NFL: ***Official Week 4 Thread***

[Mr Janny]

Yeah, I don't know that either side is totally right, although my instinct is usually to side with the player in any kind of contract standoff.

Do the Steelers really have much incentive to deal him now that they know he's going to report? Connor has been fine filling in, but Bell makes that offense special. If they can get eight games out of him and make a postseason run then maybe it's worth it to just hang on to him at this point.

He's been just okay, I think. Had a good week 1, but has not been great running the ball since then. His YPC is under 4. Catches the ball pretty well.
I generally side with players on holdouts as well, simply because NFL contracts are so one sided. If ownership can terminate a contract with years left on it for no reason at all, then I don't have a problem with players holding out.

And to be clear, Leveon Bell isn't technically holding out. He's not actually under contract right now. I was arguing with a guy at work about it, an he was like "Must be nice to not have to honor your contract because you want more money." Just wrong on multiple levels regarding Bell.

 

[FinalFourCy]

Being compared to a Super Bowl winning QB is bad? If Mahomes wins KC a Super Bowl he will be a LEGEND in KC for the rest of his life even if he fails miserably after.

It’s not bad at all, but the current level he’s playing at reminds me more of a young Aaron Rodgers when they had Driver, Jennings, Jones, Nelson, and Finley. They have a much better offensive mind in Reid, and I hope we get to watch this team play for him for the next several years. It’s too bad Earl Thomas got hurt, he would have been a big help.

 

[jbindm]

He's been just okay, I think. Had a good week 1, but has not been great running the ball since then. His YPC is under 4. Catches the ball pretty well.
I generally side with players on holdouts as well, simply because NFL contracts are so one sided. If ownership can terminate a contract with years left on it for no reason at all, then I don't have a problem with players holding out.

And to be clear, Leveon Bell isn't technically holding out. He's not actually under contract right now. I was arguing with a guy at work about it, an he was like "Must be nice to not have to honor your contract because you want more money." Just wrong on multiple levels regarding Bell.

Yeah, it's not a contract dispute, more of a franchise tag dispute. I think the players' union needs to dig in on the next round of CBA negotiations and eliminate or reduce the accesibility of the franchise tag. There's nothing in the rules that prevent a player from getting fully guaranteed money. What's really hurting players is their ability to get to the open market. It's kind of ridiculous that a team can draft a player in the first round and then retain that player for a good seven years, five of which are dirt cheap and the final two of which are perfectly reasonable if the guy is still producing at a high level. It's out of whack with the duration of a player's career, unless you're talking QBs. With the way the rules are going those guys can play forever if they're smart and take care of themselves.

 

[Mr Janny]

Yeah, it's not a contract dispute, more of a franchise tag dispute. I think the players' union needs to dig in on the next round of CBA negotiations and eliminate or reduce the accesibility of the franchise tag. There's nothing in the rules that prevent a player from getting fully guaranteed money. What's really hurting players is their ability to get to the open market. It's kind of ridiculous that a team can draft a player in the first round and then retain that player for a good seven years, five of which are dirt cheap and the final two of which are perfectly reasonable if the guy is still producing at a high level. It's out of whack with the duration of a player's career, unless you're talking QBs. With the way the rules are going those guys can play forever if they're smart and take care of themselves.

agreed. Between the franchise tag rules and the rookie wage scale, the players hosed themselves. The owners won't give up that power easily, though. It will be interesting to see how it shakes out.

Regarding the incentive that the Steelers have to trade Bell, I think it's never been higher. There's no way he's going to sign a long term deal, now. And they aren't going to franchise him again, because they won't want a repeat of this year. Leveon wasn't bluffing this year. That doesn't mean he won this showdown. If anything it was a stalemate, but I can't see the Steelers wanting to tie up cap money in him again next year if he won't play. So, they'd get nothing for him if they just let him become a free agent. Trade him now, and they get something, even if it's a mid round pick. They're not making a big playoff run this year anyway, even with Bell. They're looking at a first round exit in the best case scenario, imho.

Pittsburgh is staring down a complete rebuild in the near future, I think. Big Ben retires, Tomlin gets fired. The window is closing fast. Time to collect picks.

 

[SCyclone]

I can't imagine Tomlin is happy with Bell doing this, either. He's managed to get the spotlight on his situation, although whether or not most people are in his corner IDK.

On the whole, I'm on the players' side....especially in a game where any play might be your last.

 

[jbindm]

Regarding the incentive that the Steelers have to trade Bell, I think it's never been higher. There's no way he's going to sign a long term deal, now. And they aren't going to franchise him again, because they won't want a repeat of this year. Leveon wasn't bluffing this year. That doesn't mean he won this showdown. If anything it was a stalemate, but I can't see the Steelers wanting to tie up cap money in him again next year if he won't play. So, they'd get nothing for him if they just let him become a free agent. Trade him now, and they get something, even if it's a mid round pick. They're not making a big playoff run this year anyway, even with Bell. They're looking at a first round exit in the best case scenario, imho.

Pittsburgh is staring down a complete rebuild in the near future, I think. Big Ben retires, Tomlin gets fired. The window is closing fast. Time to collect picks.

I think it's too early for them to punt on this season, especially if it's a soft trade market for Bell. If all they can get for him at this point is a mid round pick then I think I'd rather get him back and try to spark the offense to make a playoff run. If the window is closing then they may as well take their shot right now with the best players they have available (unless they get a trade offer that blows them away, and I don't see that happening).

 

[Mr Janny]

I can't imagine Tomlin is happy with Bell doing this, either. He's managed to get the spotlight on his situation, although whether or not most people are in his corner IDK.

On the whole, I'm on the players' side....especially in a game where any play might be your last.

Yep. Earl Thomas and his leg injury are a perfect example of why I rarely blame players for holding out. An NFL player's moneymaking window is ridiculously small. I can't blame them for wanting to make as much as they can.

 

[jbindm]

Yep. Earl Thomas and his leg injury are a perfect example of why I rarely blame players for holding out. An NFL player's moneymaking window is ridiculously small. I can't blame them for wanting to make as much as they can.

And on the other side, I get why the guys managing the roster don't want to pay for past performance on guys whose best days might be behind them or will be soon. The thing that bothered me about Thomas and Bell is that both players made it very clear that they wanted long term security or they wanted out, and the Seahawks and Steelers made it clear that neither player was going to get that security. If both side's intentions were apparent, then why did those teams elect to do nothing? The Seahawks will now get nothing when Earl Thomas becomes a free agent after the season. They could have had a second rounder from Dallas weeks ago.

And the Steelers kept kicking the can down the road on Bell to the point where they have limited options on what to do with him, none of which are all that appealing.

 

[Mr Janny]

And on the other side, I get why the guys managing the roster don't want to pay for past performance on guys whose best days might be behind them or will be soon. The thing that bothered me about Thomas and Bell is that both players made it very clear that they wanted long term security or they wanted out, and the Seahawks and Steelers made it clear that neither player was going to get that security. If both side's intentions were apparent, then why did those teams elect to do nothing? The Seahawks will now get nothing when Earl Thomas becomes a free agent after the season. They could have had a second rounder from Dallas weeks ago.

And the Steelers kept kicking the can down the road on Bell to the point where they have limited options on what to do with him, none of which are all that appealing.

Agreed. The minute Bell skipped a regular season game, I would have taken the best trade option, and been done with it. Pride gets in the way, though. And one side has to "win."

 

[jbindm]

Agreed. The minute Bell skipped a regular season game, I would have taken the best trade option, and been done with it. Pride gets in the way, though. And one side has to "win."

I think it was screwed as soon as they tagged him a second time. We've seen it twice now with Bell and Cousins. Franchise a guy once, fine. It allows you to keep the player and buys time to negotiate an extension. But tag him a second time and the team has put itself in this gray area where they don't think the player is worth the long term investment but he's better than what they have. Pay the man or trade him while you still have some leverage. The Steelers let this go way too far.

 

[SCyclone]

Agreed. The minute Bell skipped a regular season game, I would have taken the best trade option, and been done with it. Pride gets in the way, though. And one side has to "win."

This was my thought exactly....Tomlin and the Steeler brass didn't want the inmate running the asylum. You hold out? Fine. We don't care. And now it will cost them.

The other thing is that Bell and Thomas both have heavy mileage, and though they aren't old, they're getting old by NFL standards. IDK if any team will want to give them a long term deal at this point, particularly Thomas, since he has broken his leg twice.

 

[Mr Janny]

I think it was screwed as soon as they tagged him a second time. We've seen it twice now with Bell and Cousins. Franchise a guy once, fine. It allows you to keep the player and buys time to negotiate an extension. But tag him a second time and the team has put itself in this gray area where they don't think the player is worth the long term investment but he's better than what they have. Pay the man or trade him while you still have some leverage. The Steelers let this go way too far.

Yeah, I hope they can come to an agreement to limit the franchise tag. I don't think anyone should be subjected to it two years in a row.

 

[jbindm]

This was my thought exactly....Tomlin and the Steeler brass didn't want the inmate running the asylum. You hold out? Fine. We don't care. And now it will cost them.

The other thing is that Bell and Thomas both have heavy mileage, and though they aren't old, they're getting old by NFL standards. IDK if any team will want to give them a long term deal at this point, particularly Thomas, since he has broken his leg twice.

Bell's only 26, but he's had some heavy usage seasons. But what'll really hurt him is the devalution of the RB position. You never know because it only takes one team, but I think he's going to be disappointed in the market that develops for him when he gets to free agency. I'm sure it'll be good, just not what he expects.

 

[jbindm]

Yeah, I hope they can come to an agreement to limit the franchise tag. I don't think anyone should be subjected to it two years in a row.

What do you think about rookie contracts? I think in a perfect world for the union ALL rookie contracts would be standard four year deals - the fifth year option for first round picks would go away. Or they could retain the fith year option for first round picks and eliminate the franchise tag but keep the transition tag.

 

[Mr Janny]

What do you think about rookie contracts? I think in a perfect world for the union ALL rookie contracts would be standard four year deals - the fifth year option for first round picks would go away. Or they could retain the fith year option for first round picks and eliminate the franchise tag but keep the transition tag.

I like that idea. Exercising the 5th year option means you can't tag them. It would encourage long term deals getting done.

 

[Dandy]

Saw on Twitter yesterday that the LeVeon Bell situation may not be going away any time soon because thanks to his holdout his franchise tag cost is less in 2019 than they thought it would be in 2018.

 

[Rabbuk]

I don't think bell has much value.

 

[jbindm]

Saw on Twitter yesterday that the LeVeon Bell situation may not be going away any time soon because thanks to his holdout his franchise tag cost is less in 2019 than they thought it would be in 2018.

Yeah, but wouldn't there be a salary cap hold if they put the franchise tag or transition tag designation on him? That's somewhere between ten and 14 mil that can't be used when free agency opens. That's cutting off the nose to spite the face.

 

[Mr Janny]

Yeah, but wouldn't there be a salary cap hold if they put the franchise tag or transition tag designation on him? That's somewhere between ten and 14 mil that can't be used when free agency opens. That's cutting off the nose to spite the face.

Yeah, it's still tying up a large amount of cap space for a player who has shown he's willing to skip games. It's not something they're going to want to go through again.