Interesting developments around the NFL right now... 1) Commissioner Paul Tagliabue is trying to find a way to ban "Poison Pills" in player contracts to avoid situations like the recent pi$$ing match between the Vikings and the Seahawks. 2) The competition committee appears ready to really crack down on celebrations and flag everyone for taunting next year. Chad Johnson claims the NFL can't stop him from being creative. *laughs* I'm not sure what to make of the Poison Pill thing. On one hand, I think it's good. On the other hand, I think that if teams are better at managing their salary cap than others, then maybe they should be rewarded for being able to do that kind of thing. As for celebrations? I say let them go. Claiming "delay of game" just seems silly. I'm willing to wait an extra 30 seconds after a TD if the players are willing to entertain me.
30 seconds? What are we auditioning for a sitcom here? 5-10 seconds is plenty of time. And the only prop u should be allowed to use IMO is the football. I heard they were also considering allowing coaches to challenge plays ruled down by contact. To me this seems hard to do. If you blow this whistle on a play how are you going to go back & say well it turns out he wasn't down so we award the ball to the other team b/c they recovered the ball after the whistle?
Okay, thirty seconds for the celebration isn't exactly what I meant. The play clock starts running shortly after the touchdown is scored and the teams are busy lining up for the extra point, so it's not like there's really any "delay" at all. That's what cracks me up about the whole "delay of game" penalty for celebrations. 5 - 10 seconds of dancing and carrying on sounds about right.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Pack Attack)</div><div class='quotemain'>5 - 10 seconds of dancing and carrying on sounds about right. </div> Do we really want to give Terrell even more me time?? Chad Johnson is a riot! His Riverdance last year was hilarious.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Pack Attack)</div><div class='quotemain'>I'm not sure what to make of the Poison Pill thing. On one hand, I think it's good. On the other hand, I think that if teams are better at managing their salary cap than others, then maybe they should be rewarded for being able to do that kind of thing.</div> The problem is, that the cap no longer has anything to do with poison pills. Example: Your team has 80 million in cap space and a RFA you want to keep. Team Y has 1.2 million in cap space and wants your player. Offers them the following contract. 5 million dollar signing bonus year 1 - league minimum of 360k year 2 - 1.5 million year 3 - 3 million year 4 - 55 million year 5 - 55 million year 6 - 55 million They add poison pill that says if he plays X games in your state, or there isnt another player on team with higher average salary the entire contract is gauranteed. Well, you have to let him go, you cant pay him that. Even if you have 80 million in cap room. It would just be stupid
Thanks for the clarification, BF1. I guess I was a little unclear about the whole thing. That clears things up considerably.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BearsFan1)</div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Pack Attack)</div><div class='quotemain'>I'm not sure what to make of the Poison Pill thing. On one hand, I think it's good. On the other hand, I think that if teams are better at managing their salary cap than others, then maybe they should be rewarded for being able to do that kind of thing.</div> The problem is, that the cap no longer has anything to do with poison pills. Example: Your team has 80 million in cap space and a RFA you want to keep. Team Y has 1.2 million in cap space and wants your player. Offers them the following contract. 5 million dollar signing bonus year 1 - league minimum of 360k year 2 - 1.5 million year 3 - 3 million year 4 - 55 million year 5 - 55 million year 6 - 55 million They add poison pill that says if he plays X games in your state, or there isnt another player on team with higher average salary the entire contract is gauranteed. Well, you have to let him go, you cant pay him that. Even if you have 80 million in cap room. It would just be stupid</div> It cant exactly work that way....the rules do stipulate that you can only increase a salary by 30% from year to year, but this is a legit posionous contract: Signing Bonus: $5million Yr1:$1million Yr2:$1.3million Yr3:$1.69mil Roster Bonus:$15million Yr4:$2.197million Roster Bonus:$15 million Yr5:$2.86million Roster Bonus:$25million Yr6:$3.72million Roster Bonus:$25million Yr7:$4.86million Stipulation: If the player plays 6 or more games in the state of X then the entire contract is guaranteed. That deal would be reported in the media like this: Team X signs Player X to a 7yr, $103million deal.....that makes the agent look great to college kids that dont understand the deal, and makes the player feel good too....in his mind, he just got $103million dollars....reality though, hes on a 3 yr, $9million deal becuase they will either restructure after 3 years or release him....they might pay one of the roster bonuses if he turns into a legit star because that still keeps the 4 year average low....the original team cant even think about matching this becuase if they do, he plays his 8 games at home and the whole deal is guaranteed....it really is a negative thing for the league....the rules are set up so that you can retain your restricted free agents, but you have to pay them what they are worth, but this prevents you from doing so....
