Indeed, everything you just typed can only be described as idiotic. Glad you see yourself as the rest of us do; honesty with yourself is the most important quality one can have.
Great post. Some people will never understand that some positions are just far more valuable than others. Being the best player at a certain position doesn't mean you should be paid $16 million a season and CB is one of those positions. I, for one, am happy that his incessant selfish and greedy behavior led him to a bad team, but now everything is quiet in Florham Park and the circus tent has been pitched in Tampa. Is there an 0-3 getting more negative press than the Bucs? Now that the panic button has been pressed and Freeman is benched, it is a disaster down there. Poor Revis. I guarantee he responds to all of this by being the leader he displayed while playing for the Jets. He will threaten to hold out and then hold out next summer for guaranteed money just as the Bucs, with a new coach and QB, are trying to recover from this season's likely disaster.
Curious if you saw this? http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303759604579095521267396910.html It relates to Revis closely enough, mods can make a new thread if they want.
I think Sean Gilbert would probably be a great choice to lead the NFLPA. You need somebody there who understands that players make great sacrifices to have what are generally very short careers followed by long painful retirements.
I disagree completely. The head of the NFLPA needs to be pragmatic and practical and have the ability to compromise. Gilbert is the antitheses of this. He was uncompromising to a fault as a player and he will be the same as head of the NFLPA. You have to understand that, because player careers are so short, the owners always have a huge advantage in any labor dispute. They can lose a season and what does it really matter to them? They will own the teams for 10-20-30 years while the average player has a four year career. If Gilbert was willing to sit out one of his few NFL seasons, what path will he take all the players down?????
And free agency after three years is a horrible idea that the owners will never agree to. And it is bad for teams building through the draft and for fans of those teams. As a fan, I don't want more player movement. It is hard enough rooting for the laundry with all the changes that happen now. With 3 year free agency, just as a player is coming into his own, he is free to change teams. That would be horrible. What the NFL needs is an end to hold outs. I would like to see a rule that for each week of camp missed by a player under contract, he is suspended for a week of the regular season. I would like to see the same rule for rookies. With the wage scale, there is no need for a rookie to miss camp.
The only way that happens is guaranteed contracts. I hate hold-outs too but a contract is a contract. If only one side has to adhere to it, that's bullshit.
no way the owners are guarenteeing 100% of a contract when each play can be a plaayers last. also, the contracts are adhered to by both sides. all guarenteed money is paid out even when a players cut.
I think shorter fully guaranteed contracts is a great idea. I think that would drive the wage scale down some, with fewer huge contracts in play. I think it would give teams strong incentives to reduce the number of players they looked at by a substantial number. I think it would give teams and the NFL in general an even greater interest in protecting player safety and reducing health issues. On the first point. A shorter guaranteed deal protects both parties to the contract. Players get more certainty in compensation and teams are more protected against a deal failing to produce for them. There are more players available on the free agent market each year, giving teams more options to fill a spot and reducing player's leverage on the market. If there is one good defensive end on the market he can command almost whatever price he wants too. If there are five then each of those player's asking prices will wind up coming down. The fifth guy to sign sure isn't going to get the kind of contract he'd have gotten if he was the only guy on the market. He likely won't get anywhere near what the first few guys got either. Look what happened with CB's this year. That would be the norm at every position with the possible exception of QB almost every year. Scarcity works to the player's advantage in free agency not to the teams. So give players more certainty in what they're going to actually make but trade it off for more options for the teams each year. That's how you get rid of the heavy bubble in free agency each year in which 10% of the players make most of the money and then half the teams that signed them are unhappy after a few years. On the 2nd point. There is no reason for NFL team to look at a hundred players a year and settle on a roster of 53-62 counting the practice squad. All that does is to chew up and spit out a bunch of guys who never really had a chance anyway. Those guys leave with lifelong health issues and they never really had a chance at a career most of the time. Make the contracts guaranteed and half of the guys on the bubble and below never get signed in the first place. They don't go through the meat grinder only to take an inevitable cut at the end of camp. Most of those guys are not real NFL prospects. They are cannon fodder that the NFL uses to provide a bit of competition for the real players. They don't belong in the system because the costs to them are far greater than the potential rewards. Cut the maximum roster size to 40-something low and only bring 70 guys or so in to compete for those spots. You're going to get 99.5% of all the players who would ever make an NFL roster in that arrangement. You're going to prevent about 750 guys a year from going through hell for nothing.
Tough game for Revis yesterday. Fitzgerald shook him out of his shoes for a Big score. Not often offenses attack Revis and succeed.
And then Arians desecrated The Temple after the game: Arians couldn't say enough about Peterson, a third-year cornerback with a knack for game-changing plays. "I'm really surprised they threw toward him. And with a rookie quarterback, he's going to make you pay," the coach said. "I think he's the best in the league. Some will argue that Darrelle is, but it's not even close in my opinion."
What a loudmouth head coach! :wink: Revis had a really nice play on his INT, but boy did Fitz get him. He was playing off Fitz if I remember correctly so either the TB defense or himself took away one of his strengths but not lining him up and pressing/shifting Fitz off the line. I wonder if Revis was expecting help on the inside, who knows.
http://www.nfl.com/videos/arizona-cardinals/0ap2000000253371/QB-Palmer-to-WR-Fitzgerald-13-yd-pass-TD Damnnnnn got beat pretty badly on that play
I really wonder if the Bucs go 2-14 or 4-12, will they Trade Revis to get more picks to get Teddy Bridgewater?
I don't think they can trade him. There is no guaranteed money. The Bucs have a series of 1 year options for 16 million per year. In order to trade him they would need him to give permission. Not going to happen without a big new contract with upfront money. The Bucs will cut him.
They will but probably not for another year. It might go down as the biggest waste of a 1st round pick ever if they cut him after this year.
Why would they need his permission to trade him? Is that contract really structured as a bunch of 1 year options? I haven't read that anywhere.
