Official NFL Discussion Thread

[The Final Countdown]

Remi, so if a guy underperforms in his deal he should give money back too? Only fair, right?

If a guy underperforms, the team can simply cut him loose--see Russell, JaMarcus.

[LoganRodzen]

The Titans are sending a message to their locker room that no matter how well you play, we're not going to pay you. We'll see how many Super Bowls they contend for with that message.

 

We've been burned in the past with big contracts. We've had Albert Haynseworth holdout, so we paid him, and then he's plagued with injuries. We would have re-signed him instead of the Redskins getting him but we knew the money plus his baggage wasn't worth it. He hasn't played a full season of football since his rookie season. Go ahead, look at this stats. Every single time he got paid his performance went down.

 

Why do you think we even had the JaMarcus Russell discussion? Do you think he was that lazy at LSU? Probably not. I've never had a million bucks so I can't say for sure, but I think the money is one factor in Russell's downfall. He felt entitled because of his contract.

 

I like what the Titans are doing and I'll stand behind them. Everyone knows he deserves the money - the Titans included - so that isn't even the argument here. If anyone didn't notice we are still in an economic mess and the Nashville flooding (whether or not people are stupid enough to look at it that way, Remi - I guess I am) will affect things.

 

If a guy underperforms, the team can simply cut him loose--see Russell, JaMarcus.

 

Yeah... and they also have to pay him millions of dollars to end it.

 

 

EDIT: I just saw that the Titans picked up LeGarrette Blount a week ago. He went undrafted mostly because of that punch on the Boise State player. I saw a few Oregon games and that guy is a big strong RB. He'll be a great addition to CJ and Javon Ringer.

[Remianen]

Remi, so if a guy underperforms in his deal he should give money back too? Only fair, right?

 

If a guy underperforms, the team can simply cut him loose--see Russell, JaMarcus.

 

Thank you.

 

CQI13, you seem to be under the impression that an underpaid player somehow has recourse. He doesn't. Holding out is the only thing he can do. Now, contrast that to what teams can do: trade the player, force him to restructure his deal (read: take this pay cut or we cut you), or outright release him. Tell me what happens if (God forbid) Chris Johnson gets injured in training camp, while playing on a deal that gives him next to nothing financially. If he doesn't come back at 100% and puts up the numbers he has in the past, there is NO WAY he's going to get the money that someone of his performance level warrants. Heck, if they're so concerned about him being a flash in the pan, tie the money up in bonuses. A million for 1,000 yards rushing, 2 million for 1,000 yards receiving, a million for 10 or more total TDs, five million for 2k yards rushing, and so on. Know why teams don't do that anymore? It's called the salary cap. You can't peg a player's cap number YoY (year over year) if their salary is ballooning after every season. The only bonuses that factor into cap figures are guaranteed ones (roster bonuses, most commonly). So if they want his deal to be cap friendly, they have to.....give him the money upfront (signing bonus and/or other guaranteed bonuses).

 

No one's going to criticize the Titans for giving CJ top dollar. He's performed to the level of expecting top dollar. Nobody criticized the Chargers for giving LT top dollar. No one questioned the Seahawks giving Shaun Alexander his deal. Sure, people poked holes in the logic (with Alexander, it was 'he has too many miles on his tires' and 'can he hold up for that many years') but they don't question the fact that the player EARNED his new deal. Even if they took his current deal and restructured it similar to Willis's, it would satisfy the situation and send the proper message.

 

Take the current deal, keep the base salaries but rewrite it to include bonuses that bring up the total value of the deal. Add two years that are unlikely to ever be played under (with ridiculous base salaries of like 7 or 8 or 14 million) to give it a 'wow' factor on paper, and the problem would be solved. No one on that team is going to begrudge 28 his dough or try to use that as leverage since no one on that team is likely to be as key to the team's success as 28 (not even Vince).

[LoganRodzen]

Take the current deal, keep the base salaries but rewrite it to include bonuses that bring up the total value of the deal. Add two years that are unlikely to ever be played under (with ridiculous base salaries of like 7 or 8 or 14 million) to give it a 'wow' factor on paper, and the problem would be solved. No one on that team is going to begrudge 28 his dough or try to use that as leverage since no one on that team is likely to be as key to the team's success as 28 (not even Vince).

 

Absolutely. That's what I want to see happen. I think he should get a nice base salary and a slew of bonus opportunities that are in the millions (and millions) of dollars.

[CQI13]

Remi, I'm not saying they have a recourse. What does Jamarcus care about getting cut? He's laughing to the bank to the tune of $40 million. Teams shouldn't be on the hook for that money any more than CJ should be paid a pittance given his performance.

[The Final Countdown]

Remi, I'm not saying they have a recourse. What does Jamarcus care about getting cut? He's laughing to the bank to the tune of $40 million. Teams shouldn't be on the hook for that money any more than CJ should be paid a pittance given his performance.

How would you like to see it handled, then? I think we can all agree that JaMarcus was a colossal flop--so, in your ideal NFL, what would happen next? Would JaMarcus be forced to give back money the Raiders already gave him?

[CQI13]

I would do away with the large sums of guaranteed money. Maybe spread it out over a few years. Ideally, yes, he'd have to give it back. If only there were more incentive laden contracts like the one that Ricky Williams took, just to not be in the spotlight.

[GatorBait19]

If you are comparing guys playing today to guys who played in the 70's, you are basically comparing guys who played a different game.

 

Todays game is like basketball on grass, while the 70's game was still a very violent game with a bunch of stuff being allowed that would either get you ejected or flagged for a penalty EVERY play.

 

Read this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mel_Blount

 

The new passing rules implemented are known in the league as "the Mel Blount rule"

 

As a Jaguars fan, I read Ask Vic daily. Vic Ketchman covered the Steelers during the 70's/80's/early 90's. He has some really good insights to how football was played during the 70's and of course Bradshaw and Blount in particular.

here is my thing biggest thing when you compare the yester year QB's to today's QB's

 

QB's today are much more protected by rules then in the past

[BHK1978]

Without going into the gory details on this site, I just want to say that L.T. is a piece of garbage. I mean I knew that before but with what he just did, well I am not sure what else to say.

[Mr T Jobs To Me]

C.J. certainly needs to get paid. With no cap I would lock him up with a big signing bonus this year that would pay a base salary of 4-5 mil for 5-6 years. The max signing bonus is 40% of the total value I believe so 6 years, 50 mil would be the offer I'd like for him.

[Stennick]

How are they going to do this no cap then a cap deal. With teams being able to sign anybody for any length of time for any money how are they ever going to put a lid back on this again without running the risk of some team going over the cap three years from now because they signed them in a no cap year. You can't really say "well they shouldn't have signed them to such a contract" without knowing what the cap would be in the future there would be no way of knowing how much is too much.

[TheEdgeOfReason]

How are they going to do this no cap then a cap deal. With teams being able to sign anybody for any length of time for any money how are they ever going to put a lid back on this again without running the risk of some team going over the cap three years from now because they signed them in a no cap year. You can't really say "well they shouldn't have signed them to such a contract" without knowing what the cap would be in the future there would be no way of knowing how much is too much.

 

Well they got it done the first time around so I'd say the plan of action would similar to that.

[Remianen]

Remi, I'm not saying they have a recourse. What does Jamarcus care about getting cut? He's laughing to the bank to the tune of $40 million. Teams shouldn't be on the hook for that money any more than CJ should be paid a pittance given his performance.

 

I would do away with the large sums of guaranteed money. Maybe spread it out over a few years. Ideally, yes, he'd have to give it back. If only there were more incentive laden contracts like the one that Ricky Williams took, just to not be in the spotlight.

 

No one with a brain is going to sign a deal without big guarantees. It's Pandora's Box. You can't take back precedents.

 

And you seem to be forgetting that Ricky Williams came with significant amounts of baggage. He's a massive risk, and he knows that. The next time he slips, he could be banned (or at the very least, suspended for a season). No team with sense is going to give a player like that a big contract. You also can't really do incentive laden contracts because they're not constant. You can't predict whether a player's cap number is going to be 1.7 mil or 5.8 mil if he hits all his incentives. Teams need to be able to manage their cap situations and minimize exposure to ballooning salaries. Plus, it's far more cap friendly to give a guy a bunch of big bonuses (due to proration) than to give him a decent salary and a ton of incentives.

 

But if you didn't have moron GMs like Mark Dominik throwing around money to scrubs (hi Michael Clayton), this wouldn't be as big an issue as it is. If Clayton is worth 5 years and 24 mil with 10.5 mil guaranteed, what's Miles Austin worth?

 

How are they going to do this no cap then a cap deal. With teams being able to sign anybody for any length of time for any money how are they ever going to put a lid back on this again without running the risk of some team going over the cap three years from now because they signed them in a no cap year. You can't really say "well they shouldn't have signed them to such a contract" without knowing what the cap would be in the future there would be no way of knowing how much is too much.

 

Teams are operating under the assumption that the new CBA will include a salary cap (despite what the NFLPA says). Thus, no one is going to do the kind of deal people expect with a year with no cap. Peyton doesn't have his new deal, neither does Brees. Once the CBA is ratified, there will be a flurry of contract extensions done, but not until then. But the Johnson case is different because he can't expect to get Peyton (or even Eli) Manning money. So why hold off on giving him his due when it's not really going to break your bank?

[GatorBait19]

No one with a brain is going to sign a deal without big guarantees. It's Pandora's Box. You can't take back precedents.

 

And you seem to be forgetting that Ricky Williams came with significant amounts of baggage. He's a massive risk, and he knows that. The next time he slips, he could be banned (or at the very least, suspended for a season). No team with sense is going to give a player like that a big contract. You also can't really do incentive laden contracts because they're not constant. You can't predict whether a player's cap number is going to be 1.7 mil or 5.8 mil if he hits all his incentives. Teams need to be able to manage their cap situations and minimize exposure to ballooning salaries. Plus, it's far more cap friendly to give a guy a bunch of big bonuses (due to proration) than to give him a decent salary and a ton of incentives.

 

But if you didn't have moron GMs like Mark Dominik throwing around money to scrubs (hi Michael Clayton), this wouldn't be as big an issue as it is. If Clayton is worth 5 years and 24 mil with 10.5 mil guaranteed, what's Miles Austin worth?

 

 

 

Teams are operating under the assumption that the new CBA will include a salary cap (despite what the NFLPA says). Thus, no one is going to do the kind of deal people expect with a year with no cap. Peyton doesn't have his new deal, neither does Brees. Once the CBA is ratified, there will be a flurry of contract extensions done, but not until then. But the Johnson case is different because he can't expect to get Peyton (or even Eli) Manning money. So why hold off on giving him his due when it's not really going to break your bank?

 

probably will go down as his worst move ever...... so far gulp

 

and man 49ers got a steal with willis contract dansby, Ryans, and Scott (very good LB but not as good as Willis) make more a year

[CQI13]

For all intents, Ricky's last season is this one. And that incentive laden contract I thought was the one he signed with Miami (when Wannstache proceeded to run him into the ground -- and get him all those milestones).

[GatorBait19]

For all intents, Ricky's last season is this one. And that incentive laden contract I thought was the one he signed with Miami (when Wannstache proceeded to run him into the ground -- and get him all those milestones).

 

personally I have always had the what if factor about Ricky, What if he was 100% committed to football? how great could he have been

[lazorbeak]

I thought that terrible contract was his rookie deal with the Saints?

[CQI13]

It may have been. But his current contract with the Dolphins isn't that large. And he's said a few times that he wants this to be his last year.

[Remianen]

Please allow me to vent.

 

 

GIVE THE FREAKIN' SUPER BOWL TO NEW YORK ALREADY!

 

$1.7 billion dollar stadium, 82,500 seats, the best convention city on the planet plus, as anyone who has played this game will tell you, football is at its best in inclement weather. It simplifies the game (which is good for most fans), and performs the only natural (read: caused by nature) gut check available in sports.

 

If they deny the game to the largest market the league has simply because its weather is cold during that time of year, they should really stop whining about teams building domes (or stadiums convertible to domes) and about cold weather cities building new venues period.

 

Morons.

[GatorBait19]

Please allow me to vent.

 

 

GIVE THE FREAKIN' SUPER BOWL TO NEW YORK ALREADY!

 

$1.7 billion dollar stadium, 82,500 seats, the best convention city on the planet plus, as anyone who has played this game will tell you, football is at its best in inclement weather. It simplifies the game (which is good for most fans), and performs the only natural (read: caused by nature) gut check available in sports.

 

If they deny the game to the largest market the league has simply because its weather is cold during that time of year, they should really stop whining about teams building domes (or stadiums convertible to domes) and about cold weather cities building new venues period.

 

Morons.

 

I think it'd be cool to see it in New York, I live in Tampa and I want us to win it (for Econ. reasons) but it'd be cool to see some snow in the superbowl. Plus the Jets and Giants are talking about giving handwarmers and other this to keep people warm, and even if it's for one time give it a try and see what happens

 

New York Superbowl, is fine with me

[Remianen]

This is just pissin' me off all over again. Just like the freakin' Olympics. You give the Games to Athens, a city that didn't even have stadiums or the proper infrastructure to host the damn events? You give 'em to Rio who, by all accounts, is going to be hard pressed to even afford to build the necessary infrastructure (so Athens, all over again). This, over a city (TWO, if you include Chicago) that wouldn't require anything more than traffic rerouting to fully accommodate the millions of people who come into the host city during the games.

 

I truly hope that if they vote against the Super Bowl in New York that the Bills continue to get sandbagged in their efforts to get a new stadium and that they move (I don't care where to) and that a CBA isn't worked out so these owners can see what it feels like to lose billions over a decade (a lockout year would take YEARS to recover from). Yeah, I'm wishing some hateful stuff on these people ("THINNER") because I think they'll deserve it. They gave Jerry Jones a Super Bowl the moment they broke ground on his ego project (or just about).

[The Final Countdown]

I'm totally with you. I'm beyond sick of the Super Bowl only being played in warm weather cities. It's FOOTBALL. Snow and cold weather doesn't detract from the game; it ADDS to it.

[BHK1978]

I agree as well but I think the main problem was that one Super Bowl in I believe it was Detroit between the 49ers and Bengals. Where due to bad weather both teams had a hard time getting to the stadium.

 

However, I think NYC/NJ would not be as bad, because unless there is a major storm, that area does not get really bad weather.

[Remianen]

I agree as well but I think the main problem was that one Super Bowl in I believe it was Detroit between the 49ers and Bengals. Where due to bad weather both teams had a hard time getting to the stadium.

 

Yup, and since then, Detroit built a new stadium...and hosted another Super Bowl. Despite the fact that that city is a hole, with regards to hosting events of that size. People were staying in hotels in INDIANA for crissakes (because Detroit does not have the infrastructure to support an event of that size)! That's the part that annoys me most.

[Comradebot]

This is just pissin' me off all over again. Just like the freakin' Olympics. You give the Games to Athens, a city that didn't even have stadiums or the proper infrastructure to host the damn events? You give 'em to Rio who, by all accounts, is going to be hard pressed to even afford to build the necessary infrastructure (so Athens, all over again). This, over a city (TWO, if you include Chicago) that wouldn't require anything more than traffic rerouting to fully accommodate the millions of people who come into the host city during the games.

 

I truly hope that if they vote against the Super Bowl in New York that the Bills continue to get sandbagged in their efforts to get a new stadium and that they move (I don't care where to) and that a CBA isn't worked out so these owners can see what it feels like to lose billions over a decade (a lockout year would take YEARS to recover from). Yeah, I'm wishing some hateful stuff on these people ("THINNER") because I think they'll deserve it. They gave Jerry Jones a Super Bowl the moment they broke ground on his ego project (or just about).

 

And is also the birthplace of the Olympics.

 

Call me crazy, but I think that trumps New York's size and money in terms of the Olympics.

 

Let's be honest: the NFL doesn't want to give ANY city in a cold-in-January environment the Super Bowl. I can already hear Dolphins fans crying foul that the only reason they lost the big game is because they're a warm weather team and haven't had the opportunity to play in cold weather all year.