Player Dedication

[Wi. Mike now in Florida]

Is player dedication in the NFL including the Packer players dead?

What happened to when a player was honored to play in Green Bay by saying it and proved it without looking to be released from a legal signed contract?
Ex. A. Rodgers, R. Wilson, D. Watson etc. etc.

Should the NFL get more involved in it's players contracts?

I always wondered how Vince Lombardi would handle players like this.
I can hear him now: "What the hell is going on out there?"

 

[El Guapo]

There was not much of a players union to speak of in Lombardi's era. If I remember, it started in the late 50s with a motto of clean socks and jocks. The teams had the upper hand.

The players have much of the control these days. They are also controlled by the agents, who push them to not "ruin it" for the other players out there by taking a low-ball offer. Obviously, that's just fluff to maximize their cut of the players' salaries but it works.

At the same time, these guys aren't dumb. One play could end their physical well-being for the rest of their lives. Yes, Rodgers has enough to cover being a quadriplegic for the rest of his life. However, once you reach the elite level for most of them it's also a status issue to be paid at the highest level.

Yes sir - greed is alive and well in sports, as strong as it has ever been but just shifting from the owners to the players.

 

[GreenNGold_81]

I think the overall trend is less connection to franchises, and more "getting what I deserve" for players in professional sports. This is my take, I can't really prove it. But people will fulfill contractual obligations and not really go above and beyond as often. You see more players trying to improve their marketability through social media platforms instead of being dedicated to being the best. Ex. Juju vs. Adams. I'd say Adams has worked hard to become the best and is an ideal Packer. Juju, probably equally skilled coming out, has focused a lot on his social media platforms at the cost of respect amongst his teammates. But home town discounts are rare these days, and if Rodgers cared about doing the most for his team to win now, he'd understand that his salary and contract is a barrier to getting free agents.

 

[LetzBreel]

Is player dedication in the NFL including the Packer players dead?

What happened to when a player was honored to play in Green Bay by saying it and proved it without looking to be released from a legal signed contract?
Ex. A. Rodgers, R. Wilson, D. Watson etc. etc.

Should the NFL get more involved in it's players contracts?

I always wondered how Vince Lombardi would handle players like this.
I can hear him now: "What the hell is going on out there?"

Been dead a loooooooooooooooong time.

 

[Mondio]

like everything else, it's a two way street. Sure players don't have the "loyalty" they used to appear to have, but then teams don't either and neither do fans. heck, half of today's fans would gladly cheer against GB if they had a RB going against them in fantasy football.

 

[mradtke66]

Is it dead? Probably. Should it be? Probably.

They are highly paid, yes, but this is still a job and their employable years are limited. I suspect you'd see less nashing of teeth and perceived slights if the league were less likely to cut players early and otherwise do a better job of taking care of their players.

In short, players are not loyal because the league is not loyal.

This is similar to the difference between boomers and millennials in the "normal" job market.

Dad (boomer) is 70 and retired. Other than some goofy stuff at the end of his career, he worked two jobs since he graduated college. ~45 years, 2 employers. He's got a pension.

I (millennial) am just shy of 40. My first three professional jobs/post-college jobs were each 4 years and out--almost to the day. I could hop, get a promotion and more money. No pension, no reason to stay.

 

[DoURant]

I have worked for the same company for 32+ years. One of our owners always seems to bring up "loyalty" when we get together for meetings... I feel I have been very loyal to them, especially because of the amount of years I have given them. I enjoy the work, I give my best, I'm dependable, etc. However, I sometimes feel that "loyalty" is a one way street, or at least employees are expected to be more loyal than the owners. In this day and age, loyalty with an employer is a dying trait, and will never again be like it has been with some of us, or our parents.... and in my opinion that might be a good thing.

Edit: Relating what I said above to football. Teams can cut you anytime they wish, is that loyalty on their part? Hometown discounts are a thing of the past, players aren't going to do that anymore. Money talks.

 

[Raleigh NC Packers Fan]

I don't know, I'm sure it's not what it used to be, but that is probably true of a lot of things. Without even knowing all of the facts and letting things play out, one thing that does really annoy me about this whole thing is that Rodger's contract is not up, he is not a free agent, yet I haven't heard anybody say that he better not sit out or be willing to criticize him if he does indeed refuse to play. I haven't heard any of the talking heads/sportswriters even discuss whether or not players should be able to do something like sit-out/refuse to play, demand a trade, or retire(then unretire with another team). I mean, unless Gute is being physically or mentally abusive to Aaron, he should play and finish out his contract. If a player really wants to go to another team, they are free to do so when their contract is up and they are a free agent.

With that being said, I am not anti player/athlete like some are. Sure, there are questionable individuals in sports, but that is true of a lot of things, and they do sacrifice a lot/work extremely hard to play sports professionally, devoting most of their lives to the sport until they retire. Not to mention that without them, there is of course no sports, because they are the ones who actually play the games. Finally, I heard somewhere that the owners get over 50% of the revenue, yet it's the players, coaches, and GMs that do all of the work, and they only became the owner because they inherited the team or had a billion to throw around. You could also argue that too much money is put into sports and that everyone in sports is overpaid, but it's the fans that enable this.

 

[gopkrs]

I mean, unless Gute is being physically or mentally abusive to Aaron, he should play and finish out his contract.

Especially a contract like he got. I mean...he wants more? I guess everyone does but... Contracts can be difficult and should be binding. You gotta live with what you sign. I guess you can quit...but then give back all the money you have not yet earned or keep playing.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

When talking about players in the past having been more loyal to their teams you need to realize that there was no free agency in the NFL until 1993.

With that being said I'm tired of players not honoring the contracts they agreed to.

 

[DoURant]

When talking about players in the past having been more loyal to their teams you need to realize that there was no free agency in the NFL until 1993.

With that being said I'm tired of players not honoring the contracts they agreed to.

That is a very valid point about FA. Players more or less stayed on teams until they were cut, or traded.

 

[RicFlairoftheNFL]

Is player dedication in the NFL including the Packer players dead?

What happened to when a player was honored to play in Green Bay by saying it and proved it without looking to be released from a legal signed contract?
Ex. A. Rodgers, R. Wilson, D. Watson etc. etc.

Should the NFL get more involved in it's players contracts?

I always wondered how Vince Lombardi would handle players like this.
I can hear him now: "What the hell is going on out there?"

Didn't Ringo get traded to Philly during a contract dispute? THAT is how Lombardi would handle contract negotiations.

 

[Half Empty]

Always has been a great traditional story, but https://www.packers.com/news/jim-ringo-was-perfect-fit-for-lombardi-s-offense

Plus, how much of a cap hit was Ringo?

I remember those days fondly, but...

 

[PikeBadger]

Always has been a great traditional story, but https://www.packers.com/news/jim-ringo-was-perfect-fit-for-lombardi-s-offense

Plus, how much of a cap hit was Ringo?

I remember those days fondly, but...

My understanding is that Lombardi noticed that Ringo’s skills and abilities were diminishing at the time he was traded. If I remember correctly he came to the Packers in the 53-54 timeframe? That would have made him at least 2-3 years older than most of his line mates.

 

[Heyjoe4]

Is it dead? Probably. Should it be? Probably.

They are highly paid, yes, but this is still a job and their employable years are limited. I suspect you'd see less nashing of teeth and perceived slights if the league were less likely to cut players early and otherwise do a better job of taking care of their players.

In short, players are not loyal because the league is not loyal.

This is similar to the difference between boomers and millennials in the "normal" job market.

Dad (boomer) is 70 and retired. Other than some goofy stuff at the end of his career, he worked two jobs since he graduated college. ~45 years, 2 employers. He's got a pension.

I (millennial) am just shy of 40. My first three professional jobs/post-college jobs were each 4 years and out--almost to the day. I could hop, get a promotion and more money. No pension, no reason to stay.

Yeah I mean what you describe about your Dad is unfortunately an age that has passed. I'm a little younger than him, as is my wife, and she receives two pensions, based on longevity with each employer. Now it doesn't matter how long you stay. Pensions are dead, and we need to look out for ourselves and our future.

So we're all under contract. And under contract there are no extras on either side. So loyalty goes by the wayside. I know if I kept this in mind I'd be less upset about the Rodgers' situation. But it does make it hard to describe myself as a "loyal" Packer fan, even though I am. Different uses of the work loyalty I guess.

 

[mradtke66]

So we're all under contract. And under contract there are no extras on either side. So loyalty goes by the wayside. I know if I kept this in mind I'd be less upset about the Rodgers' situation. But it does make it hard to describe myself as a "loyal" Packer fan, even though I am. Different uses of the work loyalty I guess.

What helps me relax in this situation is to understand that loyalty is on that way side and just appreciate what we have.

If Rodgers retires, I will appreciate the Super Bowl he helped us win.

If we trade Rodgers, I will appreciate the draft picks we receive in compensation.

If we extend him, I will appreciate the extra cap space we manufacture over the next (presumably) next 2 years.

If he stays with us until he cannot perform well, I will appreciate all the years we had him.

 

[Heyjoe4]

What helps me relax in this situation is to understand that loyalty is on that way side and just appreciate what we have.

If Rodgers retires, I will appreciate the Super Bowl he helped us win.

If we trade Rodgers, I will appreciate the draft picks we receive in compensation.

If we extend him, I will appreciate the extra cap space we manufacture over the next (presumably) next 2 years.

If he stays with us until he cannot perform well, I will appreciate all the years we had him.

Well you have a very healthy way of looking at things. I mean all we can do is accept what we can't control. And we can sit on the spot where we've fallen and cry about it, or be thankful we can get up and keep going. We've had close to 30 years of HOF QB play in GB and got two SB trophies. Almost every season in that timeframe has been worth watching into late December, January, and even February. Rather than lament the trophies lost, better to celebrate the trophies won.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Rather than lament the trophies lost, better to celebrate the trophies won.

That would be easier if the Packers had won more than two over the last 30 years

 

[Schultz]

Everybody wants things easier. Rodgers wants weapons to make his job easier, you want more superbowls to make celebrating easier. Geez whatever happened to good old American hard work.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Edit: Relating what I said above to football. Teams can cut you anytime they wish, is that loyalty on their part? Hometown discounts are a thing of the past, players aren't going to do that anymore. Money talks.

This is one part of NFL contract relationships that I totally disagree with some of you on. "Owners have the upper hand because they can cut a player at any time." That is a very misleading statement for several reasons:

• Players can quit and do quit at anytime.
• Players get paid bonuses and upfront guaranteed money, so if an owner "cuts them", it usually doesn't mean they go hungry and it is the owner losing that upfront money, not the player.
• Owners investment in players is lost if they cut a player. Whether its money and/or draft capital, it is lost.
• After a rookie deal, players are "free" to sign with whomever they want.
• Players who's contracts are terminated, for whatever reasons, are free to go sign another contract with another team.

If you work for a company and are fired for not performing up to your pay, you shouldn't complain "damn owners have too much power over me." Perform up to what you are being paid, if you don't, prepare to be unemployed or asked to take a pay cut.

Now if your beef is "I can quit my job at Ford and go work at GM, you might have a slight point". However, many job contracts contain "non-compete clauses" that wouldn't allow you to go work for a competitor for many years. The NFL is a different and very unique animal when it comes to employment and to try and compare it to the general sector of employment isn't always an accurate comparison. What general jobs allow companies to "own your rights out of college by drafting you?" If the NFL allowed players just to break contracts and go sign with another team, it would be one hell of a mess IMO. If owners were stuck paying and carrying on their roster, players and their salaries that are no longer performing up to their contracts, the NFL would be worse for it.

If you don't like that Owners are billionaires and players are only millionaires, I'm in agreement, for disliking the fact that both make that much money, but for me, it has nothing to do with one making more than the other.

 

[PikeBadger]

This is one part of NFL contract relationships that I totally disagree with some of you on. "Owners have the upper hand because they can cut a player at any time." That is a very misleading statement for several reasons:

• Players can quit and do quit at anytime.
• Players get paid bonuses and upfront guaranteed money, so if an owner "cuts them", it usually doesn't mean they go hungry and it is the owner losing that upfront money, not the player.
• Owners investment in players is lost if they cut a player. Whether its money and/or draft capital, it is lost.
• After a rookie deal, players are "free" to sign with whomever they want.
• Players who's contracts are terminated, for whatever reasons, are free to go sign another contract with another team.

If you work for a company and are fired for not performing up to your pay, you shouldn't complain "damn owners have too much power over me." Perform up to what you are being paid, if you don't, prepare to be unemployed or asked to take a pay cut.

Now if your beef is "I can quit my job at Ford and go work at GM, you might have a slight point". However, many job contracts contain "non-compete clauses" that wouldn't allow you to go work for a competitor for many years. The NFL is a different and very unique animal when it comes to employment and to try and compare it to the general sector of employment isn't always an accurate comparison. What general jobs allow companies to "own your rights out of college by drafting you?" If the NFL allowed players just to break contracts and go sign with another team, it would be one hell of a mess IMO. If owners were stuck paying and carrying on their roster, players and their salaries that are no longer performing up to their contracts, the NFL would be worse for it.

If you don't like that Owners are billionaires and players are only millionaires, I'm in agreement, for disliking the fact that both make that much money, but it has nothing to do with one making more than the other.

Fans fault that both the players and owners make so much. They pay all the bills through going to games, and buying the products that advertisers produce. Rozell created a monster that keeps on growing because the masses of fans refuse to keep feeding the monster.

edit: meant stop feeding the monster, not keep.

 

[gopkrs]

Fans fault that both the players and owners make so much. They pay all the bills through going to games, and buying the products that advertisers produce. Rozell created a monster that keeps on growing because the masses of fans refuse to keep feeding the monster.

What Rozell did was great for The Green Bay Packers imo

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

buying the products that advertisers produce

This is the big hidden and inflationary one for me. I understand that fans who purchase game tickets, buy jerseys or anything else that directly supports a team is knowingly and willingly contributing to the money in the pot.

However, the "hidden" and "indirect" fees are mainly in that of the broadcast contracts and advertising. Which not surprisingly makes up the largest portion of revenues. The average consumer, who may or may not watch NFL football, is paying for it in either their cable bills and/or through products that they purchase. You might say "ah ha! I don't have cable and I will never buy Miller Light, because they advertise on TV." Well, think again. So that is good, you don't directly contribute by paying a cable bill, but maybe you watch local FOX, NBC, CBS or ABC? Don't these companies pay big dollars into the NFL? How do you think they justify it? Advertising revenues. You not watching a game on Sunday, but watching 3 hrs of "The Masked Singer", might not feel like you are supporting the NFL, but you are supporting a Network that pays big money to the NFL.

Even if you don't buy products advertised on TV, there is an inflationary trickle down effect of Miller Light charging an extra $1 per case to cover their advertising bills. "Poker's Double Ale" might not buy advertising space, but they are competing against some of the giants that are. So when Miller raises their prices, what do you think Poker is going to do?

So no, the billions of dollars that the owners make and the millions of dollars that players make isn't strictly coming out of the pockets of NFL fans, its coming out of almost everyone's pockets.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Fans fault that both the players and owners make so much. They pay all the bills through going to games, and buying the products that advertisers produce. Rozell created a monster that keeps on growing because the masses of fans refuse to keep feeding the monster.

I think you meant to say "stop" feeding the monster? or "continue" to feed?

Either way, I agree. What I actually see happening ties in with my last post. There are now streaming services that are beginning to distance themselves from Sports a bit. So if they create a package that attracts the non-sports fan away from someone like Spectrum, who is paying big money to sports networks, through lower subscription prices, that might start impacting a company like Spectrum. If their subscribers and viewers go down, I doubt they will be able to afford to pay Networks the cost to carry their Sports coverages.

It used to be the NFL dealt directly with just the major networks, who dealt directly with the advertisers. Now the Major Networks and cable outlets are reselling their product to cable, satellite and streaming companies. As the options get bigger and bigger for sports fans and non fans, I do think we will end up with the "pay only for what you watch" or at least "intend to watch" and that ultimately might crush major sports revenue streams, which I hope it does.

 

[Heyjoe4]

That would be easier if the Packers had won more than two over the last 30 years

Well sure, we all would have liked more Lombardi trophies, and should have had a few more given the caliber of QB play during this time. I thought at least two would come out of the Ron Wolf era, arguably the best GM Green Bay has had over this span of time.

At least Minnesota is still stuck at zero. Cold comfort.