- Thread starter
- #61
Hank Kingsley
Undefeated
That is why I have no problem with weed being in the NFL
Which is obviously my position. Better herb than Lucky Lager....
That is why I have no problem with weed being in the NFL
But the NHL has Gary Bettman as commissioner who has a possibility to reign over yet another lockout in a few years.The NHL is the classiest league in all of sports, including front offices, coaches, players, etc. Just seems to be a better class of people all around.
Their pain will get address somehow. Doesn't necessarily involve drugs.If all other alternatives are removed what else do they take for their pain??
But the NHL has Gary Bettman as commissioner who has a possibility to reign over yet another lockout in a few years.
Don't forget he is in the NHL Hall of Fame.Don't remind me
Their pain will get address somehow. Doesn't necessarily involve drugs.
All the roids and high blood pressure we can just imagine.Right.
Acupuncture?
I'd rather see them ban use of alcohol and tobacco in addition to weed. Promote healthiness and being the best you can be. Plenty of time after retiring from sports, to go to pot, pun intended.
I'd be for putting a age cap on players. Mandatory retirement at age 30, maybe exempt QBs and kickers. Maybe the players can leave the league healthy, with less chance of long term damage to them and for the league turning over rosters with youth is a good thing also.
Society has gotten way to permissive and decadent.
So if a player signs a contract and goes to their new team and decides to just become a cancer and not give 100% and ends up with shitty contributions, he's entitled to that money? No thanks.
The problem is it's not a black and white area. Unless a player is willing to commit to certain statistical contributions, I can't get behind guaranteeing the contracts.You're addressing conduct unbecoming...the team should have an "out" for that, but I don't think you would see many voided contracts.
What I think will happen is the contracts would come down to "real" values instead of these inflated contracts that teams (and players) know might not be fulfilled...that's BS imo.
The problem is it's not a black and white area. Unless a player is willing to commit to certain statistical contributions, I can't get behind guaranteeing the contracts.
That's the idea for the getting another contract. We've seen players fall off cliffs quickly. My point is, the approach should be "Here is your contract for X amount of years and X amount of dollars. Should you perform to our standards, you will receive all X dollars over X years. Should you not, we will let you go." I see no problem with that.I hear ya, but that is a negative also imo.
As you know...you get contracts in the NFL two ways...1st one (draft position is potential based on your CFB production. The 2nd one (typically the renewal or extension is based largely on what the player has done in the league.
So...you've already set the financial bar based on your play. I get your point on trying to ensure the player sustains that level of production, but I assume you would increase the pay rate if they exceed projected production?
This isn't going to happen either, but I really like the old Charlie Finley idea of 1 yr contracts for everybody and adjust based on production from yr to yr. Team still has your rights for 4 yrs or whatever from the draft and after they hit FA, the team has right of 1st refusal.
I've been saying "the NFL should be more like the NHL" for years, but I was always referring to player contracts.
Once a player signs a contract, it should be fully guaranteed for the exact amount agreed upon and both the player and the organization signing that player are required to fulfill the contract 100% (the organization can buy out the contract but still must pay the player 100% of what is owed).
That's the idea for the getting another contract. We've seen players fall off cliffs quickly. My point is, the approach should be "Here is your contract for X amount of years and X amount of dollars. Should you perform to our standards, you will receive all X dollars over X years. Should you not, we will let you go." I see no problem with that.
Your first example would lead me to believe the player wasn't that good to begin with, so while I wouldn't say he fell off a cliff, I would say he was dependent on his teammate to make his production look good, so he's probably getting paid more than he deserves.Yes, players have fallen off the cliff...but how much is on the player, team circumstances, etc. It's not that easy to say...in 2017 you got 10 sacks playing next a great DT. In 2018 that great DT is injured and you get 5 sacks playing next to his replacement. Has that player really fallen off a cliff?
Let's take a real "fell off the cliff" situation...Albert Haynesworth. Nothing that he did at TN warranted the contract WAS gave him. Is that Haynesworth's fault? Or WAS? But...if WAS knew they would be tied to that $100 mil contract, I do not think he would've ever gotten such a contract.
In short I look at it like this...using Gurley's contract as an example. He signs a $57 mil/4 yr deal with $45 mil guaranteed (sort of, $22 mil of that was roster bonuses)
Why not just make the contract $45 mil /4 yrs guaranteed?
Your first example would lead me to believe the player wasn't that good to begin with, so while I wouldn't say he fell off a cliff, I would say he was dependent on his teammate to make his production look good, so he's probably getting paid more than he deserves.
You're right about AH, that contract was absolutely horrible. That said, I'm confused for how that relates to this conversation. He was clearly being paid more than he deserved, and then when he showed his true colors, he was cut. Sounds like what should've happened.
If they offered him 4/45 all guaranteed, he might've signed that, but again - what difference does it make?
Taking the 1st example again...Football is the ultimate team sport they say, a good CB might get 3 INTs if he has a good pass rush in front of him, next yr he might have none and the DL pass rush was not as good. Same CB, not the same DL pressure...the point is all of the players are somewhat connected...personnel, schemes, matter.
I agree the 10 sack yr may have been a fluke, but assuming the great DT returns in 2019 and his sack total goes back up, you would've cut said player because his stats fell off in 2018.
On the 4/45 and what difference does it make? For starters, (not trying to be smart ass), $12 mil. Now if they packaged the contract...4/45 and if you're top 5 in rushing you get another $2 mil (that season)...top 5 in TD you get X amount more (that season). In other words the base is guaranteed and incentives.
But I go back to my original point...if the Rams knew the 4/45 was a guaranteed deal, would it really be 4/45 based off his body of work?
You're going to blow one or two...you see it in the NBA (Tristan Thompson), but I think the contracts would more closely align with production if they were guaranteed....if the NBA, NFL, MLB can all figure it out, the NFL can too. The players don't have the collective clout to make it happen. Just too many players are hand to mouth and can't sustain a work stoppage long enough to make it happen.
I don't think it is necessary to worry about the players living hand to mouth. They would be the dumbasses. Even league minimum is enough to ensure a good life.