SizzleBuzz

"Bidding" by other teams isn't an option after year-2 of tagging. 0.00% chance Moton sits out a year and even if he did he'd still be obligated to play for the Panthers if they chose to tag him for a 3rd season. Next!

It's not a "holdout" until they start sacrificing game checks --period. Stop w/ the whiny "hurt feelings" BS. Negotiating from a position of strength by using all the tools at your disposal in no way constitutes "treating players like crap". Hell sounds like you want Hurney back

The risk of "losing him" anytime in the next 3 seasons is exactly 0.00%. No need to fret about it. I'd prefer they be happy but certainly wouldn't let some pouting by the player affect the negotiations. Belichick consistently gets the best contracts for his team and it's because he has a long track record of being ruthless --- those on the other side of a negotiation know he's not one to be trifled with and doesn't GAF if a player pouts or not. No idea what you're talking about. Don't care about the bitching, f-em. The hold-out narrative is a false narrative. The only guy dumb enough to actually do it was L. Bell and it worked out horribly for him. The money is too big now... If a player dogs it because he got tagged he's a quitter...and I'm not aware any who have done so. (and doing so would only hurt their ability to negotiate going forward)

If a player is under contract to the Panthers the other 31 teams are irrelevant. Correct. At some point hopefully a deal that's fair to both parties can be worked out...but if not keep tagging him. I'd be interested to see the 3-year aggregate tag-numbers vs. a "4 or 5 year contract"...do you have them? This is not true. Sure it is. The rules of the game are clear and personally I don't care if a player "likes" being tagged or not. I didn't say "I want" to tag Moton 3 times...but I am of the belief the team shouldn't be afraid to do so. It's a complex negotiation and the team should be prepared to use all the tools at their disposal to help them secure the best possible contract to benefit the entire team. This is exactly why the Patriots are so successful... I don't believe Moton is a quitter who would dog it because he is unhappy with his contract, sounds like you do.

DGAF about a player having hurt feelings when he's collecting $13.7M to play a game. Absolutely it matters and every Sunday I want my guys coming out of the locker room super pissed off with an "I will show them" attitude and ready to rip the head off every person on the other side of the ball every play... ...unless you're saying Moton is a quitter? I don't think he is.

"Fitt" is not in charge... ...at a minimum he is 3rd in line.

yes The reality of this is tagging guys like Moton until you can't tag them anymore is probably the most cost effective (and prudent) way to retain said talent... ...Tepper &Co. should fully use the tools they are given.

Lose him to exactly whom?

Bell Yeah that was an epic disaster Emmitt Smith successfully executed the "holdout" strategy 28 years ago but I can't think of anyone who has done so in the last decade plus. These days the lost economics associated with actually missing games are so massive I just don't see the "holdout" as a risk with Moton whatsoever.

He may end up just holding out if we tag him next season. I'm trying to remember the last player who actually held out and missed getting paid for a season?

You are correct... Should read "Zach* Wilson's uncle was the founder of Jet Blue"... *NOTE: I also misspelled his first name...shame on me!

Zack Wilson's was the founder of Jet Blue and apparently he/they are going to run a shuttle/hotel-package (tix not included) between Salt Lake and Charlotte for the Jets game -- I guess they are assuming Zack will be the starter!! This should be interesting... https://thewilsonweekend.com/

I agree 100% that Tepper is executing on and staffing up a model that will almost certainly result in long-term and consistent success as defined by the single metric that really matters -- wins & losses. That said, his model is a departure from that which is the norm in the NFL and Fitterer is not "the sheriff". Patience will be rewarded!! PS...I'd suggest current leadership is a step up from anything that's been in place since inception of the franchise.

By all accounts Fitts is Deputy Fife and Rhule is Sheriff Taylor... ...it will be interesting to see how it works out (or doesn't).

I explained and apologized... ...what else do you want?

NFL teams employ lots and lots of folks... ...if a template (quota) approach is going to be used the staff the franchise should it be applied to the entirety of the employee base, or not?

Where did I say that? You didn't, apologies for the confusion. I was referencing the poster I had earlier responded to within the thread.

"proffered" was the intended word -- you learned something today Sure appears the Redskins have done a great job there. This is what the OP stated: "majority of FO staff for every team is straight white" I knew that to be a false statement and didn't have to look any further than the 'Skins (original subject of this thread) to find a graphic example of the opposite! I suspect the reality is far different than what you believe to be the case. Very interesting issue here... ...if a template (quota) is going to be applied and the desire is to make NFL organizations from a staffing perspective representative of society on the whole (at least in terms of gender & race, nobody seems to care abt religion)... ...said template (quotas) should be applied top-to-bottom with all employees -- right?

What's your proffered solution? How do you feel about the staffing breakdown of the 16 executives who constitute the Redskins front-office operations?

You need a new phone. It's called the Rooney Rule. What a laughable statement...hahaha! For example, let's look at the the Washington Redskins: Front Office (4 total): 50% are black men including both of the top-2 executives. (none appear to be trans) Office Business Executives (12 total) breaks down as: women (1 black, 2 white) + black men (4) = 58%...white men (5) = 42%. (maybe 1 or 2 trans?) Who do you recommend looking at? Are they mentioned in your previously referenced "study" and "data" set?

Just clarifying. Relax, it wasn't a trick. Agreed. So what's the solution...quotas? If so, how would you suggest the quotas be achieved? In your opinion should said quotas be applied across the organization? Your favorite study and data source?

Easy fella! Just wanted to be certain I understood what you were saying... You started out with "women/Trans" and then switched to "African American GMs"... ...are there other classes you'd be concerned about protecting? Anyone on the religious spectrum you want to look after? How would you propose the jobs should be doled out in a fair manner?

Did you mean to write "given" there? Was this your intention?: "So you're saying minorities shouldn't get a chance? Because they haven't been given a chance."

What will it cost to sign him?

Diversity is always better. I mean until you require it unfortunately it doesn't happen. Just like women refs or African American GMs. So you are advocating for a quota system that isn't based on merit... ...how should that work top-to-bottom within a NFL franchise?