This week’s questions…
1) Former NFL player Damien Woody recently appeared on ESPN and said he is in favor of guarantee contracts like they have in the NBA and MLB for all NFL players.
Now, Seattle Seahawks cornerback Richard Sherman is saying that NFL players need guaranteed contacts and should be willing to strike to get them. When asked about the issue at the ESPYs he said, “Oh, 100 percent. If we want as the NFL, as a union, to get anything done, players have to be willing to strike. That’s the thing that guys need to 100 percent realize. You’re going to have to miss games, you’re going to have to lose some money if you’re willing to make the point, because that’s how MLB and NBA got it done. They missed games, they struck, they flexed every bit of power they had, and it was awesome. It worked out for them.”
What are the odds of the NFL players ever coming to the point where they come together and tell their NFLPA leaders that it is time to tell the NFL owners they want guaranteed money or they won’t play any games?
Chad: Me personally? I believe it is at about 15% as I think the players won’t go for it as some guaranteed money in contracts is better than none and I don’t think they risk a strike in order to get that much more money.
David: Whaaaaaa, the players could have those contracts, if they wanted to give up a bit, but that’s not going to happen. If the contracts were 100% guaranteed, then the restructuring would go out the window, and the NFLPA (and the agents) could talk about this guy getting a 140M deal or this guy got 174M when we all know he’s only going to see half that.
Joe: About a million to one.
OK, maybe the odds aren’t exactly that huge , but I still say there is little to no chance that the players will give up the not exactly chump change they make now for something potentially bigger in the future. They are just too “fat and happy” where they are now to do that.
This has nothing to do with what Sherman is saying about how the NBA and MLB players got to where they are with guaranteed contacts and the big bucks in free agency because Sherman is 100% right. I just don’t see today’s NFL player feeling he is being slaved enough, or kept down by the owners enough, to give up the security of what they already got.
2) According to a report from ESPN’s Adam Schefter, Kirk Cousins is not expected to sign a long-term deal with the Washington Redskins by Monday’s franchise tag deadline, and will instead play out the season on the tag. This is the 2nd year in a row that Cousins has been tagged.
Cousins says he is willing to negotiate a contract deal after the season begins, but if no deal is forthcoming by next season AND if the Skins tag him again, is that the beginning of the end of Cousins playing in Washington? Why or why not?
Chad: I think it has to be the fact that they simply cannot come to an agreement. It is disconcerting and I think Cousins should jump at the first chance to leave DC and hookup with a team in a great situation to let him take over and succeed.
David: The Tag keeps going up, and Cousins keeps playing well. The NFLPA can whine all it wants, but this is why the tag is there, to protect the Redskins while screwing the player, and the NFLPA AGREED to it. So tough kittens, and Cousins will keep cashing those checks or agree to what the Redskins think he’s worth for a longer year deal
Joe: The Redskins either sign Cousins to a contract this season or they watch Cousins walk away next off-season.
3) An NFL investigation into Ezekiel Elliott’s “alleged” domestic violence incident in 2016 is ongoing but the media scuttlebutt is that the Cowboys running back is bracing for a short suspension.
A) In your opinion, why has this dragged on for so long?
B) Depending on how many games Elliott is suspended (if he is) how much will that affect Dak Prescott’s performance as well as the Cowboy’s attempt to win their division or make the playoffs as a wild card?
Chad: Based on the information I have heard, it’s because the legal process got dragged out to conflicting information which led to the lack of charges. Based on Schefter’s report of 1 to 2 games based on the evidence I don’t think it will affect their chances much. The only issue could be with the Giants and how that breaks down with tiebreakers at the end of the year.
David: A) because Elliot is a Cowboy, and a big seller of merch. The NFL isn’t going to do SQUAT until they have all the facts.
B) Not as much as you think, and the Cowboys might be better off is EE is well rested for the playoff push. I’d rather play the Boys in week 2 than week 10 if Elliott misses 8 weeks.
Joe: Truthfully, I haven’t kept up with this and I had forgotten about it entirely. When I read about this situation and that the investigation was still ongoing , I said WTF?! Why?
From what I have read ultimately when the investigation is all done with, there will probably be some sort of penalty which could be anything from a stern warning and fine to a suspension that would probably be no more than two or three games at the most. If the NFL decides he is to be suspended, it all depends when they assess the suspension. If it happens early I don’t see it effecting much. If it happens mid season or later than it could effect the Cowboys’ momentum in a negative way.
4) What is going on when the Patriots are scooping in to pick up other team’s cast offs… notably the Buffalo Bills CB Stephon Gilmore and the Jets’ LB David Harris?
Chad: It’s Bob Kraft and Bill Belichick doing what has won them 5 super Bowls and that is finding talent to fill in key spots.
The players will probably take a hair less in order to play for NE and a shot at the ring.
David: They see something, and Vets are a fixed, short-run cost.
Who do the Pats have more film on than the rest of the AFC East?
Joe: What is going on is the Patriots are just doing their homework and due diligence and simply are not afraid to invest in players with a chance for a high reward but very little to lose.
Even the money, in most cases, ain’t even guaranteed, so if the player is a bust all they lose is some time and energy but not the opportunity for a big reward.
5) Media rumors say that in earlier this year Johnny Manziel rehired his former agent Erik Burkhardt, who had dropped Manziel as a client in February of last year because of his ongoing “troubles”; has already talked to multiple teams and is very optimistic about an NFL return.
What are Manziel’s odds that he can reboot his NFL career? And, if he were to be signed by an NFL team who do you see taking a shot at his reforming his recalcitrant ways?
Chad: I think for him to succeed it would have to be a smaller market where there would not a lot of expectation which almost leads me to think somewhere like Jacksonville or the Redskins as a backup for Kirk Cousins who will probably leave anyway.
David: He’s young and healthy. I don’t see a problem with it.
Where? How about the Titans? I’d think the Cowboys since he’s local, and popular. Maybe the Ravens as a longshot.
Joe: Considering that his prior agent has taken him back as client says to me that maybe Manziel has done some positive things about being serious about his NFL career. If, that is true… then considering he isn’t that far removed from his active playing days and that he is still a young man with a fair amount of talent, some team should be willing to take a chance on him …at least a backup QB. So, if all that is potentially so? Why the hell not go for it.
I give him a slightly better than 50-50 shot at reviving his NFL career.
A possible team for him to go to? The Jets. Why not? They have an unsettled QB situation and what the hell he does have the rep of being a play maker and play makers right now are far and few for the Jets. The cost shouldn’t be that much and they got the money and cap room last I heard.
Another team? Stay right in the NY/NJ area.. the Giants. Anyone know who their backup QB is? Right. So, why not?
Tiny URL for this post: