ducky
Well-Known Member
The reforms I would investigate are:
(a) cut the rookie deal to 3 years.
(b) cut tags to 1.
The reason I bolded above is I would like to see if the math works out for the players. On the face of it, it seems like you'd have some players going only 3 years instead of 4 . OTOH, this would shorten the cycle on the use-and-replace system that the teams use to get all they can out of a guy on contract 1 before cutting/tagging/allowing-FA (of course Belicik is the absolute master of this). It would likely cause depth issues, the teams may have to negotiate more 2nd contracts.
Like I say, would like to see some numbers on that, though.
I can understand why a fan of a team who drafts as bad as the Raiders wants to cut rookie deals to 3 year.....
.....
Without the franchise tag, players like Bell and Brown would be paid 20-40% less than they do now.
Without the franchise tag, or more accurate, the threat of the franchise tag, almost everyone of the best QB's and pass rushers would hit free agency. There would be zero reason to sign an extension with the team that drafted you and not peak at what else is out there. And all the money in the league would eventually flow into the pockets of those players.
Every year would look as ridiculous as the NBA offseason does with teams tanking and trading away $$$'s in order to be major players on the free agent market.
Anyone thinking the NFL should get rid of the tag simply doesn't understand the ramifications.
That said....Brown and Bell's situation won't even be a blip on the owners radar. This wasn't a problem with the system....it was a problem with a single franchise and the people mis-managing that franchise.
Last edited: