Jump to content

NFL 2023 Offseason


Vic Mackey

Recommended Posts

This sounds about right unless the next CBA shortens the rookie deal length for RB and potentially DTs.  

DTs? Huh? You realize the owners would welcome shorter RB contracts for any below 3rd round. Allows them to churn them even more. So no one is whining about kicker contracts which typically are one or two year low pay deals. Do we have to adjust those too?

I was a lineman. I could give a shot about the pay situation for RBs. They grew up as stars in high school and college instead of playing a more complex position. In terms of the pro game there are a few greats, and the rest cannon fodder. That’s the breaks.
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, TonyTexas said:

Are you sure the RBs would even want that?  There are a lot more jags who would like the longer contracts than superstars that wouldn’t. 

My idea is that the players who get used up and thrown away after their rookie deals get 3 with a big year four instead of 4 with a big year five like everyone else.  Most jags aren’t even seeing year 3 on their rookie deals rn. They are bouncing from practice squad to practice squad by then.  The idea is that RBs can either catch a big franchise tag while they still have some miles on their legs  or get a second contract.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Texzilla58 said:


DTs? Huh? You realize the owners would welcome shorter RB contracts for any below 3rd round. Allows them to churn them even more. So no one is whining about kicker contracts which typically are one or two year low pay deals. Do we have to adjust those too?

I was a lineman. I could give a shot about the pay situation for RBs. They grew up as stars in high school and college instead of playing a more complex position. In terms of the pro game there are a few greats, and the rest cannon fodder. That’s the breaks.

You do realize that the rookie deal gives all the power to the owner, right?  The owner can waive the player at any point.

Edited by Bateshorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My idea is that the players who get used up and thrown away after their rookie deals get 3 with a big year four instead of 4 with a big year five like everyone else.  Most jags aren’t even seeing year 3 on their rookie deals rn. They are bouncing from practice squad to practice squad by then.  The idea is that RBs can either catch a big franchise tag while they still have some miles on their legs  or get a second contract.

And why would the NFLPA or owners agree to this? Players at other positions benefit from the low pay of RBs. It won’t get any traction.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Texzilla58 said:


And why would the NFLPA or owners agree to this? Players at other positions benefit from the low pay of RBs. It won’t get any traction.

stripes lighten GIF
 

It’s just a suggestion on a message board. But I also think there needs to be a separate pool of money for the QBs so they don’t eat so much of the salary cap, and expanded rosters so they aren’t pulling guys off the street in weeks 12-17 to cover injuries.

I don’t think most people understand how much the cap drives almost every personal decision your team makes, and how it affects the quality of play. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

200.gif
 
It’s just a suggestion on a message board. But I also think there needs to be a separate pool of money for the QBs so they don’t eat so much of the salary cap, and expanded rosters so they aren’t pulling guys off the street in weeks 12-17 to cover injuries.
I don’t think most people understand how much the cap drives almost every personal decision your team makes, and how it affects the quality of play. 

The cap is the cap until 2030. Players get 48.8% of the league top line revenues which divided by 32 makes the cap for each team. It’s doubtful there will be any adjustments to the CBA before then for a qb pool or rb contracts or expanded rosters. You have 53 players and 46+1 qb3 active each week; inactives make their check. 16 can be carried on the PS and they count against the Cap.

I don’t think we’ll see expanded rosters unless the owners get an 18th game and huge money from the networks. I would have liked to see expansion to 58 actives but that’s 160 more players. I also don’t get inactives now with changes to IR. You’re paying them; let them play.
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Texzilla58 said:

What do they base that on? Architectural impressiveness. Eco friendly toilets. Array of stadium eats. If it’s money generated Jerry whips them all to hell.

Because as a fan I really give a shit about how much the billionaire asshole owner makes on gameday at my expense, and my overall experience is heightened knowing that ownership squeezed every fucking dime out of the patrons.

But for the record, the ranking was done by 31 sportswriters--and not all of them had visited all of the stadiums on the list--and is worth the read.

The Athletic NFL stadiums ranked by sportswriters

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn’t state that as a fan of Jerry he just makes way more money with his stadium than the others do. Might be the tours he feeds thru every day, or that he has constant events in there that most never know about, or that he has a shitton of food. It’s way better than Texas stadium was. I think it’s fine to grade stadiums but ranking is simply based on opinions. Whatever. It is like those stupid maps folks post that says Yoo-hoo is the favorite soft drink of Iowa.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...