KevinthePRF Posted March 22, 2013 Share Posted March 22, 2013 I hate what happens to guys like Urlacher. Should/could the NFL make a rule that a 10-12 year vet on your team that you drafted should count 2 million per for the rest of the career against the cap, but any salary paid to that athlete by the same team beyond the 2 million not count against the cap? I'd just like to see HOFs have no problem getting paid in the twilight of their careers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redskinss Posted March 22, 2013 Share Posted March 22, 2013 i would like to see something but a lot of thought would have to be put into it. it would be too much advantage for a team like the patriots to have a quarterback of bradys caliber or the colts would have kept manning with such a low cap number while other teams have to commit 15 to 20 million to that one position Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGoodBits Posted March 22, 2013 Share Posted March 22, 2013 Maybe a 1 year exemption with the contractual agreement that they have to retire after that year? Would help a lot of guys close out their careers on their team of choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
corsair_joe Posted March 22, 2013 Share Posted March 22, 2013 I'm afraid that violates the spirit of the cap ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taylor 36 Posted March 22, 2013 Share Posted March 22, 2013 This would violate the whole reason to have a cap. I know where the OP is coming from, but I think that in this cap era the NFL has put itself in, situations like this are just part of the process. Every team goes through this and has to deal with issues like this. It is what it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Binton Posted March 22, 2013 Share Posted March 22, 2013 Urlacher is just being greedy. He said he won't play for 2 million dollars a year, based on his play last year, he doesn't even deserve that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paloosa Posted March 22, 2013 Share Posted March 22, 2013 No there shouldn't be any rule or cap exemption for anyone any player like Urlacher. Why give them an exemption? What have they done that all the other players haven't done? Urlacher is not the only great player on his team and he isn't the only one that makes plays. How many players would this apply to? Urlacher has become a old player that has lost a step and hasn't even been in the top 10 in tackles consistently at his position. Everyone gives him credit for being a great LB but he hasn't perform at the same level over the last 4 years that would warrant that. Look at his stats and you will see that he isn't as great as the media puts him out to be. Compare him to other LB's with the same amount of time in the league and he is average. Hell London Fletcher hasn't missed a game in the same amount of years and has similar numbers except he is always in the top 10 of tackles year in and year out. So like I said no I wouldn't provide any of them that exemption. His performance doesn't warrant it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCsportsfan53 Posted March 22, 2013 Share Posted March 22, 2013 Urlacher's own pride got the best of him, honestly. Who's going to pay anything for a 35 year old LB coming off injury? The Bears offer was not unreasonable, imo. On the other hand, what's really hurting guys like Urlacher is the fact that D Smith got rapepwned by Goodell and the owners in the CBA negotiations. The cap is lower than it was in 09, has the leagues revenue done anything but go up in the last 3 years? Didn't think so. I think the owners got what they wanted, the top QBs and a few other top players will get crazy big contracts and the rest will fight for the scraps. Most of these guys it seems would be smart nowadays to take the reasonable but not excessive extension offers when teams give them because, unless you're a high impact player at a high priority position chances are FA will no longer be the windfall you expect it to be. And these smaller contracts we're seeing are in spite of the fact that a lot less money is allocated to rookies now. The NFLPA lost big time in this negotiation and that's why Goodell is getting the bonuses he is. The owners set about to break the union and take back a chunk of revenue and they appear to have been successful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pjfootballer Posted March 22, 2013 Share Posted March 22, 2013 I'm afraid that violates the spirit of the cap ;-) Signed--- J. Mara ---------- Post added March-22nd-2013 at 01:26 PM ---------- This would violate the whole reason to have a cap. I know where the OP is coming from, but I think that in this cap era the NFL has put itself in, situations like this are just part of the process. Every team goes through this and has to deal with issues like this. It is what it is. Like the Larry Bird rule the NBA had. ---------- Post added March-22nd-2013 at 01:27 PM ---------- Urlacher is just being greedy. He said he won't play for 2 million dollars a year, based on his play last year, he doesn't even deserve that. Thing is, that will be the best offer he'll get. I don't think there is a team out there looking for a 35 year old MLBer that has been injured. Fletcher was healthy and he learned that teams aren't willing to go after LBers over 35. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paloosa Posted March 22, 2013 Share Posted March 22, 2013 Urlacher's own pride got the best of him, honestly. Who's going to pay anything for a 35 year old LB coming off injury? The Bears offer was not unreasonable, imo.On the other hand, what's really hurting guys like Urlacher is the fact that D Smith got rapepwned by Goodell and the owners in the CBA negotiations. The cap is lower than it was in 09, has the leagues revenue done anything but go up in the last 3 years? Didn't think so. I think the owners got what they wanted, the top QBs and a few other top players will get crazy big contracts and the rest will fight for the scraps. Most of these guys it seems would be smart nowadays to take the reasonable but not excessive extension offers when teams give them because, unless you're a high impact player at a high priority position chances are FA will no longer be the windfall you expect it to be. And these smaller contracts we're seeing are in spite of the fact that a lot less money is allocated to rookies now. The NFLPA lost big time in this negotiation and that's why Goodell is getting the bonuses he is. The owners set about to break the union and take back a chunk of revenue and they appear to have been successful. I agree with you and it seems to be the trend of the times. Heck look at our government and how they have reduced the amount they pay their employees. Break the people so they are dependent on the government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pjfootballer Posted March 22, 2013 Share Posted March 22, 2013 No there shouldn't be any rule or cap exemption for anyone any player like Urlacher. Why give them an exemption? What have they done that all the other players haven't done? Urlacher is not the only great player on his team and he isn't the only one that makes plays. How many players would this apply to? Urlacher has become a old player that has lost a step and hasn't even been in the top 10 in tackles consistently at his position. Everyone gives him credit for being a great LB but he hasn't perform at the same level over the last 4 years that would warrant that. Look at his stats and you will see that he isn't as great as the media puts him out to be. Compare him to other LB's with the same amount of time in the league and he is average. Hell London Fletcher hasn't missed a game in the same amount of years and has similar numbers except he is always in the top 10 of tackles year in and year out. So like I said no I wouldn't provide any of them that exemption. His performance doesn't warrant it. I understand your stance on Urlacher, but I think the OP was talking in general. What if we weren't able to re-sign Darrell Green years ago? While he was still a good player in the league, his skills had started to fade down the stretch his last couple of years. I like what the OP came up with. That the player had to be "drafted" by that team and have 10-12 years with the team. You will rarely find that situation as players hardly ever stay with the same team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Tater Posted March 22, 2013 Share Posted March 22, 2013 If Urlacher had wanted to stay a Bear, he could have taken their offer. If the Bears had wanted Urlacher, cap was NOT an issue. The only reason we could not have signed DG at any point is that he'd have been unwilling to play for what we were going to pay him. The only type of "exemption" that makes any sense is a modification of the vet minimum. Use to be able to sign a 10yr? vet on a 1 yeare minimum along with a 25K bonus and only about half of it could hit the cap (the Red Snapper played under such deals from 2004-2009). My mod would be something like that but allow it to be a multi-year deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pjfootballer Posted March 22, 2013 Share Posted March 22, 2013 If Urlacher had wanted to stay a Bear, he could have taken their offer. If the Bears had wanted Urlacher, cap was NOT an issue. The only reason we could not have signed DG at any point is that he'd have been unwilling to play for what we were going to pay him. The only type of "exemption" that makes any sense is a modification of the vet minimum. Use to be able to sign a 10yr? vet on a 1 yeare minimum along with a 25K bonus and only about half of it could hit the cap (the Red Snapper played under such deals from 2004-2009). My mod would be something like that but allow it to be a multi-year deal. The OP said the salary and contract would be a complete 100% exemption and NOT count towards the cap. I think you guys aren't fully understanding what the OP is saying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Tater Posted March 22, 2013 Share Posted March 22, 2013 The OP said the salary and contract would be a complete 100% exemption and NOT count towards the cap. I think you guys aren't fully understanding what the OP is saying. No, I understood it perfectly. Maybe you failed to understand my post? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No_Pressure Posted March 22, 2013 Share Posted March 22, 2013 How about if you want them to be cap exempt, the owner must match the highest salary in the league for that player's position? I'd put the line at 14 years with one team. In other words, in 2014 Tom Brady will be 37. The league can give a cap exemption or only have him count for a minimum or 1,000,000 or so against the salary cap, but Robert Craft must pay him whatever the current top QB money is, and it must be paid out over a contract which is no longer than say, 2 years. It would make it possible to hang on to guys like Urlacher and give them the option of retiring with the team that brought them into the league, which is a nice thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveFromYellowstone Posted March 22, 2013 Share Posted March 22, 2013 Urlacher's own pride got the best of him, honestly. Who's going to pay anything for a 35 year old LB coming off injury? The Bears offer was not unreasonable, imo.On the other hand, what's really hurting guys like Urlacher is the fact that D Smith got rapepwned by Goodell and the owners in the CBA negotiations. The cap is lower than it was in 09, has the leagues revenue done anything but go up in the last 3 years? Didn't think so. I think the owners got what they wanted, the top QBs and a few other top players will get crazy big contracts and the rest will fight for the scraps. Most of these guys it seems would be smart nowadays to take the reasonable but not excessive extension offers when teams give them because, unless you're a high impact player at a high priority position chances are FA will no longer be the windfall you expect it to be. And these smaller contracts we're seeing are in spite of the fact that a lot less money is allocated to rookies now. The NFLPA lost big time in this negotiation and that's why Goodell is getting the bonuses he is. The owners set about to break the union and take back a chunk of revenue and they appear to have been successful. Hell they just signed DJ Williams for a max of 1.75 mil. I can see why they would hesitate to pay Urlacher 2 mil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pjfootballer Posted March 23, 2013 Share Posted March 23, 2013 No, I understood it perfectly. Maybe you failed to understand my post? I guess so since it didn't make any sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#BgMase76# Posted March 23, 2013 Share Posted March 23, 2013 I feel mo remorse for him. He acted like a prima donna going into his last contract. At that point he was clearly being out played by Briggs anyhow. Great players get old and the game keeps moving. Hence the draft every season. Who is he comparing himself to or basing his worth on? He's been injured for almost 4 seasons now. He wasn't even a 3 down player this past season. Dude can't keep getting contracts based off of what he did in his prime. He needs to face reality and say hello father time. That or take a incentive laden contract and actually earn it on the field. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johns Bass Posted March 23, 2013 Share Posted March 23, 2013 It is an interesting idea but I think it would be too hard to implement. Why not sign an incentive based contract based on low salary/Not Likely To Be Earned incentive contract in Mr Urlacher's case? He had a sub-par year and it would give him a chance to make up salary that would not take effect until the next years cap, provided that they were reached? Then a player like London Fletcher is not effected and is free to negotiate his best contract possible. The NFL is a cutthroat business - you are only as good as what you have done lately; just ask Fred Davis...(BTW I believe that is the best kind of contract that he is going to see this year) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[[ghost]] Posted March 23, 2013 Share Posted March 23, 2013 Maybe make the cap hit a fraction of their actual hit? That way it still varies from old timer finishing out his career and Peyton Manning still killing it long after a decade with a team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johns Bass Posted March 23, 2013 Share Posted March 23, 2013 I have duplicated...sorry; can I get rid of this? :dunce: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renegade7 Posted March 24, 2013 Share Posted March 24, 2013 Dude cant' stay healthy. He's not in much of a position to be demanding anything right now... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johns Bass Posted March 24, 2013 Share Posted March 24, 2013 ];9467377']Maybe make the cap hit a fraction of their actual hit? That way it still varies from old timer finishing out his career and Peyton Manning still killing it long after a decade with a team. Maybe something like salary offered divided by an average of the10 best salary years of the player with the current team? Current salary times the percentage goes to the cap credit. i.e. Player averaged $10 mil over 10 best years with the team offering the contract. Salary offered of $2 million nets a $400,000 credit (20%) while a $5 million contract would be 50%; $2.5 million. If the guy had less than 10 years, the team would only get those years as a percentage of 10 years...as in the above example; if a player only had one year at $5 million that would be his best for a $5 mil credit but the team cap only gets $500,000 because he just got there. Give the team the option to take the credit in one year or split it half over two; kind of like a reverse dead cap hit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.