2019 NFL offseason thread

[randymoss1881]

Tom Brady got suspended for 4 games without any evidence that he tampered with football. By the way if Brady did which he didn’t the punishment is a fine.

Josh Gordon hasn’t played cause he smokes weed.

 

[randymoss1881]

A lack of evidence has never stopped the NFL from suspending people before.

Such a weird league with regards to discipline. It seems to be completely random.

Jimmy Smith 4 games from a he said she said with no audio.

Gotta keep that Mahomes train rolling

 

[6.19.2016]

Watch the Chiefs give him a contract extension

I don't think that was in doubt outside a worst-case scenario; I say this as someone who wants us to let Kareem Hunt walk at the earlier possible time.

This may increase his guarantees and terms; rumors were that he was "only" going to make Sammy Watkins money as of a few weeks ago.

They will have tough decisions coming with Mahomes' massive payday also down the pike, and things did get slightly tougher.

 

[Jordan]

Goff was amazing most of last year. I think he’ll be better this season and the Rams may have the best record in the NFL.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

What percentage of starters in a league actually play all 16 games? For many, the truth of that "16 out of 18" plan would be either 1) guys sitting for games that they'd have missed anyway because of injuries, or 2) coaches resting guys who are pretty dinged up but might normally have played.

Maybe exceptions for punter/kicker/long snapper.

Still don't like the idea overall, but I think the reality of injuries makes it less odious in practice than it sounds in the abstract.

 

[col63onel]

What percentage of starters in a league actually play all 16 games? For many, the truth of that "16 out of 18" plan would be either 1) guys sitting for games that they'd have missed anyway because of injuries, or 2) coaches resting guys who are pretty dinged up but might normally have played.

Maybe exceptions for punter/kicker/long snapper.

Still don't like the idea overall, but I think the reality of injuries makes it less odious in practice than it sounds in the abstract.

I think the qb situation makes it a no go. The first time that NBC or ESPN is stuck with 2 backup QBs in a primetime game, they’ll end it.

Beyond that....how do you handle the OLine? You’re gonna have games where your franchise QB is going to be protected by backup OLineman. The second a star QB gets hurt because a team is forced to start a UDFA, they’ll end it.

I think this is just the owners making an opening offer hoping to get the union to make some concessions in negotiations, and it’s in no way a serious offer. The owners want 18 games, and starting with a ridiculous offer like this will make any other compromise seem reasonable. I’d love to see the union say “Fine, we’ll go with the plans, tell us how it’ll work” and when the owners come back with nothing, it ends the 18 game talk.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

I think the qb situation makes it a no go. The first time that NBC or ESPN is stuck with 2 backup QBs in a primetime game, they’ll end it.

Beyond that....how do you handle the OLine? You’re gonna have games where your franchise QB is going to be protected by backup OLineman. The second a star QB gets hurt because a team is forced to start a UDFA, they’ll end it.

I think this is just the owners making an opening offer hoping to get the union to make some concessions in negotiations, and it’s in no way a serious offer. The owners want 18 games, and starting with a ridiculous offer like this will make any other compromise seem reasonable. I’d love to see the union say “Fine, we’ll go with the plans, tell us how it’ll work” and when the owners come back with nothing, it ends the 18 game talk.

Like I said, I agree that it's a bad idea. But in terms of seeing how bad it is, it is worthwhile looking at how many guys actually play 16 games anyway.

FWIW, as long as the union gets something out of it, I don't really understand why they'd oppose it. Essentially, all of their members would get three guaranteed weeks of rest during the regular season instead of just the bye week.

For the reasons you gave, I think it's a dumb idea from the perspective of the owners because it's too likely to result in some weird situations with guys sitting that might be embarrassing for the league.

 

[col63onel]

Like I said, I agree that it's a bad idea. But in terms of seeing how bad it is, it is worthwhile looking at how many guys actually play 16 games anyway.

FWIW, as long as the union gets something out of it, I don't really understand why they'd oppose it. Essentially, all of their members would get three guaranteed weeks of rest during the regular season instead of just the bye week.

For the reasons you gave, I think it's a dumb idea from the perspective of the owners because it's too likely to result in some weird situations with guys sitting that might be embarrassing for the league.

The bolder part is why I think this 18 game schedule talk is stupid.

Don’t get me wrong, I 100% agree that if the union can get concessions it wants, then they should go for it. But if I’m the union, I’d want expanded rosters and and expanded salary cap.

Say the owners agree to expanding by 5 per team (which I think would be too low). Median salary is a little over 800k (https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cn...he-average-nfl-players-makes-in-a-season.html). So we’d be looking at a minimum of 4mil more per team, which means an absolute minimum of and extra 130mil in salary. If the union wants more than 5 roster spots, we could be looking at over 200mil.

And the current nfl tv deal runs through 2022. Would the nfl renegotiate the tv deal before it over? Or are they gonna pay and extra 200mil a year till then and hope the new tv deal covers it? Just seems like not likely to be profitable if they give the union anything.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

The bolder part is why I think this 18 game schedule talk is stupid.

Don’t get me wrong, I 100% agree that if the union can get concessions it wants, then they should go for it. But if I’m the union, I’d want expanded rosters and and expanded salary cap.

From the self-interest perspective of the members of the Union, expanding rosters is a much worse idea than increasing the salary cap. Expanded rosters essentially mean that instead of their current members making more money, that additional money would go to new players, who are not currently members of the union. So sure, you've made the pie bigger, but you have to share it among more players.

 

[col63onel]

From the self-interest perspective of the members of the Union, expanding rosters is a much worse idea than increasing the salary cap. Expanded rosters essentially mean that instead of their current members making more money, that additional money would go to new players, who are not currently members of the union. So sure, you've made the pie bigger, but you have to share it among more players.

That’s why I am saying expanded rosters AND bigger salary cap

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

That’s why I am saying expanded rosters AND bigger salary cap

Expanding rosters inevitably means that current players will make less than they otherwise would if players overall are getting the same share of revenues.

I actually run into this all the time in union negotiations. Management generally prefer to have more employees working fewer hours (helps with overtime), the union wants fewer employees working more hours.

 

[col63onel]

Expanding rosters inevitably means that current players will make less than they otherwise would if players overall are getting the same share of revenues.

I actually run into this all the time in union negotiations. Management generally prefer to have more employees working fewer hours (helps with overtime), the union wants fewer employees working more hours.

And I am saying players should hold out for keeping the average salary roughly the same with more roster spots. And if the extra revenue doesn’t cover that, then no reason to expand.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

And I am saying players should hold out for keeping the average salary roughly the same with more roster spots.

How does that help the players at all if their average salaries aren't changing?

 

[col63onel]

How does that help the players at all if their average salaries aren't changing?

More jobs

 

[Lee]

18 game season is dumb, players not playing all 18 games is a horrible proposal.

Honestly the 4 game pre season is needed, but 4 year vets should have a clause they cant play in more than 2 games. Plenty of game film on them to see if they get the position. These rosters are 90 players, pre-season is an extra tryout for allot of the players and a tune up for others. We don't need more than a 2 game tune-up, but the younger players trying to make the roster need all the time we can get.

I really think the NFL is over thinking this one. I know they want more games, but its not safe, and if 2 of the games don't have your best players yet they are healthy, then that is just defacto pre-season anyways.