign FB Jakob Johnson.

Miami Dolphins sign FB Alex Ingold.

New York Jets trade LB Blake Cashman to Houston for 2023 sixth-round pick.

Pittsburgh Steelers sign LB Myles Jack (two years, $16 million).


Buffalo Bills sign ER Von Miller (six years, $120 million). The deal averages $17.5 million for the first four years, according to Ian Rapoport.

Buffalo Bills sign TE O.J. Howard.


Seattle Seahawks sign OL Austin Blythe.

Miami Dolphins sign RB Raheem Mostert (one year, $3.1 million).

Tampa Bay Buccaneers sign their franchise-tagged WR Chris Godwin to a new deal (three years, $60 million, $40 million guaranteed).


New York Jets sign ER Jacob Martin.

Pittsburgh Steelers cut LB Joe Schobert.

Washington Commanders sign G Andrew Norwell.


Atlanta Falcons sign CB Casey Hayward (two years, $11 million).

Buffalo Bills cut WR Cole Beasley.

Dallas Cowboys cut OT La'el Collins.


Baltimore will not be signing ER Za'Darius Smith. Change of plans. He remains a free agent.

Buffalo Bills sign DT Jordan Phillips and re-sign ER Shaq Lawson.

Cincinnati Bengals sign TE Hayden Hurst.

Los Angeles Rams sign WR Allen Robinson (three years, $46.5 million with $30 million guaranteed).

Philadelphia Eagles cut DT Fletcher Cox.


187 comments, Last at 20 Mar 2022, 8:44am

1 RE: Packers

The Z Smith release completely unsurprising.  Disappointing that the relationship seemed to sour before the 2021 season even began.  The Turner release is a bit of a surprise only because the guy played really well in 2021 save for the playoff game when he was asked to play LT when it's pretty clear he's not a LT.  But if an Adams' deal cannot be done in a timely fashion the team has to account for his FT salary.  The Turner release I imagine is reflective of that issue.


Separately, I took a fair amount of heckling in a prior discussion of projected moves by GB where I suggested that Preston returning was possible.  I wonder if the resident expert will show up to acknowledge that maybe the mockery was premature.


Oh wait, this is the internet where manners and owning one's behavior are foreign concepts.


Anyway, GB management is going to be busy over the next few days.  

2 I wonder if the Packers…

In reply to by big10freak

I wonder if the Packers would be better off letting Adams play on the franchise tag and avoiding a long term commitment.

I realize that ties their cap in knots and keeps an all pro twisting in the wind, but Adams is at an age where receivers tend to decline and rarely do those long term contracts age well. 

I realize Adams' game is built on route running skill rather than pure athleticism, but I watched Marvin Harrison fall of a cliff while Wayne made the transition to useful wiley veteran.

4 RE: Adams--FT

Adams has stated very clearly he won't play while being tagged.  I know that may be posturing, but it's a distinct possibility that Adams holds to his statement in which case GB has an empty roster spot.


But in theory I would agree with your suggestion not just this year but the next.  He is of an age where GB would have definitely extracted all his peak performance at a reasonable price even including the FT years.


Now I would prefer (as I suspect almost all Packer fans) that this contract be settled amicably.  But I can see the case for keeping things very much short term

7 After seeing Bell lose big…

In reply to by big10freak

After seeing Bell lose big time with his FT gambit, I would be surprised if Adams tried the same thing.

With Rodgers signed long term, they have some ability to play tough with Adams or at least get him to sign some team friendly deal where his contract is front loaded and they can get out of it with minimal pain after this year.

Honestly, this sounds heartless but it's really a function of the franchise tag and just how awful it is for the players who get tagged, especially rbs.

I, personally, would never sign an RB to a long term second contract ever again. I'd ft him twice at which point his career peak is definitely over.

9 Short-term cap space...

Downside to keeping Adams on the Franchise Tag is using up cap space in the next couple of years when Rodgers is still at his best.

Probably makes more sense to give him a deal which is back-loaded, to minimise his cap hit in their remaining window, then eat the rest once Rodgers has been put out to pasture (a la the Saints)

10 I guess it sounds simple to…

I guess it sounds simple to say...lets just push all in now and live through a crashing nightmare at the end, but there is value to remaining flexible even after your star QB ages. Detonation like the Saints could take years before they are relevant again. 

17 For sure...

For sure, and Green Bay are perhaps a more conservative long-termist organisation. But when you have one of the best QBs of all time and he is 38, then it's probably worth paying $8m in 3 years' time to save $5m now.

12 RE: Adams perspective

HIs other constant message is that Adams wants $30 million/year referencing the Hopkins contract.  On that point as well as his opposition to the FT he has been very consistent.


Just sharing so that others are aware of the player's perspective. 


Personally I have no issue with either view.  I firmly believe that athletes with finite earning windows should maximize their salaries at every opportunity.  


Russ Ball will earn his keep if he can satisfy both the player and the clubs needs.  I doubt Adams team will be seeking to do GB any favors not out of any issue with the team but just that the player wants to get paid and sooner rather than later.

13 It's better to sign Adams than upset GM Rodgers

Getting Adams off the Franchise Tag and into a contract will reduce his cap number this year. Green Bay is still significantly over the cap after today's moves. Adams should still be good for about 3 years which should be the rest of Rodgers window so I'm good with giving him a new contract. The cap will go up in the next couple years thanks to new TV contracts barring another COVID-like disaster so putting off payments for a year or so will work better for the Pack. 

14 "Adams should still be good…

"Adams should still be good for about 3 years which should be the rest of Rodgers window so I'm good with giving him a new contract."

Its this assumption I am questioning. Could be true, but its fraught with risk and history suggests receiver primes last 3-4 years, after which there's either a soft decline into reliable compliment or a total cliff fall.

If he demands a huge contract, this could easily turn into a toxic asset. Its why I wondered if its worth not rolling the dice. 

15 "Never" encompasses a lot of…

"Never" encompasses a lot of territory, but is pretty close to being entirely correct. For a rb to justify that much cap space consumption, he really needs to be a threat to score every time he touches the ball, and be good enough in pass protection that bringing his backup in for obvious passing situations doesn't make sense. Hardly any running back meets that definition. 

Mamas, don't let your babies grow to be rbs, don't let 'em take handoffs and catch screen passes, let'em play qb, and so thrill the masses!

23 It's almost remarkable how…

It's almost remarkable how much of an aberration the 80s, 90s, and early 2000s were for RBs, where there were a bunch of bellcow RBs who combined high peaks with high longevity.

Payton's 2nd-4th best seasons came in career years 9-11. Martin was 10th year. Sanders best seasons were his 9th and 6th. Faulk was 6th-9th. Dorsett's were 5th and 6th. Tomlinson and Craig were 3rd and 6th.  Smith was 3rd-6th. Edge James had elite seasons at 6th and 7th year. Dickerson and Thomas at 6th. 

Stepping down a touch, Dunn's best year was season 9. Watters was season 5. 

Every one of those guys was worth a second contract. Payton, Sanders, Martin, Faulk, and Dunn were worth a third. There was little like them before and hasn't seemed to have been them after. Peterson was sort of similar -- his best season was his 6th, and he had a great year in season 9.

28 In today's rules environment…

In today's rules environment, with the cap, and free agency, most of those guys would not be worth it, because they weren't explosive enough. The handoff, without the potential of a td, just doesn't dictate changes to the defense, relative to a pass play, to make devoting that much cap space to a rb worthwhile.

33 Most of those guys either…

Most of those guys either had the requisite explosiveness, made up for it with receiving ability, or could simply murder you by stacking 4-5 yard gains. (Laugh, but the Rams and 49ers have been to as many SBs as HOF QBs have in recent years by using counter-programming)

They may have been unicorns, but that era seemed to have had a lot of unicorns.

\I blame Tom Cruise

29 Mockery

In reply to by big10freak

I wonder if the resident expert will show up to acknowledge that maybe the mockery was premature.

Don't hold your breath.

3 I have to admit I don't…

I have to admit I don't really understand the Cowboys signing Gallup to a big deal right after trading Cooper. I realize his cap hit is lower, but they're still paying him like a top 20-ish WR, when he hasn't really been good since 2019 and is coming off an injury. I guess they're betting on him returning to form as the second WR? Haven't seen anything on the structure either, so it's possible it's a contract that's relatively easy to bail out of in a couple years if it doesn't work out.

5 Alex Cappa to the Bengals

Four years, $40M. Guess Brady's return didn't sway him. Sounds like Jensen will re-sign with the Bucs, though.

21 And thus the Trubisky signing is pointless

Should've swung for the fences or bet on a rookie and win with the rest of the money.

But seriously it seems like defensive HCs would rather pull teeth than take a swing on a young guy. It's weird because they, like Tomlin (and apparently Pete whos now after Watson) essentially has have all the power, even if they mess up, they wouldn't get fired over a rookie qb. 

26 Or just a second option

Let's see the numbers. But assuming this is not really big bucks, I don't see that a 2-year deal prevents them from taking Willis if he is there and they want him, or from taking someone else in the early 2nd (or trading back up) eg Ridder.

52 Even worse

But close. 2m off each. 14.25m w/7m guaranteed. It's amazing he had a NEGATIVE .25 ANY/A and got a straight up raise one year after no one wanted him. 

Also on a similar note amazing the Dolphins gave something similar to Bridgewater. You would think they would learn that spending on a backup checkdown artist instead of...oh idk...trying to fix the leagues worst OL...but teams just GOTTA have that mediocre insurance. Combine that with Edmonds deal and the money starts to add up to misallocation. 

48 Running in place.

I've said it a lot but it's just delaying the inevitable (think Panthers, Commanders, Broncos too but bailed out by Seattle, etc.) for what's likely mediocrity. And although the top of the QB class is better, it's only 2 guys (Stroud and Young) but as we see with Rattler, things can change (DJ U bombed haaaaaard this past Sophomore year of his at Clemson). So unless they completely bottom out to get one of those two, it just means they're spending money they could be on someone else/rollover.  

It shouldn't be that hard to evaluate others with Rudolph/Haskins/rookie (doesn't have to be at 20 either) vs Trubisky. It'd provide better upside too with extra money saved (because I can almost guarantee you he's gonna cost more than a rookie). 

22 Dolphins

Re-sighing Ogbah: Good

Big money for a RB: Bad

27 You're doing it wrong

Ugh, Bears. You have one job: Develop your young QB. So you spend basically all the money you saved trading away your best player on...a DT. Sure, you need a 3-technique eventually, but those guys can be found in the draft, and this doesn't help Justin Fields one bit.

37 For the entire Halas-family…

For the entire Halas-family run, the Bears have drafted and developed one QB into a HOFer -- Sid Luckman. His best years, perhaps unsurprisingly, occurred during WWII, when manpower shortages resulted in below-par play across the league. Luckman may have just been a really tall midget.

They have occasionally drafted one -- they drafted Blanda and Layne, but both were developed and prospered elsewhere. They had a minor string of drafting luck in the late 40s and early 50s -- they drafted Lujack, Blanda, Layne, and Ed Brown between 1946 and 1952, and the worst of those guys went to two Pro Bowls and got a few MVP votes. Outside of those five in that decade, it's basically McMahon and Trubisky. The Bears have not found and developed a franchise QB in 70 years.

39 The Bears find a QB about as…

In reply to by big10freak

The Bears find a QB about as often as the Chargers find a kicker.

\if you combined those franchises, you would have one unstoppable juggernaut and one mid-level NAIA team

158 Actual Bears fans..

who AREN'T "out of town stupid" are applauding this move!

Because its a GOOD MOVE!

Mack's cap hit will be done after 2023- he had 36 sacks in 53 games, 6 sacks in 7 games last injury plagued season

34 RE: Campbell

Per Huber of SI the Packers have a contract with Campbell in place that can be officially announced on the start of the league year (Wednesday)


5 years/50 million

47 If they're willing to sign…

In reply to by big10freak

If they're willing to sign Campbell to this type of contract, I bet they're more than willing to pay Davante. I think it's just a tricky negotiation because there's some gray area as to how you can define the top of the receiver market. Good article from last summer that anticipated that they were probably going to have trouble figuring out a deal:


Wonder if we'll hear about a Jaire Alexander extension next...

44 Per PFT,  cornerback J.C…

Per PFT,  cornerback J.C. Jackson has agreed to join Los Angeles (Chargers) on a five-year, $82.5 million deal with $40 million guaranteed.

46 Belichick by principle…

Belichick by principle refuses to overpay for anyone, even though he has a QB on a rookie controlled salary. This was far more understandable when he had Tom Brady as his qb, but that margin is gone. Unless he thinks JC is a replaceable cog(he has been right on this in the past); I dont get this  decision. At least franchise tag him!

49 This is a pretty corner-rich…

This is a pretty corner-rich draft, and Jackson's already proved he can't cover the guy he's needed for in the division (Diggs). I can understand not devoting that much of your cap to him over a well-chosen rookie 1st given where the Pats are at this point, from a contract numbers point of view.

50 The problem is, JC Jackson…

The problem is, JC Jackson has a lot of value even if he cannot cover Diggs. And a rookie CB is no guarantee of anything other than he is fairly unlikely to be as good as JC.

JC is also young and homegrown. I get cutting the cost when you have a high earning QB. But the Pats have a cost controlled rookie for years; if ever there was a time to splurge on a top end talent at an impact position; JC was it. I think this is a real blunder that could have ripple effects across the roster. 

98 I wonder how chastened BB…

Maybe BB was so chastened by that playoff shellacking in Buffalo, and thought “to hell if I’m paying any of those guys”…..

You do wonder whether in his eternally hard-nosed search for edge/value, BB is sometimes too inflexible in cases like this. I suppose time will tell whether Jackson is more Asante Samuel, or more Malcolm Butler. 

51 After being away for a bit,…

After being away for a bit, it’s startling how much this has become a gambling site.

Every article has a hook about how it affects odds or lines or your degenerate instant game. We used to talk about how it affected expected wins or team performance. It’s like FO got taken over by the British.


They're largely the same thing though aren't they? Or a quite interesting synthesis of the analytics numbers and "wisdom of crowds" judgment types.

Also no-one else gets the weird American obsessions about gambling - like Calvin Ridley being banned for a year for betting when he wasn't even playing, while Lane Johnson gets a shorter ban for 2 lots of steroids.

66  Also no-one else gets the…

Also no-one else gets the weird American obsessions about gambling - like Calvin Ridley being banned for a year for betting when he wasn't even playing,

I don't understand why this confuses people? There's essentially no difference between stock trading and sports betting (there are literally stock markets for sports bets!), and insider trading is a criminal offense with jail time in many (most?) countries. Ridley betting while being employed by the league is insider trading. Doesn't matter if you're on leave from a company if it happens.

After Ridley got hit with that suspension PFT was suggesting the NFL should allow it, which... just utterly baffles me. As soon as people start thinking they have no chance betting because the people placing the bets have more information than they do, the whole thing falls apart.

67 As soon as people start…

As soon as people start thinking they have no chance betting because the people placing the bets have more information than they do, the whole thing falls apart.

Think of all the poor mafiosi who will have to find regular work.

69 To be clear, the "all falls…

To be clear, the "all falls apart" comment is more related to why the NFL polices it so strongly. Steroids are a PR thing, insider betting kills an income stream. I don't bet partly because of what the money's associated with.

Think of all the poor mafiosi who will have to find regular work.

...hence my opinion on stock traders.

71 The NFL cracked down on…

The NFL cracked down on players gambling long before it became a revenue stream for teams. I think they were terrified of a Black Sox scandal where players were throwing games because gamblers paid them to.

Steroids were about guys trying to be better than their opponents. Gambling incentivized players to be worse. The view point is a little wonky, but there is reason underlying why one is tolerated more than the other. So it was about revenue, but very indirectly. Gamblers were bad for revenue, because they made the game being played worse and because it drove fans away. Steroids and amphetamines were tolerated so long as that wasn't true.

\you shave points, you don't add them

74 The NFL cracked down on…

The NFL cracked down on players gambling long before it became a revenue stream for teams

Gambling was a revenue stream for the NFL way before it was a direct revenue stream, and they absolutely knew it, because it drove interest. They just didn't want it expanded because it had a strongly negative public opinion and because it's a tough beast to control.

But there's a difference between the public gambling and the players gambling. The NFL obviously doesn't have a problem with fans drinking in the stands, but obviously a Bills player grabs a beer from the stands, and he gets fined. Why? Because the PR of players drinking on the field would be horrible.

140 You are right about the NFL and gambling

For those who think the NFL working with gamblers is a new thing, I suggest they Google "Jimmy the Greek NFL" sometime. Those of us old enough to remember will never forget his mind-numbingly racist talk about why black athletes are better. (Not a great link but the best links are paywalled.) Jimmy the Greek would weekly give his take on which teams were favored on the CBS pregame show until he was fired in the late 80s. 

82 I don't think anyone…

I don't think anyone sensible has beef with the idea of the NFL banning players betting on games or punishing them proportionately for doing so.

What's bizarre is the extremity of the punishment. So Ridley is banned for a whole season despite the fact that there is no evidence that he had any actual inside information, let alone influence on the outcome of games (he was not with the squad and was betting on the Falcons as part of a larger bet and was betting on them winning not losing).

Whereas Lane Johnson takes PEDs - not once but twice - with the deliberate effect of gaining a competitive advantage and distorting the competition (and increasing his own 8-figure salary), and for that he gets a lesser ban than Ridley bunging a few quid on an accumulator. That's what seems crazy to those of who didn't sail over with the Puritans on the Mayflower.

111 +1

In reply to by LondonMonarch


102 "There's essentially no…

"There's essentially no difference between stock trading and sports betting"

There's a huge difference between the two.  Stock markets facilitate the exchange of assets with value, allowing one party to take immediate liquidity in return for the other party taking the future value of the asset.  Both parties can "win" each trade by aligning their assets with their financial needs and over time market participants in aggregate share in a growing pool of value.  Sports betting is a zero sum game on a transaction-by-transaction basis where one party always wins and one party always loses, and in aggregate over time it's a less than zero sum game for the non-house participants.

103 Stock markets facilitate the…

Stock markets facilitate the exchange of assets with value, allowing one party to take immediate liquidity in return for the other party taking the future value of the asset. Both parties can "win" each trade by aligning their assets with their financial needs

Which... you can do with sports bets as well? Long term odds - like Super Bowl chances, win totals, etc. You can grab those early in the year when you think they have "value," hold onto them through the season and sell them if they've appreciate in value or if they've depreciated and you want to cut your losses. Both parties in that exchange can still "win" as well - obviously the seller wins directly (immediate cash) and the buyer can win by hedging their bet with the (now-favorable) opposing team odds.

The only serious difference is the long term difference, which is really why I said stock trading rather than just investing or the stock market. (Well, and the fact that stocks technically provide dividends and company control, but c'mon, be serious).

105 Those two technicalities you…

Those two technicalities you raise are pretty important things.

I hate it when I hear people liken sports betting to the stock market.  I understand you get it, by your distinction between trading and investing.  But a lot of people don't get it, young people (men, in my experience) in particular.  I worry about young adults who view betting as a way to make money, rather than as a form of entertainment, and giving them false justifications like "it's just like making money on the stock market" doesn't help them (or just as bad, turns them off of investing by making them think it's just another losing proposition like gambling).

106 Most of the stock literature…

Most of the stock literature shows inter day trades occur way more than you would expect for liquidity or portfolio adjustment reasons. In that way, it does resemble sports betting.

Incidentally, as a person with a degree in statistical finance, I find it makes me the least interesting person to have a conversation with when it comes to investing; mostly because no one wants to hear a sober analysis that runs counter to every impulse people have. And in my social circle, that's usually with software and hardware engineers who are otherwise incredibly smart, savvy people. Hell, I have pissed off plenty of people when I casually mention that buying a house should not be the default investment move that people seem to think it is. 

112 Your second house is an…

Your second house is an investment. Your first house is where you park your ass.

It sort of fascinates me that a lot of margin trading profit is actually based on software and hardware engineering and not financial analysis at all; where the game is to read the ongoing moves and get your trade in first because you are physically closer to the trade engine and thus get into the queue first.

It's basically legalized cheating, because rich companies are doing it instead of Joe Nobody.

115 Eric Budish had a nice paper…

Eric Budish had a nice paper on this topic of high speed trading. That it basically adds 0 to price discovery and encourages an arms race.

Btw, I don't understand why the second home is an investment.

Housing can be an investment, but people shouldn't buy houses because they think they are good investments. Buy the house for other reasons.

120 If you own one house and…

If you own one house and sell it, you still need a place to live. You can't buy low and sell high because you need to make an equivalent purchase in the same instant. Your attached transaction offsets the first one.

But if you have n > 1 houses, then you can treat any transaction of house(2...∞) as an investment, because you aren't obligated to make the associated transaction.

This ignores apartments and RVs and treats condos (all the downside of both houses and apartments, and none of the upside!) as houses. But vanishingly few people live rentally but own residential investment real estate.

123 I should have been clearer…

I should have been clearer. If i were giving investment advice, I would try to steer a typical person/couple away from treating real estate as an investment. If so and so likes the idea of having a house for different reasons; fine. But I meet way too many couples in their early 30s trying to afford a starter home because they think that is the "smart" way to invest your money.

If it were up to me, I would be a perpetual renter with most of my money invested across index funds; but sadly I have a wife who won't stand for that indefinitely. 

107 It's funny because I look at…

It's funny because I look at it the other way: I see short-term trading as a horrible thing and wish people saw that as the same "you're not going to win" proposition as betting is.

But yeah, it sucks that it's not easy to distinguish between long-term investment and short-term trading. Which... is actually half the problem with the stock market, come to think of it...

117 I agree with Lost Ti-Cats Fan

When I tune to MLB Network and see live odds of all baseball games and knowing that Nationals Park (betMGM)  is the beginning of a trend of easy gambling, I am concerned that we will bring up a generation of gambling addicts.

I am also concerned that once you are interested in sports for the money, that you lose the “love of the game.”

I know this happened to me personally but not due to gambling.  I was a beer vendor at Memorial Stadium in college, the job was so good that I kept it as a second job for 8 more years after college.

I realized that I rooted for the Orioles because it made me money when they were good and drew big crowds.  I did not watch baseball or football for a few years after leaving.  This after being a baseball and football fan starting at age 8.  

141 To be fair, sports betting…

To be fair, sports betting is like short-term trading in the stock market...you're exceedingly unlikely to be able to profit consistently, and there is an entire industry of charlatans making their living convincing dumb people that they can.

Where they differ is that there is nowhere on the sports betting market that you can invest over a period of years/decades and expect to get a fairly consistent return, as you would investing in index funds. (Those index funds don't skim 10% off the top like the sports books do, either).

145 RE: Sports gambling

I would make a distinction between horse race gambling and all other sports gambling.  I write this only because it is fairly well known that if you are committed, meticulous, understand risk and adept with synthesizing observational and numerical data you can profit at gambling on horses.  I post this not just from industry knowledge but also firsthand.  What I know of sports gambling, say basketball, you can only profit if you are a first mover on an unknown edge which soon gets revealed (mostly because winners cannot help but brag) and then the arbitrage opportunity closes.  


In horse racing there are elements that if you do your homework (and it's a lot of homework) you can wager intelligently over time.  


For example, as this is well known in the space, Joel Rosario is not only a great overall jockey but also the best jockey period in the US for turf sprints (6f or less).  Rosario has an incredible ability to maximize his mount in those races.  And no, it's not because he is always getting the best horse for that race.  (And for anyone who is going to pop in and write that jockeys are not athletes please know that you have just revealed yourself as an incredibly stupid person who should never ever be taken seriously on any topic.)  And I am not talking just winning.  HItting the board (1st, second, third) also generate a return.  


Anyway, I could write forever about horseracing and in turn gambling on horses.  It's one of my hobbies in retirement and something that I consider quite an enjoyable ongoing mental exercise.  But I wanted to share that this niche of sports gambling should be considered separate.  Only because while many lose (being casual about the matter) if you do the work you can over time make out on the plus side.  


Thanks for reading



147 I wonder if horse-racing is…

I wonder if horse-racing is affected by the racer (the horse) not knowing the odds or that gambling even exists.

Granted, I also suspect that horse racing is as or more dirty than bicycle racing, so...

153 RE: Horse racing integrity

I do not know if you are referring races being fixed by participants or the use of drugs by either the trainers and/or the jockeys.


What I can share and this is available for review with a brief Google search is that the horses are tested regularly and various trainers have been suspended and in a few cases banned for having been in violation of defined policies.  Most recently uber trainer Bob Baffert was suspended for several years from Churchill Downs and his horse DQ'd for having been in violation of the defined protocol.  


As for race fixing there is a large amount of monitoring due to being legalized gambling. But I cannot attest that it does not happen though I am not aware of any major tracks dealing with race fixing allegations.  


Jockeys are not drug tested to my knowledge.  Jockeys do get regularly suspended for inappropriate (namely reckless) behavior that endangers either the horses or other jockeys.  This is very common.  

154 RE: Equine Drug usage

Just to clarify I am sure there is some degree of illegal/inappropriate drug usage/doping happening regularly across the US.  Just wanted to share that there is regular testing taking place.  



58 Betting british

I never see nearly as much betting odds on normal sites about football (read: soccer), rugby, or any of the other mainstream sites. As ever when something starts happening in america, here it's legalised betting, you seem to go 100% at it.


I can understand why the site is catering for it if there's an audience and it brings in subscriptions.

59 I just roll my eyes and skip…

In reply to by HitchikersPie

I just roll my eyes and skip over it whenever someone using betting odds as a measure of team quality. The odds are designed to get people to place bets not measure the quality of the team.

61 Of course....

.... but they are only designed to induce people to bet at odds where the house will make a profit, and they are heavily based on the weight of bets placed. So they are quite a useful and interesting gauge of informed sentiment about how likely things are to happen.

79 Vegas lines track to…

Vegas lines track to generate equal profit on both sides. In an ideal case they make money regardless of what happens. The underdog could win literally every game in a season and they wouldn't care so long as people keep wagering on the favorite at the line presented.

The fact that it doesn't happen is just due to the fact that with the amount of money involved, gamblers pick up on market inefficiencies really, really quickly and wisdom of the crowds is typically pretty efficient.

There have been plenty of historical ones, though: back in the 70s you could literally make money by just betting against the previous week's winner.

81 Not entirely....

In general this is right (which is why betting odds are interesting to analytics people and vice versa) but that isn't always the case because some betting is sentimental.

For example, the odds with English bookmakers for England to win a soccer World Cup or Euros are nearly always shorter than the neutral estimate of England's win probability, because a lot more English people stick a tenner on England to win than they do on Spain or Holland. So the bookies have to hedge by shortening the odds.

87 I feel like market…

I feel like market inefficiencies tend to have a situation where if a line's not popular enough, there are plenty of inefficiencies because there's not enough knowledge. Add more people, knowledge goes up, the inefficiencies go away... but add too many people, and the inefficiencies show up again because the average knowledge per bettor goes down. For instance, the Super Bowl over the past 10 years has a pretty decent underdog bias (which could probably be accounted for by sticky preference bias).

So for instance in England, the "England wins World Cup" is super popular... meaning it's way on the "inefficient" side of that curve.

100 Add more people, knowledge…

Add more people, knowledge goes up, the inefficiencies go away... but add too many people, and the inefficiencies show up again because the average knowledge per bettor goes down.

That sounds just like Bayesian filtering.

85 Did... you not understand…

Did... you not understand the example from the 1970s? You could literally make money by betting against the previous week's winner. Obviously winning a game tends to correlate with team quality, so if you could make money betting against it, the lines weren't tracking team quality well (they were overreactive).

88 Better than the 1970s, sure,…

Better than the 1970s, sure, but there are plenty of market inefficiencies still out there - they just change constantly. Team popularity being the obvious one, which definitely causes a problem when it comes to using Vegas lines as a marker of team strength.

They're definitely a rough reflection of team quality, but not globally accurate. There are sooo many papers on Vegas line inefficiency out there.

89 I'm not active in the…

I'm not active in the literature of betting market efficiency. However, I spent a chunk of my grad school work studying efficient markets.

Tons of papers explored market efficiency and anomalies. One thing in common, almost all of these papers have terrible out of sample forecasts. A lot of the so called inefficiencies are discovered post hoc or through data mining.

The once tried and true anomalies such as value, small, momentum etc have done quite poorly and seem to explained by risk. And so...

I remain skeptical there are obvious efficiencies in betting out there, especially net of fees.

91 One thing in common, almost…

One thing in common, almost all of these papers have terrible out of sample forecasts.

Out of sample as in future? That just means it's not persistent. Like I said, the inefficiencies change quickly. But there are plenty of studies out there with burn/blind data sets and those are obviously fine. Plus most of them tend to identify the same type of inefficiency (sticky preferences) which is well-known from controlled studies. Some of that is researcher bias, obviously.


I remain skeptical there are obvious efficiencies in betting out there, especially net of fees.

There's a difference between line inefficiency and being able to make money. A line being off by 1 point is super-hard to make money off of but not hard to measure. (That being said, the fact that you can easily trade bets now probably changes that...)

132 Fodor et al, "Inefficient…

Fodor et al, "Inefficient pricing from holdover bias in NFL point spread markets." Covers a bunch of review of other studies. The out of sample test is backwards (which I hate, just slice the data set) and less strong (it reaches back to the dawn of free agency) but still profitable. Which is crazy given how ridiculously simple the rule is.

Same bias has been seen in college markets (Bennett 2019), and of course the silly 1970s rule was the same thing too. It's important to note that this is testing against direct profitability, which is a *huge* ask! The existence of a bias doesn't mean it's profitable on reasonable timescales. Also worth noting that statistical significance is also a big ask: the fact that the biases are always in the same direction strongly implies it's real.

62 The dumbest thing about…

In reply to by HitchikersPie

The dumbest thing about sports gamblers is the fact that if they become competent at it, the sports books will ban them. You only get to play if you're a loser. What a con.

65 There's much of a less of a…

In reply to by HitchikersPie

There's much of a less of a focus on gambling with British football, what with gambling companies sponsoring nine teams and the entirety of the Football Championship.


ESPN seems to have been infected by the same problem, although in ESPN's case that's just a continuation of a long-term drop in quality that's been going on for more than a decade now.

54 RE: Packers/Rodgers

Deal apparently in place


According to Ian Rapoport of NFL Network, Rodgers’ deal is a four-year extension running through 2026, but with two so-called “placeholder” years added on to the end of the contract for salary cap purposes. Effectively, this makes the deal a two-year extension through 2024, paying him a total of $150.6 million in compensation over the next three years.


Packers get $18 million in 2022 cap relief

73 The fact that they're…

In reply to by Raiderfan

The fact that they're supposedly negotiating a pay cut with Randall Cobb to keep him on the roster says a lot... Mason Crosby is evidently safe as well.

75 OL Mark Glowinski leaving…

OL Mark Glowinski leaving the Colts for the Giants. Certainly not a big name or anything, but he’s been a solid part of the Colts’ OL for the last several years. 

This was almost certainly a pure salary cap move for the Colts. He got a solid salary increase with the Giants. The Colts still need to sign a LT and will need to resign Nelson soon. There’s only so much money to spend on the OL and on guards specifically. 

76 Interesting that Buffalo is…

Interesting that Buffalo is addressing the holes in the run defense but not the secondary or receiver. So I'm guessing round one CB and round two WR.

90 Buffalo brought back Isaiah…

Buffalo brought back Isaiah McKenzie, so I think they are considering their top 4 WR spots filled for the moment (unless Beasley gets traded, which seems vanishingly unlikely).

Cornerback is a little more unusual, but it also seems like the whole cornerback market is a little bit stalled. Ward and Jackson got paid but relatively few have signed otherwise.

Honestly every year it amazes me more that we've built a successful team while also dealing with McDermott and Beane's pathological need to sign ex-Panthers or guys coached by Ron Rivera.

93 Well, we got that out of the…

Well, we got that out of the way this year, and they're all reasonable signings. McKissick is actually a good signing, and Settle will probably turn out that way, too - and addressing most of the needs at DT for less money that Harrison got from Minnesota is the way you keep winning.

78 Gregory gets a big deal. I…

Gregory gets a big deal. I guess when you have a LB who is hurt whenever he’s not suspended, you need to dedicate a lot of cap to him.

Correction, DE. I must have confused with similarly banned Cowboys LBs La'el Collins and Rolando McClain.

\or w/ Greg Hardy

83 The Marcus Williams signing…

The Marcus Williams signing is a steal for the Ravens, I thought he would command 15 million+ APY.   Disappointed the Lions missed out on him.

84 Randy Gregory

Gregory has reversed course and has signed with the Broncos.

96 RE: Gregory

He has always received more attention that is warranted based on his performance.  At Nebraska he was constantly portrayed as a 'difference maker', etc but every time Wisconsin played Nebraska Gregory would be overwhelmed trying to hold the edge and rarely got close the few times WI would throw.  


To his credit he apparently turned his life around and has had flashes in Dallas.  But staying on the field has been a challenge.  And to add on to your point Gregory has started 12 games in his career.   I know starts are not a Grade A metric.  But still a bit telling about the player

97 He's certainly a pass rush…

In reply to by big10freak

He's certainly a pass rush specialist, but he's been good to very good when he's been on the field. The question is really just can he stay healthy (imo the other off the field stuff isn't as big of a concern these days). I was glad but nervous when the Cowboys were reportedly resigning him, and now I'm relieved and nervous that he's going elsewhere. That's probably a pretty good way of summing him up, really.

108 Gregory had everything lined up to stay in Dallas

And then some idiot inserted language into the contract at the last minute, and that idiot somehow wasn’t Jerry Jones but is pretty likely to be fired by Jerry Jones in the near future. 

109 Though if.....

.... Gregory misses a bunch of time with a motorcycling injury or a PED suspension or whatever, that "idiot" might feel rather justified.

If Gregory was otherwise keen to commit to Dallas, then he must have given them opportunity to take that language out before switching horses - so presumably a decision was taken by some pretty senior people that the language was really important.

As his current team team they may know things which make it important....

122 Well...

.... that sort of irrationality may tend to confirm the desirability of those sorts of protections.

124 Eh, I find it hard to blame…

In reply to by LondonMonarch

Eh, I find it hard to blame Gregory on this. He apparently had the same offer from Denver, and the other party to a contract tried to insert language after the deal was agreed upon? Nope, don't blame him for taking the exactly equivalent offer without the language.

126 It really can be annoying as…

It really can be annoying as hell to have an agreement in principle,  only to have the other party insert unusual language that they never saw fit to mention throughout an extended negotiating process.A couple times it's been annoying enough for me to simply say that I don't want to enter into any sort of contract with the other party.

131 Indeed. It doesn't have to…

Indeed. It doesn't have to be complex/extended negotiations which fall apart this way. I was recently on the verge of purchasing a new (inexpensive) car, when the salesperson started hard-balling me over some very minor, superficial damage on my old vehicle. It amounted to almost nothing (reduced warranty/insurance etc.) but I was pissed enough to say "to hell with you!" and walk away. In hindsight I was probably being silly, but humans are impulsive like that.

128 What colonial bob and Will…

In reply to by LondonMonarch

What colonial bob and Will Allen said. This reflects extremely poorly on Dallas. Gregory's decision is perfectly justified.

133 Estimating from afar, it's…

Estimating from afar, it's exactly the kind of bullshit I'd expect from Jerrel, and, to be fair, many other NFL owners. They wouldn't try it with parties they perceived as equals, like a television network, or perhaps even the NFLPA as a whole, but a single lowly player, especially one not being repped by an agent (and I have no idea what Gregory's situation is) without notches on his holster? Yeah, the last minute screwjob is exactly the play I'd expect.

135 I actually really doubt it…

I actually really doubt it was from Jerry himself. For all his (numerous) faults, he's always been relatively generous with his own players. Often to a fault. Plus from what I've read he was heavily recruiting Gregory to return. So my guess this was somebody else in the front office.

136 Considering how the various…

Considering how the various team-moves of the late teens went, I don't think NFL owners consider anyone to be in their peer-group, because they will happily screw each other over, too.

Granted, we have this from Gregory's camp, and he's a player who has flunked three basic intelligence tests.

137 So apparently most NFL teams…

So apparently most NFL teams have language in their contract voiding some portion of guaranteed salary in case of suspension...perfectly reasonable given Gregory's past history. 

Gregory's agent claims that the Cowboys went further than that and wanted a void of guarantees in case of a fine, not just a suspension.  If this is the whole story (a big "if"), I get it.  In league where guys get fined for wearing their socks too low, can totally understand Gregory not wanting his guarantees jeopardized by trivialities.

152 It is ethical to ask for…

It is ethical to ask for anyrhing legal in a negotiation. When it comes to pretty standard language in contracts for an industry, however, if you wait until all the typical points of contention to be hammered out, over an extended period of time, before asking for significant changes in standard language, you're just a tedious asshole. Sometime tedious assholes are worth tolerating, and sometimes they're not.

110 What is NE doing?

Trading Winovich for Mack Wilson (ok) and trading Shaq Mason for a 5th (huh)

113 The first was a change-of…

In reply to by ImNewAroundThe…

The first was a change-of-scenery bust-4-bust trade...No idea on the second. Han't felt like NE has a plan since Brady left honestly. Unless they are trying to be a 1-and-done fringe wildcard team. 

114 Yeah...


Price for Mason seems pretty low.   They gain like 7M in cap space i guess, but to spend where?  

A 5th round pick is basically nothing (well i guess *slightly* more than nothing, but I'm a bit baffled by GM BB

118 Clearly

In reply to by scottw

Well, clearly, Belichek is doing his buddy Brady a solid, since both TB guards are gone.

116 feels like

In reply to by ImNewAroundThe…

In recent years, it's felt like the Pats haven't really demanded enough for the players they've traded away.  

And if "Mason for a 5th" sounds bad, remember "Gilmore for a 6th".

Belichick is so intent on clearing cap space that he's not really being aggressive enough in terms of demanding proper value for these trades.

Or maybe "the entire league" is conspiring to not make deals with him.  Still surprised he had no takers for a JC Jackson tag-and-trade.  (I don't really thing this is the case.)

125 The Patriots probably would…

In reply to by RickD

The Patriots probably would have had to restructure multiple guys to clear space to be able to tag Jackson - they probably assessed the tag-and-trade market and figured the return wasn't worth what it would cost them in future cap space. (They also would have had to fit Jackson under the cap before they could trade Mason, so trading Mason wouldn't have helped make the tag-and-trade work.)

127 Gilmore

In reply to by RickD

Gilmore for a 6 is pretty bad, but strictly speaking it was a half season of Gilmore for a six and now he's a free agent. I'm wondering if the Pats are clearing cap space with a specific move in mind. That would make more sense. 

138 Gilmore was only half a season

In reply to by RickD

But yeah they generally could get more because it seems like they aren't calling everyone.  

Jackson getting a below market deal to a non playoff team, in conference, isn't great either.  

It's not like they were over the cap with Mason. Dudes been consistently good. Dont think that's where they need to clear space. Oh wait maybe that questionable spending spree last year is taking affect. Hmmm.