Toggle sidebar

OT: The Pittsburgher Thread: Super Bowl? Thats like a giant pot of chips or popcorn right?

  • Work is still on-going to rebuild the site styling and features. Please report any issues you may experience so we can look into it. Click Here for Updates

Who wins?

  • Total voters
    31
Status
Not open for further replies.
WheresRamziAbid said:
It would be collusion if they all got together and agreed to tha.

My argument is that they didnt all get together and agree to that. For a very simple reason:

They didnt have to. Nobody wants fully guaranteed contracts to become SOP. So theyre not gonna give them out. They will let Cleveland, Cleveland and just ho about their business.

I think the lack of interest in Jackson specifically is just timing. Anyone bad enough to need Jackson likely has a high pick. Better to wait until post draft, use the pick now and then kick the tires.
Click to expand...

They colluded on not giving out fully guaranteed contracts years ago, so no it didn’t just happen this year.

However, I’m 150% sure after they all stopped cursing out Haslam, they once again renewed their blood oath that they/their fathers took long ago not to give out fully guaranteed deals.

It’s not a coincidence only .05% of the total player contracts league wide are fully guaranteed. That didn’t just magically happen.

Now that doesn’t mean an owner like Snyder won’t drop them all a big FU and go after LJ as he’s on the outs.
 
Mr Jiggyfly said:
They colluded on not giving out fully guaranteed contracts years ago, so no it didn’t just happen this year.

However, I’m 150% sure after they all stopped cursing out Haslam, they once again renewed their blood oath that they/their fathers took long ago not to give out fully guaranteed deals.

It’s not a coincidence only .05% of the total player contracts league wide are fully guaranteed. That didn’t just magically happen.

Now that doesn’t mean an owner like Snyder won’t drop them all a big FU and go after LJ as he’s on the outs.
Click to expand...
It didnt just magically happened, it happened because it in the teams best interest. You dont have to collude to get a fat guy to eat a cheesburger instead of steamed cartots. Sometimes shit just takes care of itself.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jaded-Fan
NFL is bulletproof compared to the other leagues imo. It’s not even comparable. They’re on a different level than the NBA even.

Even though I think baseball and hockey and maybe the NBA may get hurt soon…. whatever the next television model becomes, the NFL will be the prize that all the platforms chase.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Factorial
WheresRamziAbid said:
It didnt just magically happened, it happened because it in the teams best interest. You dont have to collude to get a fat guy to eat a cheesburger instead of steamed cartots. Sometimes shit just takes care of itself.
Click to expand...

And sometimes a bunch of powerful rich guys who didn’t get that wealthy by leaving things to happenstance, get together and ensure things will break exactly how they want it to.
 
Mr Jiggyfly said:
And sometimes a bunch of powerful rich guys who didn’t get that wealthy by leaving things to happenstance, get together and ensure things will break exactly how they want it to.
Click to expand...
Sure it certainly possible, just unnecessary and thus unlikely.

Another thing rich powerful guys know a lot about is liability. Collusion (while very hard to prove) is still a massive liability, so theyre not going do so unless there is a pressing reason. The all know what in their best interest and thats what is driving the result. Its not like agreeing to do it in some backroom it gives it any more weight.
 
WheresRamziAbid said:
Sure it certainly possible, just unnecessary and thus unlikely.

Another thing rich powerful guys know a lot about is liability. Collusion (while very hard to prove) is still a massive liability, so theyre not going do so unless there is a pressing reason. The all know what in their best interest and thats what is driving the result. Its not like agreeing to do it in some backroom it gives it any more weight.
Click to expand...

The one thing that would absolutely wreck their bottom line is fully guaranteed contracts and you think that topic never came up among the owners over the last say… 40 years?

The owners have done all kinds of low down dirty shit since the NFL was formed to ‘protect the shield’ and you think they would worry about getting caught for collusion on guaranteed contracts of all things?

They tried to cover up their meat market getting brained for life and you think they are scared of getting caught for contract collusion?

We are talking about NFL owners here. Put them all in the same room and even Roy Cohn would walk out feeling sleazy.
 
Last edited:
Mr Jiggyfly said:
The one thing that would absolutely wreck their bottom line is fully guaranteed contracts and you think that topic never came up among the owners over the last say… 40 years?

The owners have done all kinds of low down dirty shit since the NFL was formed to ‘protect the shield’ and you think they would worry about getting caught for collusion on guaranteed contracts of all things?

They tried to cover up their meat market getting brained for life and you think they are scared of getting caught for contract collusion?

We are talking about NFL owners here. Put them all in the same room and even Roy Cohn would walk out feeling sleazy.
Click to expand...
1. It wouldnt wreck their bottom line, it would drastically change the flexability they have in how they spend their money but the cap goes off revenues and they spend like 97% of available cap. So the total dollars amoubt wouldnt change much but the way in which the do it would.

2. It surely has come up as a topic, likely during every cba negotiation. But agreeing to hold strong on the topic being in the cba isnt collusion is regular operating procedure of collective barganing.

3. Yes tye NFL owners have zero shame and collectively aint good people. But they will always do whats in their best interest. So unless its a line in the sand item, the reward isnt worth the risk. If you believe Deshauns contract meets that level of importance/panic thats fine, i just disagree.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jaded-Fan
WheresRamziAbid said:
1. It wouldnt wreck their bottom line, it would drastically change the flexability they have in how they spend their money but the cap goes off revenues and they spend like 97% of available cap. So the total dollars amoubt wouldnt change much but the way in which the do it would.

2. It surely has come up as a topic, likely during every cba negotiation. But agreeing to hold strong on the topic being in the cba isnt collusion is regular operating procedure of collective barganing.

3. Yes tye NFL owners have zero shame and collectively aint good people. But they will always do whats in their best interest. So unless its a line in the sand item, the reward isnt worth the risk. If you believe Deshauns contract meets that level of importance/panic thats fine, i just disagree.
Click to expand...

1. The league would literally have to rewrite half the CBA if fully guaranteed deals became a thing - which is the open secret here.

Owners bottom line would be bled with these deals as they would be paying millions upon millions of off the cap guaranteed deals.

You have 53 man rosters - it would become a nightmare with the dead cap space and off the cap payments.

Of the four major sports, study after study have proven NFL players get injured the most. Up to 4x more than players in the other four major sports combined.

You think the owners are unaware of this?

2. This has been going on longer than either of us have been alive.

You think the ‘funding rule’ still being in place is another happy accident?

One would have to be pretty naive to think the owners simply overlooked this little detail.

That rules existence is definitive proof the owners are colluding, cmon bro.

3. At least we agree they are low down scum bags. However, given all of their coverups over the years, worrying about a back room deal that was agreed upon ages ago isn’t exactly something I think they are concerned with… given they have gotten away with it for uh, 50+ years.
 
Mr Jiggyfly said:
1. The league would literally have to rewrite half the CBA if fully guaranteed deals became a thing - which is the open secret here.

Owners bottom line would be bled with these deals as they would be paying millions upon millions of off the cap guaranteed deals.

You have 53 man rosters - it would become a nightmare with the dead cap space and off the cap payments.

Of the four major sports, study after study have proven NFL players get injured the most. Up to 4x more than players in the other four major sports combined.

You think the owners are unaware of this?

2. This has been going on longer than either of us have been alive.

You think the ‘funding rule’ still being in place is another happy accident?

One would have to be pretty naive to think the owners simply overlooked this little detail.

That rules existence is definitive proof the owners are colluding, cmon bro.

3. At least we agree they are low down scum bags. However, given all of their coverups over the years, worrying about a back room deal that was agreed upon ages ago isn’t exactly something I think they are concerned with… given they have gotten away with it for uh, 50+ years.
Click to expand...
1. Your right about upheaval of the whole game if contracts because guaranteed but there would be no bottom line bleeding. They would just pay players less because there is now risk. The cap would still regulate total dollars spent.

2. It certainly doesnt exist by accident but that is irrelevant. It was done above board and collectively bargained. Thats not what collusion is. Owner agreeing to a principle and making it apart of their cba offer isnt collusion.

If the owners (for example) said, we will remove the funding rule in the next CBA as a negotiating tactic. But agree in private to never fully guarentee contracts thats collusion.

For something to be collusion it has to be secret or illegal in the attempt to cheat or decieve. The funding rule does not apply to this.
 
If I were the owners I would leverage fully guaranteed contracts to a salary cap to keep the upper limit down on everyone. Players want what they want, they will have to give up also, and the only players getting screwed in a deal like that are the Daniel Jones's.
 
WheresRamziAbid said:
1. Your right about upheaval of the whole game if contracts because guaranteed but there would be no bottom line bleeding. They would just pay players less because there is now risk. The cap would still regulate total dollars spent.

2. It certainly doesnt exist by accident but that is irrelevant. It was done above board and collectively bargained. Thats not what collusion is. Owner agreeing to a principle and making it apart of their cba offer isnt collusion.

If the owners (for example) said, we will remove the funding rule in the next CBA as a negotiating tactic. But agree in private to never fully guarentee contracts thats collusion.

For something to be collusion it has to be secret or illegal in the attempt to cheat or decieve. The funding rule does not apply to this.
Click to expand...

1. There is simply no currently feasible way a cap ceiling would be able to cover guys with fully guaranteed deals retiring due to injuries. Not in the NFL.

There would be no way to handle that kind of dead cap space and field a 53 man roster without bleeding the owners out.

Those contracts would have to be off the cap for it to even function in a logical way, but those deals would still be on their books, being paid with real dollars out of the owners pockets.

So if a guy gets injured, there would no longer be the BS injury settlement and they would be due their full guaranteed contract. That's exactly why guys want fully guaranteed deals - in case of injury, illness, whatever.

2. Owners representing the funding rule as a necessary provision to the NFLPA while making a back room deal they only want it in the CBA to use as a false flag during contract negotiations, is most certainly collusion.

That's exactly why an archaic provision like that still exists. The NFLPA is and has always been weak, so they will never fight it like they should. Their weakness makes it easier for the owners to collude and use this provision to their advantage.

You are giving the owners way too much credit for having integrity and doing things on the up and up.
 
Mr Jiggyfly said:
1. There is simply no currently feasible way a cap ceiling would be able to cover guys with fully guaranteed deals retiring due to injuries. Not in the NFL.

There would be no way to handle that kind of dead cap space and field a 53 man roster without bleeding the owners out.

Those contracts would have to be off the cap for it to even function in a logical way, but those deals would still be on their books, being paid with real dollars out of the owners pockets.

So if a guy gets injured, there would no longer be the BS injury settlement and they would be due their full guaranteed contract. That's exactly why guys want fully guaranteed deals - in case of injury, illness, whatever.

2. Owners representing the funding rule as a necessary provision to the NFLPA while making a back room deal they only want it in the CBA to use as a false flag during contract negotiations, is most certainly collusion.

That's exactly why an archaic provision like that still exists. The NFLPA is and has always been weak, so they will never fight it like they should. Their weakness makes it easier for the owners to collude and use this provision to their advantage.

You are giving the owners way too much credit for having integrity and doing things on the up and up.
Click to expand...
1. There is no chance owners would agree to that. If they gave in and made deals guaranteed, it certainly wouldn't be retroactive and if they wouldn't include provision to protect themselves the contracts signed in the interim would be artificially low until the scales balance. They would then keep wages lower to account for and leave margins for injuries/under performance.

The idea that owners would ever agree to anything that would bleed the bottom line is just silly.

2. The funding rules isn't a false flag. Its very apparent on its surface what the ramifications are. There very well might be unspoken benefits with the rule but thats still not collusion.
 
Very hard pass on Thielen. He’s lost a step and needs to be schemed open at this point. I dont think we have the talent or coaching to insulate him properly and I’d be worried that we’d overuse him too.

Could he be good depth on a SF or Philly or KC? Sure.

I’d much rather use snaps on a younger guy who is part of the plan going forward.
 
WheresRamziAbid said:
It didnt just magically happened, it happened because it in the teams best interest. You dont have to collude to get a fat guy to eat a cheesburger instead of steamed cartots. Sometimes shit just takes care of itself.
Click to expand...

This.

I mean, hell, maybe they did have some not strictly legal talks too. Feels like assuming "yes" everytime someone thinks "did they push the rules" in the NFL isn't a bad assumption.

But it's not like they needed the talks to get here. It is so very clearly in their best interests. It's not like there's a bunch of NFL owners chomping at the bit to hand out lots of long fully guaranteed contracts if it wasn't for their colleagues' omerta.

And it's not like the players actually get hosed. Not on this. I'd get it if this was a fight for all the players, but not "lets get the most highly paid players in the sport even more". If I was an NFLPA member I'd be mad about this.

CheckingLineCenter said:
Very hard pass on Thielen. He’s lost a step and needs to be schemed open at this point. I dont think we have the talent or coaching to insulate him properly and I’d be worried that we’d overuse him too.

Could he be good depth on a SF or Philly or KC? Sure.

I’d much rather use snaps on a younger guy who is part of the plan going forward.
Click to expand...

Not advocating for Thielen per se but I think this team already has a ton of young guys who are part of the plan going forward on offence, enough that I think emphasizing some short term veteran quality to make it easier for them to grow makes more sense than to get another guy who's got to keep growing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: td_ice
Ian Rapoport
@RapSheet
·
2m
Major draft shakeup 🚨 🚨 🚨

Sources say the #Bears are trading the No. 1 overall pick to the #Panthers in exchange for big-time compensation including multiple 1st rounders. Chicago loads up and lands at No. 9, while Carolina can draft its QB of the future. YIKES!!!! For Who ? Terms:
The #Bears receive No. 9, a 2nd, a first in 2024, a 2nd in 2025 and DJ Moore. Carolina receives... The top pick.
 
That’s a nice return for the Bears. DJ Moore is a damn good player.

Also the Bears are definitely another team in play to draft one of the tackles.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Peat
Good move for the Bears if they're committed to Fields. Makes a ton of sense to slide back and stock up on picks.
 
Interesting they didn't view Anderson as so can't miss they didn't stay in a position to pick him.
 
Peat said:
Interesting they didn't view Anderson as so can't miss they didn't stay in a position to pick him.
Click to expand...

Yeah, they went back further (initially) than I've seen so far in any mocks. But I think they picked up more as a result. Guess it depends on who they really want, or if they're not done yet.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Peat
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom