Rourke NFL workouts: chooses Jacksonville

[DanoT]

Add the KC Chiefs to Rourke's magical not-so-mystery tour. I guess they've gotten over their last experience with a BC QB.

I'm in a fog here, so please fill me in. Who was the BC QB that was last that KC Chiefs got to experience?

Edit: Oh wait, it was Casey Printers.

[squishy35]

Rourke worked out for the Bengals yesterday. Lots of teams kicking the tires...

[Toppy Vann]

And yesterday it was Cleveland.

https://3downnation.com/2023/01/11/cana ... nd-browns/

Nathan Rourke's made more stops than a rock band on a concert tour.

He's an intelligent, hard worker who is likely getting some good advice on his career.

I've read nothing on his comments as it appears all that is out there is that he's "worked out yesterday for _____"

He's young and able to pull up roots easily so it does make sense to do these tours and meet NFL coaching staff even if it's not for this season.

For ardent CFL fans it's always a bit disappointing to read how many CFLers are in the NFL or trying out for the NFL but that is all about the size of our market and not the quality of the play or players.

[squishy35]

And yesterday it was Cleveland.

https://3downnation.com/2023/01/11/cana ... nd-browns/

Nathan Rourke's made more stops than a rock band on a concert tour.

He's an intelligent, hard worker who is likely getting some good advice on his career.

I've read nothing on his comments as it appears all that is out there is that he's "worked out yesterday for _____"

He's young and able to pull up roots easily so it does make sense to do these tours and meet NFL coaching staff even if it's not for this season.

For ardent CFL fans it's always a bit disappointing to read how many CFLers are in the NFL or trying out for the NFL but that is all about the size of our market and not the quality of the play or players.

Thank-you. I stand corrected

[B.C.FAN]

Rourke’s NFL workout tour is over and his decision could be made by the weekend, according to Farhan Lalji.



Farhan says the Vikings, Giants and Buccaneers would be the best fit for Rourke.

[SammyGreene]

At last. Lots of interest with apparently good offers on the table. Can’t see how he stays if that’s where he ultimately wants to be. No guarantees about your future in a physical sport like football. Lions can at least move ahead with their pending FAs knowing exactly how much money they will have to work with in 2023.
McElvoy has said this week they had maxed out on their 2022 money once they extended Sean Whyte.

[squishy35]

At last. Lots of interest with apparently good offers on the table. Can’t see how he stays if that’s where he ultimately wants to be. No guarantees about your future in a physical sport like football. Lions can at least move ahead with their pending FAs knowing exactly how much money they will have to work with in 2023.
McElvoy has said this week they had maxed out on their 2022 money once they extended Sean Whyte.

Rick Dhaliwal apparently has some inside information which suggests the Lions are still in the mix to potentially re-sign Rourke:

[maxlion]

I have never seen a clear explanation of how the Lions would be able to sign Roarke to a lucrative contract given the cost-controlled framework for first contracts for nationals in the CBA.

Section 9.02 of the 2019 CBA states that "All Nationals will be required to sign a minimum 2 + 1 first contract and follow the salary grid at outlined below". The salary for years 1 and 2 are determined based on draft position, with some modest optional bonus and housing amounts. The third "option" year salary is negotiable but can only be maximum 10% higher than year 2.

I am assuming that the new CBA follows the same structure.

Since year 3 is an option year, does that mean that the Lions could choose not to exercise the option and then be free to sign Roarke to a more lucrative contract? Or are they expecting the league to change the rules to allow them to make a better offer? Or do they think Roarke would come back at $85,000 CDN for 2023?

I think making an exception in the CBA for national quarterbacks would be justified based on the salary differential between QBs and other positions.

[B.C.FAN]

I have never seen a clear explanation of how the Lions would be able to sign Roarke to a lucrative contract given the cost-controlled framework for first contracts for nationals in the CBA.

Section 9.02 of the 2019 CBA states that "All Nationals will be required to sign a minimum 2 + 1 first contract and follow the salary grid at outlined below". The salary for years 1 and 2 are determined based on draft position, with some modest optional bonus and housing amounts. The third "option" year salary is negotiable but can only be maximum 10% higher than year 2.

I am assuming that the new CBA follows the same structure.

Since year 3 is an option year, does that mean that the Lions could choose not to exercise the option and then be free to sign Roarke to a more lucrative contract? Or are they expecting the league to change the rules to allow them to make a better offer? Or do they think Roarke would come back at $85,000 CDN for 2023?

I think making an exception in the CBA for national quarterbacks would be justified based on the salary differential between QBs and other positions.

I've never seen a direct answer to your question but every indication is that first contracts can be torn up if an extension is signed before the contract expires. Farhan suggests the Lions are offering Rourke $600,000-plus for this year, likely with similar numbers for any following years. Even with an extension, Rourke would still be free to check out NFL offers after the 2023 season.

[maxlion]

I have never seen a clear explanation of how the Lions would be able to sign Roarke to a lucrative contract given the cost-controlled framework for first contracts for nationals in the CBA.

Section 9.02 of the 2019 CBA states that "All Nationals will be required to sign a minimum 2 + 1 first contract and follow the salary grid at outlined below". The salary for years 1 and 2 are determined based on draft position, with some modest optional bonus and housing amounts. The third "option" year salary is negotiable but can only be maximum 10% higher than year 2.

I am assuming that the new CBA follows the same structure.

Since year 3 is an option year, does that mean that the Lions could choose not to exercise the option and then be free to sign Roarke to a more lucrative contract? Or are they expecting the league to change the rules to allow them to make a better offer? Or do they think Roarke would come back at $85,000 CDN for 2023?

I think making an exception in the CBA for national quarterbacks would be justified based on the salary differential between QBs and other positions.

I've never seen a direct answer to your question but every indication is that first contracts can be torn up if an extension is signed before the contract expires. Farhan suggests the Lions are offering Rourke $600,000-plus for this year, likely with similar numbers for any following years. Even with an extension, Rourke would still be free to check out NFL offers after the 2023 season.

Thanks for this reply. I would guess that you could only tear up the contract between year 2 and 3 (when the option year starts). Otherwise, the cost controlled framework would be seriously undermined.

[Hambone]

I have never seen a clear explanation of how the Lions would be able to sign Roarke to a lucrative contract given the cost-controlled framework for first contracts for nationals in the CBA.

Section 9.02 of the 2019 CBA states that "All Nationals will be required to sign a minimum 2 + 1 first contract and follow the salary grid at outlined below". The salary for years 1 and 2 are determined based on draft position, with some modest optional bonus and housing amounts. The third "option" year salary is negotiable but can only be maximum 10% higher than year 2.

I am assuming that the new CBA follows the same structure.

Since year 3 is an option year, does that mean that the Lions could choose not to exercise the option and then be free to sign Roarke to a more lucrative contract? Or are they expecting the league to change the rules to allow them to make a better offer? Or do they think Roarke would come back at $85,000 CDN for 2023?

I think making an exception in the CBA for national quarterbacks would be justified based on the salary differential between QBs and other positions.

I'm thinking the loophole could be in bonuses. As you mentioned there are some optional bonus and housing amounts set for year 1 & 2 and the 3rd option year salary can be only a max 10% higher than year 2. However in that grid in the CBA there is nothing laid out regarding bonuses for Year 3. If there was some sort of limit on bonuses as in years 1 & 2 that it would also be indicated in year 3 but there is nothing. I'm not seeing anything that says they cannot offer him 2022 base + 10% PLUS a $500K bonus for 2023.

[DanoT]

Rules are made to be broken. If Rourke is willing to play for the Lions in 2023, then Lions should ignore the rules, sign Rourke for what he is worth as a starting CFL QB, then appeal to the CFL for an exemption after the fact.

[DanoT]

Here is a pretty good interview from 3D Nation with Lions' Neil McEvoy. Talks mostly about Rourke but also Burnham, Betts, Purifoy.

https://3downnation.com/2023/01/12/3dow ... an-rourke/

[maxlion]

I have never seen a clear explanation of how the Lions would be able to sign Roarke to a lucrative contract given the cost-controlled framework for first contracts for nationals in the CBA.

Section 9.02 of the 2019 CBA states that "All Nationals will be required to sign a minimum 2 + 1 first contract and follow the salary grid at outlined below". The salary for years 1 and 2 are determined based on draft position, with some modest optional bonus and housing amounts. The third "option" year salary is negotiable but can only be maximum 10% higher than year 2.

I am assuming that the new CBA follows the same structure.

Since year 3 is an option year, does that mean that the Lions could choose not to exercise the option and then be free to sign Roarke to a more lucrative contract? Or are they expecting the league to change the rules to allow them to make a better offer? Or do they think Roarke would come back at $85,000 CDN for 2023?

I think making an exception in the CBA for national quarterbacks would be justified based on the salary differential between QBs and other positions.

I'm thinking the loophole could be in bonuses. As you mentioned there are some optional bonus and housing amounts set for year 1 & 2 and the 3rd option year salary can be only a max 10% higher than year 2. However in that grid in the CBA there is nothing laid out regarding bonuses for Year 3. If there was some sort of limit on bonuses as in years 1 & 2 that it would also be indicated in year 3 but there is nothing. I'm not seeing anything that says they cannot offer him 2022 base + 10% PLUS a $500K bonus for 2023.

I see what you mean, but a 80k base contract with 500k bonus would be pretty anomalous. I mean, why strictly control the base salary but then allow unlimited bonus? I suspect they just wanted to fit a bunch of extra words into the third column of the table and didn't have room for the bonus info. Admittedly, that seems pretty amateurish.

I keep going back to the option year. What does that mean? A team can cut a player anytime. Why not just say that rookies have to sign 3 year contracts?

I think the Lions would just not exercise the option, then sign Rourke as a free agent. It would be a loophole to the cost controlled structure, but the league might turn a blind eye under the circumstances. Or else the league would just change the rule. Obviously they wouldn't let this basically unintelligible provision stand in the way of keeping a generational talent in the league.

[Hambone]

I see what you mean, but a 80k base contract with 500k bonus would be pretty anomalous. I mean, why strictly control the base salary but then allow unlimited bonus? I suspect they just wanted to fit a bunch of extra words into the third column of the table and didn't have room for the bonus info. Admittedly, that seems pretty amateurish.

I keep going back to the option year. What does that mean? A team can cut a player anytime. Why not just say that rookies have to sign 3 year contracts?

I think the Lions would just not exercise the option, then sign Rourke as a free agent. It would be a loophole to the cost controlled structure, but the league might turn a blind eye under the circumstances. Or else the league would just change the rule. Obviously they wouldn't let this basically unintelligible provision stand in the way of keeping a generational talent in the league.

They could easily have laid those columns out to fit everything in if there were criteria for the signing/housing and perfomance bonuses to be included. The 2 pages they use to lay it out before moving on to the next Article have close to a combined 3/4 of a page worth of blank space they could easily use if they had something to put in it.

The option year is at the club's discretion. They do have to advise the player and the league that they will be picking up the option by Dec 31st of the year prior to the option year season. If the club chooses not to pick up the option year the player would become a free agent. Now this is going back to memory from several years ago but it seems to me there was something about option years and raise offers and 10% rings a bell. I don't remember the context of it all but in the back of my mind I think teams had to offer a 10% raise to complete their commitment to the option year. I could be totally out to lunch on that. I can't find anything in the CBA or By-Laws about it.

As for the idea of cut him and sign a new deal I believe there is one major flaw. Correct me if I'm wrong but if they cut him he would be subject to the waiver process. He wouldn't become a free and clear free agent until he passed through the waiver process unclaimed.