NFL contracts need changing

[JayLear]

[ QUOTE ]
In all fairness, you should also consider how often an established player will sign a big contract and badly underperform it as well. I'm sure you could find quite a few Hugh Douglas, Dana Stubblefield, Sean Gilbert, Jake Plummer type deals out there where guys took big money and didn't earn it on the field. All players are given contracts based on potential, and sometimes even previous performance in the NFL isn't an accurate indicator.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good point, but I think that's evened out by players who are playing under contracts they've out-performed (and no, T.O. doesn't qualify under this category). Maybe it's illogical, but I don't have a problem with somebody playing thier way into a big contract.

[McGahee]

[ QUOTE ]
This is for everyone that tries to use the "Owners can cut players whenever they want" as part of their argument that it's one-sided. You really should study a finance concept called "real options". Yes, management can cut players. But that is built into the extravagant salaries they pay them in the form of an implicit option. In other words, part of their salary is a premium paid for the option to cut them or end the contract early. Yes, the players are open to being cut, but they're also compensated for that. The current structure of long contracts that are never fulfilled is a necessity to operate within the salary cap structure.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm really glad somebody mentioned this.
It is absurd to think that the Eagles would cut TO w/ 6 years left on his contract and absorb the ridiculous cap hit that would go with it.

[SL__72]

As a Bears fan you should know that Thomas Jones is a talented player and not be too worried about Benson. When he was healthy last year he played VERY well.

I don't think you can characterize any of the following as "monumental failures"

Chris Samuels - Solid starting left tackle since being drafted.

Peter Warrick - After he ran a 4.7 40 in the draft they had to know that they were only getting a solid #2 posession type reciever. With the exception of last year (which he missed most of due to injury) he has been just that.

Thomas Jones - Good hands, gets better every year, played very well when healthy last year. Didn't work out for Arizona, but mostly because they sucked so bad.

Leonard Davis - Great his first year, reliable starter ever since (except for a few minor injuries)

Travis Taylor - Watch out for him this year.

Justin Smith - Solid starter



The NFLs "system" may not be perfect, but it is far better then any of the other pro sports leagues.

[Wes ManTooth]

[ QUOTE ]
Hugh Douglas, Dana Stubblefield, Sean Gilbert, Jake Plummer

[/ QUOTE ]

All of these players received smaller deals then most failed top 10 draft picks. Also some these players were not given guarented money like many new draft picks have been in there contracts. So they can be dumped or have their contracts reworked at the end of a season like Douglas, Stubblefield and Gilbert had.

[JayLear]

[ QUOTE ]
As a Bears fan you should know that Thomas Jones is a talented player and not be too worried about Benson. When he was healthy last year he played VERY well.

[/ QUOTE ]
Thomas Jones was taken #7 overall -- in his career he has rushed for a total of 2800 yards in 5 season, including a career high of 948 last year. Talented -- yes. Worthy of a pick that high and huge rookie bonus money? No.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think you can characterize any of the following as "monumental failures"

Chris Samuels - Solid starting left tackle since being drafted.

[/ QUOTE ]
Don't you want more than "solid" from the # 3 pick in the draft? I think they were looking for something closer to Tony Boselli or Jon Ogden there than the James "Big Cat" Williams clone they ended up with.

[ QUOTE ]
Peter Warrick - After he ran a 4.7 40 in the draft they had to know that they were only getting a solid #2 posession type reciever. With the exception of last year (which he missed most of due to injury) he has been just that.

[/ QUOTE ]
Do you REALLY think they drafted him #4 overall in that draft and paid him all that money because they wanted him to come in and be a solid #2 possession type receiver??? You don't draft #2 possession receivers with the #4 overall pick -- although maybe the Bengals do.

[ QUOTE ]
Thomas Jones - Good hands, gets better every year, played very well when healthy last year. Didn't work out for Arizona, but mostly because they sucked so bad.

[/ QUOTE ]
I hope you're right, but it's been 5 full years, and he's never rushed for 1000 yards, which has got to be the bare minimum for a serviceable NFL back. And if the Bears really thought Jones was this good (which is now conveniently the tune they're singing), then why did they draft Benson so high rather than focusing on several of their other glaring holes?

[ QUOTE ]
Leonard Davis - Great his first year, reliable starter ever since (except for a few minor injuries)

[/ QUOTE ]
Again, IMO you need more than "solid" and "reliable" with the #2 overall pick. These guys get a ton of scratch, which is my entire point.


[ QUOTE ]
Travis Taylor - Watch out for him this year.

[/ QUOTE ]
We'll see, but I hope my top draft picks are producing prior to their 6th NFL season for another team, no less!!!

[ QUOTE ]
Justin Smith - Solid starter

[/ QUOTE ]
See above...solid -- not good enough for #4.

[ QUOTE ]
The NFLs "system" may not be perfect, but it is far better then any of the other pro sports leagues.

[/ QUOTE ]

All that said, I agree with this last statement, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't try and make it better. I'm not ready to sound the alarms on Benson yet, but this is really starting to look familiar...

[holeplug]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is for everyone that tries to use the "Owners can cut players whenever they want" as part of their argument that it's one-sided. You really should study a finance concept called "real options". Yes, management can cut players. But that is built into the extravagant salaries they pay them in the form of an implicit option. In other words, part of their salary is a premium paid for the option to cut them or end the contract early. Yes, the players are open to being cut, but they're also compensated for that. The current structure of long contracts that are never fulfilled is a necessity to operate within the salary cap structure.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm really glad somebody mentioned this.
It is absurd to think that the Eagles would cut TO w/ 6 years left on his contract and absorb the ridiculous cap hit that would go with it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually the Eagles can release him after this season and take a very small cap hit which is what they are going to do after they win the Super Bowl [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img].

[JayLear]

[ QUOTE ]
Actually the Eagles can release him after this season and take a very small cap hit which is what they are going to do after they win the Super Bowl [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img].

[/ QUOTE ]

How is that possible, depending on what is considered small? Is $6 million considered small?

[tolbiny]

The players are the driving force behind the NFL- the owners are making X dollars off them- it seems pretty clear that the y$ that the players are making is not a satisfactory % of x.

[tolbiny]

I think Jake plummer's prior performance in the NFL was a fantastic indicator of how he would play in Denver.

[JayLear]

[ QUOTE ]
I think Jake plummer's prior performance in the NFL was a fantastic indicator of how he would play in Denver.

[/ QUOTE ]

And they paid him anyway -- another fine example of Shannahan's pro talent evaluation.