Character doesn’t matter??

[shastamasta 2,017]

2 hours ago, egg said:

 

Surely you can see without me telling you that an owner is not breaking a contract when operating within the bounds of that contract.

 

On the other hand, a player is breaking a contract when he operates beyond the bounds of a contract.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NFL owners give out multi-year contracts that they don't honor all the time...now we are talking about semantics.

 

A player has a right to skip training camp...he just gets fined for doing so. He's operating within the bounds of his contract. If he returns and then leaves again...he is in breach and can get the "5-day letter."

[NewColtsFan 19,577]

 

Sorry to interrupt....  the thread started out about Ballard and character and now it has morphed into is Zeke worth it, along with others, and how unfair it is to RB's....

 

OK.....

 

But as far as Ballard goes,   he has said a number of times, both into cameras and microphones,  that he knows that talent wins in the NFL.    That he's not looking to build a team of Boy Scouts or Choir Boys.   That when he thinks the locker room is strong enough,  he will bring the right guys to help the team.    He will take risks.   Maybe that's next year?    Maybe the year after?

 

Or maybe,  it's quietly already happening?

 

-- We drafted Deon Cain who fell to the 6th round with Day 2 talent.

-- We drafted Bobby Okereke in the 3rd round despite not one, but TWO charges of sexual assault.

-- We signed Chad Kelly despite a grocery list of screwing up most everywhere he's been.  College, Junior College,  NFL.     And there was lots of grumbling about it.   But now that he's had two nice pre-season games,  most here now love the guy.

 

So, Ballard has backed up his words with actions.

 

Perhaps not to the level that some here would want.    He avoided Bell,  and Brown and others who were available.    Not the right guy.    Not the right price.    Not the right fit.    That happens.

 

It'll be interesting to see who else we invest in with somewhat questionable character.   We should see more of this in 2020 and 21.

 

[LockeDown 2,282]

“...when he gets the locker room strong enough”.   That still  means drafting lots of high character guys. That’s our default. 

[Rackeen305 244]

16 hours ago, Superman said:

 

I don't necessarily support Zeke, but I don't support the team, either. I see both sides, and I would probably be handling it just like it's being handled, whether I was the player or the team (with the exception of going to Cancun for Zeke, and talking about it to the media for the team). 

 

 

 

For those who dont support players like Zeke and even L Bell. I have 1 question... Do you support Earl Thomas? Before his injury, he ask for a new contract. The minute he got injured, he's no longer a Seahawk. Point blank period. People talk from their keyboard telling another man to put their life on the line, and once the player says pay me, the same keyboard warriors say, "He's selfish". So are the "teams selfish" when they cut players like Earl Thomas, or wont extend their contracts? BTW E.T has proven his worth as a Superbowl champ/ All Pro/ Pro Bowler.  

[shastamasta 2,017]

15 minutes ago, Rackeen305 said:

 

For those who dont support players like Zeke and even L Bell. I have 1 question... Do you support Earl Thomas? Before his injury, he ask for a new contract. The minute he got injured, he's no longer a Seahawk. Point blank period. People talk from their keyboard telling another man to put their life on the line, and once the player says pay me, the same keyboard warriors say, "He's selfish". So are the "teams selfish" when they cut players like Earl Thomas, or wont extend their contracts? BTW E.T has proven his worth as a Superbowl champ/ All Pro/ Pro Bowler.  

 

TY once said..."If they want me...they'll pay me." And the Colts paid him...made him top 5 at his position...and we were happy they did and we praised them for doing that. 

 

But when a team doesn't pay a player that top tier money...and that player is upset...he's somehow being selfish. Can't really have it both ways. 

 

The Colts have been very good to their star players over the years...across multiple GMs...so we haven't had to deal with any hold outs. But not every owner is Jim Irsay. 

[GoatBeard 692]

35 minutes ago, Rackeen305 said:

 

For those who dont support players like Zeke and even L Bell. I have 1 question... Do you support Earl Thomas? Before his injury, he ask for a new contract. The minute he got injured, he's no longer a Seahawk. Point blank period. People talk from their keyboard telling another man to put their life on the line, and once the player says pay me, the same keyboard warriors say, "He's selfish". So are the "teams selfish" when they cut players like Earl Thomas, or wont extend their contracts? BTW E.T has proven his worth as a Superbowl champ/ All Pro/ Pro Bowler.  

Why do the Seahawks have to give Earl Thomas a contract extension? Do they not have a right to decide it's time to move on? 

 

I dont have a problem with either side.....what I have a problem with is you completely exaggerating his plight. Earl Thomas was already made incredibly wealthy by the Seattle Seahawks, and he was already rewarded, very handsomely, for what he has done. The contract extension is given based off what hes gonna do in the future, not the past. And hes an aging player who's future isn't as bright as his past. His injury just proves the Seahawks to be smart in how they hand out these extensions. He got hurt and they paid him a lot of money last year to not produce anything for them, and now you want them to give him even more money? It's just not smart business to hand out lucrative contract extensions based off 4 years ago. They got out at the right time, and Thomas still got a descent deal from the Ravens. There are no victims here.

[GoatBeard 692]

I dont understand why anyone would want their team to give out more money to players already making a lot of money. It just makes it more expensive to be a fan and amplifies the personnel mistakes they make, making them harder to recover from, which also dilutes to overly expensive product you're consuming. 

 

It benefits the fans in no way to stick up for these players on money issues. They already make enough money for gods sake. I could understand if this was gladiator days and they were fighting for their freedom, but taking one look at these players social media accounts should let you know they live pretty magnificent lives as is. You want them to have it even better? Why?

[gspdx 429]

29 minutes ago, Rackeen305 said:

 

For those who dont support players like Zeke and even L Bell. I have 1 question... Do you support Earl Thomas? Before his injury, he ask for a new contract. The minute he got injured, he's no longer a Seahawk. Point blank period. People talk from their keyboard telling another man to put their life on the line, and once the player says pay me, the same keyboard warriors say, "He's selfish". So are the "teams selfish" when they cut players like Earl Thomas, or wont extend their contracts? BTW E.T has proven his worth as a Superbowl champ/ All Pro/ Pro Bowler.  

 

First - these guys choose to play football.  I would never tell them to "put their life on the line."  My brother is a fireman and actually does put his life on the line.  I don't hear anyone here saying they should be allowed to hold out for more money.  I spent 20 years in the military.  Hold out for more money?  Are you kidding?

 

Second - these guys are protected by a union and have the ability to negotiate a contract that is merit based.  I don't know many employees that have the luxury of union protections and individual negotiations.  The union can always work to improve the situation for player contracts.

 

Third - Every situation is different.  I do feel like players are entitled to be paid well for what they do.  We are talking about the best of the best in their fields and it is big money entertainment.  I disagree with what happened to Earl Thomas.  I felt a little uncomfortable with  what we did to Peyton.  But in the end I don't feel sorry for a guy who makes millions to play a game for a few years.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

[EastStreet 1,960]

I think people mix a lot of issues on this topic. I think I'd rather have a reformed character issue guy than a diva. Also depends on type of character issue. Give me a guy who's a bit of bone head like Kelly, over someone like T.Hill. And IMO, a remorseful guy who throws himself under the bus is worth a second chance. I guy who is not remorseful is probably more likely to do bad sheet again.

 

On the money stuff, I really don't care. If a guy wants to sit out a year and roll the dice, that's his gamble. I don't feel sorry for guys making millions, or the guys paying. And sure, some guys have bad luck with injury and timing of injury. That's why it's critical to save and spend wisely. I love what Funch has done. He's set himself up on a budget. This year's contract allows him to live a long time on that budget. 

 

To the OP... I agree that to many, character doesn't matter. There's always a different line in the sand for uber talented guys. A pro bowler can act a fool and not miss a game. A journeyman or depth guy will get cut for the same infraction.

 

 

[DougDew 3,308]

11 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

Sorry to interrupt....  the thread started out about Ballard and character and now it has morphed into is Zeke worth it, along with others, and how unfair it is to RB's....

 

OK.....

 

But as far as Ballard goes,   he has said a number of times, both into cameras and microphones,  that he knows that talent wins in the NFL.    That he's not looking to build a team of Boy Scouts or Choir Boys.   That when he thinks the locker room is strong enough,  he will bring the right guys to help the team.    He will take risks.   Maybe that's next year?    Maybe the year after?

 

Or maybe,  it's quietly already happening?

 

-- We drafted Deon Cain who fell to the 6th round with Day 2 talent.

-- We drafted Bobby Okereke in the 3rd round despite not one, but TWO charges of sexual assault.

-- We signed Chad Kelly despite a grocery list of screwing up most everywhere he's been.  College, Junior College,  NFL.     And there was lots of grumbling about it.   But now that he's had two nice pre-season games,  most here now love the guy.

 

So, Ballard has backed up his words with actions.

 

Perhaps not to the level that some here would want.    He avoided Bell,  and Brown and others who were available.    Not the right guy.    Not the right price.    Not the right fit.    That happens.

 

It'll be interesting to see who else we invest in with somewhat questionable character.   We should see more of this in 2020 and 21.

 

If you look at the list of players you just mentioned, the guys we signed were cheap investments.  Neither Bell or Brown fit into that bucket.

 

Putting little capital into players with questionable character seems to be the formula, so far.

[NannyMcafee 1,384]

If you sign a contract you should finish the contract. You liked the numbers when you signed, so what is the difference now? There are ways to change things beyond holding out. So because someone else keeps getting paid more now you're going to be greedy? We have seen QBs take less so other players can get signed. My god you're a damn millionaire you greedy "s. 

[EastStreet 1,960]

3 minutes ago, NannyMcafee said:

If you sign a contract you should finish the contract. You liked the numbers when you signed, so what is the difference now? There are ways to change things beyond holding out. So because someone else keeps getting paid more now you're going to be greedy? We have seen QBs take less so other players can get signed. My god you're a damn millionaire you greedy "s. 

 

I agree with you on non-rookie contracts. On rookie contracts, it's a bit grey for me.

 

 

[Rackeen305 244]

1 hour ago, gspdx said:

 

First - these guys choose to play football.  I would never tell them to "put their life on the line."  My brother is a fireman and actually does put his life on the line.  I don't hear anyone here saying they should be allowed to hold out for more money.  I spent 20 years in the military.  Hold out for more money?  Are you kidding?

 

Second - these guys are protected by a union and have the ability to negotiate a contract that is merit based.  I don't know many employees that have the luxury of union protections and individual negotiations.  The union can always work to improve the situation for player contracts.

 

Third - Every situation is different.  I do feel like players are entitled to be paid well for what they do.  We are talking about the best of the best in their fields and it is big money entertainment.  I disagree with what happened to Earl Thomas.  I felt a little uncomfortable with  what we did to Peyton.  But in the end I don't feel sorry for a guy who makes millions to play a game for a few years.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

Junior Seau? Oh I forgot you don't feel bad, and countless others who are permanently scarred. Now when  a player stands up for the pay disparity it's a crime? And he should be shamed for standing for higher wages. I hear you pro owner/team fans. I just hope you never ask for a pay raise in your life.

[Rackeen305 244]

Everyone disagreeing with players and siding with Billionaire ownerd should just work in China where you could make $100/week, without the opportunity to ask for a raise. Thats what it sounds like. I mean aren't we in the good ol US of A? smh

[Mitch Connors 271]

55 minutes ago, GoatBeard said:

I dont understand why anyone would want their team to give out more money to players already making a lot of money. It just makes it more expensive to be a fan and amplifies the personnel mistakes they make, making them harder to recover from, which also dilutes to overly expensive product you're consuming. 

 

It benefits the fans in no way to stick up for these players on money issues. They already make enough money for gods sake. I could understand if this was gladiator days and they were fighting for their freedom, but taking one look at these players social media accounts should let you know they live pretty magnificent lives as is. You want them to have it even better? Why?

 

I dont think you dont understand how pay in the NFL works. The players receive 48% of league revenue. That means if the NFL make $100 the players get $48 and the rest goes to the team. That also means if the NFL makes $1,000,000,000 the players get $480,000,000. The owners get 52% of revenue (which is more than 48%). We as fans (IE customers) determine how much players and owners earn based on TV deals, tickets and merch.

 

I suppose you may be unique in that you watch the NFL for the owners and not the players and recognize what ownership does that warrants more that the 52% they already earn (since you want to pay players less). Explain to me how we as fans benefit by ownership keeping, lets say, 72% of revenue instead of the 52% they currently keep.

 

How does Jim Irsay live? You check his Twitter feed?

 

[GoatBeard 692]

24 minutes ago, Mitch Connors said:

 

I dont think you dont understand how pay in the NFL works. The players receive 48% of league revenue. That means if the NFL make $100 the players get $48 and the rest goes to the team. That also means if the NFL makes $1,000,000,000 the players get $480,000,000. The owners get 52% of revenue (which is more than 48%). We as fans (IE customers) determine how much players and owners earn based on TV deals, tickets and merch.

 

I suppose you may be unique in that you watch the NFL for the owners and not the players and recognize what ownership does that warrants more that the 52% they already earn (since you want to pay players less). Explain to me how we as fans benefit by ownership keeping, lets say, 72% of revenue instead of the 52% they currently keep.

 

How does Jim Irsay live? You check his Twitter feed?

 

 

No I dont watch for the ownership, I watch BECAUSE of the ownership. And yes, I understand the difference, do you?

 

Jim Irsay has owned the team in Indianapolis for a long time now, and he has done far more good here than any player we have ever had, including Peyton Manning. He is a permanent resident, and I want him reaping the benefits of the Indianapolis Colts because it benefits our city, not some player who'll move to California after hes done playing and doesnt give a crap about the city where I live. That's just common sense.

 

So yes, I think he deserves what he makes.

 

 

[GoatBeard 692]

36 minutes ago, Rackeen305 said:

Everyone disagreeing with players and siding with Billionaire ownerd should just work in China where you could make $100/week, without the opportunity to ask for a raise. Thats what it sounds like. I mean aren't we in the good ol US of A? smh

Actually your position is inherently socialist. 

 

Jim Irsay OWNS THE TEAM. In a capitalist country, he deserves to make more money than his employees. The fact that the split is so slim just shows how generous NFL owners are to the players and that is reflected in their lifestyles.

 

Labor unions are a socialist labor structure. I am a member of a union myself. We control our work environment thru the means of production and the threat of complete shut down. That's how unions created their leverage. By taking the "means of production" from the owners. The results of those negotiations were achieved by socialist means. 

 

You clearly dont even understand capitalism or socialism, so save me the speech.

[cbear 800]

Imo, if you mess up on other teams, I'll still give you a chance (like Kelly).  But you mess up on my team, you're gone. 

 

I also like the attitude of getting guys with the right attitude rather than wasting the time and energy trying to change a malcontent. 

 

As far as venturi's line.... catchy but wrong.  It will affect your game planning, because the team in general is going to be better. 

 

Irsay is quite the character, but his antics are in general harmless to the team.  He's a great owner from what I can tell. 

[Rackeen305 244]

2 minutes ago, GoatBeard said:

Actually your position is inherently socialist. 

 

Jim Irsay OWNS THE TEAM. In a capitalist country, he deserves to make more money than his employees.

 

You clearly dont even understand capitalism, so save me the speech.

I don't care what you or anyone else says. The point was players get driven into the ground for your entertainment. If they demand more money, then so be it. They are putting everything on the line for people like you. So if they say "SHOW ME THE MONEY", I support them.

 

Or you could just ask IRSEY to carry the rock, I'm sure he could.

[GoatBeard 692]

Just now, Rackeen305 said:

I don't care what you or anyone else says. The point was players get driven into the ground for your entertainment. If they demand more money, then so be it. They are putting everything on the line for people like you. So if they say "SHOW ME THE MONEY", I support them.

 

Or you could just ask IRSEY to carry the rock, I'm sure he could.

No they dont get "driven into the ground".

 

They sign a contract to do something they used to do for free. Nobody forced them to do anything. They drive themselves into the ground because they couldn't make a fraction of what they make doing anything else. They also make money outside of football, due to the teams they play for marketing them and helping them brand themselves, and the teams dont even get a cut of that.

 

Boo hoo

[gspdx 429]

41 minutes ago, Rackeen305 said:

Junior Seau? Oh I forgot you don't feel bad, and countless others who are permanently scarred. Now when  a player stands up for the pay disparity it's a crime? And he should be shamed for standing for higher wages. I hear you pro owner/team fans. I just hope you never ask for a pay raise in your life.

 

Did I say the players' actions are a crime?  Are you just as concerned for a factory worker who gets injured for life or a coal miner suffering from black lung disease?

 

Did I say a player should be shamed for standing for higher wages?  But as a player when your union signs off on the collective bargaining agreement and then you break that agreement there are consequences.

 

And for the record - I have never asked for a pay raise.  20 years in the military - you don't ask for pay raises.  And now 19 years working for 2 large companies as an IT professional and I have gotten good pay raises based on my performance.  I make good money and I also know that money isn't everything. Sometimes chasing the almighty dollar will make you less happy rather than more happy.  

 

I'm not saying they shouldn't try to maximize their earning potential but I will tell you I can afford to go to a game but I wouldn't because the entire thing (the NFL) is just too expensive.  And the player's greed is a part of that as much as the owner's greed.

 

Sign a contract - live by it.

[Rackeen305 244]

1 minute ago, gspdx said:

 

Did I say the players' actions are a crime?  Are you just as concerned for a factory worker who gets injured for life or a coal miner suffering from black lung disease?

 

Did I say a player should be shamed for standing for higher wages?  But as a player when your union signs off on the collective bargaining agreement and then you break that agreement there are consequences.

 

And for the record - I have never asked for a pay raise.  20 years in the military - you don't ask for pay raises.  And now 19 years working for 2 large companies as an IT professional and I have gotten good pay raises based on my performance.  I make good money and I also know that money isn't everything. Sometimes chasing the almighty dollar will make you less happy rather than more happy.  

 

I'm not saying they shouldn't try to maximize their earning potential but I will tell you I can afford to go to a game but I wouldn't because the entire thing (the NFL) is just too expensive.  And the player's greed is a part of that as much as the owner's greed.

 

Sign a contract - live by it.

Are you getting Crack back by Ray Lewis, or Leonard? 

 

So if these guys are asking for more what's your problem with that? Why are average earning people in the pockets or Millionaires but not in the pocket of Billionaires?

 

If the millionaires want more $, then so he it. They are the ones getting worked into the ground, not the owners and darn sure not YOU!

[GoatBeard 692]

47 minutes ago, Rackeen305 said:

Junior Seau? Oh I forgot you don't feel bad, and countless others who are permanently scarred. Now when  a player stands up for the pay disparity it's a crime? And he should be shamed for standing for higher wages. I hear you pro owner/team fans. I just hope you never ask for a pay raise in your life.

I'm an electrician who works on 480v machinery all day. It's honestly one of the most dangerous jobs in the world. It's more dangerous than being a police officer for example. Getting hit with 480v will either turn you into a super hero, maim you or kill you.

 

I am fully aware of this. I do it because I cant make 80 dollars an hour doing anything else. The difference is I dont get to stay home when I want to * and moan about the money I make or the fact I dont like my gloves. I get fired for stuff like that. And nobody would feel sorry for me.

 

Maybe you idolize these guys too much? Maybe you've lost sight of how blessed they are?

[gspdx 429]

42 minutes ago, Mitch Connors said:

 

I dont think you dont understand how pay in the NFL works. The players receive 48% of league revenue. That means if the NFL make $100 the players get $48 and the rest goes to the team. That also means if the NFL makes $1,000,000,000 the players get $480,000,000. The owners get 52% of revenue (which is more than 48%). We as fans (IE customers) determine how much players and owners earn based on TV deals, tickets and merch.

 

I suppose you may be unique in that you watch the NFL for the owners and not the players and recognize what ownership does that warrants more that the 52% they already earn (since you want to pay players less). Explain to me how we as fans benefit by ownership keeping, lets say, 72% of revenue instead of the 52% they currently keep.

 

How does Jim Irsay live? You check his Twitter feed?

 

 

So do you think that the owners just keep that 52% or just maybe are there all sorts of other operational costs that come out of that 52%?  What is the real income for the owners?

 

Now I'm not saying that is right either - but it is the agreement the players union made.  

 

[Rackeen305 244]

1 minute ago, GoatBeard said:

I'm an electrician who works on 480v machinery all day. It's honestly one of the most dangerous jobs in the world. It's more dangerous than being a police officer for example. Getting hit with 480v will either turn you into a super hero, maim you or kill you.

 

I am fully aware of this. I do it because I cant make 80 dollars an hour doing anything else. The difference is I dont get to stay home when I want to * and moan about the money I make or the fact I dont like my gloves. I get fired for stuff like that. And nobody would feel sorry for me.

 

Maybe you idolize these guys too much? Maybe you've lost sight of how blessed they are?

Or maybe you are in their pockets to much. The funny part is. Zeke hasn't missed a game that I could recall. Luck was once the highest paid player in the league. Are you gonna ask LUCK to return part of his money because he hasn't played enough to warrant his salary? Ohhhhhh. BTW when it comes time for luck's contract negotiations will you say, LET'S PAY LUCK w.e. he wants or get rid of him?. The floor is yours.

[GoatBeard 692]

1 minute ago, Rackeen305 said:

Or maybe you are in their pockets to much. The funny part is. Zeke hasn't missed a game that I could recall. Luck was once the highest paid player in the league. Are you gonna ask LUCK to return part of his money because he hasn't played enough to warrant his salary? Ohhhhhh. BTW when it comes time for luck's contract negotiations will you say, LET'S PAY LUCK w.e. he wants or get rid of him?. The floor is yours.

No, I didnt say any of that.

 

I said that Andrew Luck is well taken care of, and he would be the first one to tell you that. Because he is not one of those guys.

 

But he is a great example of what I'm talking about. He is unusually capable of living a great life outside of football, highly educated and well raised. Football has been very rough on his health. But he still plays. Why? 

 

Because he already has the greatest job on earth. 

[gspdx 429]

14 minutes ago, Rackeen305 said:

Are you getting Crack back by Ray Lewis, or Leonard? 

 

So if these guys are asking for more what's your problem with that? Why are average earning people in the pockets or Millionaires but not in the pocket of Billionaires?

 

If the millionaires want more $, then so he it. They are the ones getting worked into the ground, not the owners and darn sure not YOU!

 

They are only getting Crack back by Ray Lewis or Leonard because they choose to.  I am not for the players or the owners.  I think the whole thing is way too expensive and they all just want more.

 

But the players and their union agreed to certain rules in the collective bargaining agreement and then the players sign their individual contracts.

 

So these guys are willing to break two contracts if they don't get what they want. 

 

I can tell you I don't go to games, don't buy merchandise, don't pay much attention to commercials during games.  I love football, but I hate the big business.  That is just me.  If you want to pay for all of this stuff to support the millionaires and billionaires that is your choice.

[Mitch Connors 271]

1 hour ago, gspdx said:

 

So do you think that the owners just keep that 52% or just maybe are there all sorts of other operational costs that come out of that 52%?  What is the real income for the owners?

 

Now I'm not saying that is right either - but it is the agreement the players union made.  

 

 

I agree with you and I think the agreement is very fair. 

 

The NFL has thrived under the current conditions. I was surprised that a poster would suggest the owners have some sort of hardship relative to the amount of money the players make. It was odd to see someone boost a billionaire by reducing a millionaire.

[gspdx 429]

27 minutes ago, Mitch Connors said:

 

I agree with you and I think the agreement is very fair. 

 

The NFL has thrived under the current conditions. I was surprised that a poster would suggest the owners have some sort of hardship relative to the amount of money the players make. It was odd to see someone boost a billionaire by reducing a millionaire.

 

My biggest concern is the league will continue to look for how to get more of the fan's money.  I am more concerned about all of us that aren't millionaires or billionaires.

 

As the players make more the league will push more of that cost onto consumers.  Owners aren't just going to share more of their money with players.  If they agreed to not increase the cost on consumers I would be fine with adjusting the revenue distribution.  I just don't think that is reality.  I could be wrong.

[EastStreet 1,960]

As salaries/costs rise, ticket prices and everything else will follow. Rinse repeat until demand falls off. Neither players or owners care about the financial impact to fans. That's why I don't give a sheet about the pockets of players or owners. It's like any other business.

 

All the poor player stuff is kind of funny though. Just about every player in the NFL received a free college education because of their athletic talent. Hopefully they chose their major wisely and save their NFL money. If they for some reason get unlucky in the NFL, then "welcome to the real world" that most of us live in.

[Four2itus 2,980]

This thread has run its course and morphed into something entirely different. 

[Peterk2011 647]

On 8/19/2019 at 5:40 PM, GoatBeard said:

Yeah, but since when has that mattered in terms of building a winning team?

Hes not better than a prime Adrian Peterson, and he never won anything on a team level. 

We didnt win when we had Eric Dickerson or Marshall Faulk. We won the title the year after we lost Edge. I could go on, but you get the point.

So is he really entitled to that money, just because hes really good? I dont think so. The value of a player should be determined on how valuable he is to the success of your franchise. And let's face it, teams are figuring out that the top RBs are just not worth the money they want. And that's ok.

Some bad team will offer him a big deal when he becomes a FA, and he will likely go there for the money and never win. And thats ok too. But hes not being mistreated.

 

I somewhat agree. Somewhat. The Colts had Peyton Manning, that's why it didn't matter - that much - who is carrying the ball. However, the way the Cowboys built, Zeke is one of the few showrunners there. Jones earns a s**tload of money because he has Zeke on his team, and also, wins games because Zeke is there. Just watch those 6 games he missed and compare them to those he played in. Prescott can't carry that team alone, he needs Zeke. (That wasn't the case for Bell and the Steelers neither.)

 

On the other hand, I agree that the game has changed so the RB position become less and less valuable. And because there's a hard cap, teams - rightfully and logically - prefer to save money on RB's and spend the money on other positions.

 

Still when it comes to a player, who's done a lot more than he's got payed for, I tend to be on the player's side, because if teams can release players any time regardless of how long their contracts are, if their production drops, or the team is in cap trouble, then why it's whining, if a player wants more money if he's overperformed his contract? It's how it's supposed to happen. I want a raise, you want a raise, everyone wants a raise, if they're doing more than what they're payed for.

 

 

[NewColtsFan 19,577]

5 hours ago, NannyMcafee said:

If you sign a contract you should finish the contract. You liked the numbers when you signed, so what is the difference now? There are ways to change things beyond holding out. So because someone else keeps getting paid more now you're going to be greedy? We have seen QBs take less so other players can get signed. My god you're a damn millionaire you greedy "s. 

 

It's not true that players signed their ROOKIE deal because they liked the terms.    There is no negotiation on rookie deals.    That's the issue with guys like Zeke and Gordon, and others....   they signed the only deal that's offered to them because that's how thew new Collective Bargaining works.    Rookie's get screwed.  They don't have leverage so they typically didn't like the terms

 

But,  they get leverage on Contract #2.     That's what's different --- leverage.

 

[Superman 35,422]

5 hours ago, NannyMcafee said:

If you sign a contract you should finish the contract. You liked the numbers when you signed, so what is the difference now?

 

Do you recognize that people and businesses renegotiate contracts all the time?

[NannyMcafee 1,384]

3 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Do you recognize that people and businesses renegotiate contracts all the time?

 

Renegotiations are fine but should you not practice and play until you come to a renegotiation?

[Superman 35,422]

Just now, NannyMcafee said:

 

Renegotiations are fine but should you not practice and play until you come to a renegotiation?

 

Isn't that a personal decision?

 

If a player decides not to practice and play, at the risk of not being paid, why does that decision need to be judged?

[NannyMcafee 1,384]

7 hours ago, Superman said:

 

Isn't that a personal decision?

 

If a player decides not to practice and play, at the risk of not being paid, why does that decision need to be judged?

 

Another poster informed me they dont really have the ability to negotiate a rookie deal. I have been going based off of the old rules. 

 

He has any right to do anything he wants to do. It isn't my place to judge him based on what he does. I would just do things differently. 

[Lawrence Owen 1,625]

I would not take Zeke if he was given to the Colts.

The Cowboys owner Jerry Jones has done back-flips  and somersaults to cover up, or smooth over that which could not be covered up, what Zeke has done since he's came into the league.

Ballard would not put up with what Zeke has done.  If you don't know all the antics Zeke has had off the field, perhaps you should google it,  they are quite numerous.

Plus the fact that he is still in his rookie contract and crying about the money he's getting?   Everyone in the NFL has to get paid by that rookie pay scale.  And it's not like he's getting 4th-7th round rookie $, He was drafted top 5, and get's nearly 4 mil this year. Next years 5th year option is nearly 10 mil.  Jones has probably paid out all this excess money that Zeke wants, just to keep his off field antics under wraps.

Granted, now that he has played 3 years in the NFL, he is allowed to have an extension offered.  But generally stars are paid not only for what they bring to the field, but how you represent your team off the field.

https://sportsday.dallasnews.com/dallas-cowboys/cowboys/2017/09/16/happen-surprised-ezekiel-elliotts-checkered-past-points-possible-trouble-ahead

 

This 1 single report explains that he has been in at least 4 police reports since 2014.  And this report was posted in 2017.

His latest incident involved a confrontation with police in May that end with him in hand cuffs!  And:----- 

"The NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell met with Mr. Elliott to reinforce the standards of conduct expected of him and the consequences for failing to meet those standards."

https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/cowboys-ezekiel-elliott-avoids-a-suspension-from-the-nfl-after-las-vegas-incident/

 

Do you really want a player where the Commissioner personally had to tell your player to straighten up,...or else??

[Superman 35,422]

8 hours ago, NannyMcafee said:

 

Another poster informed me they dont really have the ability to negotiate a rookie deal. I have been going based off of the old rules. 

 

He has any right to do anything he wants to do. It isn't my place to judge him based on what he does. I would just do things differently. 

 

He can't sign a new contract until after his third season, which is where we are right now. That rule was designed to reduce the amount of holdouts from players on their rookie deals; I'd say it's worked. 

 

To the bolded, I'm responding generally based on the typical fan response whenever a player asks for more money before his contract expires. That response is overwhelmingly judgmental and negative, as if the player is wrong to ask for a new contract. And I disagree with that stance; not that I support players who ask for a new contract, but I don't think people recognize the factors at play in this kind of situation, or how they relate to typical business practices.

[Superman 35,422]

6 hours ago, Lawrence Owen said:

The Cowboys owner Jerry Jones has done back-flips  and somersaults to cover up, or smooth over that which could not be covered up, what Zeke has done since he's came into the league.

 

I think Jones' "Zeke who?" comment was disrespectful. I don't care what context you put it in, if you bring me up to someone that knows me and has a relationship with me, and they respond that way, I'm going to have a problem with it.

 

That said, I agree with his "I've earned the right to joke with Zeke" comment. This guy stood up to the other 31 owners in the league and tried to hold the commissioner's contract extension hostage because of what was perceived to be an unfair four game suspension. He's been in Elliott's corner and had his back in a very real way, despite multiple missteps on Elliott's part. While I don't like what he said or the implications it has to the ongoing contract negotiations, I do think he's earned the benefit of the doubt in this situation.

 

And like I mentioned in another thread about Jaylon Smith's contract, the Cowboys are willing to extend players early when it makes sense for them, and they apparently have a reasonable offer on the table for Elliott, so it's not like they're stonewalling him.