NFL Off Topic

[steelerfan]

Re: NFL Off Topic

So what if Hernandez killed his victim and then was shot dead by police? How would you handle that?

[ProfessaPackMan]

Re: NFL Off Topic

Why in the world should the Pats get cap relief for Hernandez being a Hitman on the side?

I can't believe that's really a serious question.

[ProfessaPackMan]

Re: NFL Off Topic

So what if Hernandez killed his victim and then was shot dead by police? How would you handle that?

Depends on what turns up in the hypothetical investigation and what comes out.

But I wouldn't be opposed to the team going after his money if it turns up he had some dirt that led this hypothetical scenario.

[kehlis]

Re: NFL Off Topic

So what if Hernandez killed his victim and then was shot dead by police? How would you handle that?

The latest story I could find (and the reason for concession) is exactly this. Supposedly the sticking point was the why it happened and what caused it. Where is the line drawn?

Williams was the victim of someone going after them because of Marshall's actions (allegedly), Taylor was the victim of a robbery but also (allegedly) had ties with the assailant.


Why it's being asked why Hernandez was handled differently is baffling to me but it is a Patriots fan asking you have to take that into consideration.

[steelerfan]

Re: NFL Off Topic

To be clear, I don't think the Patriots should get relief for Hernandez. I was just pointing out that "prison or death" should not be the determining factor.

[kehlis]

Re: NFL Off Topic

To be clear, I don't think the Patriots should get relief for Hernandez. I was just pointing out that "prison or death" should not be the determining factor.

It shouldn't and I'm not sure I saw anyone infer it should be.

Prison should be treated the same as someone waived (as Hernandez was). Death should be treated differently IMO but the circumstance seemed to be the sticking point.

[jWILL253]

Re: NFL Off Topic

Then why couldn't the Pats get any relief from Hernandez's contract?

[55]

Re: NFL Off Topic

I'm not sayin', I'm just sayin'...

[jWILL253]

Re: NFL Off Topic

http://mynorthwest.com/292/2935866/Clayton-Russell-Okungs-deal-with-Denver-could-be-historically-bad

ESPN NFL senior writer John Clayton levied his verdict on Okung's performance as an agent on 710 ESPN Seattle's "Bob, Groz and Tom," and it's safe to say he's not a fan.

"It's horrible," Clayton said. "It's now starting to be regarded as maybe the worst contract for a sub-30, Pro Bowl-caliber player ever done in free agency."

As for why, the Broncos' option to walk away after next season is just part of the equation.

Okung, who is coming off shoulder surgery and has a history of ankle and leg issues, first has to be active in a team workout before he sees any money. That will account for $1 million. Another $2 million will come in the form of a bonus if he makes Denver's 53-man roster, and he would then have a $2 million base salary for 2016. He'll have a chance to make another $3 million through incentives tied to playing time.

"In this case it's even worse than we imagined. In some ways you could look at this as a one-year, $3 million contract, or in one way, maybe a one-year, $1 million contract," Clayton said. "What happens if he blows out an Achilles and gets hurt? All the risk went on Russell Okung."

The deal also doesn't give Okung the ability to capitalize if he ends up playing a stellar 2016 for the Broncos.

"To make matters worse, let's say that he has a great season. He'd be in a position as a free agent, if he just did a simple one-year deal, that he could hit the market and get above $12 million a year. But no, he had to go ahead and do this deal," said Clayton. "You just shake your head."

The contract doesn't offer any security should the Broncos come across another option at left tackle they like better, either.

"What happens if the Denver Broncos are sitting down there at the bottom of the first round (of the NFL Draft) and a left tackle drops to them? Is it possible that they could say, 'You know what, we're just gonna trade you because there's no guarantee that we need to have you' and ship him over to Detroit or another team?

"It's so team-favorable it's unbelievable."

[ProfessaPackMan]

Re: NFL Off Topic

Per PFT.com

Seahawks cornerback Richard Sherman doesn’t think much of NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell’s desire to eject players who get two unsportsmanlike conduct penalties in a game.

Asked about the proposal on ESPN, Sherman said it shows how little Goodell understands about the players who are on the field on Sundays.

“I think it’s foolish, but it sounds like something somebody who’s never played the game would say, something they would suggest, because he doesn’t understand, he’s just a face, he’s just a suit. He’s never set foot on the field and understood how you can get a personal foul,” Sherman said.

Sherman echoed that when asked why the NFL hasn’t been able to figure out a way to fix the catch rule.

“Because you’ve got a bunch of suits doing it,” Sherman answered. “You’ve got a bunch of guys who never played. They’ve probably touched a football to hold it out or to shake someone’s hand and take a picture but they’ve never played the game.”

Sherman’s opinion of Goodell is a common one among players. But the ejection rule is likely to be imposed upon the players whether Sherman likes it or not.

[PeoplesChampGB]

Re: NFL Off Topic

Not to bring up an old topic, but when a player dies his cap hit automatically comes off like a retirement.

I believe Hernandez was released (for PR reasons which I don't blame them) and thus his cap hit was still there for the Pats. Best I can describe it. Of course, if the Pats wanted to they could seek to recoup some of that contract money (which I believe they did). The cap hit, however, stays.

[Yeah...THAT Guy]

Re: NFL Off Topic

Per PFT.com

I get the sense that Sherman doesn't understand what the proposed rule actually is. Based on the "he doesn't understand how you can get a personal foul penalty" line, it seems like Sherman thinks two face-mask penalties would result in an ejection when in reality, this would only happen if a guy gets caught throwing punches, taunting, etc. twice.

[ProfessaPackMan]

Re: NFL Off Topic

You pulled all of that from his comments?

[Yeah...THAT Guy]

Re: NFL Off Topic

You pulled all of that from his comments?

It certainly seemed to me that saying "he doesn't understand how players get personal fouls" was implying that players get these cheap fouls all the time that would now result in ejections. In reality, the rule proposal only would have resulted in two players being ejected last season because it's specific about the types of personal fouls that count. I don't think my interpretation of his comments is much of a stretch at all.

He also didn't realize that the NFL had already had a catch committee involving the very players that he said the NFL should be talking to, so yes, I think it's very likely he's misinformed on these things.

[ProfessaPackMan]

NFL Off Topic

He was talking about Goodell man, lol.

That was obvious from the beginning when he brought up Suits and how they've never played but yet keep coming up with new rules every year(Not a surprise an athlete would say that).so I doubt it's an issue of him being "misinformed" as you say, especially considering he's been known as one of the more intelligent players in the league when it comes to speaking on issues like this for example.