PDA

View Full Version : " KEYSHAWNING " / " TO-ing " : NO more ~ ~ ~

kelly
03-09-2006, 06:19 PM
One of the things that was also approved in new NFL deal, is a new provision has been added that prohibits teams from "Keyshawning" . ( deactivating a player for disciplinary reasons like Philly did with TO last year ).

This is interesting that the owners would pass something like this which seems to take away any leverage from the teams to prevent players like TO from becoming disruptions & locker room cancers.
Cinvis
03-09-2006, 06:23 PM
One of the things that was also approved in new NFL deal, is a new provision has been added that prohibits teams from "Keyshawning" . ( deactivating a player for disciplinary reasons like Philly did with TO last year ).

This is interesting that the owners would pass something like this which seems to take away any leverage from the teams to prevent players like TO from becoming disruptions & locker room cancers.


There is a way to prevent a cancer. Its called a release.
jetophile
03-09-2006, 06:26 PM
To view links in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. Your post count is 0 momentarily.
hydro51
03-09-2006, 06:26 PM
i hear the franchise tag will no longer be allowed to be abused no more. so no more tagging a guy for mutiple years.
Cinvis
03-09-2006, 06:28 PM
To view links in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. Your post count is 0 momentarily.


But they are able to fire them. Its the holding on to them that the players want to avoid.

Personally I think that if a team wants to pay a player for sitting, they should be able.
Cinvis
03-09-2006, 06:30 PM
i hear the franchise tag will no longer be allowed to be abused no more. so no more tagging a guy for mutiple years.


That only means that they will have to pay them more after 2 years. They can still Tag them for multiple years.
It really only affects players at lesser paid positions like safety.
hydro51
03-09-2006, 06:31 PM
That only means that they will have to pay them more after 2 years. They can still Tag them for multiple years.
It really only affects players at lesser paid positions like safety.

o ok i wasnt sure heard troy vincent talking about it earlier he wasnt really clear though.
Mickey Shuler 82
03-09-2006, 06:32 PM
i hear the franchise tag will no longer be allowed to be abused no more. so no more tagging a guy for mutiple years.
I believe the new CBA does not limit the number of times a player can be franchise tagged, but it makes the cost of doing so the third time prohibitive. If a player is tagged a third time, then his salary becomes the average of the top five quarterbacks. So, if you want to tag your right guard for a third year in a row, you're going to have to pay him the average of the top five quarterbacks. And that's probably not a smart move.
Cinvis
03-09-2006, 06:34 PM
o ok i wasnt sure heard troy vincent talking about it earlier he wasnt really clear though.


From what I've heard...

The 3rd time a player is franchised the team has to pay him the average salary of the top 5 QB's. So you would have to pay a safety 8+M. Too much. Other positions that are paid well already, such as OL, would still make more than that after the 20% increase rule.
Cinvis
03-09-2006, 06:37 PM
I believe the new CBA does not limit the number of times a player can be franchise tagged, but it makes the cost of doing so the third time prohibitive. If a player is tagged a third time, then his salary becomes the average of the top five quarterbacks. So, if you want to tag your right guard for a third year in a row, you're going to have to pay him the average of the top five quarterbacks. And that's probably not a smart move.


Actually they lump all OL in together. So a guard who is franchised makes the same as the best LT's. That's why NO did not franchise Bentley. 7M for a center????
jetophile
03-09-2006, 06:38 PM
But they are able to fire them. Its the holding on to them that the players want to avoid.

Personally I think that if a team wants to pay a player for sitting, they should be able.
Well, then that is a bit gray (was). I more or less meant there are no repercussions for acting like a jerk to the detriment of others around you; and if some of these guys were in the real world, they just could not go around calling the shots and disrespecting everyone in their wake. It's what's called being a TEAM player and working FOR someone. If people can't adhere to things, then go into an individual sport where you're beholden to no-one for the most part.
Cinvis
03-09-2006, 06:40 PM
Well, then that is a bit gray (was). I more or less meant there are no repercussions for acting like a jerk to the detriment of others around you; and if some of these guys were in the real world, they just could not go around calling the shots and disrespecting everyone in their wake. It's what's called being a TEAM player and working FOR someone. If people can't adhere to things, then go into an individual sport where you're beholden to no-one for the most part.


You do have a good point. More to that. If a team releases (fires) a veteran player, they still have to pay him his salary. That should be changed.
AlioTheFool
03-09-2006, 06:45 PM
I think it was a bad move by the NFL. What Philly did to TO was the right thing last year. In any normal job, you can be suspended with or without pay. Understandably, in the normal world, you can then quit and pursue other employment, but in the regular world you also don't sign a 30M contract.

TO brought it all on himself. But Philly should have allowed it? I don't think so, and I applaud their actions in the effort to protect their team.

Fortunately, the rule was that the maximum penalty that can levied by a team is 4 games (the same number TO was suspended last year.) So teams do still have the opportunity to discipline their little crybabies, if necessary.
theUandtheJETS
03-09-2006, 08:19 PM
To view links in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. Your post count is 0 momentarily.
that is actually NOTHING like it at all, TO didnt get fired, he got suspended. If he was releases(which he wasnt) then I guess you could somehow compare it.
Dinobot 2
03-09-2006, 08:21 PM
Kelly. Ya gotta start using the NFL forum man....
jetophile
03-09-2006, 09:13 PM
that is actually NOTHING like it at all, TO didnt get fired, he got suspended. If he was releases(which he wasnt) then I guess you could somehow compare it.
I didn't say that. I said I could cuss out my boss and NOT get fired. I know you are, but what am I. :)