Running NFL Preseason Thread

Ben_Hecht · Mar 3, 2011

Re: Running NFL Offseason Thread

Flying Headbutt said:

But don't the owners want the rookie cap to be in place up to six-years, like current rookie contracts can go? That's what a guy pretty tuned into this was telling me. If that's so, I can see the players going with a rookie cap if the guy can get a new deal after 2-3 years. But no way they're letting anyone spend six years on a capped rookie deal.
Click to expand...

Not when in six years, you're odds on to be a basket case, or DOA.

LevinTBlack · Mar 3, 2011

Re: Running NFL Offseason Thread

Mizzougrad96 said:

The rookie cap needs to happen. It will eliminate holdouts and teams won't have to worry about mortgaging the next decade to sign a pick who winds up being a bust. Having no holdouts will benefit the players as well. I don't think JaMarcus Russell would have been a success if he hadn't held out, but I think Cedric Benson would have done better with the Bears if he didn't miss all that time. All the guys that held out so long the year Crabtree was drafted probably would have been much more productive as rookies.
Click to expand...

On the JaMarcus thing I think he would have actually had some motivation. He wouldn't have made all the money he would ever need up front. He would have had to prove himself in the first couple years while making say 5-6 million and then gotten the big deal. That is one of the biggest things to me in the rookie wage scale. Players won't coast as much because they won't be set for life by getting 30-50 million guaranteed.

qtlaw · Mar 3, 2011

Re: Running NFL Offseason Thread

You can be as frustrated as you want with the current rookie contracts but the reality is that they still do not reflect true market value.

A rookie wage scale is simply a money grab for the owners. Its not about "fairness."

The owners have the leverage of making the rookie bargain with only one potential employer and the risk is they lose the opportunity to work for one year. Even with that leverage they've shelled out these huge contracts to unproven rookies. Why? Because they think they're worth it to the bottom line. If they weren't worth that, they would not receive the offers they receive. If Sam Bradford was not worth the $50M guaranteed, the Rams would have let him sit out.

Can you imagine what the price would be for Sam Bradford if he was a free agent at the start of his career? What would one team be willing to pay Cam Newton this year? That's what its like for a first year law graduate, a rst year physician, a college graduate.

Herbert Anchovy · Mar 3, 2011

Re: Running NFL Offseason Thread

Guy_Incognito said:

Young isn't fair - he was dumped primarily for non-performance reasons. And neither is Leinart who was demoted because Warner was there.
Click to expand...

Over Young's career, the Titans have about a 30 percent better winning percentage when he starts over the other schlubs. But he's a putz, and a nuisance, and Joey Harrington is a splendid guy who plays the piano, so Harrington gets four bench-proof years to leave no doubt that he is completely ill-suited to start in the league.

LevinTBlack · Mar 4, 2011

Re: Running NFL Offseason Thread

Lee Jackson Beauregard said:

Guy_Incognito said:

Young isn't fair - he was dumped primarily for non-performance reasons. And neither is Leinart who was demoted because Warner was there.
Click to expand...

Over Young's career, the Titans have about a 30 percent better winning percentage when he starts over the other schlubs. But he's a putz, and a nuisance, and Joey Harrington is a splendid guy who plays the piano, so Harrington gets four bench-proof years to leave no doubt that he is completely ill-suited to start in the league.
Click to expand...

Who says VY's days of starting are over? He will get another chance somewhere. It's on the back burner because of the CBA. There will be a handful of teams willing to sign him and give him an opportunity to earn the starting job. Attitude does matter, especially at QB. Yes he won but that is a team that if you just move the ball on offense and not turn it over you win. Collins is the opposite of that.

Ben_Hecht · Mar 4, 2011

Re: Running NFL Offseason Thread

LevinTBlack said:

Lee Jackson Beauregard said:

Guy_Incognito said:

Young isn't fair - he was dumped primarily for non-performance reasons. And neither is Leinart who was demoted because Warner was there.
Click to expand...

Over Young's career, the Titans have about a 30 percent better winning percentage when he starts over the other schlubs. But he's a putz, and a nuisance, and Joey Harrington is a splendid guy who plays the piano, so Harrington gets four bench-proof years to leave no doubt that he is completely ill-suited to start in the league.
Click to expand...

Who says VY's days of starting are over? He will get another chance somewhere. It's on the back burner because of the CBA. There will be a handful of teams willing to sign him and give him an opportunity to earn the starting job. Attitude does matter, especially at QB. Yes he won but that is a team that if you just move the ball on offense and not turn it over you win. Collins is the opposite of that.
Click to expand...

Speaking about basket cases . . . a minimum level of personality steadiness and maturity is needed to lead an NFL team. Young has not displayed a sufficient supply of those attributes . . . certainly, at this level.

TigerVols · Mar 4, 2011

Re: Running NFL Offseason Thread

Listen up, guys!

Want to stay in game shape this off-season?

Then let Phil Simms, Tony Dorsett, and the shortest shorts this side of Danny Ainge help you work off the fat!

Mizzougrad96 · Mar 4, 2011

Re: Running NFL Offseason Thread

qtlaw said:

You can be as frustrated as you want with the current rookie contracts but the reality is that they still do not reflect true market value.

A rookie wage scale is simply a money grab for the owners. Its not about "fairness."

The owners have the leverage of making the rookie bargain with only one potential employer and the risk is they lose the opportunity to work for one year. Even with that leverage they've shelled out these huge contracts to unproven rookies. Why? Because they think they're worth it to the bottom line. If they weren't worth that, they would not receive the offers they receive. If Sam Bradford was not worth the $50M guaranteed, the Rams would have let him sit out.

Can you imagine what the price would be for Sam Bradford if he was a free agent at the start of his career? What would one team be willing to pay Cam Newton this year? That's what its like for a first year law graduate, a rst year physician, a college graduate.
Click to expand...

I completely disagree. I think you take the money out of the rookie pool and put it into the regular cap and everybody will be better off. You do it the way the NBA does and you get three years (hell, make them guaranteed) at a slotted amount and then let them become restricted free agents after three years and everybody would benefit except the JaMarcus Russells of the world.

If Bradford was a free agent right now, I can't imagine he'd get any more than what he's already getting. Didn't he get $50 mil guaranteed?

nmmetsfan · Mar 4, 2011

Re: Running NFL Offseason Thread

I'm firmly against the owners in this fight. They are the ones wanting more money and not proving that the current model isn't working. If there is no football this year it's 100 percent on them and I hope the fans realize that.

That being said I'm not shedding any tears for the players. Most players should be ok if they were smart with their money. And you can't tell me that they didn't at least somewhat know the health risks nowadays.

Part of me hopes for a work stoppage, a killing of the golden goose and for the NFL brass (and the enabler owners) to be knocked down a size or two.

qtlaw · Mar 4, 2011

Re: Running NFL Offseason Thread

Mizzougrad96 said:

qtlaw said:

You can be as frustrated as you want with the current rookie contracts but the reality is that they still do not reflect true market value.

A rookie wage scale is simply a money grab for the owners. Its not about "fairness."

The owners have the leverage of making the rookie bargain with only one potential employer and the risk is they lose the opportunity to work for one year. Even with that leverage they've shelled out these huge contracts to unproven rookies. Why? Because they think they're worth it to the bottom line. If they weren't worth that, they would not receive the offers they receive. If Sam Bradford was not worth the $50M guaranteed, the Rams would have let him sit out.

Can you imagine what the price would be for Sam Bradford if he was a free agent at the start of his career? What would one team be willing to pay Cam Newton this year? That's what its like for a first year law graduate, a rst year physician, a college graduate.
Click to expand...

I completely disagree. I think you take the money out of the rookie pool and put it into the regular cap and everybody will be better off. You do it the way the NBA does and you get three years (hell, make them guaranteed) at a slotted amount and then let them become restricted free agents after three years and everybody would benefit except the JaMarcus Russells of the world.

If Bradford was a free agent right now, I can't imagine he'd get any more than what he's already getting. Didn't he get $50 mil guaranteed?
Click to expand...

If this were true, why then are the rookies getting the amount they are getting? Its economically driven. Management is valuing their talents more than the veterans. They know that the investment in the top incoming players is better than an investment in a "proven" veteran, why? Because chances are the veterans have more than likely peaked already.

DanOregon · Mar 4, 2011

Re: Running NFL Offseason Thread

I don't have a problem with a rookie wage scale as long as it tops out at three-year deals. Maybe throw a two-year option that the club can pick up only with a "franchise" or "transitional" type of designation that would guarantee a big salary boost.

Herbert Anchovy · Mar 4, 2011

Re: Running NFL Offseason Thread

Rick Mirer got four-plus years as a starter. Harrington got 76 starts. Klingler started 24. Browning Nagle 14. Andre Ware got six. Dan McGwire had five.

These are all Top 50 draft picks.

How much or how little garbage do you have to watch to see a guy doesn't got it, which Alex Smith doesn't.

Log in or Sign up

Running NFL Preseason Thread

Ben_Hecht Active Member

LevinTBlack Member

qtlaw Well-Known Member

Herbert Anchovy Active Member

LevinTBlack Member

Ben_Hecht Active Member

TigerVols Well-Known Member

Mizzougrad96 Active Member

nmmetsfan Active Member

qtlaw Well-Known Member

DanOregon Well-Known Member

Herbert Anchovy Active Member

Share This Page

Log in or Sign up

Running NFL Preseason Thread

Ben_Hecht Active Member

LevinTBlack Member

qtlaw Well-Known Member

Herbert Anchovy Active Member

LevinTBlack Member

Ben_Hecht Active Member

TigerVols Well-Known Member

Mizzougrad96 Active Member

nmmetsfan Active Member

qtlaw Well-Known Member

DanOregon Well-Known Member

Herbert Anchovy Active Member

Share This Page

Useful Searches