The Weird, Wacky and Awesome World of the NFL - General Banter thread V3

j8wk2feszrnpao

Hococop wrote: »

Think I saw it discussed on speak for yourself, they had Bucky Brooks and he said when worked the office for an NFL team the rule was draft a rb, run them into the ground and after 5 years cut and get the next rb, so imo Bell is right to do what he is doing, guarantee it will happen to Connor aswell

Bell is totally right to do it from his prospective. He gets a year off and should get a really good long term contract.
The Steelers are also right from their prospective. After 5 years of so much action, he may not live up to the contract for another 5 years.

Bell was going to get 14m this year. Not exactly a bad deal.

nerd69

It kind of is happening to Connor and additionally given his history I don't imagine his body will be able to stand up to it as long as some others

Foxtrol

billr67 wrote: »

Bell in his best year had 11 Touchdowns 8/9 Rushing and 3/2 receiving and his best rushing season was 9 TD's last year. Connor has 11 TD's already 10 rushing and 1 receiving and that's in only 9 games. He only needs 5 TD's to beat Franco Harris's single season rushing record and 6 to beat Willie Parkers combined season record. Ok when it comes to combined yardage Bell's record in 2014 will be very hard to ever beat but now that we have Ju Ju and McDonald there's no need to force feed the RB. Yes we have some tough games coming up but confidence at the moment is sky high.

TDs are simply a terrible metric to assess an RB, as TDs are completely situation dependent.

Per that logic Alex Collins and Isaiah Crowell are having better years and/or are superior to Saquon Barkley and Ezekiel Elliott.

raze_them_all_

When a team has to gameplan for you that's a good player

dfx-

Foxtrol wrote: »

TDs are simply a terrible metric to assess an RB, as TDs are completely situation dependent.

Per that logic Alex Collins and Isaiah Crowell are having better years and/or are superior to Saquon Barkley and Ezekiel Elliott.

Gurley and Bell each have four 100 yard rushing games in their career so far. Conner has that in the opening eight games this season...

Conner already has more 20yard+ runs than Bell had all last year...

eagle eye

If Bell had have come back I think he would be in a lot better position to get a really big contract but now I'm not so sure.

If I was a gm I'd be questioning his commitment now. When a player does this once you can't just trust him fully. You'd have to worry that he might sit out again if he wasn't happy over something.

I think it affects him badly in contract negotiations.

Still there seem to be lots of idiots running teams so he might get paid.

Also any team giving him a five year deal would be crazy. He turns 27 in February so you are only getting three seasons of him under 30 and we all know how many RB's fall off at that age.

Mr. Guappa

I don't think Bell left 14 million on the table without very strong wink/nod indications from a team or three that a suitable package would be on the table come next spring.

j8wk2feszrnpao

dfx- wrote: »

Gurley and Bell each have four 100 yard rushing games in their career so far. Conner has that in the opening eight games this season...

Conner already has more 20yard+ runs than Bell had all last year...

More terrible metrics :P

Foxtrol

munstermagic11 wrote: »

More terrible metrics :P

It is great to be agreed with.

Foxtrol

eagle eye wrote: »

If Bell had have come back I think he would be in a lot better position to get a really big contract but now I'm not so sure.

If I was a gm I'd be questioning his commitment now. When a player does this once you can't just trust him fully. You'd have to worry that he might sit out again if he wasn't happy over something.

I think it affects him badly in contract negotiations.

Still there seem to be lots of idiots running teams so he might get paid.

Also any team giving him a five year deal would be crazy. He turns 27 in February so you are only getting three seasons of him under 30 and we all know how many RB's fall off at that age.

Like Donald and Mack's commitment was questioned, they couldnt be trusted fully, and it badly affected their contract negotiations?

The length of the NFL contracts don't mean anything once they get past the guaranteed money. People get too caught up on the length of contracts and/or average salary when assessing deals.

eagle eye

Neither of them sat out a full season.

eagle eye

Foxtrol wrote:

Like Donald and Mack's commitment was questioned, they couldnt be trusted fully, and it badly affected their contract negotiations?

Neither of them sat out a full season.

Itssoeasy

I'm all for players in the NFL getting as much money as they can given the nature of the game and all that. My issue with the Bell situation is it's clear the steelers locker room expected him to be there at some point and he never showed up. Don't make it seem you'll turn up when you don't.

raze_them_all_

Itssoeasy wrote: »

I'm all for players in the NFL getting as much money as they can given the nature of the game and all that. My issue with the Bell situation is it's clear the steelers locker room expected him to be there at some point and he never showed up. Don't make it seem you'll turn up when you don't.

He never did. The players thought he would because who would leave 14 million behind. He never said he'd be back

Christy42

eagle eye wrote: »

Foxtrol wrote:

Like Donald and Mack's commitment was questioned, they couldnt be trusted fully, and it badly affected their contract negotiations?

Neither of them sat out a full season.

They got paid.

Itssoeasy

raze_them_all_ wrote: »

He never did. The players thought he would because who would leave 14 million behind. He never said he'd be back

Well that's not the way I took it when the players were talking in the locker room when he didn't show up. I got the distinct impression he'd been in contact with some players and that's why they were annoyed.

raze_them_all_

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Well that's not the way I took it when the players were talking in the locker room when he didn't show up. I got the distinct impression he'd been in contact with some players and that's why they were annoyed.

Loads have literally said the most frustrating thing was he never talked to anyone

Foxtrol

eagle eye wrote: »

Neither of them sat out a full season.

They sat out until their team gave in just like Bell is.

eagle eye

They did but they didn't sit out a full season. It's completely different for a top professional to miss TC and preseason when he will keep himself in shape.
When you take it to the next level and sit out a full season then questions have to asked about commitment, about the likelihood that it might happen again.
You take a lot of hits over a season playing RB. When you sit out a season and then come back it's going to be tougher for a while to take them hits.
Looking at holdouts, Chris Johnson was never the same again after a lengthy sitout while waiting for a contract. There are plenty of examples of holdouts like John Riggins who was never as good after not playing for a full season.
I could compare it to players who've missed a season through injury and in a very high percentage of cases never been the same again. I won't do that as you'd argue that it was entirely down to the injury.

Foxtrol

eagle eye wrote: »

They did but they didn't sit out a full season. It's completely different for a top professional to miss TC and preseason when he will keep himself in shape.
When you take it to the next level and sit out a full season then questions have to asked about commitment, about the likelihood that it might happen again.
You take a lot of hits over a season playing RB. When you sit out a season and then come back it's going to be tougher for a while to take them hits.
Looking at holdouts, Chris Johnson was never the same again after a lengthy sitout while waiting for a contract. There are plenty of examples of holdouts like John Riggins who was never as good after not playing for a full season.
I could compare it to players who've missed a season through injury and in a very high percentage of cases never been the same again. I won't do that as you'd argue that it was entirely down to the injury.

Donald sat out preseason two years in a row and this year put out comment that he wasn't playing a down until he was paid, and didn't. Bell is the exact same situation, where he showed up last year after preseason but this year he said he likely wouldn't and followed through. The only difference between the two is that one team folded and the other didn't. We have no evidence that either Donald or Mack were going to eventually show up if their teams held out so I you're really grasping at straws when you try to differentiate the commitment of the three.

Whether sitting out a year impacts future performance is another topic totally separate to your 'commitment' point. Athletes in other sports routinely take breaks and it helps to extend their careers but who knows how it will work out in Bell's case.

Oat23

I love the Browns.


https://twitter.com/AdamSchefter/status/1064180915679707138

jack presley

Donald Rumsfeld as DC too*

* may or may not be true.

eagle eye

Foxtrol wrote:

Whether sitting out a year impacts future performance is another topic totally separate to your 'commitment' point. Athletes in other sports routinely take breaks and it helps to extend their careers but who knows how it will work out in Bell's case.
Donald sat out preseason two years in a row and this year put out comment that he wasn't playing a down until he was paid, and didn't. Bell is the exact same situation, where he showed up last year after preseason but this year he said he likely wouldn't and followed through. The only difference between the two is that one team folded and the other didn't. We have no evidence that either Donald or Mack were going to eventually show up if their teams held out so I you're really grasping at straws when you try to differentiate the commitment of the three.

Fact is the two players you mentioned never sat out a season. This makes their cases completely different. What ifs don't count.
Also I'm just adding stuff which is important when considering what size and length of contract you would give somebody who has sat out a full season. There aren't any major success stories for anybody that sat out a long time.

dfx-

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Well that's not the way I took it when the players were talking in the locker room when he didn't show up. I got the distinct impression he'd been in contact with some players and that's why they were annoyed.

There was a very clear change in tone from the Offensive Line after he didn't show up on the Wednesday before Week 1.

Pouncey in particular (player rep?). They were asked during training camp and in the build up and said nothing. After that point, they were openly pissed off.

Foxtrol

eagle eye wrote: »

Fact is the two players you mentioned never sat out a season. This makes their cases completely different. What ifs don't count.
Also I'm just adding stuff which is important when considering what size and length of contract you would give somebody who has sat out a full season. There aren't any major success stories for anybody that sat out a long time.

It is as simple as all 3 players sat out until they got what they wanted. I just don't see how you can say that one sitting out longer will 'badly' affect his negotiations due to raising commitment questions when the other 2 were rewarded with the biggest contracts ever in their positions.

At this stage we're talking around in circles. We won't know what he gets until the offseason and even then we won't know what had the biggest impacts on his deal, as there are plenty of much more valid reasons why he might not get as big a contract as he thinks - age, injury history, suspension history, wear and tear, the performance of Conner, general value of RB position.

I just find it frustrating when fans continue to trot out the tired sound bites of 'commitment', 'selfishness', 'not being a good teammate' etc to have a go at players whenever they look to get paid what they deserve or, even worse in this situation, some form of long term security. Fans rarely have a problem when teams use things in the CBA to strengthen their position against a player but once players leverages what is in the CBA agreement they're painted as the bad guys.

Foxtrol

dfx- wrote: »

There was a very clear change in tone from the Offensive Line after he didn't show up on the Wednesday before Week 1.

Pouncey in particular (player rep?). They were asked during training camp and in the build up and said nothing. After that point, they were openly pissed off.

Happy to be corrected but I can't find a quote from single player saying they spoke to Bell and he confirmed he'd be back for week 1. If they made an assumption he'd be back based on prior year then that's on them and the coaches/front office.

That crap from Pouncey etc is the reason why the NFL players have the worst contracts of the major US sports. The owners/NFL have done a masterful job on them.

Weepsie

eagle eye wrote: »

Fact is the two players you mentioned never sat out a season. This makes their cases completely different. What ifs don't count.
Also I'm just adding stuff which is important when considering what size and length of contract you would give somebody who has sat out a full season. There aren't any major success stories for anybody that sat out a long time.

Players have missed entire seasons through injury and come back just fine. Across numerous sports.

He may very well be in the condition of his life after a year of not taking massive hits

Jolly Red Giant

Rumours coming out of Denver that Gary Kubiak is looking to go back to coaching as an OC.

mikemac2

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

Rumours coming out of Denver that Gary Kubiak is looking to go back to coaching as an OC.

Welcome back to Baltimore any day !

Christy42

Uhh. You have to wonder how long Jaguars can go with Bortles. Defense plays lights out and the Offense does nothing with it.