Jump to content
THE BROWNS BOARD

Bell done in Pittsburgh


LondonBrown

Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, Ibleedbrown said:

Unless the Stools have a better use for the franchise tag, they could conceivably slap it on him and match whatever offer he gets, which very well may be much less than he hopes it will be. I recall that’s how we kept Mack his last couple years here.

Hootie and the Blowfish had the best advice regarding Bell:   Let her go.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 95
  • Created
  • Last Reply
1 hour ago, Ibleedbrown said:

Unless the Stools have a better use for the franchise tag, they could conceivably slap it on him and match whatever offer he gets, which very well may be much less than he hopes it will be. I recall that’s how we kept Mack his last couple years here.

Transition tag, if they put the franchise tag on him it's the qb tag and he gets 25m for the season. The Steelers aren't going to do that, I could however see a transition tag and trade scenario. His agent did a terrible job protecting his image and while he would have helped the team in the short term the steelers won't miss him because of Connors production. I'm just glad to not hear about it for a while.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The issue is that they kept franchising him instead of giving him the deal his numbers deserve.  He's obviously outperformed Gurley, whose deal was the annual of what Bell played at last year plus a lot more guaranteed.

Instead of thinking he's selfish - you could think of him as doing a good deed for the players as a whole.. when the salaries are bigger at the top everyone gets a raise.  

This is a move to alter the power dynamics of the NFL.  At its core the "franchise tag" is a monopolistic item used simply to reduce the earnings power of top players.  Leveon has deserved more salary for quite some time.  Remember, a "free market" means that both sides must agree to a proposal.  By definition, those of you wanting him to just "shut up and accept" whatever he's lowballed.... are not actually supporting a free market. 

If you ever wondered why you aren't getting a raise even though your company is reporting record profits.... this reflexive anti-labor thought is why they get away with it.  Executives, of course, give themselves giant raises every year especially in the NFL.. why shouldn't you get your piece of it, especially when you're easily the best employee in your company?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, StinkHole said:

Aside from Connor being better, the Steelers have 14.6 mil in cap space for next year.

Connor's better than Bell? Remains TBD...

Better value right now... no argument there.

15 hours ago, hoorta said:

It's complicated- he's not under contract, and I think this is right....  per nfl.com..  http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000987961/article/leveon-bell-does-not-sign-tag-will-miss-2018-season

The Steelers can either tag him at the QB tender, or use the transition tag- meaning they can match any offer he gets on the open market. Why would they? Connor has proved Bell is imminently expendable, and the Steelers never overpay.

So he's not an RFA.

Makes sense since he was already a UFA and thus the refused tag this season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Unsympathetic said:

The issue is that they kept franchising him instead of giving him the deal his numbers deserve.  He's obviously outperformed Gurley, whose deal was the annual of what Bell played at last year plus a lot more guaranteed.

Instead of thinking he's selfish - you could think of him as doing a good deed for the players as a whole.. when the salaries are bigger at the top everyone gets a raise.  

This is a move to alter the power dynamics of the NFL.  At its core the "franchise tag" is a monopolistic item used simply to reduce the earnings power of top players.  Leveon has deserved more salary for quite some time.  Remember, a "free market" means that both sides must agree to a proposal.  By definition, those of you wanting him to just "shut up and accept" whatever he's lowballed.... are not actually supporting a free market. 

If you ever wondered why you aren't getting a raise even though your company is reporting record profits.... this reflexive anti-labor thought is why they get away with it.  Executives, of course, give themselves giant raises every year especially in the NFL.. why shouldn't you get your piece of it, especially when you're easily the best employee in your company?

Or you could be completely wrong about everything.  Or maybe not

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Unsympathetic said:

The issue is that they kept franchising him instead of giving him the deal his numbers deserve.  He's obviously outperformed Gurley, whose deal was the annual of what Bell played at last year plus a lot more guaranteed.

Instead of thinking he's selfish - you could think of him as doing a good deed for the players as a whole.. when the salaries are bigger at the top everyone gets a raise.  

This is a move to alter the power dynamics of the NFL.  At its core the "franchise tag" is a monopolistic item used simply to reduce the earnings power of top players.  Leveon has deserved more salary for quite some time.  Remember, a "free market" means that both sides must agree to a proposal.  By definition, those of you wanting him to just "shut up and accept" whatever he's lowballed.... are not actually supporting a free market. 

If you ever wondered why you aren't getting a raise even though your company is reporting record profits.... this reflexive anti-labor thought is why they get away with it.  Executives, of course, give themselves giant raises every year especially in the NFL.. why shouldn't you get your piece of it, especially when you're easily the best employee in your company?

Sorry- this is a UNION squabble that the players agreed to- via the guys who were bargaining for them. Don't like the rules? Go on strike next time around.

Don't forget Bell turned down the Steeler's offer (pre Gurley) that would have make him the highest paid RB in the NFL. Sorry if you think that's not enough for poor, poor Le'veon.

Bell is mistakenly trying to elevate the relative value of running backs. They're about 4th on the value scale, and if you want to doubt that assertion- go look at how much super stud Saquon Barkley has helped the Giants to a couple of wins, or the Steelers have hardly missed a beat without Bell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, LondonBrown said:

Despite not playing Bell is still a year older. He doesn’t seem to think this matters one bit but I would bet GMs and teams think differently. 

Another year older and deeper in debt.....as the saying goes.  When you miss out on 14 million bucks?  That would make you deeper in debt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just saw this :lol: ........

ESPN -  http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/25276952/pittsburgh-steelers-players-raid-locker-teammate-leveon-bell

In a fitting end to a bizarre holdout story, several Pittsburgh Steelers players rummaged through Bell's locker and removed his No. 26 nameplate after Wednesday's practice.

Bell forfeited the season and his $14.5 million franchise tag by failing to report to team headquarters on Tuesday. He left behind a locker full of stuff, including cleats, shirts and a CD labeled 'Le'Veon Bell #1."

Linebacker Bud Dupree scored two pairs of Jordan cleats and thanked Bell. The move seemed more playful than malicious.

"Appreciate the cleats, my guy," Dupree said into a camera. "I wish you success, my guy."

Bell's locker had stayed intact through his holdout.

Players answered Bell-related questions for what they hope is the last time. Defensive end Cam Heyward said the most disappointing part of the Bell holdout is "that we even talk about it."

"It sucks when a guy doesn't have to answer his own questions," Heyward said. "If they aren't on the team, I'm not worried about it.

"... Just get back to football. That's all we can do. Wish him the best. This train doesn't stop for anybody."

Guard Ramon Foster, the team's NFL Players Association rep, took a businesslike approach to Bell's absence.

"Save your money, get a lot of information on what we're trying to do moving forward and that way stuff like this doesn't happen," Foster said in a message directed at players. "We fall short on things because guys get selfish or guys say, 'Hey, yeah, we're going to take a deal.'

"We've got to inform ourselves this next time around so this type of stuff doesn't happen. I hate it. [The franchise tag] could be good for both sides because you're one of the highest paid at your position. But they retain your rights so you don't hit the open market."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, mjp28 said:

Just saw this :lol: ........

ESPN -  http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/25276952/pittsburgh-steelers-players-raid-locker-teammate-leveon-bell

In a fitting end to a bizarre holdout story, several Pittsburgh Steelers players rummaged through Bell's locker and removed his No. 26 nameplate after Wednesday's practice.

Bell forfeited the season and his $14.5 million franchise tag by failing to report to team headquarters on Tuesday. He left behind a locker full of stuff, including cleats, shirts and a CD labeled 'Le'Veon Bell #1."

Linebacker Bud Dupree scored two pairs of Jordan cleats and thanked Bell. The move seemed more playful than malicious.

"Appreciate the cleats, my guy," Dupree said into a camera. "I wish you success, my guy."

Bell's locker had stayed intact through his holdout.

Players answered Bell-related questions for what they hope is the last time. Defensive end Cam Heyward said the most disappointing part of the Bell holdout is "that we even talk about it."

"It sucks when a guy doesn't have to answer his own questions," Heyward said. "If they aren't on the team, I'm not worried about it.

"... Just get back to football. That's all we can do. Wish him the best. This train doesn't stop for anybody."

Guard Ramon Foster, the team's NFL Players Association rep, took a businesslike approach to Bell's absence.

"Save your money, get a lot of information on what we're trying to do moving forward and that way stuff like this doesn't happen," Foster said in a message directed at players. "We fall short on things because guys get selfish or guys say, 'Hey, yeah, we're going to take a deal.'

"We've got to inform ourselves this next time around so this type of stuff doesn't happen. I hate it. [The franchise tag] could be good for both sides because you're one of the highest paid at your position. But they retain your rights so you don't hit the open market."

Uhh....Duh....No Shite Sherlock.  That was the whole point of what the Union agreed to there.   They traded the big paycheck that players playing under the tag received for their free agency rights.   They took the money....just like they did with the disciplinary process.  They put all the power in the hands of the commish so they could make more cash.

I think the owners next time around should say..You....(the union),  can have what you want:   A. no franchise tag  B. A commission that handles discipline, not the commish  C.  no marijuana testing.........and in return...you get 10-15% LESS of the total money pot. Basically....cave in to all of the union's primary demands.....but give them much less $$$$$.    See how that goes over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, The Gipper said:

Uhh....Duh....No Shite Sherlock.  That was the whole point of what the Union agreed to there.   They traded the big paycheck that players playing under the tag received for their free agency rights.   They took the money....just like they did with the disciplinary process.  They put all the power in the hands of the commish so they could make more cash.

I think the owners next time around should say..You....(the union),  can have what you want:   A. no franchise tag  B. A commission that handles discipline, not the commish  C.  no marijuana testing.........and in return...you get 10-15% LESS of the total money pot. Basically....cave in to all of the union's primary demands.....but give them much less $$$$$.    See how that goes over.

Oh yeah it's a kids' game alright playing ball....until you get into the real money, power, discipline and now health issues and other details of it.

Better than the Young & the Restless!  :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, hoorta said:

Sorry- this is a UNION squabble that the players agreed to- via the guys who were bargaining for them. Don't like the rules? Go on strike next time around.

Don't forget Bell turned down the Steeler's offer (pre Gurley) that would have make him the highest paid RB in the NFL. Sorry if you think that's not enough for poor, poor Le'veon.

Bell is mistakenly trying to elevate the relative value of running backs. They're about 4th on the value scale, and if you want to doubt that assertion- go look at how much super stud Saquon Barkley has helped the Giants to a couple of wins, or the Steelers have hardly missed a beat without Bell.

I've literally called out this statement as being garbage 50 times, but I'll try once more in plain language. Sure, it may be neat to be the highest paid player at a position but any smart player doesn't give two flips about that. It comes down to fully guaranteed money, of which Bell was only offered about $20 million. As has been said a bunch now, I don't blame Bell at all for taking that as a slap in the face compared to his production.

A player can have a $100 million per year contract and it doesn't mean Sheet in the NFL unless the word guaranteed is after it. Not difficult to understand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, jrb12711 said:

I've literally called out this statement as being garbage 50 times, but I'll try once more in plain language. Sure, it may be neat to be the highest paid player at a position but any smart player doesn't give two flips about that. It comes down to fully guaranteed money, of which Bell was only offered about $20 million. As has been said a bunch now, I don't blame Bell at all for taking that as a slap in the face compared to his production.

A player can have a $100 million per year contract and it doesn't mean Sheet in the NFL unless the word guaranteed is after it. Not difficult to understand.

Well....it certainly means something if he continues to play at a highly productive level.....then he earns the "non-guaranteed" portion of his contract.  If he slides into suckage, then perhaps he should not earn all that extra money.

I mean, really....THAT is what this is all about:  "I want tons of guaranteed money so that when I begin to suck arse, you will still have to pay me."

I won't ask if you agree or disagree with that....as there can be no such thing as a disagreement with that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, The Gipper said:

Well....it certainly means something if he continues to play at a highly productive level.....then he earns the "non-guaranteed" portion of his contract.  If he slides into suckage, then perhaps he should not earn all that extra money.

I mean, really....THAT is what this is all about:  "I want tons of guaranteed money so that when I begin to suck arse, you will still have to pay me."

I won't ask if you agree or disagree with that....as there can be no such thing as a disagreement with that.

Except that's absolutely 100% wrong. Players in the NFL want guaranteed money because the sport by definition is brutal. All it takes is one wrong hit and their career is over, and the only thing that saves them is a contract with guaranteed money. If a guy gets that money and decides to coast, that's an organizational problem. But the reason I noted of why guys want guaranteed money is something I could explain to my dog. C'mon now, use common sense. I won't ask if you agree or disagree with that because unlike what you said, there's no such thing as disagreement with my point. Hell, that's largely why the NFLPA exists. 

Bell by RB standards put on a grueling work load on his body since in the NFL. It's not wrong of him to want the money, guaranteed, that goes along with that. The owners of teams absolutely have the upper hand on contracts and always will. Non-guaranteed big money contracts mean crap cause all an owner has to do is snap his fingers and it's gone. This has been seen thousands of times. Get it together man.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Tour2ma said:

Connor's better than Bell? Remains TBD...

Better value right now... no argument there.

 

True, Connor being better than Bell still remains to be seen. I was only making a bold prediction based on what has already been seen...

... Conners performance vs. Bells in their rookie years.

As the season progresses, Conner continues to pull away from Bell in terms of rookie performance.

Conner outpaced Bell, 164 to 160 rushing attempts, and also in receptions, 39 to 33.

Conner has 11 touchdowns compared to Bell's 5.

The difference between the pair in yards gained also shows where Conner has really outplayed Bell.  

Through their first 9 games, Conner has 771 yards on the ground vs. Bell's 528 (and a higher average at 4.7 vs. 3.3).  Conner also has more receiving yards (386 vs. 319) and a better average (9.9 vs 9.67).

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, jrb12711 said:

Except that's absolutely 100% wrong. Players in the NFL want guaranteed money because the sport by definition is brutal. All it takes is one wrong hit and their career is over, and the only thing that saves them is a contract with guaranteed money. If a guy gets that money and decides to coast, that's an organizational problem. But the reason I noted of why guys want guaranteed money is something I could explain to my dog. C'mon now, use common sense. I won't ask if you agree or disagree with that because unlike what you said, there's no such thing as disagreement with my point. Hell, that's largely why the NFLPA exists. 

Bell by RB standards put on a grueling work load on his body since in the NFL. It's not wrong of him to want the money, guaranteed, that goes along with that. The owners of teams absolutely have the upper hand on contracts and always will. Non-guaranteed big money contracts mean crap cause all an owner has to do is snap his fingers and it's gone. This has been seen thousands of times. Get it together man.

So bottom line, $14.6 million was not enough for poor LaVeon?

One hit and their NFL career is over?  So?  They can start a career in the field of study that they graduated from college with...

I also know people with shot knees, hips, and shoulders that never played a down of football in their life, so save that sob story.

I would almost bet my life James Connor would not pull that Sheet.  A cancer survivor so grateful his favorite team took a chance on him. That would humble anyone.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, StinkHole said:

True, Connor being better than Bell still remains to be seen. I was only making a bold prediction based on what has already been seen...

... Conners performance vs. Bells in their rookie years.

As the season progresses, Conner continues to pull away from Bell in terms of rookie performance.

Conner outpaced Bell, 164 to 160 rushing attempts, and also in receptions, 39 to 33.

Conner has 11 touchdowns compared to Bell's 5.

The difference between the pair in yards gained also shows where Conner has really outplayed Bell.  

Through their first 9 games, Conner has 771 yards on the ground vs. Bell's 528 (and a higher average at 4.7 vs. 3.3).  Conner also has more receiving yards (386 vs. 319) and a better average (9.9 vs 9.67).

Points taken, but the stats are not stand alone.

In 2013 PTG was a .500 team so the team was now as good and carries disappear when a team is behind.

Granted when you play from behind receptions would be expected to rise, but Bell did not play until Week 4. I doubt the staff fully understood the pass threat they had.

I am not dissing Conner. He's filled Bell's shoes admirably, but the role was defined by Bell.

Let's revisit the comparison after years 2 and 3...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, jrb12711 said:

Except that's absolutely 100% wrong. Players in the NFL want guaranteed money because the sport by definition is brutal. All it takes is one wrong hit and their career is over, and the only thing that saves them is a contract with guaranteed money. If a guy gets that money and decides to coast, that's an organizational problem. But the reason I noted of why guys want guaranteed money is something I could explain to my dog. C'mon now, use common sense. I won't ask if you agree or disagree with that because unlike what you said, there's no such thing as disagreement with my point. Hell, that's largely why the NFLPA exists. 

Bell by RB standards put on a grueling work load on his body since in the NFL. It's not wrong of him to want the money, guaranteed, that goes along with that. The owners of teams absolutely have the upper hand on contracts and always will. Non-guaranteed big money contracts mean crap cause all an owner has to do is snap his fingers and it's gone. This has been seen thousands of times. Get it together man.

It is NOT wrong....but it may only be part of the story.  What you claim may be another part of the story.  They want that guaranteed money to come in even if they get hurt.....fine......But they ALSO want it to keep coming in even if they don't live up to their contract and their performance goes into the crapper. 

So, the way I see it is that you are about half right...and half as  smart as your dog.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, StinkHole said:

True, Connor being better than Bell still remains to be seen. I was only making a bold prediction based on what has already been seen...

... Conners performance vs. Bells in their rookie years.

As the season progresses, Conner continues to pull away from Bell in terms of rookie performance.

Conner outpaced Bell, 164 to 160 rushing attempts, and also in receptions, 39 to 33.

Conner has 11 touchdowns compared to Bell's 5.

The difference between the pair in yards gained also shows where Conner has really outplayed Bell.  

Through their first 9 games, Conner has 771 yards on the ground vs. Bell's 528 (and a higher average at 4.7 vs. 3.3).  Conner also has more receiving yards (386 vs. 319) and a better average (9.9 vs 9.67).

 

Except, correct me if I am wrong....this is NOT Conner's rookie season, not really.  Wasn't he on the roster last year?   He was.  In fact here are his career numbers:

 

 

Rushing & Receiving

 
    •  
    •  
  Games Rushing Receiving Total Yds      
Year Age Tm Pos No. G GS Rush Yds TD Lng Y/A Y/G A/G Tgt Rec Yds Y/R TD Lng R/G Y/G Ctch% Touch Y/Tch YScm RRTD Fmb AV
Career       23 8 196 915 10 30 4.7 39.8 8.5 52 39 387 9.9 1 29 1.7 16.8   235 5.5 1302 11 3 1
2017 22 PIT   30 14 0 32 144 0 23 4.5 10.3 2.3 1 0 0   0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 32 4.5 144 0 0 1
2018 23 PIT RB 30 9 8 164 771 10 30 4.7 85.7 18.2 51 39 387 9.9 1 29 4.3 43.0 76.5% 203 5.7 1158 11 3  
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, jrb12711 said:

Except that's absolutely 100% wrong. Players in the NFL want guaranteed money because the sport by definition is brutal. All it takes is one wrong hit and their career is over, and the only thing that saves them is a contract with guaranteed money. If a guy gets that money and decides to coast, that's an organizational problem. But the reason I noted of why guys want guaranteed money is something I could explain to my dog. C'mon now, use common sense. I won't ask if you agree or disagree with that because unlike what you said, there's no such thing as disagreement with my point. Hell, that's largely why the NFLPA exists. 

Bell by RB standards put on a grueling work load on his body since in the NFL. It's not wrong of him to want the money, guaranteed, that goes along with that. The owners of teams absolutely have the upper hand on contracts and always will. Non-guaranteed big money contracts mean crap cause all an owner has to do is snap his fingers and it's gone. This has been seen thousands of times. Get it together man.

Well, he turned down $14 million guaranteed playing under the franchise tag. Could have had $6 million more if he had agreed to the offer the Steelers had on the table, and walked away from both. Meaning to make up for what he lost in his mind, come 2019 he's going to need Gurley's $40 million guaranteed plus another $14 million on top of it.. The man is on drugs if he thinks any team in the NFL is going to give him that much guaranteed cash. MHO he'll be hard pressed to even equal Gurley's guaranteed money.  FYI only three players in the NFL- all quarterbacks, have more than that at signing.  

If he was so worried about getting hurt- he should have retired. That, and care to bet teams are now going to view Bell as a attitude problem. Worst I can remember since Eric Dickerson. 

Add in Gipper's point- team may view Bell as running in a great system- the Steelers have hardly missed him.  So why are we still arguing about this guy? He's never going to play for the Browns, and probably never going to get what he thinks he's worth on the open market. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Dutch Oven said:

Great point!

Sincerely, 

29 pages and counting on Josh Gordon getting cut

Yes I agree, good night Flash.

But he has a way to go to catch his roomie.....god forbid!

Jonathan Paul Manziel

By Adoug319, September 15, 2013 in THE BROWNS BOARD 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, The Gipper said:

I think the owners next time around should say

And the players should laugh, get up, and walk out of the room until the owners are interested in a deal, even if it means holding out the entire season.

See how that goes over.

Note that the ESPN contract with the NFL is up after the 2021 season, and the current collective bargaining agreement ends after the 2020 season.  Wouldn't it be fun for the NFL to walk into that discussion having just wasted an entire season?

Remember that the current NFLPA is made of men who resolutely won't extend the current bargaining agreement from 2010 because of the bad faith from those negotiations.

Might want to read this article.  When owners attempt to end a union, members of that union are pissed -- and they should be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, hoorta said:

Well, he turned down $14 million guaranteed playing under the franchise tag. Could have had $6 million more if he had agreed to the offer the Steelers had on the table, and walked away from both. Meaning to make up for what he lost in his mind, come 2019 he's going to need Gurley's $40 million guaranteed plus another $14 million on top of it.. The man is on drugs if he thinks any team in the NFL is going to give him that much guaranteed cash. MHO he'll be hard pressed to even equal Gurley's guaranteed money.  FYI only three players in the NFL- all quarterbacks, have more than that at signing.  

If he was so worried about getting hurt- he should have retired. That, and care to bet teams are now going to view Bell as a attitude problem. Worst I can remember since Eric Dickerson. 

Add in Gipper's point- team may view Bell as running in a great system- the Steelers have hardly missed him.  So why are we still arguing about this guy? He's never going to play for the Browns, and probably never going to get what he thinks he's worth on the open market. 

The whole point here is I'm not saying any of you are wrong. I'm simply noting that 1) Bell had a right to scoff at the low money offer he got & 2) the only thing that matters in the NFL to players is guaranteed money.

As I noted, this case will prove to set a fascinating precedent for players moving forward. What Bell did is the economic definition of cost/benefit analysis. Yes, the guy turned down about $15 million in hand this year. But what if he goes out there, breaks a leg and can never play again? Bell obviously had this concern based on the miles on his tires so to speak. So let's assume he does get the big money, guaranteed deal (i.e. Gurley) around $40 million from a club this off-season. In this scenario, he "gained" $25 million and a year of safe health. Of course you aren't wrong that IF he played this year and didn't get hurt and then got such a deal, he left a bunch of money on the table. I honestly have no idea what type of deal the guy is going to get, so this isn't about me thinking I'm right. 

Point is here there's a reason players specifically hold out in the NFL. I'm not sure it's ever truly ended in a player NOT coming back, so whatever ends up happening to Bell will really set the tone for a long time forward. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Unsympathetic said:

And the players should laugh, get up, and walk out of the room until the owners are interested in a deal, even if it means holding out the entire season.

See how that goes over.

Note that the ESPN contract with the NFL is up after the 2021 season, and the current collective bargaining agreement ends after the 2020 season.  Wouldn't it be fun for the NFL to walk into that discussion having just wasted an entire season?

Remember that the current NFLPA is made of men who resolutely won't extend the current bargaining agreement from 2010 because of the bad faith from those negotiations.

Might want to read this article.  When owners attempt to end a union, members of that union are pissed -- and they should be.

It’s still a lousy union. Players cross lines and backstab each other all the time. Ask the Golics about nfl players strikes. Owners have the cash and players have the egos. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, flyingfooldoug said:

It’s still a lousy union. Players cross lines and backstab each other all the time. Ask the Golics about nfl players strikes. Owners have the cash and players have the egos. 

Oh yes what a volitile mix also could be "egotistical billionaire owners battling spoiled millionaire players over game".  

Fighting over millions of dollars, how childish. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Unsympathetic said:

And the players should laugh, get up, and walk out of the room until the owners are interested in a deal, even if it means holding out the entire season.

 

See how that goes over.

Can you say replacement players?

Note that the ESPN contract with the NFL is up after the 2021 season, and the current collective bargaining agreement ends after the 2020 season.  Wouldn't it be fun for the NFL to walk into that discussion having just wasted an entire season?

No, it wouldn't.  

Remember that the current NFLPA is made of men who resolutely won't extend the current bargaining agreement from 2010 because of the bad faith from those negotiations.

And who give a shite.....these will be new negotiations.

Might want to read this article.  When owners attempt to end a union, members of that union are pissed -- and they should be.

The players should be pissed...yes....at themselves and their union leadership.   THEY agreed to the current agreement...and they caved in on some of the things they are complaining about....for more money.

Don't get me wrong....I would be in favor of most of the things the players want:   No dope testing,  no franchise tag, a disciplinary commission instead of the commissioner in charge.....BUT....even if the owners basically agree with those sorts of things....they will not just give them to the union without getting something in return.  And that something is almost universally...more money to them, less to the players.   They will NOT get all that stuff and give nothing in return.   So, they have to determine what their priorities will be.  All that stuff...in return for a smaller piece of the pie,   or do they want to keep their pie.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, jrb12711 said:

The whole point here is I'm not saying any of you are wrong. I'm simply noting that 1) Bell had a right to scoff at the low money offer he got & 2) the only thing that matters in the NFL to players is guaranteed money.

As I noted, this case will prove to set a fascinating precedent for players moving forward. What Bell did is the economic definition of cost/benefit analysis. Yes, the guy turned down about $15 million in hand this year. But what if he goes out there, breaks a leg and can never play again? Bell obviously had this concern based on the miles on his tires so to speak. So let's assume he does get the big money, guaranteed deal (i.e. Gurley) around $40 million from a club this off-season. In this scenario, he "gained" $25 million and a year of safe health. Of course you aren't wrong that IF he played this year and didn't get hurt and then got such a deal, he left a bunch of money on the table. I honestly have no idea what type of deal the guy is going to get, so this isn't about me thinking I'm right. 

Point is here there's a reason players specifically hold out in the NFL. I'm not sure it's ever truly ended in a player NOT coming back, so whatever ends up happening to Bell will really set the tone for a long time forward. 

The point is....we won't know what the ulitmate cost/benefit analysis will be until he gets his deal next year. 

What we do know is that he gave up  14 million guaranteed....and it remains open as to whether he will make that up.  I think it highly unlikely...but that is just a guess.  I mean, lots of teams may say:  we have our Alvin Kamara, our Nick Chubb,.....who needs an aging cap space sucking RB when we can get as good for far less.   (but sure, I know...it just takes one..   Maybe the Packers)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...