Lancer wrote:Screen Cap this post right now, print it and put it on your refrigerator for the next 10 - 15 years. I guarantee you, that when it's all said and done, Tebow will have more Super Bowl Rings than Marino and Moon COMBINED!
As a starting quarterback, f*ck no. Sitting on the bench or an occasional wildcat QB. Probably.
TCrouch wrote:But 15% magic is better than no magic, especially if Jacksonville would have gotten him. Not to mention putting butts in seats for a team that is always in danger of moving in the middle of the night.
It's actually a great thing that Tebow didn't go to Jacksonville. With Minnesota getting it's stadium stuff moving in the right direction, we are losing one of the potential Los Angeles teams. Jacksonville, selling tickets, won't need to move. So it's a good thing for us...that way we don't have to go to San Diego/San Francisco/Phoenix to see some NFL football. Don't forget that little nugget.
The Bills today quietly continued to build the Great Wall of China of NFL defensive lines, signing Mark Anderson from the Patriots. With Mario Williams, Pat Williams, Marcel Dareus, Chris Kelsay and Anderson, the Bills suddenly have one of the best D-lines in the NFL.
"You know why I love boxers? I love them because they face fear. And they face it alone." - Nick Charles
"First on the throttle, last on the brakes." - @MotoGP Twitter signature
Danimal wrote:I think there is no chance he plays next year. The guy feels a lack of respect and the Bush contract cemented it for him. Not saying he is in the right but I don't expect him to sign a new deal with the Bears and will be surprised if he doesn't force a trade.
They will sit his ass down like Chris Johnson had to. No way they let him go, or allow him to force his way out. He's got 7.5 million reasons to play this season. He'll be in the lineup I imagine...or he'll be holding out. Bush is insurance.
He will play. He's pissed he got squeezed -- the franchise froze him in place, now Bush has taken away a lot of his leverage. I think the Bears offer him a respectable but not mega-deal and he'll take it as long as there is enough guaranteed money. He won't hold out because he'd be leaving way too much money behind, and the franchise tag makes him impossible to trade.
I don't know if he'll get banned for life, but it seems like more than a year would be appropriate. Also a complete moron for being that open about it.
Brando70 wrote:I don't know if he'll get banned for life, but it seems like more than a year would be appropriate. Also a complete moron for being that open about it.
I think his suspension is indefinite because they are not done with him yet. They are only done with the Saints part of the investigation. They might still be looking into the idiots time in Washington and in Tennesee when he was first with the greaseball.
The Saints are just about 50 times worse than the Patriots at this point. With all the bounty crap that I could really give a sh*t less about...the Saints have now doubled down on their cheating game by bugging locker rooms and coaching staffs at the Superdome. LOL. That actually does make a difference in the outcome on the field...the bounty crap that was overblown does not since it happens everywhere guaranteed.
dbdynsty25 wrote:The Saints are just about 50 times worse than the Patriots at this point. With all the bounty crap that I could really give a sh*t less about...the Saints have now doubled down on their cheating game by bugging locker rooms and coaching staffs at the Superdome. LOL. That actually does make a difference in the outcome on the field...the bounty crap that was overblown does not since it happens everywhere guaranteed.
fsquid wrote:If the bugging ended in 2004, then the statute of limiations has run out for it to be a federal crime.
Sure, the federal statute, but the NFL doesn't have such a rule. So they're still screwed.
And i'm not 100% sure, but even if criminal charges cannot be brought, this violated potentially hundreds of people that could move to file civil suits against the Saints. This wasn't just football, but an invasion of personal privacy.
The contract situations of Forte and Mike Wallace indicates the owners won going away.
The teams aren't under any obligations to give those players long-term contract with a lot of guaranteed money.
If they get injured in the next year or two, they're screwed. Even if they don't, two years from now, neither may have the same value as they would have now, as the wear and tear will make them less attractive players.
wco81 wrote:The contract situations of Forte and Mike Wallace indicates the owners won going away.
The teams aren't under any obligations to give those players long-term contract with a lot of guaranteed money.
If they get injured in the next year or two, they're screwed. Even if they don't, two years from now, neither may have the same value as they would have now, as the wear and tear will make them less attractive players.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the owners had the same power to use the franchise tag before the lockout that they did after. I don't think that changed.
I like Forte a lot, and I would like to see him get this contract issue resolved, but he's still guaranteed $8 million next year if he signs his tender. It's also very likely that he'll continue to earn more after that unless he suffers a catastrophic injury. I don't know if anyone knows what he was asking, but he's not going to get a Chris Johnson contract. He might not get a DeAngelo Williams contract, because even though he's a better player, that was an enormously stupid deal by the Panthers. I can't blame the Bears for not wanting to overpay a player just because another franchise made a dumb move.
I read one of the emails in Peter King's article on CNNSI yesterday that opened my eyes to something related to this. It said the biggest losers in the entire CBA have been the running backs.
Since your draft spot is slotted now and you don't necessarily make a ton more based on ability, you're locked into a 4 year deal. Say you're a 22 year old draft pick, you're going to be forced to play out your 4 year rookie deal for 20 million or so. Not exactly chump change, but nowhere near the deal that Darren McFadden or some of the high RB draft picks got a few years ago.
Now, at the end of your deal, they can simply franchise tag you for 1 year. It will be a pay raise, but with no security.
Then they can do it again the next year.
Now you're a 28 year old tailback with probably 1500 carries on your body, and teams are obviously not rushing out to sign aging running backs that played out their careers on one-year deals when they can just draft another one for 1/4 the cost again. They'll wait until the price comes down because there are no big-money takers, and sign a guy for 1/2 of what he would have gotten just 2 or 3 years ago. Sure, you can hold out....but you have ZERO leverage. Other than possibly bad PR, nobody will care.
I was pretty surprised to see that, but it's the truth. Tailbacks are screwed with the slotted contracts and rules regarding franchising players. Their average career is...what....6 years? The next generation of stars will make 1/10th of what the previous generation of tailback studs made, which is sad.
TCrouch wrote:I was pretty surprised to see that, but it's the truth. Tailbacks are screwed with the slotted contracts and rules regarding franchising players. Their average career is...what....6 years? The next generation of stars will make 1/10th of what the previous generation of tailback studs made, which is sad.
It seems fitting to that RBs will be left out in this new pass happy era of the NFL.
[url=http://sensiblecoasters.wordpress.com/][b]Sensible Coasters - A critique of sports games, reviews, gaming sites and news. Questionably Proofread![/b][/url]
It's not just RBs, though they do have more wear and tear (however, there's more of a trend for teams to feature 2 backs and if the league is more pass happy, then fewer carries. Of course, some backs are picking up blitzes so there are a lot of collisions and contact on that body).
In Wallace's case, he could be getting franchise tags for another year or two, after which he might not command much in free agency. There was a suspicion that he may not be a 4.2 or 4.3 guy after another couple of years, even if he doesn't get injured. I think he was drafted towards the end of the first round so he didn't get a big rookie contract.
Just reminds me of the situation with Javon Walker, who was making Favre look good for a year or two -- Favre would just throw up jump balls into coverage and Walker was making Moss-like catches. He held out for awhile and Favre, who'd probably made $100 million by that time, threw Walker under the bus for not placing team first.
So Walker ends his holdout and blows out his ACL. He got signed by Denver and then the Raiders but he probably didn't get anywhere near the kind of money that first the Packers might have given him (if you go by market value). Then after his injury of course, the Packers discarded him.
wco81 wrote:
In Wallace's case, he could be getting franchise tags for another year or two, after which he might not command much in free agency. There was a suspicion that he may not be a 4.2 or 4.3 guy after another couple of years, even if he doesn't get injured. I think he was drafted towards the end of the first round so he didn't get a big rookie contract.
Wallace was a 3rd round pick. Supposedly the Steelers want to sign him to a long term deal but with the way his agent has been leaking information that he is disgruntled about the contract they offered and that he is going to hold out, a lot of Steeler fans were hoping someone would have signed him and gave up their number 1 pick.