NFL Off-Season Thread

[JDailey23]

Right, he gets moved if Houston relents to his leverage.

That’s the point, feels like you’re arguing in a circle.

Houston has multiple first round offers for one of the best QBs in the league, and you think THEY have the leverage by not playing him and being a pile of shit franchise who is now also without their best player?

He also got paid $27 million up front upon signing. The threat to withhold the rest isn’t the “game changer” you’re making it out to be.

Lol. Good luck keeping your job, David Culley. The entirety of their fan base sides with the players, you have to remember that they aren’t digging in on this absurd take because you refuse to admit the obvious. Their fans aren’t arguing in bad faith and calling Deshaun overrated because of an emotional take about how players have too much power. Anyone who is isn’t taken seriously anyway.


But hey, I’m sure the Texans will really show Deshaun who is boss...

1. Watson almost certainly gets traded.
2. If he doesn’t, it will be because the Texans will bend over backwards to make it right with him.

No lose situation when the organization has shown their incompetence.

Watson will show up at some point for camp. If Houston can manage to get a QB and multiple 1st and 2nds, they probably will trade him.
Houston is definitely in a bad position and they got themselves in it.
But still, Watson has no leverage. Never underestimate the stubbornness of a man whose rich and has nothing to lose but an unlimited supply of money.
Some people value the emotional win and the win in general, be damned whatever gets in the way. We don’t know what the owner is thinking. He may make an example out of Watson.

 

[AZ_]

Watson will show up at some point for camp. If Houston can manage to get a QB and multiple 1st and 2nds, they probably will trade him.
Houston is definitely in a bad position and they got themselves in it.
But still, Watson has no leverage. Never underestimate the stubbornness of a man whose rich and has nothing to lose but an unlimited supply of money.
Some people value the emotional win and the win in general, be damned whatever gets in the way. We don’t know what the owner is thinking. He may make an example out of Watson.

You describing the two scenarios in which you say Watson will either get his wish, while saying he has no leverage, is mystifying.

But I’m sure that’s sort of the point, I shouldn’t be indulging the continued fallacy...


The money isn’t the point of Watson’s potential holdout (he’s really rich, and all the pressure is on the garbage franchise being murdered in the press), and saying the owner “has nothing to lose” is so false that it’s obvious that you just made it up.

Of course he has something to lose.

 

[JDailey23]

You describing the two scenarios in which you say Watson will either get his wish, while saying he has no leverage, is mystifying.

But I’m sure that’s sort of the point, I shouldn’t be indulging the continued fallacy...


The money isn’t the point of Watson’s potential holdout (he’s really rich, and all the pressure is on the garbage franchise being murdered in the press), and saying the owner “has nothing to lose” is so false that it’s obvious that you just made it up.

Of course he has something to lose.

He’s already being murdered in the press.
And if he were to get traded, it would be to another dumpster fire team who just traded thier assets like the Jets or Bears. That isn’t a win. He can’t pick what team he goes too. They’ll send him to a shit team or not at all. I would assume they won’t trade him anywhere because its not worth it.

 

[Ohio]

Watson hasn’t said anything about Miami, for what it’s worth.

Players choosing teams in free agency is their right, if we don’t think players should have rights...idk what to tell you.

You keep saying there is a problem or that it would be possible for a problem to become reality by eliminating the ability for teams to prevent players from ever leaving, but the problem doesn’t even exist.

Franchise players can’t flock to cities because this isn’t the NBA, there is a 53 man roster instead of 15. You start 22 players instead of 5.

It’s like people have PTSD because of the NBA system.


Forced labor sort of seems like the opposite of what the league should be moving towards, especially because the only reason to keep players locked into a city are because fans get emotional seeing players leave their favorite team.

Well, it still exists for a reason. And it has nothing to do with fans' feelings. If the NFL thought it wasn't benefitting the league, it would be gone. Sure, you can't as easily create "super teams" in the NFL, but franchise QBs certainly could and would still leave after their rookie contracts more often than not, which is something that never happens now.

 

[AZ_]

He’s already being murdered in the press.
And if he were to get traded, it would be to another dumpster fire team who just traded thier assets like the Jets or Bears. That isn’t a win. He can’t pick what team he goes too. They’ll send him to a shit team or not at all. I would assume they won’t trade him anywhere because its not worth it.

Youre just projecting a bunch here, not interesting.

 

[AZ_]

Well, it still exists for a reason. And it has nothing to do with fans' feelings. If the NFL thought it wasn't benefitting the league, it would be gone. Sure, you can't as easily create "super teams" in the NFL, but franchise QBs certainly could and would still leave after their rookie contracts more often than not, which is something that never happens now.

Heaven forbid the onus be on the team to create an environment that compels a QB to stay and get PAID.

Like Kansas City, Green Bay, or other large market nfl teams.

We need to prevent players from having freedom to play where they want, regardless of how the organization treats them or how they’re positioned for the future?

Solely because it “sucks” for fans to lose players they like?

 

[Ohio]

Heaven forbid the onus be on the team to create an environment that compels a QB to stay.

Like Kansas City, Green Bay, or other large market nfl teams.

We both know there's more to it than that.

And, again, fans' feelings has absolutely nothing to do with why the franchise tag exists. Do better.

 

[AZ_]

We both know there's more to it than that.

We don’t, players deserve the right to be a free agent.

How is this even something that’s debatable?

 

[Ohio]

We don’t, players deserve the right to be a free agent.

How is this even something that’s debatable?

They do, and have for a long time. That isn't the debate.

 

[JDailey23]

They do, and have for a long time. That isn't the debate.

Next will be about how the franchise tag is a way to “enslave” certain players from leaving.

 

[AZ_]

They do, and have for a long time. That isn't the debate.

The debate is about restricting athletes ability to change teams, or utilizing the franchise tag as leverage to bar them from doing so.

If you need rules to strip an athletes rights to leave your franchise, are you not inherently opposed to the concept of players choosing to enter free agency?


The concept that athletes have to “man up” and take it, for no other reason than a myth that multiple franchise players will flock to a city, somehow undercutting salary cap rules, is somewhat nonsensical.

Or if the reason is to prevent fans the emotional distress of players leaving, which is none of their business, then it also doesn’t make much sense. Players shouldn’t be beholden to their employer, or their team.

It’s the teams job to build a culture and environment that players want to continue playing in.

Anything else is just a pretty blatant assault on their freedoms.

 

[JDailey23]

We don’t, players deserve the right to be a free agent.

How is this even something that’s debatable?

It’s not. Maybe 1 player out of 53 get tagged and that’s usually the best player on the team and it’s there to protect the franchise.
The player isn’t even obligated to sign it or continue to play off it. The player had more leverage by not signing it if he really wants to leave the team.

 

[AZ_]

It’s not. Maybe 1 player out of 53 get tagged and that’s usually the best player on the team and it’s there to protect the franchise.
The player isn’t even obligated to sign it or continue to play off it. The player had more leverage by not signing it if he really wants to leave the team.

So, the best player doesn’t deserve the right to be a free agent?

It’s there to protect the franchise from what?

Answer: Protection from the best player having the freedom to leave at the end of his contract.

And his alternative is “not signing it” and sitting out, which you just described as a punishment, by which they will not get paid anything.

Sounds like you probably need to think this argument through a bit more, because it makes absolutely zero sense.

 

[Ohio]

The debate is about restricting athletes ability to change teams, or utilizing the franchise tag as leverage to bar them from doing so.

If you need rules to strip an athletes rights to leave your franchise, are you not inherently opposed to the concept of players choosing to enter free agency?


The concept that athletes have to “man up” and take it, for no other reason than a myth that multiple franchise players will flock to a city, somehow undercutting salary cap rules, is somewhat nonsensical.

Or if the reason is to prevent fans the emotional distress of players leaving, which is none of their business, then it also doesn’t make much sense. Players shouldn’t be beholden to their employer, or their team.

It’s the teams job to build a culture and environment that players want to continue playing in.

Anything else is just a pretty blatant assault on their freedoms.

The debate is about how the franchise tag contributes to the parity in the league, which has become abundantly clear during this back and forth.

I'm not interested in "blowing up the system" considering it is working for everyone other than maybe a few people.

 

[AZ_]

The debate is about how the franchise tag contributes to the parity in the league, which has become abundantly clear during this back and forth.

I'm not interested in "blowing up the system" considering it is working for everyone other than maybe a few people.

There has been no argument to suggest it contributes to “parity” at all.

Stripping the rights away from players and allowing teams the luxury of forcing them into contracts doesn’t contribute to parity, it just contributes to inequity for players.

If the argument is just baseless projection that everyone would just go play in “large markets,” in spite of overwhelming evidence and systematic salary cap constraints in place to prevent it, then I’d love to hear it.