And that could be partially why those two teams seem to be pedaling backward so much of the time - they clearly aren't demonstrating a good faith negotiation practice. Players aren't stupid, nor are their agents. Those things are remembered.........
NFL: Offseason Thread
- Thread starter Mr Janny
- Start date
And that could be partially why those two teams seem to be pedaling backward so much of the time - they clearly aren't demonstrating a good faith negotiation practice. Players aren't stupid, nor are their agents. Those things are remembered.........
From the article:
In an effort to end the contract impasse with first-round draft pick Roquan Smith, the Bears conceded they won’t go after his guaranteed money if the linebacker gets suspended under the NFL’s new rule legislating helmet contact, the Tribune has learned.
So, the tweet is not correct - the Bears DID in fact go after his guaranteed money and gave up. Here is the part I think you are referencing:
But Smith remains away from training camp because his representatives at CAA Football have insisted the Bears go even further and include contract language protecting the player from discipline for behavior outside the realm of a football play. The Bears’ reluctance to do so revolves around their fear of setting a precedent for future contracts and has nothing to do with concerns about Smith’s character, the source said.
That does lead to a slippery slope, but they gave this guy the run-around from the very beginning. The article also states that 4 other NFL franchises have signed players with similar language that Smith is seeking, so it doesn't seem like such a deal-breaker, especially since the "source" claims there aren't any character concerns.
Here is Profootballtalk basically working for CAA on their side of the story:
"There’s good news, sort of, regarding the Bears’ impasse with No. 8 overall draft pick Roquan Smith.
According to David Haugh of the Chicago Tribune, the Bears finally have conceded that they won’t void Smith’s future guarantees if the league suspends him for violating the rules regarding the use of the helmet. However, the Bears haven’t gone far enough to get the deal done.
The Bears still want to be able to void future guarantees if Smith is suspended for something that happens on the field beyond the confines of a play — a late hit, a fight, physicality that occurs while a player is defending himself against an attack by an opponent, inadvertent contact with an official, or anything else that could prompt the league office to impose a suspension that is later upheld on appeal. Smith’s camp, per a league source, wants Smith to be protected against the team having the ability to wipe out guarantees over a suspension arising from one hit or one post-play brouhaha.
To their credit, the Bears deftly have couched this dynamic as a “behavior clause,” which makes the Bears sound fair and Smith’s agents seem unreasonable. But the behavior in question happens on the field during a game. It’s one thing for a player to be suspended for PEDs or illegal drugs or a violation of the Personal Conduct Policy. In those cases, the guarantees should void. But if a player ends up being suspended because of something that happens on the field in the heat of the moment and in blink of an eye (and there’s been an uptick lately in those kinds of suspensions), the team shouldn’t be allowed to then carry in its back pocket a license to later cut the player and stiff him out of his guaranteed pay.
So while the Bears have yielded on a suspension arising under certain rules that apply between the snap and the whistle, it’s still not enough. Nothing that happens while the player is in uniform and working on behalf of the organization should be used to void guarantees, regardless of whether the Bears try to call it “behavior” or anything else that makes the event that would trigger a voiding of the guarantees sound far more worse than what it is: A football player on a football field doing football things."
So it's basically Bears-David Haugh-Chicago Tribune vs. CAA-Mike Florio-ProFootballtalk
"There’s good news, sort of, regarding the Bears’ impasse with No. 8 overall draft pick Roquan Smith.
According to David Haugh of the Chicago Tribune, the Bears finally have conceded that they won’t void Smith’s future guarantees if the league suspends him for violating the rules regarding the use of the helmet. However, the Bears haven’t gone far enough to get the deal done.
The Bears still want to be able to void future guarantees if Smith is suspended for something that happens on the field beyond the confines of a play — a late hit, a fight, physicality that occurs while a player is defending himself against an attack by an opponent, inadvertent contact with an official, or anything else that could prompt the league office to impose a suspension that is later upheld on appeal. Smith’s camp, per a league source, wants Smith to be protected against the team having the ability to wipe out guarantees over a suspension arising from one hit or one post-play brouhaha.
To their credit, the Bears deftly have couched this dynamic as a “behavior clause,” which makes the Bears sound fair and Smith’s agents seem unreasonable. But the behavior in question happens on the field during a game. It’s one thing for a player to be suspended for PEDs or illegal drugs or a violation of the Personal Conduct Policy. In those cases, the guarantees should void. But if a player ends up being suspended because of something that happens on the field in the heat of the moment and in blink of an eye (and there’s been an uptick lately in those kinds of suspensions), the team shouldn’t be allowed to then carry in its back pocket a license to later cut the player and stiff him out of his guaranteed pay.
So while the Bears have yielded on a suspension arising under certain rules that apply between the snap and the whistle, it’s still not enough. Nothing that happens while the player is in uniform and working on behalf of the organization should be used to void guarantees, regardless of whether the Bears try to call it “behavior” or anything else that makes the event that would trigger a voiding of the guarantees sound far more worse than what it is: A football player on a football field doing football things."
So it's basically Bears-David Haugh-Chicago Tribune vs. CAA-Mike Florio-ProFootballtalk
Last edited:
True the HOF game is ususally a slog, but it'll give fans a chance to the new Bears offensive system.
Plus extended playing time for Lamar Jackson against 3 teamers has some highlight real potential.
That's fine. I'd expect the Bears to suck again this year, and I like watching the rookies figure out the game.
As a life long Vikings fan even I started feeling bad for them in the 70's and 80's, mainly because of Walter Payton. Then the '85 Bears happened and the bandwagon fans that crawled out of each and every dark corner ensured I would never, ever, feel bad for that franchise again.
Oh, completely understood haha. It's short lived around my friends, for sure, because even my friends who had no memory, or weren't alive yet, bring up the 85 Bears religiously. That's when they lose my sympathy haha
Browns have traded WR Corey Coleman (former Baylor WR) to the Bills in exchange for a 7th round pick. Coleman was a first round pick, and drafted #15 overall in 2016.
http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/...ade-wr-corey-coleman-buffalo-bills-draft-pick
http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/...ade-wr-corey-coleman-buffalo-bills-draft-pick
Good by low trade for Buffalo. The Bills needed a deep threat and there is no real cost if CC injury issue persist.
Interesting read on SI.com about the Ray Lewis/Atlanta killings story. An SI reporter was writing about the victims' families, and wanted to get Lewis' side to be fair. Lewis got indignant with him, and he got kicked out of the Ravens locker room. (This happened some time ago, obviously.)
Writer's point was that the team and the league insulated Lewis from prying minds, basically getting him a free pass. No one was ever charged with the murders - in fact the jury decided the killings happened in self-defense - but if Lewis has nothing to hide, as he has claimed, why does he get indignant about it?
Story here (it's a good one):
https://www.si.com/nfl/2018/08/04/ray-lewis-hall-fame-weekend-atlanta-murders
Writer's point was that the team and the league insulated Lewis from prying minds, basically getting him a free pass. No one was ever charged with the murders - in fact the jury decided the killings happened in self-defense - but if Lewis has nothing to hide, as he has claimed, why does he get indignant about it?
Story here (it's a good one):
https://www.si.com/nfl/2018/08/04/ray-lewis-hall-fame-weekend-atlanta-murders
- Mar 27, 2006
- 42,700
- 33,643
- 113
Comes with the instability of the franchise and constant change in the front office. It's much easier to cut bait on a player you didn't draft.
That's a dumb thing to say. What if Mayfield lights it up in the preseason and/or Taylor looks awful? Hue Jackson isn't going to make it through the 2018 season. I'll be surprised if he makes it to Thanksgiving.
