Remianen

*shrug* Agree to disagree. How many tackles did Deion Sanders average when he was hands down the best cover corner in the league? I think it's a mistake to judge a cover corner on stats like tackles and even picks. Nnamdi is the highest paid corner in the league. How many picks does he average a year? A change of scenery is often given as a reason for players' habits and performances changing. Isn't that right, Kyle Orton? Dez Bryant isn't on his fifth team in 9 years. That was the part I was focusing on. As I said, TO isn't a perfect receiver by any means. But you cannot downplay his level of performance, despite those things. As far as him being a locker room cancer, yeah okay. His most recent stop proves he can "fit in" to a degree. Well obviously, you should be running an NFL franchise then. Let's ignore the fact that nobody else in the league felt Jones was worth 5.8 mil because of the wear on his tires, so to speak. Also, we obviously have a different view of what a 'feature back' actually is. It's not a surprise since folks' memories are so short. A feature back is the ONE back who receives the lion's share of carries. Eric Dickerson was a feature back. Emmitt Smith during much of his Cowboys career, was a feature back. LT during the first few years of his career (especially during his record breaking season) was a feature back. Jamal Lewis during his Ravens stint at the beginning of the century, was a feature back. Feature backs average a minimum of 300 carries a season (and up to 400 touches). Adrian Peterson is indeed a feature back. Thomas Jones has been a feature back for much of his career, now that I look at his career stats so I was mistaken on that point. However, the feature back is a dying concept for the same reason Jones was released: it wears on a back over time. In this day and age, you don't need a feature back to be successful. You can have a very successful team with a running back by committee setup (remember Earth, Wind, and Fire?). Yes, one is going to receive more carries than the other(s), but not to the tune of 300+ touches. Brandon Jacobs, during the Giants Super Bowl run, touched the ball 225 times (202 rushing, 23 receiving). He was "spelled" repeatedly. Look at Terrell Davis's career. Notice a trend in this workload? That is an old school feature back. First off, why would the Jets even consider matching an offer for Thomas Jones when they released him? KC was willing to pay far more for Jones than the Jets thought he was worth for the role they had in mind for him. Why even bother niggling over that? And seriously, Kansas City is a team you want a 'Final Four' franchise to emulate? The Chiefs needed protection for Jamaal Charles. Jones fits the bill (and for peanuts, salary wise). It doesn't make a damn bit of difference what he made in 2009. That's not what we're talking about. In 2010, he was due a $3 million roster bonus in March (around the start of the league year) and a $2.8 million salary. That makes his total compensation for 2010.....$5.8 million. Too high for a back that isn't a team's only option. Too high for a back who was essentially ineffective at the most important time of the year. Too high for a back whose replacement LIT UP the playoffs while he couldn't get anything going. That's the danger teams are protecting against: your #1 weapon on the ground fading at the most important time of the year due to their previous workload. Too high when relatively low paid draft picks can come in and make an immediate impact ("Ray Rice from Rutgers running for the Ravens"). The Derrick Brooks example is a good one but begs a question. D. Brooks was easily one of the best players at his position AND a positive locker room presence. Who went after him when he was released? G'head, I'll wait. A player's value is determined by the market, not the fans. If the fans had their way, every player would play their entire career with the same franchise that made them famous (not necessarily the one that drafted them or signed them first - Favre & Delhomme being good examples). But it doesn't work like that, especially not in a season with no cap and thus, no salary floor or ceiling. Thomas Jones plays a position that is easily replaceable for cheap. Thus, in order to justify his cost, he has to be far and away the best in the league at what he does. He's not. Yes, he's reliable and yes he's a "good" back but there are tons of "good" backs in the league. For every Thomas Jones you mention, I can present a Pierre Thomas or Mike Anderson. Plus, Kansas City's line is horrid so you really can't expect him to perform up to his previously set standard, especially not splitting significant time with Jamaal Charles. First off, Lovie's defense requires gap control for the linemen. That doesn't fit a pass rushing end like Peppers. It's designed to funnel the action to the linebackers (which accounts for Urlacher and Briggs' numbers) and that's not something you tend to have happen unless you then shift your 'backers to cover the possible holes created by an end that makes his own gaps (or loops around the tackle altogether, leaving a HUGE gap). I don't know what Rod Marinelli has to do with anything. I'm fairly sure they're not giving Peppers all that money just to teach him to be Alex Brown. And you're comparing a FOUR YEAR career with a TWO YEAR career? Mario broke out in his second year but after his rookie season, people were STILL questioning taking him over Bush & Young. He was on a 'meh' team that didn't do much of anything. It's like being the most popular person in a town of 200 people. My point was, don't judge a top 5 defensive lineman's worth before the team manages to get people around them. Chris Long has the ability to approach his father's legend but of course, fans always seem to forget that Howie had some pretty damn good people playing alongside him. Okay, we'll just have to agree to disagree. Even though every player and agent is more concerned with guaranteed money and only structures the total value for bragging rights, the big number will always impress fans more than the one that actually matters. Tell me, do you think Haynesworth is actually going to see $100 million too? I bet you also thought Thomas Jones would see the full $20 million his contract with the Jets called for too, huh? Doesn't work that way in today's NFL.

First off, Antonio Bryant is inferior to Terrell Owens as an on field threat. Yeah, I said it. Bryant parlayed one good year into a big contract. What was he doing prior to that year? He wasn't even in the league! T.O. has an issue with drops but no one can question his level of production. I would be shocked (SHOCKED, I tell you) if Bryant makes it through a full 16 game season without missing time due to injury. Matt Jones could possibly contribute but he likes to treat his nose so I wouldn't count on it. Two words: Roster bonus. Tell me, would you be willing to pay $5.8 million to Thomas Jones? $3 million of it in cash in March. Thomas Jones isn't feature back material. Heck, the day of the feature back is long past. Most teams want/need two to three running backs to split in rotation. Shonn Greene is far cheaper than Jones (who outright refused to restructure his deal and/or take a pay cut) and with Leon coming back and the ability to draft a good back in the later rounds, he was expendable. You talk about how many yards he rushed for last year. I'm guessing the fact he was running behind arguably the best offensive line in the league had nothing to do with that? Kerry Rhodes was not a Rex Ryan type of player. Did his skillset match that of Ed Reed in the slightest? Heck no! He couldn't sniff Reed's jock. That doesn't mean he isn't a good player. It means he's not even close to being the kind of player for that position in Rex Ryan's system. GatorBait, go look at film. Specifically, go look at film of the Ravens defense under Rex Ryan. Look at a kid named McAllister. Ball hawk, excellent cover guy, not all that great in the tackling department. Rex Ryan's defense doesn't require textbook tackling technique from the corners. It requires corners who can flat out cover, DBs that generate takeaways, basically the things needed so Rex can send everything PLUS the kitchen sink at the quarterback. What's also important to consider is depth. Since quarterbacks are no longer going to be able to throw away from Revis, they'll have to pick their poison in standard sets. BUT, if they go to 3 receiver sets, they can expose a lack of depth and victimize the Jets' nickel back. But 3 receivers means fewer people left to protect the quarterback. Rex Ryan's defenses LOVE that. Hell, if he had the personnel, ROB Ryan's defenses would love that (but he doesn't). The Bears are pretending. Peppers isn't a really good fit for their scheme. Unless they change it to allow him to freelance (like the Packers did years ago with Reggie White), he isn't going to have the kind of impact people are expecting, I don't think. The Bears need receivers BAAAAAAAAAAD. Devin Hester is not a #1 receiver in this league, Johnny Knox works better from the slot (he's so slight, bigger corners outmuscle him too much), and Jay proved how a good line (Denver) can mask a quarterback's deficiencies. They need line help in a MAJOR way or Cutler's gonna die. Dunta's contract wasn't by any means 'big'. I think folks need to change their thinking and realize the big number isn't the one that matters. Guaranteed money is the only thing that counts since it's highly unlikely Robinson will see the full $57 million. Haven't we seen this enough already to realize that? Guaranteed, it works out to less than 5 million a year, which is peanuts for a cover corner. How much is Asomougha makin' again? What's Champ's annual paycheck? I would almost guarantee that the bulk of that contract's value comes in the final three years. It also probably includes things like roster bonuses and crap. How many people were released this year to avoid paying out those bonuses? I think the Rams have bought into the Bradford hype and are gonna take him. I think they're freakin' nuts. It does zero good to draft a franchise quarterback and have him take snaps behind that atrocious line. Might as well make him stand on subway tracks and wait for incoming trains. Spags' defense needs at least a couple of top flight D-lineman to make it go. The Rams have one (Chris Long - don't judge him by his first two years. How long did Mario Williams take to develop???). A DT would help them immensely and they can get a franchise QB for far cheaper than $41+ million guaranteed, in the second or third round. I have a problem with Bradford. History teaches that once a QB injures his throwing shoulder, he'll keep injuring his throwing shoulder (hello Mr Pennington, how are ya?). Plus, I think the Rams will have a shot at a VERY good QB outside of the first round. I believe Dan LeFevour is the person they need to focus on. But no, they're going to be the Rams and take Bradford, he's going to get his ass torn in preseason and they'll be playing their backups. Again. But on the bright side, they'll have a chance to draft Jake Locker next year!

Hmm, now to decide whether to delay the mod's release.

Ah yes, so you promote yourself as "the alternative" to Sports Entertainment (defined and embodied by which promotion?) and then try to out-SE the personification of the concept. That makes a ton of sense. "The alternative to surgery!"..."We'll make the incision here...." Got a question. With all those people you listed off (and the ones you didn't), where are they going to find time to give the X-Division some shine? My opinion (and I doubt I'll be proven wrong): they won't. Now before someone jumps out with the 'there was an X-Division match...' tripe, that's not the same thing. Just because you have a match for the division doesn't mean you're developing characters and storylines for and around said division. It's like saying one Knockouts match per show is enough to say the Knockouts are featured. They're not. Seeing as how the X-Division is the only thing TNA has that WWE has nothing even vaguely resembling, you'd think they'd want to press that advantage. But to do so, Knobbs and Saggs and Waltman and Hall have to give up TV time (and that's not gonna happen). I dunno what it's like outside the US, but in the States, you cannot compare CSI and Law & Order. They're not even in the same solar system, ratings wise. Law & Order has been in decline for years now and NBC has tried its damndest to keep it relevant, including launching/developing multiple failed concepts (Crime & Punishment, Trial by Jury, Conviction, and soon, Los Angeles). On the other end of the spectrum, CBS has been begging Jerry Bruckheimer to produce another CSI and he refuses each time. Their audiences seem to have little in the way of overlap. Yeah, I suppose some people think that a worker who could get a watchable match out of a can of Benjamin Moore paint are automatically inferior to people like the Great Khali because....OMG Khali is BIGGER. There is more to being a headliner than size. Otherwise, explain why Chris Jericho is...well, Chris Jericho and the Great Khali is a proven insurance risk. And Hyde, that is a serious oversimplification of TNA's relationship to Spike. It's deeper than that and not just for the US market. In addition, Spike still subsidizes some of their more onerous contracts. There's a lot involved with promotion and cross-pollination if you will, among all of Spike's properties. If you attend any UFC event (especially the ones Spike broadcasts "for free"), you will see no fewer than six (and up to 15 on at least one occasion I remember) TNA workers in attendance, especially if the event is held in a major city (the 15 occurred at a UFC event at the O2 Arena in London). Obviously, WWE's contract with USA isn't structured the same way. I don't know what the new deal's specifics are (and I can't even be arsed to ask) but I don't think it would be vastly different.

No, there are probably 2-3 more matches left to be announced (not including the probable NXT dark match(es). Yeah well, I disagree. RAW at least made sense and didn't involve a bunch of geezers spending inordinate amounts of time onscreen. I see a Kennedy-esque swerve coming. Christian's the only one among those with the chops to win MITB and be a credible world title contender. All the rest of them haven't been built up or really had any time as a 'top guy' (whereas Christian was top guy of ECW prior to its demise). I don't think there's a chance in hell the black hole of charisma wins this match. I really liked the Triple H-Sheamus segment. It was a very good Gatekeeper type of deal. But I notice Triple H omitted someone from his 'Ask' bit. What happened to Randy Orton?

Works both ways. An English (or even better, Australian) accent makes even a fat girl look like Giselle Brady.

And what was that 'real career'? He sucked balls as a D-lineman. I can't agree with this. While branding is indeed important, UNIQUE branding is even moreso. Having a name that's all your own and doesn't evoke the typical wrestling images (and the stigma that often comes with those images) is a strength, not a weakness. Ignorant people remain so until they're educated. While they make excellent fans (what's the saying about a fool and his/her money?), eventually you need to bring them around. There are people who frequent this community who think WWE is wrestling (ALL wrestling) even though "everyone" here knows that's not true. Sorry, I just think that basing a branding strategy on ignorant people is a fool's errand. Ha! Get it? Fool's errand. Why name a store Target (complete with a bullseye for a logo) if it doesn't sell guns primarily? Soleil Moon Frye comes to mind. Most people know her as Punky Brewster. Some people know her as the girl who had a breast reduction due to her boobs actually being so large as to give her disc issues. Um, no cappyboy, you kinda missed the point. You can't compare Anson Williams in this respect. Try his former castmate though. Ron became more known as a director than anything else due primarily to the fact that the audience at large (read: younger people) are familiar with him primarily in that capacity. Likewise, few people remember Jerry O'Connell for what used to be his best known role ('Stand by Me'). He's known as 'Jerry O'Connell' not as 'the fat kid from Stand by Me'. Fred Savage hasn't gotten there yet. To be fair though, neither has his little brother. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying he can't get there but to suggest that people remember him NOW for anything other than The Wonder Years, is a bit of a stretch. No one brings up Happy Days when Ron Howard pitches a film project. Film directors being FAR more hyped and promoted than TV directors (especially CHILDREN'S TV directors) contributes to that. I think folks need to manage their expectations for tonight's show. Don't expect great, just expect 'halfway passable'. It'll help take the edge off the disappointment.

*puffs his chest out* No, seriously, it was just something that struck me and figured I'd throw it out there. Hard work was all you, ReapeR. Those look seriously smokin'. I'd have to respectfully disagree with foolinc though. The top title SHOULD look different from the lesser ones. It should stand out like the proverbial sore thumb because it's supposed to be more special and prestigious. At least in my opinion. For years, TNA's midcard title looked more visually impressive (as simple as it was) than its top title and that struck me as odd. YAY! Now CZCW has current century hardware!

I just truly hope they don't main event 'Mania. I mean, it was bad enough last year when the best match of the night wasn't the main event but having those two close would be disastrous, I think. If Taker-Michaels II doesn't main event then the WHC match should. I wonder if Gail Kim signed with WWE as kind of like a vacation. You know, collect a paycheck for doing next to nothing with little to no expectations? Heck, she might be able to have babies and not interfere with her work schedule. Are all the MITB qualifying matches going to be squashes? I knew Jack Swagger's was going to be as soon as Santino's music started up. He's like a midcard enhancement talent. I figured Zack Ryder had no chance of going over MVP but didn't think it would end quite that quickly. lazorbeak, no offense but you don't see most complaining about anything. That's not a dig, just stating the way I see it. I see your point and think it's valid but personally, I don't like McCool and never have. Thus, seeing her in a prominent position isn't something I particularly care for. It's not a surprise since I realize WWE's women's product has nothing to do with in-ring ability so it suits them.

Why not take the IWGP belt, replace the letters with CZCW and then use the outer borders for the 'world' title. Change the gold to blue to give the letters more relief with a blue strap, maybe? For the Xtreme title, you take the current TNA X-Division belt, keep the splayed X, change the 'Division' insert to 'treme' with the CZCW designation on top with maybe a couple ladders framing the X. Just some ideas from a simpleton.

This says it all. Tell me GatorBait, are Reggie Wayne and Dallas Clark (and Pierre and Austin) as good with Jim Sorgi? Do the Colts come from behind to win 7 games with Craig Painter? No? Then where is your argument coming from? Lemme see if I can simplify this. With Favre, the Vikings went one game farther than they typically go. Now, do the Colts only lose one game's worth of advancement without Peyton? Hell no! I don't think anyone with a brain thinks the Colts win 12 games with Sorgi under center (FIVE, tops, with Painter). In my mind, the only two MVP candidates this year are the two quarterbacks who played in the Super Bowl. The Saints don't make it nearly as far without Brees and neither do the Colts without Manning. After that, it becomes a case of determining how obvious the candidate's performance was to the team's success. If the Saints had had to come from behind to win more (instead of essentially smashing everyone they faced until the Cowboys game), Brees might've gotten more votes. But they didn't, so he didn't.

I don't think the Bengals will take any of those. At 21, I see the cats taking a tackle (offensive or defensive). That low in the order, you take the best available player. Safeties and receivers can be had in later rounds. The first round is for franchise skill positions (quarterback, tackle, pass rusher). For every Jason Peters (undrafted Pro Bowl left tackle), there are a hundred Jake Longs and Joe Thomases. But for every Wes Welker, there's a Charles Rogers or Mike Williams or Ashley Lelie. Which is more expensive a blunder?

And you're absolutely correct. However, it doesn't have to be the only (or even the main) method. Who didn't know what was gonna happen at the end of 'Titanic'? But the way the writers arrived at that point is what made the work compelling to many. I don't know if I would consider WWE as 'drama' but some folks might so good on them. tl;dr version - Journey vs Destination

That would be you. Tell me something, when you played pickup sports as a kid, who always got picked first? If it was you, there was prestige in that. You were considered a 'lock' to make the team capable of winning. You might think it's contrived but then so are draft picks, by that logic. A first ballot Hall of Famer is a 'slam dunk'. It's a 'duh' selection. It means that person's career was SO outstanding that, if they could, they'd lower the number of years the player had to be retired to be eligible. You gonna tell me there's no difference between Michael Jordan and James Worthy? Jordan = first ballot. Worthy = 3rd try. Was there a better case that could be made than Jordan being enshrined the first time he was eligible? It's no different from being the first overall pick in a draft. Sure, there are other people who get picked in the first round. But there's only ONE first overall pick. Likewise, years in which there are multiple first ballot enshrinees are considered extraordinary. As for Nomar, he doesn't need a Hall of Fame nod. He married Mia Hamm. BHK, I dunno if I'd call it a National League style team, especially considering how the Rays did a couple years ago with that exact same style. Knowing the game fairly well, I prefer to force pitchers to throw heat (knowing that if they go the junkballer route, it's not going to end well) which gives everyone better pitches to hit. Most pitchers aren't Randy Johnson (world class heat and control to match) so usually it works in your favor.

This. I can't speak for anyone else but I despise the Miz and not in the 'good' way. It's 'gtfo my screen' or 'switch to The Mentalist or Lie to Me or something on HGTV'. I'm going to keep coming back to this point. Self, you are a screenwriter. Screenwriters tend to HATE it when people "blow" the surprise they've been building for months, don't they? But this is a different world from when Bogey was plying his trade. People often want to know if spending the money is worth it. Thus, someone saying in advance "these people won these matches" doesn't remove the desire to buy. If anything, it makes folks want to tune in to see how (or not to tune in if they don't like the circumstances). I seriously doubt anyone with clout in WWE is the least bit concerned about TNA's pending move to Mondays. TNA is very scattershot with their booking. And this is probably the worst time for them to make the move since this little corridor is usually where the 'E does their best booking since it leads to their supposed 'big' PPV. Bzzt! Sorry Self, that brush is a bit too broad. Spoilers are often used for marketing and promotional purposes. This is especially true in gaming but also occurs frequently in wrestling. Sometimes it backfires (right Eric Bischoff?) but it's largely FREE so it does have appeal. You want an example? Heh, wait and see what kind of spoilers come out about Cataclysm. Leaks have already been planned and plotted. Yeah, this. The original Walls put pressure on the neck as well as the lower back. So wait, lemme get this straight. It's my job as a consumer to accept anything and everything a purveyor of 'entertainment' puts out? Suspension of disbelief is the job of the content creator. It's the same here as it is in gaming. If your scripts are so paper thin and completely unbelievable as to turn an audience off, that's not the audience's fault. You want an example? Avatar. Knowing it wasn't real didn't even factor into most people's evaluation of the film. But then again, there are obviously people who watch those crappy infomercials and buy all that garbage 'rock hard abs in 30 seconds' contraptions so I guess some people suspend disbelief better/easier than others.

Jeter is a first ballot Hall of Famer. Anyone who says different is a moron. I'd have to think about my team a little more. One thing I will say is home runs aren't going to be a focus of mine. I prefer speed over the long ball every day of the week. A team of burners would ALWAYS have RISP, you wouldn't need home runs when the team is running laps around the bases and chasing the pitcher(s) out of the game (pitch counts ftw!). So as much as I love the Splendid Splinter, Rickey Henderson's my left fielder (Williams would be DH). In school, people always thought I wore 33 because of Canseco. Wrong. Add 24 and 9 and see what you get. Besides those two, I'll have to think about it a bit more.

BSC 5SSW EWA SOTBPW MPWF OLLIE

Owner's meeting coincides with the Combine (at least it did last year) so they couldn't have voted already. Usually this is the meeting where the competition committee presents their recommendations for rule changes and such. And Peter's right. Look beyond the surface. I've been involved (in an ancillary fashion) with the Nets' proposed move to Brooklyn and I can tell you it has nothing to do with the quality of the team. What's most important is the team's membership in the league. They're not selling the team, they're selling THE LEAGUE. You can't really be a baller city unless you have at least one team from every major North American sports league (NFL, NBA, MLB, and maybe the NHL though they're leakin' real bad stateside). The ridiculous cities have two of each (New York, as an example. LA has two in each except the NFL, etc). These cities build entire complexes for their teams because of the retail, commercial, and residential properties that come with that, not even counting the other attractions. Blame Baltimore. When Camden Yards opened, the floodgates opened with it.

Khan will change his tune when LA finishes work on that stadium. He'd be turning down a potential billion (that's with a 'b') in first year revenues and guarantees to stay in St. Louis (NFL has proven it can thrive without the second largest media market in the country so LA's going to have to seriously entice someone to move). If he's not willing to move, Wayne Weaver will. And say bye bye to LT. No way he lasts past March 5th. Chargers aren't paying that roster bonus (he's not worth it anymore). He's going to wind up like Marvin Harrison did. Oh and I hope the Saints fans enjoy their first Super Bowl. Not likely to repeat given the restrictions placed on roster movement (none of the Saints free agents are worth a 3rd so they're not likely to lose any free agents). Well deserved though. Still can't help but think how bad the Dolphins must feel or how good the Texans feel.

I just asked a simple question. I can't see anyone with a clue thinking it's racist for a black man to (attempt to) rap. I took issue with how you emphasized where he's from as some kind of proof that he couldn't/shouldn't rap. It's one thing to say 'that didn't seem like something his character would be doing' but a whole other thing to say 'have him give a crappy rap (which some may view as racist, especially because he's actually from SILVA, TEXAS)'. See the part I bolded? See the part you capitalized (like it's supposed to be an important detail)? It's one thing to say someone sucks at something and a totally different thing to say they suck at it perhaps because of where they're from. I'm not even going to touch the whole 'Americanized' thing. Sounds eerily similar to the 'house' versus 'field' distinction used with my own ethnicity. But I will say that I have friends of many ethnic backgrounds and them living here for decades doesn't make them any less of their ethnicity. Italian grandmothers galore haven't lived in the old country since Roosevelt was in office but they still throw down dishes that are completely authentic. I learned how to curse in SerboCroatian from a friend's grandmother who hasn't been back home since, well, since it was peaceful Yugoslavia. They maintain all their customs and speak heavily accented English (if they speak English at all). But Peter missed a couple: "and by the same token, what exactly their criteria of Mexican is? Should he wear a sombrero, talk like Speedy Gonzales, and sport a giant Pancho Villa like moustache?". Forgot 'speak Spanglish' and 'end every sentence with 'homes'.

I don't understand this part. Are people from Texas incapable of rapping, by default? And why is it racist to have a member of a ethnic group perform the form of art his ethnic group created, innovated, and mastered? It's like getting offended if they got Chavo to sing a Tejano song.

Baltimore Colts, '54-57.

Hi, it might be helpful if you actually read what the argument was. I said nothing about 'welfare' for retired/former players (I'm against that). I'm talking about those players who were given shots of anti-inflammatories and painkillers so they could continue playing while being told by team doctors that there was little to no danger of future repercussions. I'm talking about players who played during the time when this kind of medical information was either not widely known or not widely disseminated. Let me ask you a question. When did steroids first go into use? When did the dangers of using these substances become commonly known? Why was there a nearly 40 year gap between those two periods? Everybody who uses that old, tired "they knew what they were getting into" argument need to actually do some freakin' research. As the son of a former NFL player, I can tell you unequivocally that they most certainly did not. You forget there was a period where people regularly kept things under wraps, in all areas of life. Who didn't know John Kennedy was sleeping around? Did you see exposés in the paper about it? Why not? Now before you even try to state bias, my father died at age 75 with all his faculties (including the ability to satisfy a 34 year old wife). He didn't have any issues resulting from his playing days but that's because he didn't play a whole lot (go look up the definition of 'taxi squad'). Those players from the 50s to 70s have real medical issues that resulted from playing during a time when medical information was not commonly disseminated to the player (it went to the team officials and they made the determination, often based on cost). There was a time in this league's history where if you got hurt, you got fired. Period, end of story. Some owners took care of their injured guys but the fact still remains that you lost your job because you got hurt while doing said job. My mother retired at 52 and her piddly social security check pays for the satellite bill and some groceries. I won't even get that much (even though I've paid 10 times more into the program than she did). So there is no way I'm at all in favor of active workers subsidizing the lifestyle of non-active workers. However, I am in favor of covering the medical expenses incurred by people who did not know the dangers of the activity they were engaged in. I'm not even going to get into the fact that many of these players WORKED A JOB while they played (I know my father did. So did Gino Marchetti and Art Donovan). So trying to paint them with the same brush used on modern day players who make millions is just a little bit wrong. Again, I see no one in this thread saying they think the NFL should ensure these guys are set for life. I sure as hell never said that. I'm only talking about the MEDICAL fund (you know, the one the league recently agreed to contribute $7 million then an additional $10 million to, to pay for things like joint replacements and such for retired players?). And finally, what job did your grandparents do that directly led to early onset dementia that they weren't told about until long after they quit doing that job? I'm genuinely curious. And this Super Bowl was a letdown. I feel for Dwight Freeney who sacrificed and played his heart out and had the stupid DBs pick this game to get 'confused Elmo disease', acting like they've never seen receiver stacks and formation shifts. Larry Coyer looked like he was gonna have a stroke in the box with all the coverages the Colts DBs were blowing.

Maybe it's me but I don't see the difference. Your parents and grandparents knew they'd eventually stop working. So why didn't they plan for that point prior to it occurring? Why should I (or anyone my age or younger who has to pay into a program we're not likely to see any benefit from) have to subsidize their continued existence? Shortsighted selfishness isn't limited to this area. How long does it take to recover from a torn ACL today? How long did it take 25 years ago? Is that not a blatantly obvious example of how the times differ? Are you SERIOUS? Lemme get this straight. You think that additional ways to generate revenue as a result of the internet explosion has NOTHING to do with the vast increase in NFL revenues over the last 15 years? REALLY? I truly and honestly hope you never have to stand on the other side of the equation. If you knew how ridiculously expensive each employee is to a company (relative to the revenue they generate or can be attributed to them), your view would be further reinforced. Why have employer contributions to pensions? Let individual workers plan and pay for their own damn retirements. Again, why do we need Social Security? Why is the current workforce paying for the past workforce? Why? What sense does it make? Why does the NFLPA have a Retired Players Fund at all? It is your view that former players in dire financial shape due to overwhelming medical expenses stemming from their time playing football should just suck it up and deal, yes? Now, what happens when the shroud is lifted and it becomes known that many team doctors were working on behalf of the team, not the player? Might wanna read up on what prompted Congress to call Goodell onto the carpet. "Concussions aren't a problem in the NFL". REALLY? Why the backpedal, after Congress threatened to yank the league's anti-trust exemption? The NFL does not want people poking through their dirty laundry. They don't want people paying too much attention to all the player autobiographies that detail specific examples of players being "patched up and sent back out" instead of "taken care of". Ever read 'They Call Me Assassin'? Heck, read ANY former player's book and you'll see things that arouse suspicion. So your view of 'well, they need to deal' is only valid if the players were offered competent medical care at the time of the injury (and they weren't). That was one reason behind the NFL agreeing to make a large contribution to the retired players fund. It's hush money. Make it go away so our image we've spent so much time and money developing and nurturing doesn't get tarnished. As for Jim Brown's salary as a player, I don't think it's that far a stretch to say many people don't make what he did (adjusted for inflation). There are millions of people that can't say 100 grand is in their rear view mirror and I think Brown's best year was 75k (which would be over half a mil today). But that's not a reflection on the players. If you (in the general sense) choose to be a teacher, you KNOW you're not gettin' major paid. And yeah, wrong member of the class of '83, though I thought Marino's contract in '90/'91 had incentives meant to mimic the escalator in some ways (I did a mock contract for my QB at the time based on it). Can't find the link though.

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Stennick" data-cite="Stennick" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="26529" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Some of the things surrounding the player agreements are interesting. First of all the subject of retired players welfare. Brees fired off on the subject being against it (from the intereviews I've seen). I kind of have to agree with him. The NFL hasn't always been the national powerhouse that it was. I don't have any numbers and frankly I'm too lazy to get them but I'd have to think that the Niners run in the 80's is when the NFL started to take over as the top sport in the country. Maybe it was the 70's but I'd think it wasn't until the late eighties early 90's that the NFL became the top sport in America.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Might help to figure out what changed with the world and society to bring that about. It explains a lot. </p><p> </p><p> </p><blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Stennick" data-cite="Stennick" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="26529" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>I have all the respect in the world for those guys and when your dealing with a subject as touchy as peoples livelihoods there is no right answer. That being said take a great guy like Jim Brown. I don't know what Jim made but everything I can gather he was severely underpaid by todays' standards. Sure thats a shame but at the same time the sport wasn't as BIG as it is now. Guys like Montana, Rice, Young, Aikmen, Smith, Elway, these guys made this game huge in the 80's. When the game got big so did their pay days. Its almost like rewarding guys from the past because guys in the present appealed to a larger mass therefore making the league larger. Did they maintain the sport so that others would come along and make it a bigger deal? Sure but I didn't see people from the Dead Ball era getting paid some of Ruth's cash because they kept the sport of baseball alive long enough for someone to come around and make it a big deal. If the League feels compelled to pay these guys thats fine but I think it should come out of NFL's funds and not teams and players. Again I don't know how its set up now but I don't think the players of today should help pay for players of yesterday.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> If that's the case, abolish Social Security. <strong><em>RIGHT NOW</em></strong>. Adjusted for inflation, my second to worst financial year is still far better than my parents' BEST financial year (COMBINED). There's more money to be made today than there was in the 50s, 60s, and 70s so why should I have to pay for your parents and grandparents continued existence? I don't know them. They did nothing to earn my money. Well, except for working in deplorable conditions that led to the workplace regulations I benefit from. Consuming materials in everyday life that formed the basis of scientific study that led to things like smoke detectors, sprinklers systems, water treatment/filtration, and half the drugs my generation takes for granted. Remember when Coca-Cola actually had cocaine in it? Probably not. But your parents and grandparents might.</p><p> </p><p> Point is, many of the breakthroughs and "discoveries" being made today were known 20 years ago but couldn't be substantiated due to the limits of technology back then. You think concussions are a NEW thing? I got my first concussion at 14 (1987) in 8th grade and kept playing because even the term itself wasn't widely known. I was woozy for 2 hours and it wasn't until almost half a day later that I was officially diagnosed. When my father played (50s and 60s), wanna know what they did when you got a concussion (or 'knocked out' as they put it then)? They gave you smelling salts, you got up, and went back into the same environment that created the injury in the first place. The retired players program isn't just about "welfare" and that's such a disgusting term for it, it's ridiculous. It's about taking care of the people who made the game what it is today. If not for John Unitas and Bart Starr, there would be no Peyton Manning and Drew Brees. When a player has to seek help from the union to pay for medical expenses incurred as a result of their playing career, with injuries teams systematically tried to cover up (like a shot of something to numb the pain so the player could continue playing...and making money for the franchise), it isn't welfare. It's doing the right thing with the benefit of hindsight.</p><p> </p><p> You want to say the NFL was built on the backs of the Mannings and Brees and Favres, you'll make yourself look silly. Tell me, how many content distribution methods were there in 1985? How many revenue streams existed back then? Now, how many exist now? Cable TV was NICHE in '85, not it's as ubiquitous as the telephone (in whatever form).</p><p> </p><p> </p><blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Stennick" data-cite="Stennick" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="26529" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>I know one way they have talked about doing things is the Rookie Cap. Although I think this is a great idea and NEEDS to be done I don't think that you can say "well since your saving money on these players you can use some of that to fund the players welfare. The NFL as a league generates cash on its own and I think that it should be NFL cash not individual teams or players that fund these player welfares. That being said the Rookie Cap has got to be done. Jamarcus Russell is making too much it cripples a team being all but forced to pay these huge sums of money to unproven talent. Should you get paid to be the number 1 pick in the NFL draft? Sure but should you be paid more than the top guy at your position? Absolutely not. I know there has been talk of taking the average salary of the top five guys at your position and using that as a guidline. Thats one way of dealing with it but then you get into who decides the "top five" and what happens when you get a Kurt Warner's that come out of nowhere as a seventh round pick or a walk on and become great but don't have the salary to reflect it.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> A rookie cap is necessary to avoid the rampant inflation that exists with regard to player salaries. When a rookie who hasn't taken a single pro snap gets more money for signing his name than the people who have won Super Bowls and been performing at the highest level possible, there's something seriously wrong with the system. Show of hands, how many people think Matthew Stafford is better than both Mannings, Brees, Rivers, hell even ORTON? Anyone, anyone? So why, in a league where performance is supposedly rewarded, does he make more money than all of them? If Matt Stafford never played a single down in the NFL due to incompetence, he'd still be rich based solely on his signing bonus.</p><p> </p><p> One thing that casual fans probably don't know about is the escalator clause. Ask Dan Marino about it. It was abolished when the salary cap was first introduced but it can still work. Problem is, it prevents cap managers from projecting more than two years into the future. But even that can be mitigated or an exception can be granted to each team. Sure, stupid teams like the Panthers would use it foolishly but there's a reason some teams are good year in and year out and others can't even sniff the Super Bowl. </p><p> </p><p> </p><blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Stennick" data-cite="Stennick" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="26529" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Also I remember last year being an underwhelming year for QB's and such and everyone said "wait till the 2010 draft with Tebow, Bradford, McCoy, etc" now we're looking at Tebow who's struggling to be a traditional NFL QB, while Colt and Sam have atleast mild health concerns that seemingly have dramatically dropped their stock.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> News flash! Steve Young "struggled to be a traditional NFL QB". How'd he turn out? There are many examples of players who didn't fit the NFL's "mold" at a given position but wound up being rock solid. Look at this year's Hall of Fame ballot. Jerry Rice, wasn't fast enough. Emmitt Smith, wasn't big or fast enough. Darrell Green, wasn't big enough. Cris Carter, not fast enough. Look at how many players don't even get drafted but turn out to be all-world ("Welker. Paging Mr. Welker"). What did people think of that Brady kid when he was draft eligible? Oh, right, the belief around the league was that Chad Pennington, Giovanni Carmazzi, Chris Redman, Tee Martin, Marc Bulger, and Spergon Wynn were all better quarterbacks than he was. How'd that turn out?</p><p> </p><p> Tim Tebow is a leader, end of story. He's a guy who's perfect to be the face of a franchise. You can teach a kid to have better mechanics but you cannot teach them how to be a leader. Colt McCoy has potential but he needs to learn control. Sam Bradford is hype. I haven't seen him do anything particularly impressive. When rattled, on the biggest stage available to him, he folded. That says a lot about a player.</p>