Bell done in Pittsburgh
-
Connor's better than Bell? Remains TBD...
Better value right now... no argument there.
True, Connor being better than Bell still remains to be seen. I was only making a bold prediction based on what has already been seen...
... Conners performance vs. Bells in their rookie years.
As the season progresses, Conner continues to pull away from Bell in terms of rookie performance.
Conner outpaced Bell, 164 to 160 rushing attempts, and also in receptions, 39 to 33.
Conner has 11 touchdowns compared to Bell's 5.
The difference between the pair in yards gained also shows where Conner has really outplayed Bell.
Through their first 9 games, Conner has 771 yards on the ground vs. Bell's 528 (and a higher average at 4.7 vs. 3.3). Conner also has more receiving yards (386 vs. 319) and a better average (9.9 vs 9.67).
True, Connor being better than Bell still remains to be seen. I was only making a bold prediction based on what has already been seen...
... Conners performance vs. Bells in their rookie years.
As the season progresses, Conner continues to pull away from Bell in terms of rookie performance.
Conner outpaced Bell, 164 to 160 rushing attempts, and also in receptions, 39 to 33.
Conner has 11 touchdowns compared to Bell's 5.
The difference between the pair in yards gained also shows where Conner has really outplayed Bell.
Through their first 9 games, Conner has 771 yards on the ground vs. Bell's 528 (and a higher average at 4.7 vs. 3.3). Conner also has more receiving yards (386 vs. 319) and a better average (9.9 vs 9.67).
Except, correct me if I am wrong....this is NOT Conner's rookie season, not really. Wasn't he on the roster last year? He was. In fact here are his career numbers:
Rushing & Receiving
Games Rushing Receiving Total Yds Year Age Tm Pos No. G GS Rush Yds TD Lng Y/A Y/G A/G Tgt Rec Yds Y/R TD Lng R/G Y/G Ctch% Touch Y/Tch YScm RRTD Fmb AV Career 23 8 196 915 10 30 4.7 39.8 8.5 52 39 387 9.9 1 29 1.7 16.8 235 5.5 1302 11 3 1 2017 22 PIT 30 14 0 32 144 0 23 4.5 10.3 2.3 1 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 32 4.5 144 0 0 1 2018 23 PIT RB 30 9 8 164 771 10 30 4.7 85.7 18.2 51 39 387 9.9 1 29 4.3 43.0 76.5% 203 5.7 1158 11 3 -
-
Hopefully Bell reached out to Carl Nassib for some of his genius financial advice.
-
Well....it certainly means something if he continues to play at a highly productive level.....then he earns the "non-guaranteed" portion of his contract. If he slides into suckage, then perhaps he should not earn all that extra money.
I mean, really....THAT is what this is all about: "I want tons of guaranteed money so that when I begin to suck arse, you will still have to pay me."
I won't ask if you agree or disagree with that....as there can be no such thing as a disagreement with that.
Except that's absolutely 100% wrong. Players in the NFL want guaranteed money because the sport by definition is brutal. All it takes is one wrong hit and their career is over, and the only thing that saves them is a contract with guaranteed money. If a guy gets that money and decides to coast, that's an organizational problem. But the reason I noted of why guys want guaranteed money is something I could explain to my dog. C'mon now, use common sense. I won't ask if you agree or disagree with that because unlike what you said, there's no such thing as disagreement with my point. Hell, that's largely why the NFLPA exists.
Bell by RB standards put on a grueling work load on his body since in the NFL. It's not wrong of him to want the money, guaranteed, that goes along with that. The owners of teams absolutely have the upper hand on contracts and always will. Non-guaranteed big money contracts mean crap cause all an owner has to do is snap his fingers and it's gone. This has been seen thousands of times. Get it together man.
Except that's absolutely 100% wrong. Players in the NFL want guaranteed money because the sport by definition is brutal. All it takes is one wrong hit and their career is over, and the only thing that saves them is a contract with guaranteed money. If a guy gets that money and decides to coast, that's an organizational problem. But the reason I noted of why guys want guaranteed money is something I could explain to my dog. C'mon now, use common sense. I won't ask if you agree or disagree with that because unlike what you said, there's no such thing as disagreement with my point. Hell, that's largely why the NFLPA exists.
Bell by RB standards put on a grueling work load on his body since in the NFL. It's not wrong of him to want the money, guaranteed, that goes along with that. The owners of teams absolutely have the upper hand on contracts and always will. Non-guaranteed big money contracts mean crap cause all an owner has to do is snap his fingers and it's gone. This has been seen thousands of times. Get it together man.
Well, he turned down $14 million guaranteed playing under the franchise tag. Could have had $6 million more if he had agreed to the offer the Steelers had on the table, and walked away from both. Meaning to make up for what he lost in his mind, come 2019 he's going to need Gurley's $40 million guaranteed plus another $14 million on top of it.. The man is on drugs if he thinks any team in the NFL is going to give him that much guaranteed cash. MHO he'll be hard pressed to even equal Gurley's guaranteed money. FYI only three players in the NFL- all quarterbacks, have more than that at signing.
If he was so worried about getting hurt- he should have retired. That, and care to bet teams are now going to view Bell as a attitude problem. Worst I can remember since Eric Dickerson.
Add in Gipper's point- team may view Bell as running in a great system- the Steelers have hardly missed him. So why are we still arguing about this guy? He's never going to play for the Browns, and probably never going to get what he thinks he's worth on the open market.
-
Except that's absolutely 100% wrong. Players in the NFL want guaranteed money because the sport by definition is brutal. All it takes is one wrong hit and their career is over, and the only thing that saves them is a contract with guaranteed money. If a guy gets that money and decides to coast, that's an organizational problem. But the reason I noted of why guys want guaranteed money is something I could explain to my dog. C'mon now, use common sense. I won't ask if you agree or disagree with that because unlike what you said, there's no such thing as disagreement with my point. Hell, that's largely why the NFLPA exists.
Bell by RB standards put on a grueling work load on his body since in the NFL. It's not wrong of him to want the money, guaranteed, that goes along with that. The owners of teams absolutely have the upper hand on contracts and always will. Non-guaranteed big money contracts mean crap cause all an owner has to do is snap his fingers and it's gone. This has been seen thousands of times. Get it together man.
Well, he turned down $14 million guaranteed playing under the franchise tag. Could have had $6 million more if he had agreed to the offer the Steelers had on the table, and walked away from both. Meaning to make up for what he lost in his mind, come 2019 he's going to need Gurley's $40 million guaranteed plus another $14 million on top of it.. The man is on drugs if he thinks any team in the NFL is going to give him that much guaranteed cash. MHO he'll be hard pressed to even equal Gurley's guaranteed money. FYI only three players in the NFL- all quarterbacks, have more than that at signing.
If he was so worried about getting hurt- he should have retired. That, and care to bet teams are now going to view Bell as a attitude problem. Worst I can remember since Eric Dickerson.
Add in Gipper's point- team may view Bell as running in a great system- the Steelers have hardly missed him. So why are we still arguing about this guy? He's never going to play for the Browns, and probably never going to get what he thinks he's worth on the open market.
So why are we still arguing about this guy?
Great point!
Sincerely,
29 pages and counting on Josh Gordon getting cut
-
Great point!
Sincerely,
29 pages and counting on Josh Gordon getting cut
Yes I agree, good night Flash.
But he has a way to go to catch his roomie.....god forbid!
Jonathan Paul Manziel
By Adoug319, September 15, 2013 in THE BROWNS BOARD
- 1
- Page 1 of 532 <--------- OMG!
-
Just saw this
........
In a fitting end to a bizarre holdout story, several Pittsburgh Steelers players rummaged through Bell's locker and removed his No. 26 nameplate after Wednesday's practice.
Bell forfeited the season and his $14.5 million franchise tag by failing to report to team headquarters on Tuesday. He left behind a locker full of stuff, including cleats, shirts and a CD labeled 'Le'Veon Bell #1."
Linebacker Bud Dupree scored two pairs of Jordan cleats and thanked Bell. The move seemed more playful than malicious.
"Appreciate the cleats, my guy," Dupree said into a camera. "I wish you success, my guy."
Bell's locker had stayed intact through his holdout.
Players answered Bell-related questions for what they hope is the last time. Defensive end Cam Heyward said the most disappointing part of the Bell holdout is "that we even talk about it."
"It sucks when a guy doesn't have to answer his own questions," Heyward said. "If they aren't on the team, I'm not worried about it.
"... Just get back to football. That's all we can do. Wish him the best. This train doesn't stop for anybody."
Guard Ramon Foster, the team's NFL Players Association rep, took a businesslike approach to Bell's absence.
"Save your money, get a lot of information on what we're trying to do moving forward and that way stuff like this doesn't happen," Foster said in a message directed at players. "We fall short on things because guys get selfish or guys say, 'Hey, yeah, we're going to take a deal.'
"We've got to inform ourselves this next time around so this type of stuff doesn't happen. I hate it. [The franchise tag] could be good for both sides because you're one of the highest paid at your position. But they retain your rights so you don't hit the open market."
Uhh....Duh....No Shite Sherlock. That was the whole point of what the Union agreed to there. They traded the big paycheck that players playing under the tag received for their free agency rights. They took the money....just like they did with the disciplinary process. They put all the power in the hands of the commish so they could make more cash.
I think the owners next time around should say..You....(the union), can have what you want: A. no franchise tag B. A commission that handles discipline, not the commish C. no marijuana testing.........and in return...you get 10-15% LESS of the total money pot. Basically....cave in to all of the union's primary demands.....but give them much less $$$$$. See how that goes over.
I think the owners next time around should say
And the players should laugh, get up, and walk out of the room until the owners are interested in a deal, even if it means holding out the entire season.
See how that goes over.
Note that the ESPN contract with the NFL is up after the 2021 season, and the current collective bargaining agreement ends after the 2020 season. Wouldn't it be fun for the NFL to walk into that discussion having just wasted an entire season?
Remember that the current NFLPA is made of men who resolutely won't extend the current bargaining agreement from 2010 because of the bad faith from those negotiations.
Might want to read this article. When owners attempt to end a union, members of that union are pissed -- and they should be.
The more labels you have for yourself, the dumber they make you. "When you win, say nothing. When you lose, say less." Paul Brown -
Except that's absolutely 100% wrong. Players in the NFL want guaranteed money because the sport by definition is brutal. All it takes is one wrong hit and their career is over, and the only thing that saves them is a contract with guaranteed money. If a guy gets that money and decides to coast, that's an organizational problem. But the reason I noted of why guys want guaranteed money is something I could explain to my dog. C'mon now, use common sense. I won't ask if you agree or disagree with that because unlike what you said, there's no such thing as disagreement with my point. Hell, that's largely why the NFLPA exists.
Bell by RB standards put on a grueling work load on his body since in the NFL. It's not wrong of him to want the money, guaranteed, that goes along with that. The owners of teams absolutely have the upper hand on contracts and always will. Non-guaranteed big money contracts mean crap cause all an owner has to do is snap his fingers and it's gone. This has been seen thousands of times. Get it together man.
Well, he turned down $14 million guaranteed playing under the franchise tag. Could have had $6 million more if he had agreed to the offer the Steelers had on the table, and walked away from both. Meaning to make up for what he lost in his mind, come 2019 he's going to need Gurley's $40 million guaranteed plus another $14 million on top of it.. The man is on drugs if he thinks any team in the NFL is going to give him that much guaranteed cash. MHO he'll be hard pressed to even equal Gurley's guaranteed money. FYI only three players in the NFL- all quarterbacks, have more than that at signing.
If he was so worried about getting hurt- he should have retired. That, and care to bet teams are now going to view Bell as a attitude problem. Worst I can remember since Eric Dickerson.
Add in Gipper's point- team may view Bell as running in a great system- the Steelers have hardly missed him. So why are we still arguing about this guy? He's never going to play for the Browns, and probably never going to get what he thinks he's worth on the open market.
Well, he turned down $14 million guaranteed playing under the franchise tag. Could have had $6 million more if he had agreed to the offer the Steelers had on the table, and walked away from both. Meaning to make up for what he lost in his mind, come 2019 he's going to need Gurley's $40 million guaranteed plus another $14 million on top of it.. The man is on drugs if he thinks any team in the NFL is going to give him that much guaranteed cash. MHO he'll be hard pressed to even equal Gurley's guaranteed money. FYI only three players in the NFL- all quarterbacks, have more than that at signing.
If he was so worried about getting hurt- he should have retired. That, and care to bet teams are now going to view Bell as a attitude problem. Worst I can remember since Eric Dickerson.
Add in Gipper's point- team may view Bell as running in a great system- the Steelers have hardly missed him. So why are we still arguing about this guy? He's never going to play for the Browns, and probably never going to get what he thinks he's worth on the open market.
The whole point here is I'm not saying any of you are wrong. I'm simply noting that 1) Bell had a right to scoff at the low money offer he got & 2) the only thing that matters in the NFL to players is guaranteed money.
As I noted, this case will prove to set a fascinating precedent for players moving forward. What Bell did is the economic definition of cost/benefit analysis. Yes, the guy turned down about $15 million in hand this year. But what if he goes out there, breaks a leg and can never play again? Bell obviously had this concern based on the miles on his tires so to speak. So let's assume he does get the big money, guaranteed deal (i.e. Gurley) around $40 million from a club this off-season. In this scenario, he "gained" $25 million and a year of safe health. Of course you aren't wrong that IF he played this year and didn't get hurt and then got such a deal, he left a bunch of money on the table. I honestly have no idea what type of deal the guy is going to get, so this isn't about me thinking I'm right.
Point is here there's a reason players specifically hold out in the NFL. I'm not sure it's ever truly ended in a player NOT coming back, so whatever ends up happening to Bell will really set the tone for a long time forward.
-
I think the owners next time around should say
And the players should laugh, get up, and walk out of the room until the owners are interested in a deal, even if it means holding out the entire season.
See how that goes over.
Note that the ESPN contract with the NFL is up after the 2021 season, and the current collective bargaining agreement ends after the 2020 season. Wouldn't it be fun for the NFL to walk into that discussion having just wasted an entire season?
Remember that the current NFLPA is made of men who resolutely won't extend the current bargaining agreement from 2010 because of the bad faith from those negotiations.
Might want to read this article. When owners attempt to end a union, members of that union are pissed -- and they should be.
And the players should laugh, get up, and walk out of the room until the owners are interested in a deal, even if it means holding out the entire season.
See how that goes over.
Note that the ESPN contract with the NFL is up after the 2021 season, and the current collective bargaining agreement ends after the 2020 season. Wouldn't it be fun for the NFL to walk into that discussion having just wasted an entire season?
Remember that the current NFLPA is made of men who resolutely won't extend the current bargaining agreement from 2010 because of the bad faith from those negotiations.
Might want to read this article. When owners attempt to end a union, members of that union are pissed -- and they should be.
It’s still a lousy union. Players cross lines and backstab each other all the time. Ask the Golics about nfl players strikes. Owners have the cash and players have the egos.
-
And the players should laugh, get up, and walk out of the room until the owners are interested in a deal, even if it means holding out the entire season.
See how that goes over.
Note that the ESPN contract with the NFL is up after the 2021 season, and the current collective bargaining agreement ends after the 2020 season. Wouldn't it be fun for the NFL to walk into that discussion having just wasted an entire season?
Remember that the current NFLPA is made of men who resolutely won't extend the current bargaining agreement from 2010 because of the bad faith from those negotiations.
Might want to read this article. When owners attempt to end a union, members of that union are pissed -- and they should be.
It’s still a lousy union. Players cross lines and backstab each other all the time. Ask the Golics about nfl players strikes. Owners have the cash and players have the egos.
It’s still a lousy union. Players cross lines and backstab each other all the time. Ask the Golics about nfl players strikes. Owners have the cash and players have the egos.
Oh yes what a volitile mix also could be "egotistical billionaire owners battling spoiled millionaire players over game".
Fighting over millions of dollars, how childish.
GO BUCKEYES, BROWNS, INDIANS, CAVS, YSU, NAVY and yes I like ND! -
I think the owners next time around should say
And the players should laugh, get up, and walk out of the room until the owners are interested in a deal, even if it means holding out the entire season.
See how that goes over.
Note that the ESPN contract with the NFL is up after the 2021 season, and the current collective bargaining agreement ends after the 2020 season. Wouldn't it be fun for the NFL to walk into that discussion having just wasted an entire season?
Remember that the current NFLPA is made of men who resolutely won't extend the current bargaining agreement from 2010 because of the bad faith from those negotiations.
Might want to read this article. When owners attempt to end a union, members of that union are pissed -- and they should be.
And the players should laugh, get up, and walk out of the room until the owners are interested in a deal, even if it means holding out the entire season.
See how that goes over.
Can you say replacement players?
Note that the ESPN contract with the NFL is up after the 2021 season, and the current collective bargaining agreement ends after the 2020 season. Wouldn't it be fun for the NFL to walk into that discussion having just wasted an entire season?
No, it wouldn't.
Remember that the current NFLPA is made of men who resolutely won't extend the current bargaining agreement from 2010 because of the bad faith from those negotiations.
And who give a shite.....these will be new negotiations.
Might want to read this article. When owners attempt to end a union, members of that union are pissed -- and they should be.
The players should be pissed...yes....at themselves and their union leadership. THEY agreed to the current agreement...and they caved in on some of the things they are complaining about....for more money.
Don't get me wrong....I would be in favor of most of the things the players want: No dope testing, no franchise tag, a disciplinary commission instead of the commissioner in charge.....BUT....even if the owners basically agree with those sorts of things....they will not just give them to the union without getting something in return. And that something is almost universally...more money to them, less to the players. They will NOT get all that stuff and give nothing in return. So, they have to determine what their priorities will be. All that stuff...in return for a smaller piece of the pie, or do they want to keep their pie.
-
Well, he turned down $14 million guaranteed playing under the franchise tag. Could have had $6 million more if he had agreed to the offer the Steelers had on the table, and walked away from both. Meaning to make up for what he lost in his mind, come 2019 he's going to need Gurley's $40 million guaranteed plus another $14 million on top of it.. The man is on drugs if he thinks any team in the NFL is going to give him that much guaranteed cash. MHO he'll be hard pressed to even equal Gurley's guaranteed money. FYI only three players in the NFL- all quarterbacks, have more than that at signing.
If he was so worried about getting hurt- he should have retired. That, and care to bet teams are now going to view Bell as a attitude problem. Worst I can remember since Eric Dickerson.
Add in Gipper's point- team may view Bell as running in a great system- the Steelers have hardly missed him. So why are we still arguing about this guy? He's never going to play for the Browns, and probably never going to get what he thinks he's worth on the open market.
The whole point here is I'm not saying any of you are wrong. I'm simply noting that 1) Bell had a right to scoff at the low money offer he got & 2) the only thing that matters in the NFL to players is guaranteed money.
As I noted, this case will prove to set a fascinating precedent for players moving forward. What Bell did is the economic definition of cost/benefit analysis. Yes, the guy turned down about $15 million in hand this year. But what if he goes out there, breaks a leg and can never play again? Bell obviously had this concern based on the miles on his tires so to speak. So let's assume he does get the big money, guaranteed deal (i.e. Gurley) around $40 million from a club this off-season. In this scenario, he "gained" $25 million and a year of safe health. Of course you aren't wrong that IF he played this year and didn't get hurt and then got such a deal, he left a bunch of money on the table. I honestly have no idea what type of deal the guy is going to get, so this isn't about me thinking I'm right.
Point is here there's a reason players specifically hold out in the NFL. I'm not sure it's ever truly ended in a player NOT coming back, so whatever ends up happening to Bell will really set the tone for a long time forward.
The whole point here is I'm not saying any of you are wrong. I'm simply noting that 1) Bell had a right to scoff at the low money offer he got & 2) the only thing that matters in the NFL to players is guaranteed money.
As I noted, this case will prove to set a fascinating precedent for players moving forward. What Bell did is the economic definition of cost/benefit analysis. Yes, the guy turned down about $15 million in hand this year. But what if he goes out there, breaks a leg and can never play again? Bell obviously had this concern based on the miles on his tires so to speak. So let's assume he does get the big money, guaranteed deal (i.e. Gurley) around $40 million from a club this off-season. In this scenario, he "gained" $25 million and a year of safe health. Of course you aren't wrong that IF he played this year and didn't get hurt and then got such a deal, he left a bunch of money on the table. I honestly have no idea what type of deal the guy is going to get, so this isn't about me thinking I'm right.
Point is here there's a reason players specifically hold out in the NFL. I'm not sure it's ever truly ended in a player NOT coming back, so whatever ends up happening to Bell will really set the tone for a long time forward.
The point is....we won't know what the ulitmate cost/benefit analysis will be until he gets his deal next year.
What we do know is that he gave up 14 million guaranteed....and it remains open as to whether he will make that up. I think it highly unlikely...but that is just a guess. I mean, lots of teams may say: we have our Alvin Kamara, our Nick Chubb,.....who needs an aging cap space sucking RB when we can get as good for far less. (but sure, I know...it just takes one.. Maybe the Packers)
-
It’s still a lousy union. Players cross lines and backstab each other all the time. Ask the Golics about nfl players strikes. Owners have the cash and players have the egos.
Oh yes what a volitile mix also could be "egotistical billionaire owners battling spoiled millionaire players over game".
Fighting over millions of dollars, how childish.
-
I think the owners next time around should say
And the players should laugh, get up, and walk out of the room until the owners are interested in a deal, even if it means holding out the entire season.
See how that goes over.
Note that the ESPN contract with the NFL is up after the 2021 season, and the current collective bargaining agreement ends after the 2020 season. Wouldn't it be fun for the NFL to walk into that discussion having just wasted an entire season?
Remember that the current NFLPA is made of men who resolutely won't extend the current bargaining agreement from 2010 because of the bad faith from those negotiations.
Might want to read this article. When owners attempt to end a union, members of that union are pissed -- and they should be.
And the players should laugh, get up, and walk out of the room until the owners are interested in a deal, even if it means holding out the entire season.
See how that goes over.
Note that the ESPN contract with the NFL is up after the 2021 season, and the current collective bargaining agreement ends after the 2020 season. Wouldn't it be fun for the NFL to walk into that discussion having just wasted an entire season?
Remember that the current NFLPA is made of men who resolutely won't extend the current bargaining agreement from 2010 because of the bad faith from those negotiations.
Might want to read this article. When owners attempt to end a union, members of that union are pissed -- and they should be.
Should the players threaten a strike, take a look at Spotrac or over the cap. Sure, plenty of players (LOL Le'veon Bell) are already set for life financially, and could afford to sit out a year. But plenty of them are not. And I doubt more than a few of the top earning players are going to be willing to piss away $10 million or so like Bell just to prove a point.
-
Well, he turned down $14 million guaranteed playing under the franchise tag. Could have had $6 million more if he had agreed to the offer the Steelers had on the table, and walked away from both. Meaning to make up for what he lost in his mind, come 2019 he's going to need Gurley's $40 million guaranteed plus another $14 million on top of it.. The man is on drugs if he thinks any team in the NFL is going to give him that much guaranteed cash. MHO he'll be hard pressed to even equal Gurley's guaranteed money. FYI only three players in the NFL- all quarterbacks, have more than that at signing.
If he was so worried about getting hurt- he should have retired. That, and care to bet teams are now going to view Bell as a attitude problem. Worst I can remember since Eric Dickerson.
Add in Gipper's point- team may view Bell as running in a great system- the Steelers have hardly missed him. So why are we still arguing about this guy? He's never going to play for the Browns, and probably never going to get what he thinks he's worth on the open market.
The whole point here is I'm not saying any of you are wrong. I'm simply noting that 1) Bell had a right to scoff at the low money offer he got & 2) the only thing that matters in the NFL to players is guaranteed money.
As I noted, this case will prove to set a fascinating precedent for players moving forward. What Bell did is the economic definition of cost/benefit analysis. Yes, the guy turned down about $15 million in hand this year. But what if he goes out there, breaks a leg and can never play again? Bell obviously had this concern based on the miles on his tires so to speak. So let's assume he does get the big money, guaranteed deal (i.e. Gurley) around $40 million from a club this off-season. In this scenario, he "gained" $25 million and a year of safe health. Of course you aren't wrong that IF he played this year and didn't get hurt and then got such a deal, he left a bunch of money on the table. I honestly have no idea what type of deal the guy is going to get, so this isn't about me thinking I'm right.
Point is here there's a reason players specifically hold out in the NFL. I'm not sure it's ever truly ended in a player NOT coming back, so whatever ends up happening to Bell will really set the tone for a long time forward.
The whole point here is I'm not saying any of you are wrong. I'm simply noting that 1) Bell had a right to scoff at the low money offer he got & 2) the only thing that matters in the NFL to players is guaranteed money.
As I noted, this case will prove to set a fascinating precedent for players moving forward. What Bell did is the economic definition of cost/benefit analysis. Yes, the guy turned down about $15 million in hand this year. But what if he goes out there, breaks a leg and can never play again? Bell obviously had this concern based on the miles on his tires so to speak. So let's assume he does get the big money, guaranteed deal (i.e. Gurley) around $40 million from a club this off-season. In this scenario, he "gained" $25 million and a year of safe health. Of course you aren't wrong that IF he played this year and didn't get hurt and then got such a deal, he left a bunch of money on the table. I honestly have no idea what type of deal the guy is going to get, so this isn't about me thinking I'm right.
Point is here there's a reason players specifically hold out in the NFL. I'm not sure it's ever truly ended in a player NOT coming back, so whatever ends up happening to Bell will really set the tone for a long time forward.
Well, no one has said Bell didn't have the right to do what he did. But by far the majority opinion is he's a complete jerk for doing so.
-
And the players should laugh, get up, and walk out of the room until the owners are interested in a deal, even if it means holding out the entire season.
See how that goes over.
Note that the ESPN contract with the NFL is up after the 2021 season, and the current collective bargaining agreement ends after the 2020 season. Wouldn't it be fun for the NFL to walk into that discussion having just wasted an entire season?
Remember that the current NFLPA is made of men who resolutely won't extend the current bargaining agreement from 2010 because of the bad faith from those negotiations.
Might want to read this article. When owners attempt to end a union, members of that union are pissed -- and they should be.
It’s still a lousy union. Players cross lines and backstab each other all the time. Ask the Golics about nfl players strikes. Owners have the cash and players have the egos.
Owners have the cash and players have the egos.
Owners don't have the cash - get over it. This is about splitting the money moving forward, NOT money that is already agreed-to. Cash isn't property of the owners until after they come to an agreement with the players.
Replacement players? Manziel please. [Fun auto-correct for a female dog, yes?] Don't forget the 87 season when the players were actually on strike for 3 games and Ohio State could have beat most teams in the "NFL" .. and more recently, words don't express how quickly the NFL caved to the professional refs when they went on strike and the NFL tried scab referees.
In reality, "scabs" aren't a solution when labor is actually in short supply. Owners need the players to make any money.
The upcoming 2020 negotiations will be eye-opening to many of you who think owners hold all the cards. Not only don't they hold the cards, they're going to be increasing the % they give to players whether they like it or not.
And I invite you to think - Why is it inevitable that ownership "gets" anything? They don't "own" anything [the taxpayers of the city they're playing in are footing the entire bill for their stadium fixed costs] other than an ability to take a percentage of money that ESPN/CBS/etc pays NFL players. The NFL is essentially a really expensive way to fill television airtime..
The more labels you have for yourself, the dumber they make you. "When you win, say nothing. When you lose, say less." Paul Brown -
And the players should laugh, get up, and walk out of the room until the owners are interested in a deal, even if it means holding out the entire season.
See how that goes over.
Note that the ESPN contract with the NFL is up after the 2021 season, and the current collective bargaining agreement ends after the 2020 season. Wouldn't it be fun for the NFL to walk into that discussion having just wasted an entire season?
Remember that the current NFLPA is made of men who resolutely won't extend the current bargaining agreement from 2010 because of the bad faith from those negotiations.
Might want to read this article. When owners attempt to end a union, members of that union are pissed -- and they should be.
It’s still a lousy union. Players cross lines and backstab each other all the time. Ask the Golics about nfl players strikes. Owners have the cash and players have the egos.
. Owners have the cash
but but but art modell
-
Owners have the cash and players have the egos.
Owners don't have the cash - get over it. This is about splitting the money moving forward, NOT money that is already agreed-to. Cash isn't property of the owners until after they come to an agreement with the players.
Replacement players? Manziel please. [Fun auto-correct for a female dog, yes?] Don't forget the 87 season when the players were actually on strike for 3 games and Ohio State could have beat most teams in the "NFL" .. and more recently, words don't express how quickly the NFL caved to the professional refs when they went on strike and the NFL tried scab referees.
In reality, "scabs" aren't a solution when labor is actually in short supply. Owners need the players to make any money.
The upcoming 2020 negotiations will be eye-opening to many of you who think owners hold all the cards. Not only don't they hold the cards, they're going to be increasing the % they give to players whether they like it or not.
And I invite you to think - Why is it inevitable that ownership "gets" anything? They don't "own" anything [the taxpayers of the city they're playing in are footing the entire bill for their stadium fixed costs] other than an ability to take a percentage of money that ESPN/CBS/etc pays NFL players. The NFL is essentially a really expensive way to fill television airtime..
Owners don't have the cash - get over it. This is about splitting the money moving forward, NOT money that is already agreed-to. Cash isn't property of the owners until after they come to an agreement with the players.
Replacement players? Manziel please. [Fun auto-correct for a female dog, yes?] Don't forget the 87 season when the players were actually on strike for 3 games and Ohio State could have beat most teams in the "NFL" .. and more recently, words don't express how quickly the NFL caved to the professional refs when they went on strike and the NFL tried scab referees.
In reality, "scabs" aren't a solution when labor is actually in short supply. Owners need the players to make any money.
The upcoming 2020 negotiations will be eye-opening to many of you who think owners hold all the cards. Not only don't they hold the cards, they're going to be increasing the % they give to players whether they like it or not.
And I invite you to think - Why is it inevitable that ownership "gets" anything? They don't "own" anything [the taxpayers of the city they're playing in are footing the entire bill for their stadium fixed costs] other than an ability to take a percentage of money that ESPN/CBS/etc pays NFL players. The NFL is essentially a really expensive way to fill television airtime..
You are really coming off as clueless and how the NFL and their finances work.
-
Owners don't have the cash - get over it. This is about splitting the money moving forward, NOT money that is already agreed-to. Cash isn't property of the owners until after they come to an agreement with the players.
Replacement players? Manziel please. [Fun auto-correct for a female dog, yes?] Don't forget the 87 season when the players were actually on strike for 3 games and Ohio State could have beat most teams in the "NFL" .. and more recently, words don't express how quickly the NFL caved to the professional refs when they went on strike and the NFL tried scab referees.
In reality, "scabs" aren't a solution when labor is actually in short supply. Owners need the players to make any money.
The upcoming 2020 negotiations will be eye-opening to many of you who think owners hold all the cards. Not only don't they hold the cards, they're going to be increasing the % they give to players whether they like it or not.
And I invite you to think - Why is it inevitable that ownership "gets" anything? They don't "own" anything [the taxpayers of the city they're playing in are footing the entire bill for their stadium fixed costs] other than an ability to take a percentage of money that ESPN/CBS/etc pays NFL players. The NFL is essentially a really expensive way to fill television airtime..
You are really coming off as clueless and how the NFL and their finances work.
You are really coming off as clueless and how the NFL and their finances work.
You mean that the players don’t hold a gun to the owners head for more money?
-
Owners have the cash and players have the egos.
Owners don't have the cash - get over it. This is about splitting the money moving forward, NOT money that is already agreed-to. Cash isn't property of the owners until after they come to an agreement with the players.
Replacement players? Manziel please. [Fun auto-correct for a female dog, yes?] Don't forget the 87 season when the players were actually on strike for 3 games and Ohio State could have beat most teams in the "NFL" .. and more recently, words don't express how quickly the NFL caved to the professional refs when they went on strike and the NFL tried scab referees.
In reality, "scabs" aren't a solution when labor is actually in short supply. Owners need the players to make any money.
The upcoming 2020 negotiations will be eye-opening to many of you who think owners hold all the cards. Not only don't they hold the cards, they're going to be increasing the % they give to players whether they like it or not.
And I invite you to think - Why is it inevitable that ownership "gets" anything? They don't "own" anything [the taxpayers of the city they're playing in are footing the entire bill for their stadium fixed costs] other than an ability to take a percentage of money that ESPN/CBS/etc pays NFL players. The NFL is essentially a really expensive way to fill television airtime..
Owners don't have the cash - get over it. This is about splitting the money moving forward, NOT money that is already agreed-to. Cash isn't property of the owners until after they come to an agreement with the players.
Replacement players? Manziel please. [Fun auto-correct for a female dog, yes?] Don't forget the 87 season when the players were actually on strike for 3 games and Ohio State could have beat most teams in the "NFL" .. and more recently, words don't express how quickly the NFL caved to the professional refs when they went on strike and the NFL tried scab referees.
In reality, "scabs" aren't a solution when labor is actually in short supply. Owners need the players to make any money.
The upcoming 2020 negotiations will be eye-opening to many of you who think owners hold all the cards. Not only don't they hold the cards, they're going to be increasing the % they give to players whether they like it or not.
And I invite you to think - Why is it inevitable that ownership "gets" anything? They don't "own" anything [the taxpayers of the city they're playing in are footing the entire bill for their stadium fixed costs] other than an ability to take a percentage of money that ESPN/CBS/etc pays NFL players. The NFL is essentially a really expensive way to fill television airtime..
When you said that the owners don’t have the cash..... I quit!
-
Owners don't have the cash - get over it. This is about splitting the money moving forward, NOT money that is already agreed-to. Cash isn't property of the owners until after they come to an agreement with the players.
Replacement players? Manziel please. [Fun auto-correct for a female dog, yes?] Don't forget the 87 season when the players were actually on strike for 3 games and Ohio State could have beat most teams in the "NFL" .. and more recently, words don't express how quickly the NFL caved to the professional refs when they went on strike and the NFL tried scab referees.
In reality, "scabs" aren't a solution when labor is actually in short supply. Owners need the players to make any money.
The upcoming 2020 negotiations will be eye-opening to many of you who think owners hold all the cards. Not only don't they hold the cards, they're going to be increasing the % they give to players whether they like it or not.
And I invite you to think - Why is it inevitable that ownership "gets" anything? They don't "own" anything [the taxpayers of the city they're playing in are footing the entire bill for their stadium fixed costs] other than an ability to take a percentage of money that ESPN/CBS/etc pays NFL players. The NFL is essentially a really expensive way to fill television airtime..
When you said that the owners don’t have the cash..... I quit!
When you said that the owners don’t have the cash..... I quit!
Except for GB and unusual relatives they're all billionaires or multibillionaires.
What they earn from owning the NFL team is nice pocket change......in the tens of millions HOWEVER the ROI is actually staggering for some of them on buying/net worth on the teams. Some paid mere millions and the teams are worth $1 to maybe $4 billion each.
....... I'm sure we can all relate to that.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login