Power Shift

[Mr. Scot]

4 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

Definitely agree that what Wilson is asking for in terms of roster input is absurd. 

The vast majority of star players who become coaches are absolute sh-t at it.

Of course, from what we know of Wilson's personality, he probably thinks he deserves an ownership stake 

Edited February 12, 2021 by Mr. Scot

[Waldo]

3 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

Actually, a lot of people felt that was kind of douchey (because it was).

Same thing with Elway.

Yes but also smart. Why not if your landing spot looks bad for you and you have that power? I would.

[Moo Daeng]

I can't argue with people wanting to do what is best for themselves. However, this will make the NFL difficult for me to put much effort in to following going forward if it shifts towards the NBA model.

[Mr. Scot]

1 minute ago, Waldo said:

Yes but also smart. Why not if your landing spot looks bad for you and you have that power? I would.

If that happened on an annual basis though, you'd never have good players going to bad teams and bad teams would stay bad forever.

Mind you, poorly run teams tend to stay bad anyway but you have to give them some kind of opportunity for change. Look at the Browns.

[Mr. Scot]

8 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

Yep, it was douchey but I don't blame them. There's not many instances in a player's career where they're in a position to have significant input in where they end up. Entering the draft as the assumed #1 overall pick is one of those instances.

See above.

It's also kinda lazy, too. I respect a guy who's willing to go somewhere and say that he's going to help make the team better way more than a guy who just wants to go where they're already good.

[Waldo]

14 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

If that happened on an annual basis though, you'd never have good players going to bad teams and bad teams would stay bad forever.

Mind you, poorly run teams tend to stay bad anyway but you have to give them some kind of opportunity for change. Look at the Browns.

I get it but I wasn't looking at it as too much against the parity but punishment for bad teams being run badly. Also, im not sure most draft prospects have that power, just QBs in the very top of the draft. 

I look at it as a glove slap to the face more than ruining thr parity. If the team learns thr player is not going to play then they can trade that for a ransom and trade or draft another player. Hard to say SD was devastated by having to go with Rivers.

Edited February 12, 2021 by Waldo

[LinvilleGorge]

10 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

See above.

It's also kinda lazy, too. I respect a guy who's willing to go somewhere and say that he's going to help make the team better way more than a guy who just wants to go where they're already good.

I definitely understand wanting to avoid certain organizations. The Mannings and Lucks in particular were in unique situations to have insight on franchise organizations that most prospects just don't have. I mean, if you were coming out of a top flight business school and one of the hottest prospects on the market, would you rather go work for an Apple or Tesla type company or a dinosaur like Kodak that has utterly failed to evolve and stay relevant? I don't blame anyone for trying to use whatever leverage they have. There will come a time when you'll get leveraged, you can bet your bottom dollar on that.

[Shocker]

I will like this much less when a player like Lamelo forces his way to the Lakers

[thefuzz]

Only a scant few players actually hold any leverage, and many of them don't want to use said leverage, just not the way they are wired.

End of the day, unless you want to do it like Revis, you aren't going to hold very much clout in the NFL.

[LinvilleGorge]

1 minute ago, Shocker said:

I will like this much less when a player like Lamelo forces his way to the Lakers

The NFL's hard salary cap with no Max contracts are the greatest protectors of parity. Gotta keep those two things in place to avoid becoming the NBA. There's no reason for stars to not team up when they know another team can't pay them more because they're already making the max. And on a soft cap situation, owners that are willing to spend the money are always going to be able to buy players.

[Little Goody Two Shoes]

NFL and NBA are so different. Lebron only needs to figure out what 1 or 2 other guys he wants or needs and add in some role players and the NBA has a soft cap, so GMs have more flexibility to make it work. An NFL team is so big and complex. I don't see anything wrong with top players having input.

Daniel Jeremiah put it well yesterday, I thought. He said getting feedback from someone like Russell Wilson saying, 'I need more mature guys in the locker room' or 'this particular guy is not cutting it because he can't learn his assignments' is invaluable. Letting him sit in the draft room would be a mistake. The problem is talent evaluation is so hard. It's not like the Seahawks don't try to improve the o-line. They've even made trades but guys don't pan out or get hurt or you don't have the cap space when Andrew Whitworth becomes available (fugging Matt Kahlil). They should have input but just be careful how much.

[BrianS]

11 minutes ago, Waldo said:

I get it but I wasn't looking at it as too much against the parity but punishment for bad teams being run badly. Also, im not sure most draft prospects have that power, just QBs in the very top of the draft. 

I look at it as a glove slap to the face more than ruining thr parity. If the team learns thr player is not going to play then they can trade that for a ransom and trade or draft another player. Hard to say SD was devastated by having to go with Rivers.

I don't disagree with your premise that bad teams should be punished for being run badly.  In fact, the players and their agents ALREADY have the power to do so.  They simply refuse to exercise that power in the face of the almighty "Payday".

[Doc Holiday]

1 hour ago, BrianS said:

The players are being silly.  They already hold ALL of the power with the exception of one player on every team - whomever gets the franchise tag.

No one is forcing a player to sign for any team.  If they don't like the way the team is run, fine, don't sign.  Go into free agency, bet on yourself.

Look, I get it, rookies don't have much say, and that's fine.  Most rookies don't really pan out anyway.  Once that first contract is done, anything from that point forward is on their shoulders.

Don't like the team?  Don't sign.  Not really sure?  Take a shorter contract with less guaranteed money.

The players for too long have simply tried to maximize their money.  You can't have it both ways!  If you want flexibility and mobility, fine, work that into your contract.  Do you want a guaranteed payday?  Also fine.  Just understand that it limits those other things.

 

This 1000% I don’t feel bad for players being cry babies. Millions of people would trade places with them a d rather have their tough choices to make. 

[Waldo]

Just now, BrianS said:

I don't disagree with your premise that bad teams should be punished for being run badly.  In fact, the players and their agents ALREADY have the power to do so.  They simply refuse to exercise that power in the face of the almighty "Payday".

Rookie contracts are not very long, especially outside the first. I think the payday is fine for most positions but QB is one where you can get RG3ed or Carred in a poorly run franchises.

I just value good play at QB for the NFL over a crazy franchise's right to waste more talent at a position where there just isn't enough good players in total in the league.