Player Dedication

[Pokerbrat2000]

Yeah, you might win it one year but staying at the top is about impossible with that kind of discrepancy. Wow

Yup. Now imagine trying to compete with the Rams if that was the difference allowed in the NFL

 

[XPack]

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

It's a two way street.

If this is the way we treat a QB, then loyalty is out of the questions.

And before anyone beings it up. You can buy loyalty with "just" money. So forget the "oh, we pay him ***". Money matters, but so does other things.

It's as simple as showing him he matters here.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

If this is the way we treat a QB, then loyalty is out of the questions.

What "way" is that?

 

[XPack]

What "way" is that?

The way things are now!

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

The way things are now!

You mean the rumored/interpreted ways or the factual ways?

 

[longtimefan]

The way things are now!

Explain the truth??

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Your memory isn't very good Captain.

Don't worry, Poker, my memory is working fine. You explicitly said that you disagree with the notion that the owners have the upper hand because players receive upfront money and guarantees.

You followed that up with a comment that only a few star players get upfront or guaranteed money and that the only reason owners do it is to allow them to manipulate the cap. The second part you still haven't explained, but both statements are still factually incorrect.

[/QUOTE]

It's definitely not factually incorrect that owners paying signing bonuses manipulates their cap to their benefit. In addition I have explained my stance on the majority of the players not receiving a significant signing bonus twice.

And that explains why Rodgers might be looking for some guaranteed money over the next few years.

Every player in the league would like to receive as much guaranteed money as possible, Rodgers not being any different. It might have been smart to guarantee his 2022 base salary after the way he played last year.

Well, the Chiefs were not the 49rs. So I guess you think that Steve Young could have done better than Joe with the Chiefs. And still, Montana might have won in the in between years. In the Charger Super Bowl, the 49rs outclassed them all over the field. I'm just speculating. The hall of famer Young only won the one. And it was not even close. Not imho because of Young, but because of the whole team.

You were the one suggesting Montana could have beaten the Chargers. I just pointed out that he lost twice to them in the same season.

 

[gopkrs]

You were the one suggesting Montana could have beaten the Chargers. I just pointed out that he lost twice to them in the same season.

And I was pointing out that at that time the Chiefs and the 49rs were not on the same level. Sometimes, I think, that you believe the QB is the only player that decides the outcome of a game.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

If you don't see a difference between your first and second statements, I can't say much more:

First:

While that's true for a small minority of star players that doesn't apply to the majority of them. In addition the only reason owners do that is because of the positive impact it has on the current salary cap situation.

Second:

It's definitely not factually incorrect that owners paying signing bonuses manipulates their cap to their benefit.

Also, you keep pulling one thing (of many) that I said and insisting that I was trying to use it alone as proof of a point. You are better than that Captain. Don't grab 1 of many details and try to say that it alone doesn't support an argument, since I was not using it for that purpose.

You explicitly said that you disagree with the notion that the owners have the upper hand because players receive upfront money and guarantees.

Here is what I actually said.

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.

 

[TEXPAC]

I do not understand why ARod feels he has the whole Packer philosophy nailed down. He is not the final authority on everything “Packers”! He has points, but there is over 100 years of tradition. I do not believe that he is the final word on any of it.

 

[XPack]

You mean the rumored/interpreted ways or the factual ways?

Does it matter? Neither works.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

And I was pointing out that at that time the Chiefs and the 49rs were not on the same level. Sometimes, I think, that you believe the QB is the only player that decides the outcome of a game.

Once again, you were the one suggesting Montana could beat the Chargers in 1994, a statement I refuted with facts. While I'm well aware that football is a team sport the quarterback position is more important than any other. Taking a look at that season the most significant difference between the Niners and Chiefs was the performance of their quarterbacks.

Young: 16 games, 70.3% completion percentage, 3,969 yards, 35 TD, 10 INT, 112.8 passer rating
Montana: 14 games, 60.6% completion percentage, 3,283 yards, 16 TD, 9 INT, 83.6 passer rating

Both defenses played at a similar level with the Niners ranking sixth in points allowed at 296, the Chiefs coming in seventh at 298.

Also, you keep pulling one thing (of many) that I said and insisting that I was trying to use it alone as proof of a point. You are better than that Captain. Don't grab 1 of many details and try to say that it alone doesn't support an argument, since I was not using it for that purpose.

It seems we have to agree to disagree on the topic.

 

[Heyjoe4]

If you don't see a difference between your first and second statements, I can't say much more:

First:


Second:


Also, you keep pulling one thing (of many) that I said and insisting that I was trying to use it alone as proof of a point. You are better than that Captain. Don't grab 1 of many details and try to say that it alone doesn't support an argument, since I was not using it for that purpose.



Here is what I actually said.[/QUOTE

I do not understand why ARod feels he has the whole Packer philosophy nailed down. He is not the final authority on everything “Packers”! He has points, but there is over 100 years of tradition. I do not believe that he is the final word on any of it.

Well said. At this point he is an overpaid distraction. He seems to have forgotten this is a team sport. If he wants to retire, then retire. He has some legitimate grievances with Murphy and Gluten. This is not the way to resolve them, by playing a child's game.

 

[Wi. Mike now in Florida]

I do not understand why ARod feels he has the whole Packer philosophy nailed down. He is not the final authority on everything “Packers”! He has points, but there is over 100 years of tradition. I do not believe that he is the final word on any of it.

This Rodgers guy is a complete California diva idiot to think he can take on 100 years
of tradition in Green Bay.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Well said. At this point he is an overpaid distraction. He seems to have forgotten this is a team sport. If he wants to retire, then retire. He has some legitimate grievances with Murphy and Gluten. This is not the way to resolve them, by playing a child's game.

While I think all these guys are "overpaid", I could understand the logic behind him making more, if it was a new contract year or he had inserted some kind of escalator clause in his contract, but apparently he or his agent didn't.

This is really where I am not happy with Pro Contracts. This isn't 2 kids at a school yard, spitting on their hands and shaking on an agreement. These are highly paid professional agents, attorneys, athletes, etc. involved in the making of very complicated, very expensive contracts. People saying "well he deserves more or the team is ******** him" need to remember this can go both ways. What if Rodgers has a crappy year or is injured, who got screwed in that situation?

There is a reason they call the time period before a contract is signed "Contract negotiations". Much money, time and effort is poured into creating these contracts, negotiating the minor details and at some point both sides agree its fair and sign it. So its really frustrating to see a player a year or two later say "damn, I need more before this contract is done" or "you need to do these things, despite them not being in that contract that I got a lot in exchange for". If you don't like that a contract can suddenly feel like a bad deal, don't sign it or get a better agent to represent you. But don't expect me to feel bad, because suddenly you feel underpaid or underappreciated.

 

[Wi. Mike now in Florida]

People saying "well he deserves more or the team is ******** him" need to remember this can go both ways. What if Rodgers has a crappy year or is injured, who got screwed in that situation?

Good Point.
Something truly to think about.
In life there's no guarantee's, especially in expensive contracts.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Good Point.
Something truly to think about.
In life there's no guarantee's, especially in expensive contracts.

I'm sure that a team protects their interests in a contract too, but so does a player. Within a contract, both sides have some rights, but for either side to suddenly decide they no longer like the agreed upon terms and want them changed, I have a problem.

Someone is going to point to the fact that a team can cut a player or they can do what they did with Preston Smith and say "your value has dropped, renegotiate or we cut you." May sound unfair, but both situations are allowed in the terms of the contract. Just like a player is allowed to retire.