Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

Cromartie's wife claims he was cut due to protesting the anthem


Recommended Posts

22 minutes ago, Derakynn said:

And people wonder why politicians aren't honest. He said the truth. Whether you like it or not, it is what it is. I really don't see how you can crticize people for telling the truth. A survey was done asking people who weren't watching as many games this year. A common theme? The protests. It hurts business. And it isn't illegal. Free speech is a protection from the government. It doesn't mean you have the right to trash others without consequences. 

Nah ratings are down because of some bad games and the debates. Your right that is not illegal now that I did more research. But that doesn't make it right

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 119
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The interesting thing about this is , from past Irsay comments, I certainly wouldn't call the man conservative. That being said, I fully agree with him on this. As many of you have reminded me over the years, it's not Indy's team, it's the Irsay family's team, and he is the boss. As boss, he can hire and fire based on performance. As with many corporations, and the Colts are one, if your behavior reflects badly on said corporation , you can be terminated based on those rules. Union rules may provide mitigating circumstances, if applicable. I applaud and agree with Mr Irsay on his stance that the NFL is not the appropriate place for this. Players may do so, but ownership has the right to terminate if the interests of the corporation could be harmed. There are ample precedents here. I've donned my old Colts hat today in honor of Mr Irsay ! 

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, LJpalmbeacher said:

I hope more colt players, A LOT MORE COLT PLAYERS take a knee. And see if our "embarrassing owner" is willing to fire half the team.

 

 

This has been THE problem though. Everyone is talking about the medium and not the message. It has gotten old, and to me it is the lazy thing to do, just protest and do nothing about it. It is like talk without action.

 

Only Doug Baldwin (whose Dad was in law enforcement) and Brandon Marshall (Broncos LB) have taken it to the next level and engaged police chiefs and department heads, talking about training methods, sensitivity training etc. Those are the real guys I commend, personally.

 

However, First Amendment works both ways, right to protest and right to criticize the protest. Protesting does not mean they follow through with action, criticizing the protest does not mean the criticizer suggests that the issue behind the protest does not exist. Again, to me, more protests and criticism of the protests puts focus only on the medium. Just have to let each side have their say, whether you agree with it or not.

 

I do however think it is time for more actions. Since the majority of NFL players are African-American, I would even support a whole bunch of them engaging police chiefs in different cities while they have their days off. It can obviously get more time devoted in the off season and I'd support that too.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, LJpalmbeacher said:

I hope more colt players, A LOT MORE COLT PLAYERS take a knee. And see if our "embarrassing owner" is willing to fire half the team.

 

 

Honestly, how is taking a knee creating awareness other than the media hyping this ridiculousness. We've been inundated with all of this stuff from the media, and from the political cycle going on. We all know there are problems that need to be addressed , but it's overkill from these Millionaire athletes. Most of us just want to watch a game, without politics creeping into it. That was all Irsay was saying. It's fine if Kaepernick or Cromartie want to express their feelings. Go to Charlotte or Baltimore and make your voices heard. Can we get away from the politics for a few hours and just watch a football game ?

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, LJpalmbeacher said:

I hope more colt players, A LOT MORE COLT PLAYERS take a knee. And see if our "embarrassing owner" is willing to fire half the team.

 

Jimmy may be embarrassing to you but that is your problem.

You are taking this opportunity to mix two different things into the subject.

Just because your are referring to the play on the field does not mean Jimmy needs to be embarrassed by his not wanting for the team to be put in the medias negative spotlight.

Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, The Old Crow said:

 

Honestly, how is taking a knee creating awareness other than the media hyping this ridiculousness. We've been inundated with all of this stuff from the media, and from the political cycle going on. We all know there are problems that need to be addressed , but it's overkill from these Millionaire athletes. Most of us just want to watch a game, without politics creeping into it. That was all Irsay was saying. It's fine if Kaepernick or Cromartie want to express their feelings. Go to Charlotte or Baltimore and make your voices heard. Can we get away from the politics for a few hours and just watch a football game ?

 

This is the way I think a lot of people, including myself, feel. Even if you simply set aside arguments as to whether or not the message makes sense on that particular stage, a lot of us are just burnt out at this point by the political-racial issues that keep getting shoved down our throats by the media. When we turn the NFL on every Sunday we are looking to escape from that. No matter which side of the fence you are on I think most of us as football fans are ready for it just to be a football game again.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, crazycolt1 said:

What does Jimmy buying guitars with his personal money have to do with this?

How do you know he has past any judgment?

Do you always believe what someone says with rumor?

Irsay his self said he doesn't approve of the kneeling. I'm not talking about the rumors that Cromartie was told not to kneel. Your reading comprehension needs work.

 

My point is that no one criticizes him when he buys guitars because it's his own money. Why say he's not in favor of kneeling when it's something a player is doing because of their beliefs? Like his guitar collecting it's not dangerous to the team so why care?

 

Plus a guy with a past substance issue really has no place to cast judgement on people doing something positive.

Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Defjamz26 said:

Irsay his self said he doesn't approve of the kneeling. I'm not talking about the rumors that Cromartie was told not to kneel. Your reading comprehension needs work.

 

My point is that no one criticizes him when he buys guitars because it's his own money. Why say he's not in favor of kneeling when it's something a player is doing because of their beliefs? Like his guitar collecting it's not dangerous to the team so why care?

 

Plus a guy with a past substance issue really has no place to cast judgement on people doing something positive.

That logic is so unsound, its laughable. "John doesn't like shrimp, so who is he to say that my chicken tastes bad?" Those things literally have nothing to do with each other. And whether you like it or not, the protests are illiciting a negative response from a sufficiently significant population within the NFL fanbase. So the protests are actually dangerous to his business. 

 

I support the message of the protests and also don't agree with the backlash that they somehow are anti-American or something. But people need to stop being dumb and acting like actions don't have consequences. You can't spit in someone's face and then cry foul when they tear off your lips. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Defjamz26 said:

Irsay his self said he doesn't approve of the kneeling. I'm not talking about the rumors that Cromartie was told not to kneel. Your reading comprehension needs work.

 

My point is that no one criticizes him when he buys guitars because it's his own money. Why say he's not in favor of kneeling when it's something a player is doing because of their beliefs? Like his guitar collecting it's not dangerous to the team so why care?

 

Plus a guy with a past substance issue really has no place to cast judgement on people doing something positive.

 

Why should anyone criticize him for buying guitars? He does that on his personal time. He is the boss, he can do what he wants. Your argument is comparing oranges to apples.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, The Old Crow said:

The interesting thing about this is , from past Irsay comments, I certainly wouldn't call the man conservative. That being said, I fully agree with him on this. As many of you have reminded me over the years, it's not Indy's team, it's the Irsay family's team, and he is the boss. As boss, he can hire and fire based on performance. As with many corporations, and the Colts are one, if your behavior reflects badly on said corporation , you can be terminated based on those rules. Union rules may provide mitigating circumstances, if applicable. I applaud and agree with Mr Irsay on his stance that the NFL is not the appropriate place for this. Players may do so, but ownership has the right to terminate if the interests of the corporation could be harmed. There are ample precedents here. I've donned my old Colts hat today in honor of Mr Irsay ! 

Well said. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Defjamz26 said:

Irsay his self said he doesn't approve of the kneeling. I'm not talking about the rumors that Cromartie was told not to kneel. Your reading comprehension needs work.

 

My point is that no one criticizes him when he buys guitars because it's his own money. Why say he's not in favor of kneeling when it's something a player is doing because of their beliefs? Like his guitar collecting it's not dangerous to the team so why care?

 

Plus a guy with a past substance issue really has no place to cast judgement on people doing something positive.

Doing something positive? Maybe in your opinion but to him I doubt it.

He is paying them to be players for his team. Not to draw negative attention to him or his team on company time.

I am quite sure that you yourself have rules and regulations made by your company that they deem appropriate as the way you represent yourself and your company. I know of no businesses that would tolerate actions deemed negative, why should Irsay?

Then you make a comment about no one criticizing him all the same time you just did.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, pgt_rob said:

I commented on another poster as well. But in the state of Indiana you can be let go from your job with or without reason. So technically, you can. Of course you can't say you're firing someone due to race, sexual orientation, religion, or disability as that is against the law.

 

You're describing the at-will employment nature of Indiana.

 

But that default status exists only in the absence of a contract.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, zibby43 said:

 

You're describing the at-will employment nature of Indiana.

 

But that default status exists only in the absence of a contract.

 

Which is most people in Indiana. lol. If there's a loop hole for the NFL, then so be it. Either way, he's canned and there's nothing he can do about it but complain.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, pgt_rob said:

 

Which is most people in Indiana. lol. If there's a loop hole for the NFL, then so be it. Either way, he's canned and there's nothing he can do about it but complain.

 

Correct, most people in Indiana operate as at-will employees but every NFL player operates under contract.

 

Just a clarification.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, zibby43 said:

 

Correct, most people in Indiana operate as at-will employees but every NFL player operates under contract.

 

Just a clarification.

 

Looks to me like his contract didn't help... lol He got paid so I guess that's the end of it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, crazycolt1 said:

Doing something positive? Maybe in your opinion but to him I doubt it.

He is paying them to be players for his team. Not to draw negative attention to him or his team on company time.

I am quite sure that you yourself have rules and regulations made by your company that they deem appropriate as the way you represent yourself and your company. I know of no businesses that would tolerate actions deemed negative, why should Irsay?

Then you make a comment about no one criticizing him all the same time you just did.

But players are also human beings. They have the right to express themselves as long as they don't do/ say anything that violates league rules, and isn't hateful or harmful. Seeing as how standing for the National Anthem was never a requirement, players choosing to kneel during it isn't an actual issue. Whatever interpretations make off it is irrelevant because everyone has an opinion but opinion =/= fact and no rules were broken.

 

This is where my thing about Irsay connects. There are some that might look at his live for Rock and collecting guitars as a distraction because it makes him appear to eccentric. You don't see Reggie Wayne saying "Maybe he should focus less on his guitars and more on the time". How Irsay chooses to express himself is his business. He should do the same.

 

That was my overall point that I think I screwed up because of how I worded and presented it. Everyone has non-harmful aspects of their personalities and life that could be judged. Whether you kneel on the sideline during the Anthem, have a foot fetish like Ryan, hangout with rappers like DeSean Jackson, or whatever people shouldn't be judged for how they express themselves. Irsay saying he doesn't agree with kneeling because he doesn't feel the NFL Is the place for it is equivalent to saying that Aqib Talib shouldn't be up in clubs, the Rams players shouldn't have done the hands up thing, or Eric Decker shouldn't have been so open about his sex life on his reality show. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, crazycolt1 said:

Jimmy may be embarrassing to you but that is your problem.

You are taking this opportunity to mix two different things into the subject.

Just because your are referring to the play on the field does not mean Jimmy needs to be embarrassed by his not wanting for the team to be put in the medias negative spotlight.

Jimmy is embarrassing to very, very many people. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, crazycolt1 said:

You don't count as many many people.

Jimmy is well thought of and liked in the NFL and local community no matter what you think.

 

Lol, are you serious? 

Just about every time his name comes up on tv or around town people start giggling. Maybe there in Indiana it's different but he has a reputation and not a good one elsewhere. 

It's similar to the patriots, they are loved in New England and the media but around the country they are hated and known as cheaters.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, LJpalmbeacher said:

Lol, are you serious? 

Just about every time his name comes up on tv or around town people start giggling. Maybe there in Indiana it's different but he has a reputation and not a good one elsewhere. 

It's similar to the patriots, they are loved in New England and the media but around the country they are hated and known as cheaters.

 

So you are one of those who listen and think what the media spins to sell themselves is the God almighty truth?

OK, what ever.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Defjamz26 said:

Everyone has non-harmful aspects of their personalities and life that could be judged. Whether you kneel on the sideline during the Anthem, have a foot fetish like Ryan, hangout with rappers like DeSean Jackson, or whatever people shouldn't be judged for how they express themselves. Irsay saying he doesn't agree with kneeling because he doesn't feel the NFL Is the place for it is equivalent to saying that Aqib Talib shouldn't be up in clubs, the Rams players shouldn't have done the hands up thing, or Eric Decker shouldn't have been so open about his sex life on his reality show. 

 

 

The majority of the above were not expressed on the football field around a football game, that is probably the biggest difference that a lot of posters are trying to highlight, at least that is what I gathered. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Defjamz26 said:

But players are also human beings. They have the right to express themselves as long as they don't do/ say anything that violates league rules, and isn't hateful or harmful. Seeing as how standing for the National Anthem was never a requirement, players choosing to kneel during it isn't an actual issue. Whatever interpretations make off it is irrelevant because everyone has an opinion but opinion =/= fact and no rules were broken.

 

This is where my thing about Irsay connects. There are some that might look at his live for Rock and collecting guitars as a distraction because it makes him appear to eccentric. You don't see Reggie Wayne saying "Maybe he should focus less on his guitars and more on the time". How Irsay chooses to express himself is his business. He should do the same.

 

That was my overall point that I think I screwed up because of how I worded and presented it. Everyone has non-harmful aspects of their personalities and life that could be judged. Whether you kneel on the sideline during the Anthem, have a foot fetish like Ryan, hangout with rappers like DeSean Jackson, or whatever people shouldn't be judged for how they express themselves. Irsay saying he doesn't agree with kneeling because he doesn't feel the NFL Is the place for it is equivalent to saying that Aqib Talib shouldn't be up in clubs, the Rams players shouldn't have done the hands up thing, or Eric Decker shouldn't have been so open about his sex life on his reality show. 

 

This is a live and let live philosophy. I get it, but it doesn't pertain to this business or corporate world where there are rules and standards that must be adhered to. When an owner fears he may lose money or fans because of controversial behavior of an individual , the smart move is to terminate that individual. The NFL and the Colts are huge corporate entities that are there to make money and entertain fans. They have a certain product , image, and standards that are well known. Certainly these players can make these demonstrations, but they must know that the following week they may be hitting the unemployment line. It is no different than the Yankees ban on facial hair. You don't have to do it, but you risk hitting the road like any other job. That is the owners prerogative . 

Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Defjamz26 said:

But players are also human beings. They have the right to express themselves as long as they don't do/ say anything that violates league rules, and isn't hateful or harmful. Seeing as how standing for the National Anthem was never a requirement, players choosing to kneel during it isn't an actual issue. Whatever interpretations make off it is irrelevant because everyone has an opinion but opinion =/= fact and no rules were broken.

 

This is where my thing about Irsay connects. There are some that might look at his live for Rock and collecting guitars as a distraction because it makes him appear to eccentric. You don't see Reggie Wayne saying "Maybe he should focus less on his guitars and more on the time". How Irsay chooses to express himself is his business. He should do the same.

 

That was my overall point that I think I screwed up because of how I worded and presented it. Everyone has non-harmful aspects of their personalities and life that could be judged. Whether you kneel on the sideline during the Anthem, have a foot fetish like Ryan, hangout with rappers like DeSean Jackson, or whatever people shouldn't be judged for how they express themselves. Irsay saying he doesn't agree with kneeling because he doesn't feel the NFL Is the place for it is equivalent to saying that Aqib Talib shouldn't be up in clubs, the Rams players shouldn't have done the hands up thing, or Eric Decker shouldn't have been so open about his sex life on his reality show. 

It's the work environment. He is the employer, so his rules go, as far as the team, if in agreement with the contract during games or practice.  At those times, players aren't individuals, they are Colts.

 

For instance, five years ago I said something to a customer that wasn't exactly my employer's stated desires.  Ten minutes later I got a call telling me that, since I am a good employee, that I had one chance to straighten it out with the customer, apologize, and never do it again.  Or Else.  His job, his rules.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, aaron11 said:

i wouldnt be mad if the team confirmed that is why he was cut

 

my boss could tell me not to protest or i will be fired, and i would have to take that to heart

 

 

Good point. I see where you are coming from because it's standard policy for owners, GMs and coaches not to talk or put into play why someone is fired. They do not want to be accused of hurting the players chance to find employment with another team.

It is best for all involved to be civil.

The media just lays in waiting to spin a story so they can make themselves relevant.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, zibby43 said:

 

You're describing the at-will employment nature of Indiana.

 

But that default status exists only in the absence of a contract.

wouldnt the contract have to specifically mention protesting the national anthem to protect him though?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Defjamz26 said:

But players are also human beings. They have the right to express themselves as long as they don't do/ say anything that violates league rules, and isn't hateful or harmful. Seeing as how standing for the National Anthem was never a requirement, players choosing to kneel during it isn't an actual issue. Whatever interpretations make off it is irrelevant because everyone has an opinion but opinion =/= fact and no rules were broken.

 

This is where my thing about Irsay connects. There are some that might look at his live for Rock and collecting guitars as a distraction because it makes him appear to eccentric. You don't see Reggie Wayne saying "Maybe he should focus less on his guitars and more on the time". How Irsay chooses to express himself is his business. He should do the same.

 

That was my overall point that I think I screwed up because of how I worded and presented it. Everyone has non-harmful aspects of their personalities and life that could be judged. Whether you kneel on the sideline during the Anthem, have a foot fetish like Ryan, hangout with rappers like DeSean Jackson, or whatever people shouldn't be judged for how they express themselves. Irsay saying he doesn't agree with kneeling because he doesn't feel the NFL Is the place for it is equivalent to saying that Aqib Talib shouldn't be up in clubs, the Rams players shouldn't have done the hands up thing, or Eric Decker shouldn't have been so open about his sex life on his reality show. 

 

You back tracked at the end of your argument. I don't think anyone would disagree that everyone has certain aspects/beliefs that they're entitled to. However, just as Irsay has his guitars during his personal time, Ryan may deal with his foot thing during his personal time. He's not on the field checking out people's feet, and Decker isn't out there trying to tell his teammates about his sex life in the huddle.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, crazycolt1 said:

I think you are making this issue a lot more deeper than reality.

There have been a few owners who have come out and said they don't have a problem a support what the player are doing.

An owner is not infringing on anyone's free speech rights by letting it be known he expects his players to represent his team as he sees fit while they are on the clock.

The player signed a contract to get paid while on company time. Not to bring negative attention to his employer.

What a player does on his own free time is his business but not on the time he is being paid.

I guess my argument is goes something like this; no corporate law or policy, state, city, municipality or county law trumps the constitution... ever. On the clock, off the clock arguments by business and corporate entities are inferior laws, regardless of how they are purported.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Douzer said:

I guess my argument is goes something like this; no corporate law or policy, state, city, municipality or county law trumps the constitution... ever. On the clock, off the clock arguments by business and corporate entities are inferior laws, regardless of how they are purported.

Inferior laws? No matter, they still apply.

Speaking of the constitution, even those who are debating and presenting issues at the state house and senate have rules and guide lines on how to conduct yourself while addressing the assemble.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/20/2016 at 2:45 PM, CanuckColtsFan said:

In most work environments your boss can't fire you for whatever reason. You need cause or you have to pay out a portion of wages. 

 

If Irsay is cutting players for personal reasons or non football reasons I just hope they aren't better players. 

 

That may be true where you live....   but I don't think that's true in most states.

 

I live in Liberal California,  and most bosses can fire an employee for any reason, or no reason.

 

I think the exceptions are unions, where an employee has some protection,   or if you have a contract that states you get severance if you're let go. 

 

But, as my lawyer has explained,  an employee can be fired because the boss doesn't like the socks you're wearing......      

 

Hey, go figure?              :dunno:                 :scratch:

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, aaron11 said:

wouldnt the contract have to specifically mention protesting the national anthem to protect him though?

 

I'm not saying the contract would have likely protected such a demonstration; just saying he had a contract and was not an at-will employee.

 

Professional sports law is mostly a mix of antitrust law, labor law, and contracts law. I'm not an agent, it's not my field, but I have seen plenty of pro sports contracts and they're usually pretty favorable to the ownership but have gotten much more player-friendly in recent years thanks to organized collective bargaining power on behalf of the athletes.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, BPindy said:

 

You back tracked at the end of your argument. I don't think anyone would disagree that everyone has certain aspects/beliefs that they're entitled to. However, just as Irsay has his guitars during his personal time, Ryan may deal with his foot thing during his personal time. He's not on the field checking out people's feet, and Decker isn't out there trying to tell his teammates about his sex life in the huddle.

On the field or off, all things get to the public eventually. Like Riley Cooper using the n-word. Didn't do it on the field but it still made headlines and the team had to come out and issue a statement. That's an example of someone doing/saying something damaging. It's not like kneeling on the sideline will get way more attention than stuff people do off it. Not in 2016 where everything is recorded and social media is as huge as it is. It happens at stages as small as high school games and we hear about it. I don't think it affects the team as much as people make it seem. It's Kaepernick who got crucified by the media, not the entire 49ers.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Defjamz26 said:

On the field or off, all things get to the public eventually. Like Riley Cooper using the n-word. Didn't do it on the field but it still made headlines and the team had to come out and issue a statement. That's an example of someone doing/saying something damaging. It's not like kneeling on the sideline will get way more attention than stuff people do off it. Not in 2016 where everything is recorded and social media is as huge as it is. It happens at stages as small as high school games and we hear about it. I don't think it affects the team as much as people make it seem. It's Kaepernick who got crucified by the media, not the entire 49ers.

 

In the opinion of many , this is damaging to the league. No matter what side of the issue you are on, there is a heavy NFL demographic that is Joe Six Pack, patriotic, and wants to get away from the hectic life for a few hours and enjoy a football game. 

 

If the league or owners owners deem a behavior to be damaging to ratings, attendance , or profit , they have the fiduciary responsibility to excise the individual causing damage. 

 

In most sports situations, although it is not always fair, the scrub is made the example of , because the other element to professional sports making profits , is putting out a winning product. So if you are a 33 year old scrub CB that has looked like Elvis "Toast" Patterson the last couple weeks, or a ridiculous back up QB whose better days are behind him, give it a try and see what happens. 

 

Its like being a mediocre worker at Dow, and protesting about the dangers of chemicals. See how long you would last there. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/20/2016 at 3:21 PM, shakedownstreet said:

it's never good when player's wives speak up on their behalf 

He has a lot of mouths to feed and she's worried about the money... case in point from a google search:

 

How many babies does Cromartie have?
Cromartie has 12 children — four with his current wife, Terricka Cason, and eight from seven other women. Babies No. 11 and 12 were a set of identical twins born in 2014. He also has daughter Jurzi and son Jagger with Cason
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

That may be true where you live....   but I don't think that's true in most states.

 

I live in Liberal California,  and most bosses can fire an employee for any reason, or no reason.

 

I think the exceptions are unions, where an employee has some protection,   or if you have a contract that states you get severance if you're let go. 

 

But, as my lawyer has explained,  an employee can be fired because the boss doesn't like the socks you're wearing......      

 

Hey, go figure?              :dunno:                 :scratch:

Yeah I think that's the case in all of Canada 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

On 10/20/2016 at 5:45 PM, CanuckColtsFan said:

 

 

My understanding is that in Canada a non-contract employee can be fired without cause, but the employee must be provided notice or severance.

 

Canada does have a more reasonable unemployment insurance system in which the cost is shared between employees and employers.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, grmasterb said:

 

 

 

My understanding is that in Canada a non-contract employee can be fired without cause, but the employee must be provided notice or severance.

 

Canada does have a more reasonable unemployment insurance system in which the cost is shared between employees and employers.

Yes, that's how it works.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Thread of the Week

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Another reason why I think the Steelers might be ideal second trade partners is that they have a 4th Round compensation pick 13 picks later but no pick in Round 5.   Do like the Walker Little pick and hope he does slide to say the 4th and we could nab him.
    • JB is not my favorite QB. But even I would never compare him to the likes of the guys on that list. He is much more in the Hasselback group.    But I also disagree with putting Grigs on that list as well. He wasn’t a disaster or an embarrassment...he was just a disappointment in the end. A guy who couldn’t evaluate talent nearly as well as he did early in his career. And he was an unlikeable guy (which has always made me wonder how he sold Irsay on giving him the job).    But plenty of GMs fail to get there with a star QB...especially early in that QB’s career. Only one team gets to win the SB each year.    I mean...just look at Polian. He got there eventually...but he was gifted PFM...and didn’t win a playoff game until the 6th season. Grigs had won 3 by his 3rd season...and had just as many playoff appearances (3) as Polian over their first 5 seasons. Polian is a HOFer...but my point is that it’s not easy even when you get a great QB.   And as I have said before...Luck was great and my favorite player of all time...but he wasn’t quite Mahomes or Rodgers good...they are true Ferraris. He made mistakes and also didn’t exactly light it it up in January either. I think his prime would have been something to behold and maybe he would have taken his game to a new level...but injuries unfortunately derailed that (which I think many parties are to blame for...not just Grigs).   The guys on that list brought nothing to this org...Grigs at least managed to oversee a winning roster for years. A 49-31 record (.612 winning %) with a 3-3 playoff record, in 5 years, is far from a disaster. If you want to see what a true disaster looks like...it’s what has happened in HOU...where their FO has wasted a QB who (IMO) might be even better than Luck.   So far, Ballard has been superior in just about every facet. But the results are still the results. We can discount 2017...but without it the Colts are still just 28-20 (a .583 winning %) and 1-2 in the playoffs so far. Yes, he has only had Luck for one of those seasons...but that’s just another way of saying he needed Luck to win more games (to win more playoff games). And that’s the argument I always hear to vilify Grigs...that he only won because of Luck. Seems like a double standard...and not the only one.   I think most Colts fans have become huge fans of the process...and that’s great. It’s might be my favorite part of sports. But there are those that are still results-oriented...and I can understand why some might be asking what does it all without the results? This season will be huge to answering that question. 
    • Relax....i was paraphrasing a Bill Tobin quote . Tobin went off on Kiper when the Colts drafted Trev Alberta instead of Trent Dilfer. 
    • @Superman   @w87r   So, among many things, I get e-mail from Sports Illustrated every day.   And the other day,  there was this article written by Andew Brandt, who used to handle the contracts and salary cap issues for the Packers for 10 years.    And one thing he wrote jumped off the page at me.     Now, here's why I remind our two resident Salary Cap experts I noted above about something they have both talked about,  but I haven't seen either of them talk about this year.   Roll Over.   According to Brandt,  the Colts have the MOST SALARY CAP ROLLOVER in the NFL.   $30 MIl.    So, whatever the general 2021 team salary cap turns out to be,  you can add $30 Mill for the Colts.     I'm going to do two things.     I'm going to link the entire article for everyone.    It's free, non-premium,   and I'm also going to cut and paste the key section for everyone to read right here.      OK....    here's the article...      And just for discussion purposes,  Brandt uses a projected salary cap of $185.   He's NOT saying that's what the final number will be,  only his own hypothetical number for his article.   https://www.si.com/nfl/2021/03/02/business-of-football-understanding-the-salary-cap-dead-money?suid=5cc1cc3a3f92a475c0234f43&utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=SI Extra 030221&utm_term=SI Extra - USE THIS - List     Here is the key text:   Myth: Every NFL team’s cap number is going to be $185 million   No. Actually, no team’s cap number is going to be $185 million (or whatever the final cap number is). The 2011 CBA, for the first time, allowed teams to carry over unused cap room from one year to the next. In managing the cap for the Packers, we did not have that option; it was use it or lose it. I had to negotiate * incentives—such as a clause giving our third-string quarterback $20 million if he threw seven touchdowns in our last game—to carry over cap room. (When he didn’t earn the incentive, we would get it as a credit toward the next year.) Now teams don’t have to play those games. As per NFLPA numbers, every team in the league has carried over 2020 cap room, from a low of roughly $500,000 for the Ravens to a high of more than $30 million for the Colts. Teams carrying over $20-plus million of cap include the Jets, Browns, Eagles, Cowboys and Jaguars. Thus, although the team cap is $185 million, the Colts’ adjusted cap will be around $215 million, and so on. And again, these teams have been preparing, or should have been preparing, for this reduced cap for months.   What say you both, Superman and w87r?     What do you think of what Brandt has written?    Does everyone have to re-do their off-season mocks reflecting a team figure of $215?     I look forward to hearing from both of you and others!
  • Members

    • DiogoSales

      DiogoSales 75

      New Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • OhioColt

      OhioColt 99

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Nadine

      Nadine 6,430

      Administrators
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • cdgacoltsfan

      cdgacoltsfan 576

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
×
×
  • Create New...