1 minute ago, NCiggles said:

He was their starter and has been in the league for awhile.  

Giants signed him off the Lions practice squad and started one game for the Giants.  He was likely battling for a depth position, not a starting one IMO

@LeanMeanGM I'm fuzzy on the rules.

Do you have to go on IR after the cut down to 53 to be able to come off the IR?

Just now, SkippyX said:

@LeanMeanGM I'm fuzzy on the rules.

Do you have to go on IR after the cut down to 53 to be able to come off the IR?

Yes

5 hours ago, EagleVA said:

At least others are thinking, you sound like a emotional/feelings type of guy......sad it right.

Yeah im known for being the emotional one around here…

 

2 hours ago, NCiggles said:

Lafayette was much better than Burr.  

Everyone give it up for America's favorite fighting Frenchman!

19 hours ago, e-a-g-l-e-s eagles! said:

I’m pretty sure Jason Garrett isn’t Jerry jones son in law. Googling it it the only son in law I’ve seen talked about is shy Anderson. Jason Garrett’s father was a long time scout with the cowboys but i don’t think that’s the reason why jones would just think highly of Jason and keep him around for as long as he did as HC

Ya I had to look at it too, IDK where I got that from.  The family worked for Jerry for a long long time, maybe Jerry referred to him as it once as an analogy to the closeness.

10 hours ago, paco said:

That was already happening prior to fantasy blowing up.  The goal is to increase viewership and the casual fan wants to see lots of scoring and passing is more exciting than run dominant games.  Less than 1 in 5 play fantasy, and we can assume that the 80% are said casual viewers.

 

But you are correct, the NFL will do anything to get every last drop.  So if fantasy brings in money, they will definitely do stuff like make stats more available and what not.  

Maybe, fantasy has been around a long time.  I think it became really big in the early 2000's when the internet made things more accessible.  We all here constantly complain that the game is slowly becoming unwatchable.  The fantasy/gambling boom I think plays a huge role in that.

8 hours ago, SkippyX said:

The problem with the Rams is that they did not win a SB by 'getting Stafford'. They got into a slightly better position to win by getting him.

The free OBJ out by the curb in Cleveland and the Von Miller trade got them their SB.

So no, the trade was not smart because they won with Stafford. The could have won with Goff if they added OBJ and Von Miller.

Add OBJ and Miller to the 2018 team and they probably win the SB too.

 

Spending rent money on lottery tickets is not a smart move. If enough people do it then one person who wins is still not smart, just lucky.

Stafford is a huge reason for them winning that Super Bowl.  Stafford was a tremendously good QB on a bad team for far too long.  The Rams got an elite QB playing at an elite level and won a SB.

6 hours ago, NCiggles said:

In fairness, the women's team are winners and should get paid.  

They get paid...a very large portion of the revenue.  Hell they even got paid when the men played recently due to the new CBA.  They currently have equal revenue share as the men IIRC.  So this argument is as old and WRONG as the WNBA women crying about 'inequality'.

Lol group text

I complained about Hoskins at first base last year... but he looks like a Gold Glover compared to Darick Hall.

🤦‍♂️

I guess I'm in the minority here but I kinda get why the RBs are pissed. I disagree with the premise that RBs aren't important to the success of an NFL offense.  They just have the shortest career duration and hit their prime early in their career making it dumb to invest in them beyond their rookie deals.  They get disproportionately screwed by the current CBA by wasting their prime on a cheap contract. 

At the end of the day that's just as much on the NFLPA though. Can't blame teams and owners for doing what's best given the current agreement. Negotiate a better one next time. 

53 minutes ago, Wentz_Era said:

Stafford is a huge reason for them winning that Super Bowl.  Stafford was a tremendously good QB on a bad team for far too long.  The Rams got an elite QB playing at an elite level and won a SB.

His league leading 17 ints would suggest otherwise...

16 minutes ago, DEagle7 said:

I guess I'm in the minority here but I kinda get why the RBs are pissed. I disagree with the premise that RBs aren't important to the success of an NFL offense.  They just have the shortest career duration and hit their prime early in their career making it dumb to invest in them beyond their rookie deals.  They get disproportionately screwed by the current CBA by wasting their prime on a cheap contract. 

At the end of the day that's just as much on the NFLPA though. Can't blame teams and owners for doing what's best given the current agreement. Negotiate a better one next time. 

I get why they are pissed. But it’s tough ish. Don’t be a RB then. Go be a PS WR or core ST’er and make even less. Go play in the CFL and make less. 

Fixing the problem by giving them some type of special privilege with their second contract isn’t going to fix the problem as I bet teams would still be hesitant to invest big money in them. And then other position groups will just complain they have to wait three years to get paid. No one is going to ever be happy. Maybe the players should have just not complained about Joe Banner and signing guys early in their careers to second contracts that the players agreed to. 

Ultimately, they grew up and made the decision to be a human battering ram. It shouldn’t be a surprise their careers are short and not worth teams investing much in.

The owners are not doing anything to RBs. The players get close to 50% according to the CBA.

Its actually more than 50% since they constantly borrow from future years with voidable years and signing bonuses, etc.

The owners are not pocketing money that does not go to RBs. They give it to other players.

Its up to guys like QBs, WRs, DEs, CBs, DTs, and OTs who are stealing the RBs share to agree to rework the CBA to a communist style where everyone gets paid the same.

 

Rookies in general, including RBs, used to get more money but the players stopped that in the CBA negotiations. (Sammy Sleeves was the last rookie lottery winner)

Short of that the RBs can shut the hell up.

2 minutes ago, LeanMeanGM said:

I get why they are pissed. But it’s tough ish. Don’t be a RB then. Go be a PS WR or core ST’er and make even less. Go play in the CFL and make less. 

Fixing the problem by giving them some type of special privilege with their second contract isn’t going to fix the problem as I bet teams would still be hesitant to invest big money in them. And then other position groups will just complain they have to wait three years to get paid. No one is going to ever be happy. Maybe the players should have just not complained about Joe Banner and signing guys early in their careers to second contracts that the players agreed to. 

Ultimately, they grew up and made the decision to be a human battering ram. It shouldn’t be a surprise their careers are short and not worth teams investing much in.

Now this I agree with.  The NFLPA basically screwed their players, in particular RBs, with that one.  Should have just let the agents earn their keep and stop their clients from signing bad contracts.

I also agree there's no clear fix here. You can't give RBs special rookie contract negotiation privileges without other players being (rightfully) pissed. And nothing is going to change the fact that a RB hits his prime in the first few years of his career and falls off a cliff soon after.

24 minutes ago, DEagle7 said:

I guess I'm in the minority here but I kinda get why the RBs are pissed. I disagree with the premise that RBs aren't important to the success of an NFL offense.  They just have the shortest career duration and hit their prime early in their career making it dumb to invest in them beyond their rookie deals.  They get disproportionately screwed by the current CBA by wasting their prime on a cheap contract. 

At the end of the day that's just as much on the NFLPA though. Can't blame teams and owners for doing what's best given the current agreement. Negotiate a better one next time. 

I agree. 

Its one of the most physicall tolling positions, and now one of the lowest paid. 

If you dont want to cash strap teams by somehow forcing them to pay more to RBs on 2nd contracts, then I think the compromise can be paying the more initially. Some kind of change to the rookie scale where specifically for a RB, their first contract is larger. 

1 hour ago, Mike030270 said:

Lol group text

That’s definitely satire. 

Tyreek Hill makes more than twice as much money as Travis Kelce, yet Kelce has always been the more important player.  I don’t feel bad for RBs at all.  It’s disingenuous for them to try to represent they’re being singled out.  LBs are becoming obsolete and losing jobs at a higher rate.

I have zero sympathy for dudes making more than I'll make in 5 lifetimes. Idc how disproportionately they're paid, they can blame themselves and their fellow players for negotiating a CBA that made the current conditions possible. If they don't like it, they can stop playing.

Maybe if QBs would stop getting so greedy and demanding 50M a year then there would be money for RBs to get paid. The RBs should bring that up in their group chat 

 

 

54 minutes ago, WentzFan11 said:

That’s definitely satire. 

Remember that the important issues for the players in the last CBA were less drug testing for weed and less practices.

RB money did not come up AFAIK

6 hours ago, FranklinFldEBUpper said:

If we’re talking strictly duel threats, I’m taking Aaron Burr all day long. 

Only good thing the traitor Aaron Burr ever did was shooting Hamilton.