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

I'm shocked but not shocked that dez Bryant is still not signed. He is talented as all hell, but the guy has an attitude problem and there have been the off the field stuff which may be enough to put some teams off.

The Sam darnold issue(and others like the bears rookie) with the language is something I personally think the teams shouldn't allow. He's a rookie ffs and rookies however high up in the draft they go should not be dictating to teams. Now okay Joey Bosa did something like this and fair enough that's the exception to the rule.

Realt Dearg Sec wrote: »

Why is Joey Bosa different to Roquan Smith here?

Well not him specifically but the offset language issue which was a hold up with Bosa. Well Bosa did come in a play very well.

Realt Dearg Sec wrote: »

But isn't the question of whether they play well a little different from the issue of how players should act in contract negotiations?

I personally think that Bosa has given rookies the belief that they can be a bit more aggressive on contract negotiations and it won't affect them when they do sign.

I don't think rookies should be allowed to play hard ball over language in a contract.

Itssoeasy wrote: »

I personally think that Bosa has given rookies the belief that they can be a bit more aggressive on contract negotiations and it won't affect them when they do sign.

I don't think rookies should be allowed to play hard ball over language in a contract.

If anything, it should be the opposite.

NFL teams are getting most of these rookies for pennies on the dollar of their actual value in open market, so they shouldn’t be allowed to put draconian clauses into their deals. For example, if the Darnold rumours are true the Jets wanted to include a full void of all guaranteed money (over his entire deal) if he was ever suspended for any issue. He would be insane to sign that contract and risk tens of millions of dollars just to be nice to a team who would likely discard him if it suited them without thinking twice.

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Foxtrol wrote: »

If anything, it should be the opposite.

NFL teams are getting most of these rookies for pennies on the dollar of their actual value in open market, so they shouldn’t be allowed to put draconian clauses into their deals. For example, if the Darnold rumours are true the Jets wanted to include a full void of all guaranteed money (over his entire deal) if he was ever suspended for any issue. He would be insane to sign that contract and risk tens of millions of dollars just to be nice to a team who would likely discard him if it suited them without thinking twice.

Yes, rookies are being paid far less now then they were previously, but that was a good welcome development IMO. The previous rookies(of which I think Matthew Stafford was the last) were getting stupid money for potential.

I don't agree with teams taking all of the guaranteed money and I don't think the Jets were doing to be honest. I do feel however that the teams of the NFL shouldn't be on the hook for a lot of guaranteed money with no comeback and their players are acting the maggot either in season and in the off season.

The players are representing their team and the league you know. The league has the right to fine and suspend players acting like idiots, and maybe if the guaranteed money was potentially at risk, they might cop themselves on.

And it's not all players obviously but there are players who can't help themselves.

This is a situation where 1) the player could lose guarantees over the new helmet rule that nobody knows at all how it will be implemented, and 2) the player can lose guarantees at the whim of the team for literally anything whatsoever. The teams have far, far too much power and control over players, especially rookies, the idea that there should be some even greater impediments to rookies using what leverage they have would be very retrograde, to put it very mildly. The teams have all the power at the moment basically, but there's an implication in what you're saying that the newly drafted players should just be grateful they're being allowed play. The fact is a player like Smith is not without some leverage here, given his talent and the sorry state of the team. If, as we are constantly reminded whenever teams drop and shunt players around at their ease, this is a business, then it should beat run as such, and in negotiations both sides are free to use whatever leverage they have. Lord knows the teams already do, and have engineered a situation that completely rips off rookies and generally has created the worst working conditions for players in any of the major American leagues. Players asserting themselves as valuable contributors to the fortunes of teams and to the fate of the league that has takes them for granted very often and works with a very stacked deck, is long overdue in my opinion.

I'm a bears fan but Smith is right and I think the team ultimately losses in many ways by pursuing this as they have.

If I was a rookie I'd absolutely hold out tluntil I get a contract that made me happy. Look at Aaron Donald. Best DL in the league and the rams are just like naw we'll just pick up the fifth year option/tag you.


The league are actually pretty ****ty contracts when you think about it.

raze_them_all_ wrote: »

If I was a rookie I'd absolutely hold out tluntil I get a contract that made me happy. Look at Aaron Donald. Best DL in the league and the rams are just like naw we'll just pick up the fifth year option/tag you.


The league are actually pretty ****ty contracts when you think about it.

Would shorter contracts work? Less job security I suppose for those unlikely to make a 2nd contract, but still.

Wonder what the league would be like if rookie deals were only two or three years.

boccy23 wrote: »

All of the leverage is with the team at this stage. The CBA was negotiated poorly by the Union IMO and has left too much power with teams and not nearly enough with players.

Foxtrol hit the nail in the head.

The NFL is no different to any other workplace where you have an employer and an employee (despite the money involved) - there is a constant push and pull between the competing interests.

The NFLPA overall has done an excellent job of negotiating terms and conditions for the players. Remember most NFL players have a very short playing life - and many suffer the long-term effects of a game that can cause a myriad of health issues in later life. Teams are restricted in the amount of time they can put players on the field for training - obliged to provide back-ups and supports for the health of the players etc. Perhaps the most significant aspect is the fact that there is a minimum wage for a player in the NFL.

Look at the contrast - Matt Ryan is the highest paid NFL player in 2018 on $30million (the highest paid non-QB is at no.17 - Von Miller on $19million) - the minimum wage for a player is $480,000 for a rookie (and it automatically increases by $15,000 every year). A good comparison with Ryan would be a player with 4-6 years experience - his wage is a minimum $790,000. Ryan is paid roughly 38X the minimum wage.

The highest paid player in the Premier League is Mehmet Ozil - on £18.2million (the equivalent of almost $24million). Some PL squad players are paid as little as £150,000 a year - more than 100 times lower than Ozil. What is worse is in 1980 the highest paid player was Peter Shilton on £1,200 a week - the bottom wage for a full-time professional was about £100 a week. Today Ozil earns 300 times the amount Shilton got - yet there are still full-time players in England earning as little as £200 a week. This is the absolute scandal - and the PFA have done diddly-squat about it. Soccer would be 100X a better sport if there was a salary cap and a minimum wage structure throughout the league pyramid in every country - it would cut the floor from under the obscene transfer fees that are being tossed around at the moment - and it would eliminate the crisis in places like Bray and Limerick over the past few weeks.

What is currently happening in the NFL is that for years the players were able to pressure the owners into improving contracts and conditions and the owners complied because of rising TV revenues. But there is a push back from the networks because of dropping advertising revenues. And now the NFL owners are pushing back against the players by attempting to change contract terms with all of these conditional clauses in the contracts.

Part of this is also the result of the large number of players who have staged protests during games over the past couple of seasons. The NFL is a bastion of right-wing redneck America - and that is particularly manifest in the attitude of many owners, GMs and HCs - from Jerry Jones to John Elway to Bill Belichick. They want to put the players back in the box and maintain the image of the NFL as the bastion of redneck America - as well as maximising their profits.

My attitude is that the players need, collectively, to screw the NFL and the owners for everything they can get (including refusing to sign these punitive contract clauses) - because as soon as it suits the teams the players as cast aside like a piece of discarded carcass.

Niles Crane wrote: »

There are around 4 times as many NFL players on a roster as NBA players so they are bound to be paid much better than NFL players.

NBA Average Salary = $6.2 million
NFL Average Salary = $2.1 million
NHL Average Salary = $2.9 million
MLB Average Salary = $4.4 million

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kurtbadenhausen/2016/12/15/average-player-salaries-in-major-american-sports-leagues/#4a43a1251050


With the high liklihood of a player getting injuered in the NFL no owner would sign off on a alarge amount of fully guaranteed contracts that last more than 1 year.

As you pointed out averages are totally misleading, as aside from roster size there is a huge difference in the number of games for the other leagues, the NBA has 82 regular season games, MLB 162 regular season games, and 82 regular season games vs 16 for NFL. NFLPA want to limit contact in practice so forget about them signing up to more games. Despite how I feel players should get a bigger cut they can’t have it every way.

jack presley wrote: »

I have to disagree with you there, well relative to the other unions in American sports anyway where all the contracts are guaranteed.

I don’t follow the NBA but isn’t there crazy money being bandied about to run if the mill players there? I’m not talking about Lebron or KD, but your 5th starter or your 6th man etc. Aren’t they getting a much higher wage than your typical NFL player (again, not the top end guys)?

I don’t think the players are happy at the Roger Goddell being judge, jury and executioner term that’s in the current agreement either.

As far as rookies go the NFLPA did the standard trade union tactic of completely screwing over future members in favour of current members, see public service unions during the crash here as another example of this. They completely eroded rookie future rights to get a better deal for veterans.

Players (and a lot of fans) were fine with the NFL/Goodell overseeing discipline when they were giving out slap on the wrists for punishment, when they weren’t sweeping things under the carpet. There are few sports disciplinary systems, or national legal systems for that matter, that aren’t a complete crap shoot when it comes to outcomes/sentencing. No matter what system they switch to players and especially fans will whine about it when someone from their team is sanctioned.

Foxtrol wrote: »

As you pointed out averages are totally misleading, as aside from roster size there is a huge difference in the number of games for the other leagues, the NBA has 82 regular season games, MLB 162 regular season games, and 82 regular season games vs 16 for NFL. NFLPA want to limit contact in practice so forget about them signing up to more games. Despite how I feel players should get a bigger cut they can’t have it every way.



As far as rookies go the NFLPA did the standard trade union tactic of completely screwing over future members in favour of current members, see public service unions during the crash here as another example of this. They completely eroded rookie future rights to get a better deal for veterans.

Players (and a lot of fans) were fine with the NFL/Goodell overseeing discipline when they were giving out slap on the wrists for punishment, when they weren’t sweeping things under the carpet. There are few sports disciplinary systems, or national legal systems for that matter, that aren’t a complete crap shoot when it comes to outcomes/sentencing. No matter what system they switch to players and especially fans will whine about it when someone from their team is sanctioned.

If I was in the union I'd want the end of franchise tagging. It can force a player to play 1-3 years in a team he has no wish to be at. And don't get me started on trading of players in American sports. Look at dmar Rozen in the NBA. Gave his everything for Toronto raptors for 9 years, woke up the next day playing for a different team completely without any input

The Bears finally leaked their side of the Roquan Smith holdout and it changes the whole thing. According to the Chicago Tribune, the Bears made concessions and wrote guarantees into Smith's contract protecting his money should he be suspended for an illegal hit before anyone had even reported that as the issue holding up the deal. The Tribune say this:



No point linking the article as it's blocked in the EU.

Suddenly I am on the teams' side now if the Tribune's reporting is correct. No way should any player have a written guarantee that they will still be paid should they be suspended for doing something stupid off the field.

Wait, I just got round to reading about it and my above post is off the ball, as is oat's:

"The Bears still want to be able to void future guarantees if Smith is suspended for something that happens on the field beyond the confines of a play — a late hit, a fight, physicality that occurs while a player is defending himself against an attack by an opponent, inadvertent contact with an official, or anything else that could prompt the league office to impose a suspension that is later upheld on appeal."

That isn't the same as wanting to be able to go without punishment for stupid actions off the field, of the type we are all used to. But it does seem an odd thing to argue about: do you have plans to hit refs and get in fights? Weird one. Apparently four teams already allow players to keep guarantees for these kinds of incidents and the other 28 (rightly imo) reserve the right to use this as punishment when someone does things that are idiotic.