Jeff Saturday on Contract Disputes

SeaToTheHawks · Jul 14, 2015

He was asked how it affects the locker room and if other players start getting upset. He essentially said it doesn't affect the locker room at all, and that all players in there have each others backs. The other players also hope for their teammates to get as much as they can and understand the business side of it.

With that said, I wouldn't think there is any discord in the locker room over RWs contract talks, especially since he is not threatening a hold out a la Dez Bryant.

hawknation2015 · Jul 14, 2015

Players like Bennett have expressed annoyance in the past at the fact that QBs tend to monopolize so much of the salary cap. In his words, "there's nothing left for the rest of us." This was a few years ago. Maybe not a surprising sentiment from a guy who is paid, in part, to make life difficult on QBs.

DavidSeven · Jul 14, 2015

Hm. I don't know. I don't think you can lump QBs with other players. There is already a sort of league-wide resentment of how much those guys make above everyone else. QBs are also the de facto leaders of the team.

There are certain players in Seattle who probably left a little money on the table in order to get their deals done quickly. They likely won't begrudge other guys who are more aggressive, but to see that from the QB who is already in line to make $20M+? I don't know. I don't think that's the same thing. It also probably depends on how well Russell is regarded in the locker-room. Peyton Manning in his prime could demand anything and his teammates wouldn't care since they were riding his coattails. Does Russell have that same stature in the Seahawks locker-room? Who knows.

CalgaryHawk · Jul 14, 2015

As part of the next CBA, the players could add a condition that no one player on the 53 man roster can account for more than 10% of the salary cap if they want a more egalitarian locker room, like M. Bennett wants. The non-QB players would certainly have the numbers over the QB's to make that change to the CBA happen. Not even Russell Wilson's mental visioning could stop that. Also, since football is such a team sport where the QB's success is at least partially dependent on the performance of the players around him (including his defensive players who create turnovers), it makes more sense to do that type of thing in football than in other more individual-oriented team sports such as basketball and baseball. The football agents might oppose it at first, but the agents ultimately work for the players. And I can't see any reason why the football owners or GM's would be opposed to this.

Bigpumpkin · Jul 14, 2015

CalgaryHawk":1l817asn said:
As part of the next CBA, the players could add a condition that no one player on the 53 man roster can account for more than 10% of the salary cap if they want a more egalitarian locker room, like M. Bennett wants. The non-QB players would certainly have the numbers over the QB's to make that change to the CBA happen. Not even Russell Wilson's mental visioning could stop that. Also, since football is such a team sport where the QB's success is at least partially dependent on the performance of the players around him (including his defensive players who create turnovers), it makes more sense to do that type of thing in football than in other more individual-oriented team sports such as basketball and baseball. The football agents might oppose it at first, but the agents ultimately work for the players. And I can't see any reason why the football owners or GM's would be opposed to this.

This proposal doesn't have an "ice cube's chance in hell"!

MizzouHawkGal · Jul 14, 2015

Bigpumpkin":ea2yeq8p said:
CalgaryHawk":ea2yeq8p said:

As part of the next CBA, the players could add a condition that no one player on the 53 man roster can account for more than 10% of the salary cap if they want a more egalitarian locker room, like M. Bennett wants. The non-QB players would certainly have the numbers over the QB's to make that change to the CBA happen. Not even Russell Wilson's mental visioning could stop that. Also, since football is such a team sport where the QB's success is at least partially dependent on the performance of the players around him (including his defensive players who create turnovers), it makes more sense to do that type of thing in football than in other more individual-oriented team sports such as basketball and baseball. The football agents might oppose it at first, but the agents ultimately work for the players. And I can't see any reason why the football owners or GM's would be opposed to this.

Click to expand...

This proposal doesn't have an "ice cube's chance in hell"!

Mostly because it makes total sense. When have you ever seen anything make actual sense when so much money is involved? Society and the sports culture that derives from it is far too selfish to take such a proposal seriously.

CalgaryHawk · Jul 14, 2015

MizzouHawkGal":5f49ywjn said:
Bigpumpkin":5f49ywjn said:

CalgaryHawk":5f49ywjn said:

As part of the next CBA, the players could add a condition that no one player on the 53 man roster can account for more than 10% of the salary cap if they want a more egalitarian locker room, like M. Bennett wants. The non-QB players would certainly have the numbers over the QB's to make that change to the CBA happen. Not even Russell Wilson's mental visioning could stop that. Also, since football is such a team sport where the QB's success is at least partially dependent on the performance of the players around him (including his defensive players who create turnovers), it makes more sense to do that type of thing in football than in other more individual-oriented team sports such as basketball and baseball. The football agents might oppose it at first, but the agents ultimately work for the players. And I can't see any reason why the football owners or GM's would be opposed to this.

Click to expand...

This proposal doesn't have an "ice cube's chance in hell"!

Click to expand...

Mostly because it makes total sense. When have you ever seen anything make actual sense when so much money is involved? Society and the sports culture that derives from it is far too selfish to take such a proposal seriously.

It's also a very "un-American" type of proposal, putting any kind of a ceiling on an individual's ability to earn wealth, so I agree it's unlikely. But really the NFL's CBA and a team salary cap has ideas that are closer to socialism than laissez-faire economics already, so this is not a totally foreign concept to the economics of the NFL.

I actually think the NFL may harm its long-term interests by not reigning in QB salaries. It creates teams with 10 or so really highly paid players surrounded by a bunch of cheap guys on their first contracts, and the middle-tier veterans get pushed out of jobs by the cheaper guys. This sometimes leads to sloppier play because the young, cheap guys are not as experienced as the veterans they've replaced, and the reduction of the off-season workouts and mini-camp practices exasperates the problem because it's the young guys who need those off-season reps to get up to speed.

Tical21 · Jul 14, 2015

MizzouHawkGal":azdgo5ko said:
Bigpumpkin":azdgo5ko said:

CalgaryHawk":azdgo5ko said:

As part of the next CBA, the players could add a condition that no one player on the 53 man roster can account for more than 10% of the salary cap if they want a more egalitarian locker room, like M. Bennett wants. The non-QB players would certainly have the numbers over the QB's to make that change to the CBA happen. Not even Russell Wilson's mental visioning could stop that. Also, since football is such a team sport where the QB's success is at least partially dependent on the performance of the players around him (including his defensive players who create turnovers), it makes more sense to do that type of thing in football than in other more individual-oriented team sports such as basketball and baseball. The football agents might oppose it at first, but the agents ultimately work for the players. And I can't see any reason why the football owners or GM's would be opposed to this.

Click to expand...

This proposal doesn't have an "ice cube's chance in hell"!

Click to expand...

Mostly because it makes total sense. When have you ever seen anything make actual sense when so much money is involved? Society and the sports culture that derives from it is far too selfish to take such a proposal seriously.

Yeah, let's piss off the most important, visible players that do the most to bring in the money to begin with. Good plan!

Hawkpower · Jul 14, 2015

DavidSeven":20d0rztf said:
Hm. I don't know. I don't think you can lump QBs with other players. There is already a sort of league-wide resentment of how much those guys make above everyone else. QBs are also the de facto leaders of the team.

There are certain players in Seattle who probably left a little money on the table in order to get their deals done quickly. They likely won't begrudge other guys who are more aggressive, but to see that from the QB who is already in line to make $20M+? I don't know. I don't think that's the same thing. It also probably depends on how well Russell is regarded in the locker-room. Peyton Manning in his prime could demand anything and his teammates wouldn't care since they were riding his coattails. Does Russell have that same stature in the Seahawks locker-room? Who knows.

Especially on a team like Seattle, that has such a fantastic defense and running game. A team that has so many key performers outside of RW. Guys like Earl, Sherm, Beast...guys who are the best at their position. You have to wonder if some of the guys quietly (or not so quietly) are thinking the same thing.

I don't think it would tangibly affect the teams play, but one never knows. Sometimes locker room chemistry is overrated, but I do think it plays a role at least.

WilsonMVP · Jul 14, 2015

hawknation2015":2cwnkn3q said:
Players like Bennett have expressed annoyance in the past at the fact that QBs tend to monopolize so much of the salary cap. In his words, "there's nothing left for the rest of us." This was a few years ago. Maybe not a surprising sentiment from a guy who is paid, in part, to make life difficult on QBs.

Difference with Russ though is he was making basically nothing for 3 years though vastly outperforming his contract all 3 years. Also Making less than alot of backups in the league

hawxfreak · Jul 14, 2015

It's the cba so it's not like they weren't trying to pay rw but also it could harm us and be a reason something like that does happen , I for one actually like the idea

fridayfrenzy · Jul 14, 2015

Bigpumpkin":3bazfpay said:
CalgaryHawk":3bazfpay said:

As part of the next CBA, the players could add a condition that no one player on the 53 man roster can account for more than 10% of the salary cap if they want a more egalitarian locker room, like M. Bennett wants. The non-QB players would certainly have the numbers over the QB's to make that change to the CBA happen. Not even Russell Wilson's mental visioning could stop that. Also, since football is such a team sport where the QB's success is at least partially dependent on the performance of the players around him (including his defensive players who create turnovers), it makes more sense to do that type of thing in football than in other more individual-oriented team sports such as basketball and baseball. The football agents might oppose it at first, but the agents ultimately work for the players. And I can't see any reason why the football owners or GM's would be opposed to this.

Click to expand...

This proposal doesn't have an "ice cube's chance in hell"!

Why? It happened to some degree in the NBA.

devilhawk88 · Jul 18, 2015

What the hell does out perform the contract mean? That is such a stupid statement. He signed the contract now he is playing for his next contract. He did his job. It's not like he was working on all their cars and managing their finances as well as being the QB. Or that there were explicit instructions our a punch list.

chris98251 · Jul 18, 2015

So in his last few years do we get money back if he underperforms his contract?

rideaducati · Jul 18, 2015

CalgaryHawk":2rh32krl said:
MizzouHawkGal":2rh32krl said:

CalgaryHawk":2rh32krl said:

As part of the next CBA, the players could add a condition that no one player on the 53 man roster can account for more than 10% of the salary cap if they want a more egalitarian locker room, like M. Bennett wants. The non-QB players would certainly have the numbers over the QB's to make that change to the CBA happen. Not even Russell Wilson's mental visioning could stop that. Also, since football is such a team sport where the QB's success is at least partially dependent on the performance of the players around him (including his defensive players who create turnovers), it makes more sense to do that type of thing in football than in other more individual-oriented team sports such as basketball and baseball. The football agents might oppose it at first, but the agents ultimately work for the players. And I can't see any reason why the football owners or GM's would be opposed to this.

Click to expand...

Mostly because it makes total sense. When have you ever seen anything make actual sense when so much money is involved? Society and the sports culture that derives from it is far too selfish to take such a proposal seriously.

Click to expand...

It's also a very "un-American" type of proposal, putting any kind of a ceiling on an individual's ability to earn wealth, so I agree it's unlikely. But really the NFL's CBA and a team salary cap has ideas that are closer to socialism than laissez-faire economics already, so this is not a totally foreign concept to the economics of the NFL.

I actually think the NFL may harm its long-term interests by not reigning in QB salaries. It creates teams with 10 or so really highly paid players surrounded by a bunch of cheap guys on their first contracts, and the middle-tier veterans get pushed out of jobs by the cheaper guys. This sometimes leads to sloppier play because the young, cheap guys are not as experienced as the veterans they've replaced, and the reduction of the off-season workouts and mini-camp practices exasperates the problem because it's the young guys who need those off-season reps to get up to speed.

This is already happening, just look at every top paid QB's team after he signed a huge deal.

bigDhawk · Jul 19, 2015

Tical21":1sge7rnn said:
MizzouHawkGal":1sge7rnn said:

Bigpumpkin":1sge7rnn said:

CalgaryHawk":1sge7rnn said:

As part of the next CBA, the players could add a condition that no one player on the 53 man roster can account for more than 10% of the salary cap if they want a more egalitarian locker room, like M. Bennett wants. The non-QB players would certainly have the numbers over the QB's to make that change to the CBA happen. Not even Russell Wilson's mental visioning could stop that. Also, since football is such a team sport where the QB's success is at least partially dependent on the performance of the players around him (including his defensive players who create turnovers), it makes more sense to do that type of thing in football than in other more individual-oriented team sports such as basketball and baseball. The football agents might oppose it at first, but the agents ultimately work for the players. And I can't see any reason why the football owners or GM's would be opposed to this.

Click to expand...

This proposal doesn't have an "ice cube's chance in hell"!

Click to expand...

Mostly because it makes total sense. When have you ever seen anything make actual sense when so much money is involved? Society and the sports culture that derives from it is far too selfish to take such a proposal seriously.

Click to expand...

Yeah, let's piss off the most important, visible players that do the most to bring in the money to begin with. Good plan!

It is the NFL's lopsided propensity for more and more offense that has made the QB position by far the most important on the field. So in the spirit of things that make way too much sense to ever happen (not to mention thread-jacking), I propose one of two rules changes to somewhat de-emphasize the QB position, ergo adding emphasis to other aspects of the game. Take your pick:

* All forward passes must travel in the air at least as far as the line to gain

or

* All forward passes can travel in the air no further than the line to gain.

Infractions would incur a five yard penalty and loss of down.

The former proposal eliminates dinking and dunking. If you want to pass on 1st and 10, the ball has to travel a minimum of ten yards forward through the air before it can be caught and advanced by the offense. 1st and 20 after a holding penalty? Bombs away. Among other things, this would place an offensive premium on never losing ground, since doing so makes the passing game more difficult. Gaining yardage through the running game on early downs now becomes vital, and the passing game becomes more about sure-strike possession rather than the 2-yard-catch-10-yard-run YAC-fest it is now. The passing game would be less complicated and less prolific, making it something more QBs could do effectively. Conversely, a defensive premium would be placed on sacks and TFL's, making the value elite pass-rushers much closer to that of QB.

The latter proposal would relegated the passing game to nothing but dinking and dunking, essentially an extension of the running game. On 1st and 10 a forward pass can travel no further than 10 yards forward before being caught and advanced by the offense. Again, this would make the passing game less complicated and prolific, allowing any QB with Alex Smith's skill set to be effective. It would also turn the game into an extremely physical contest at the LOS. The box would always be stacked and the run game would be more complex with multiple RB formations. Offenses would be forced to pass against essentially a perma-goal-line defense. Narrow passing lanes would mean a big increase in pick-6's and ball-hawking secondaries would be at a premium close to the QB position itself.

The former would make the passing game more situational. The latter would make the passing game more integral. Both would make the passing game less dominant, and the QB position less of the almost unattainable premium it has become. And both are simple, easily enforced rules that require no new structure to the existing game.

Ok, now back to your regularly scheduled discussion.

rideaducati · Jul 19, 2015

bigDhawk":3b3tqcfx said:
It is the NFL's lopsided propensity for more and more offense that has made the QB position by far the most important on the field. So in the spirit of things that make way too much sense to ever happen (not to mention thread-jacking), I propose one of two rules changes to somewhat de-emphasize the QB position, ergo adding emphasis to other aspects of the game. Take your pick:

* All forward passes must travel in the air at least as far as the line to gain

or

* All forward passes can travel in the air no further than the line to gain.

Infractions would incur a five yard penalty and loss of down.

The former proposal eliminates dinking and dunking. If you want to pass on 1st and 10, the ball has to travel a minimum of ten yards forward through the air before it can be caught and advanced by the offense. 1st and 20 after a holding penalty? Bombs away. Among other things, this would place an offensive premium on never losing ground, since doing so makes the passing game more difficult. Gaining yardage through the running game on early downs now becomes vital, and the passing game becomes more about sure-strike possession rather than the 2-yard-catch-10-yard-run YAC-fest it is now. The passing game would be less complicated and less prolific, making it something more QBs could do effectively. Conversely, a defensive premium would be placed on sacks and TFL's, making the value elite pass-rushers much closer to that of QB.

The latter proposal would relegated the passing game to nothing but dinking and dunking, essentially an extension of the running game. On 1st and 10 a forward pass can travel no further than 10 yards forward before being caught and advanced by the offense. Again, this would make the passing game less complicated and prolific, allowing any QB with Alex Smith's skill set to be effective. It would also turn the game into an extremely physical contest at the LOS. The box would always be stacked and the run game would be more complex with multiple RB formations. Offenses would be forced to pass against essentially a perma-goal-line defense. Narrow passing lanes would mean a big increase in pick-6's and ball-hawking secondaries would be at a premium close to the QB position itself.

The former would make the passing game more situational. The latter would make the passing game more integral. Both would make the passing game less dominant, and the QB position less of the almost unattainable premium it has become. And both are simple, easily enforced rules that require no new structure to the existing game.

Ok, now back to your regularly scheduled discussion.

:17:

kf3339 · Jul 19, 2015

MizzouHawkGal":1fh3e5vu said:
Bigpumpkin":1fh3e5vu said:

CalgaryHawk":1fh3e5vu said:

As part of the next CBA, the players could add a condition that no one player on the 53 man roster can account for more than 10% of the salary cap if they want a more egalitarian locker room, like M. Bennett wants. The non-QB players would certainly have the numbers over the QB's to make that change to the CBA happen. Not even Russell Wilson's mental visioning could stop that. Also, since football is such a team sport where the QB's success is at least partially dependent on the performance of the players around him (including his defensive players who create turnovers), it makes more sense to do that type of thing in football than in other more individual-oriented team sports such as basketball and baseball. The football agents might oppose it at first, but the agents ultimately work for the players. And I can't see any reason why the football owners or GM's would be opposed to this.

Click to expand...

This proposal doesn't have an "ice cube's chance in hell"!

Click to expand...

Mostly because it makes total sense. When have you ever seen anything make actual sense when so much money is involved? Society and the sports culture that derives from it is far too selfish to take such a proposal seriously.

Exactly!

BlueTalon · Jul 19, 2015

bigDhawk":3fuhgvd7 said:
It is the NFL's lopsided propensity for more and more offense that has made the QB position by far the most important on the field. So in the spirit of things that make way too much sense to ever happen (not to mention thread-jacking), I propose one of two rules changes to somewhat de-emphasize the QB position, ergo adding emphasis to other aspects of the game. Take your pick:

* All forward passes must travel in the air at least as far as the line to gain

or

* All forward passes can travel in the air no further than the line to gain.

File this under "Hypothetical rule changes that would be interesting but will never happen." I have some of those too.

I think it would be interesting to make field goals 2 points inside 30 yards, and 4 points over 60 yards. I also think it would be cool to have an addition set of goal posts, 3 feet apart in the middle of the existing posts -- if the ball goes between them, it's worth an extra point. So conceivably, a field goal could be worth 5 points. It would make the decision to go for it/attempt a FG/punt a more interesting decision.

A more serious thought is to put a micro-transmitter in each end of the football, and embed sensors in the field. I found through personal experience that things like this can be exceptionally accurate. About 15 years ago, I got to test some cutting edge technology on a Marine Corps rifle range. It could remotely sense exactly where a bullet passed in relation to a target, and display that point on a monitor where the shooter was. It was so accurate, it could tell from the angle of trajectory when someone shot at the wrong target. The techs had me intentionally shoot at an adjacent target -- my monitor told me I shot at the wrong target, and the monitor for the target next to me didn't even register the shot.

With micro-sensors in the football, we could know exactly where the ball is in relation to the goal line. If a system like this existed during SBXL*, rapistburger would never have scored that TD. Such a system could even show the attitude of the ball, and it would be possible to superimpose the location of the football over videos of the actual play -- or see the football in isolation, for that matter. Chris Cooley once advocated something like this.

If only...

CalgaryHawk · Jul 20, 2015

BlueTalon":8arqh7to said:
bigDhawk":8arqh7to said:

It is the NFL's lopsided propensity for more and more offense that has made the QB position by far the most important on the field. So in the spirit of things that make way too much sense to ever happen (not to mention thread-jacking), I propose one of two rules changes to somewhat de-emphasize the QB position, ergo adding emphasis to other aspects of the game. Take your pick:

* All forward passes must travel in the air at least as far as the line to gain

or

* All forward passes can travel in the air no further than the line to gain.

Click to expand...

File this under "Hypothetical rule changes that would be interesting but will never happen." I have some of those too.

I think it would be interesting to make field goals 2 points inside 30 yards, and 4 points over 60 yards. I also think it would be cool to have an addition set of goal posts, 3 feet apart in the middle of the existing posts -- if the ball goes between them, it's worth an extra point. So conceivably, a field goal could be worth 5 points. It would make the decision to go for it/attempt a FG/punt a more interesting decision.

A more serious thought is to put a micro-transmitter in each end of the football, and embed sensors in the field. I found through personal experience that things like this can be exceptionally accurate. About 15 years ago, I got to test some cutting edge technology on a Marine Corps rifle range. It could remotely sense exactly where a bullet passed in relation to a target, and display that point on a monitor where the shooter was. It was so accurate, it could tell from the angle of trajectory when someone shot at the wrong target. The techs had me intentionally shoot at an adjacent target -- my monitor told me I shot at the wrong target, and the monitor for the target next to me didn't even register the shot.

With micro-sensors in the football, we could know exactly where the ball is in relation to the goal line. If a system like this existed during SBXL*, rapistburger would never have scored that TD. Such a system could even show the attitude of the ball, and it would be possible to superimpose the location of the football over videos of the actual play -- or see the football in isolation, for that matter. Chris Cooley once advocated something like this.

If only...

Do you really want to see teams who get inside the 35 yard line near the end of games and trailing by 2 or 3 points to be taking a knee so as to prevent themselves from getting inside the 30 yard line instead of running regular plays to gain more yardage? Or QBs sprinting backwards 10 yards at the end of games and halves and sitting down on the 30 yard line? I think that would be weird and bad for the game.

I'd suggest the exact opposite. Field goals inside the 30 yard line are worth 3 points and field goals outside the 30 are only worth 2 points. That would encourage teams to go for it on fourth down more when they get between the opponents 40 and 30 yard lines, instead of settling for a long field goal try. And it makes intuitive sense to me that the closer you get to the opponents end zone, the more points you should potentially be awarded even if you don't score a touchdown. Let's put less emphasis on the kickers impact on games, not more.

Jeff Saturday on Contract Disputes

New member

New member

New member

Member

Active member

Well-known member

Member

Well-known member

Well-known member

New member

New member

New member

Member

Well-known member

New member

New member

New member

Active member

Well-known member

Member

Similar threads