The contract has a base value of $58 million and can be worth up to $66 million, including $32 million guaranteed.
The New England Patriots and safety Kyle Dugger have agreed to a four-year extension.
The New England Patriots and safety Kyle Dugger have agreed to a four-year extension, sources told ESPN on Sunday. The contract has a base value of $58 million and can be worth up to $66 million, including $32 million guaranteed. Dugger had received the transition tag from the team last month, restricting his free agency. Had he played the 2024 season on the tag, he would have been paid $13.8 million.
The game of tag is over. After placing the transition tag on safety Kyle Dugger to keep him through next season, the Patriots have re-signed their top safety to a 4-year, $58 million contract with $32.5 million guaranteed.
Kyle Dugger was set to make $13.8 million guaranteed on the 1-year tag, an average of the 10 highest-paid players at his position.
Dugger is allowed to negotiate with other teams, but instead returns as the sixth-highest paid safety in the NFL by total contract value and average annual value.
He is also the league's fifth-highest paid safety by total guarantees.
Kyle Dugger started every Patriots game the past two seasons, missing just two due to injury.
Dugger enjoyed a Pro Bowl-caliber campaign in 2022, featuring three interceptions, three defensive touchdowns, a sack and one forced fumble.
He set career highs with 109 tackles and 1.5 sacks last year.
Kyle Dugger is one of the league's best box safeties and will return to play alongside Jabrill Peppers and Marte Mapu.
Accuracy
The game of tag is over.
Deception
(50%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, it states that Dugger was allowed to negotiate with other teams but then returns as the sixth-highest paid safety in the NFL by total contract value and average annual value. This statement implies that he had multiple offers from other teams, which is not true according to sources disclosed later in the article. Secondly, it states that Dugger's new deal carries a maximum value of $66 million but does not mention anything about any guaranteed money or bonuses included in this amount. This statement can be misleading as it suggests that he will earn $66 million over the course of his contract without considering other factors such as signing bonuses, roster bonuses and performance-based incentives which could significantly increase his total earnings. Thirdly, the article states that Dugger's new deal is an example of de facto general manager Eliot Wolf extending the team's core players but does not provide any context or evidence to support this claim. It also mentions other players who have signed contracts with the Patriots recently without providing any details about their deals, making it difficult for readers to understand the overall financial situation of the team.
The article states that Dugger's new deal carries a maximum value of $66 million but does not mention anything about any guaranteed money or bonuses included in this amount. This statement can be misleading as it suggests that he will earn $66 million over the course of his contract without considering other factors such as signing bonuses, roster bonuses and performance-based incentives which could significantly increase his total earnings.
The article states that Dugger was allowed to negotiate with other teams but then returns as the sixth-highest paid safety in the NFL by total contract value and average annual value. This statement implies that he had multiple offers from other teams, which is not true according to sources disclosed later in the article.
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains an appeal to authority fallacy by stating that the Patriots have re-signed their top safety. This is not a factual statement as Dugger was placed on the transition tag and allowed to negotiate with other teams before signing his new contract. The author also uses inflammatory rhetoric when describing Dugger's performance in 2023, stating that he set career highs with tackles and sacks despite a slight dip in interceptions and forced fumbles compared to the previous year.
The game of tag is over. After placing the transition tag on safety Kyle Dugger to keep him through next season,
Bias
(85%)
The article contains a statement that implies the Patriots are keeping Dugger because they value him highly. However, it also states that he was allowed to negotiate with other teams and instead chose to return as the sixth-highest paid safety in the NFL by total contract value and average annual value. This contradicts the idea of valuing him highly.
The game of tag is over.
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
The author of the article has a conflict of interest with Eliot Wolf and Mike Onwenu as they are both members of the Patriots organization. The author also has a financial tie to Josh Uche as he is an NFL player.
$13.8 million guaranteed on the 1-year tag, an average of the 10 highest-paid players at his position.
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
The author has a conflict of interest on the topic of NFL contracts as they report that S Kyle Dugger agreed to a massive 4-year deal with $32.5 million guaranteed.
$13.8 million guaranteed on the 1-year tag, an average of the 10 highest-paid players at his position.
, The contract has a base value of $58 million and can be worth up to $66 million, including $32 million guaranteed.
He had received the transition tag from the team last month, restricting his free agency. Had he played the 2024 season on the tag, he would have been paid $13.8 million.
, Only five NFL players had received the transition tag in the past 10 years, and none were safeties.
Accuracy
The game of tag is over.
Kyle Dugger started every Patriots game the past two seasons, missing just two due to injury.
Deception
(100%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains several examples of informal fallacies. The author uses an appeal to authority by stating that former Patriots coach Bill Belichick appreciated Dugger's versatility without providing any evidence or context for this statement. Additionally, the author makes a false dilemma when suggesting that the Patriots should turn at the QB position after trading away Mac Jones, implying that there are only two options available to them.
The article contains several examples of informal fallacies.
Bias
(100%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
There are multiple examples of conflicts of interest in this article. The author is an ESPN Staff Writer and the site is owned by Disney which has a financial stake in the NFL through its ownership of ABC Sports and ESPN. Additionally, there may be personal relationships between Reiss and individuals or groups involved with the Patriots as he covers their team regularly.
The article mentions that 'ESPN's Mike Reiss reported on Friday night that sources told him the Patriots had agreed to a four-year, $58 million deal with Kyle Dugger. The site is owned by Disney which has a financial stake in the NFL through its ownership of ABC Sports and ESPN.
The Patriots agreed to terms with safety Kyle Dugger on a four-year extension worth up to $66 million.
Kyle Dugger is allowed to negotiate with other teams, but instead returns as the sixth-highest paid safety in the NFL by total contract value and average annual value.
Accuracy
The game of tag is over.
Kyle Dugger started every Patriots game the past two seasons, missing just two due to injury.
Deception
(30%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the author uses sensationalism by stating that Dugger's new deal beats out the transition tag with a $14.5 million per-year average to move him up to the sixth-highest earner at his position.
The author uses sensationalism by stating that Dugger's new deal beats out the transition tag with a $14.5 million per-year average, but this is not entirely accurate as it does not take into account other factors such as bonuses and incentives which are also included in the contract.
The article states that Dugger's new deal beats out the transition tag with a $14.5 million per-year average, but this is not entirely accurate as it does not take into account other factors such as bonuses and incentives which are also included in the contract.
Fallacies
(70%)
The article contains an appeal to authority fallacy by stating that the extension was reported by NFL Network Insiders Ian Rapoport and Mike Garafolo. The author also uses inflammatory rhetoric when describing Dugger's performance as a better run defender than a pass-coverage specialist, but serviceable in both aspects.
The article states that the extension was reported by NFL Network Insiders Ian Rapoport and Mike Garafolo. This is an appeal to authority fallacy.
Bias
(75%)
The article contains a statement that implies the Patriots are making a smart financial decision by avoiding the transition tag and signing Kyle Dugger to an extension. The author uses language such as 'beats out' and 'delivers' which could be seen as positive or favorable towards Dugger, implying he is deserving of his big payday.
Dugger's new deal beats out the transition tag that New England placed on him in March
The Patriots agreed to terms with safety Kyle Dugger on a four-year, $58 million extension that can be worth up to $66 million and comes with $32.5 million guaranteed
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
There are multiple examples of conflicts of interest found in this article. The author is a reporter for NFL Network Insiders and Eric Edholm from NFL.com, which may compromise their ability to report objectively on the Patriots' decision to extend Kyle Dugger's contract.
Eric Edholm of NFL.com is mentioned in the article
Kyle Dugger is considered the top free agent still available one month into the 2024 season.
The reported deal for Kyle Dugger more or less confirms as much.
New England had bigger needs and made it clear in free agency they were more likely to spend on their own culture-builders than external options.
Accuracy
No Contradictions at Time
Of
Publication
Deception
(30%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, it states that the Patriots had bigger needs than to sign Simmons and were more likely to spend on their own culture-builders than external options. However, this statement contradicts itself as the Patriots signed Dugger for a four-year deal worth $58 million which is not consistent with spending on their own culture builders. Secondly, it states that Dugger and Peppers are better served as box safeties while Simmons patrols the middle of the field. However, this statement is incorrect as Dugger has shown versatility in his play style and can cover both roles effectively.
The article contradicts itself by stating that the Patriots had bigger needs than to sign Simmons and were more likely to spend on their own culture-builders than external options. However, this statement is not consistent with spending $58 million on Dugger which is not a culture builder.
The article states that Dugger and Peppers are better served as box safeties while Simmons patrols the middle of the field. However, this statement is incorrect as Dugger has shown versatility in his play style and can cover both roles effectively.
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains several fallacies. The author uses an appeal to authority by stating that the Patriots made it clear in free agency they were more likely to spend on their own culture-builders than external options. This statement is not supported by any evidence and is based solely on the author's opinion.
The reported deal for Kyle Dugger confirms as much.
Bias
(85%)
The article is biased towards the Patriots' decision to sign Kyle Dugger instead of Justin Simmons. The author uses language that demeans and belittles Simmons by calling him a 'pipe dream', while praising Dugger as being versatile with serviceable pass defense, despite his strengths not filling the role left by Devin McCourty.
,
The reported deal for Kyle Dugger more or less confirms as much.
