ColtFreaks.com - Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum   ColtFreaks.com Home Page

Go Back   ColtFreaks.com - Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum > Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum > Indianapolis Colts Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #81  
Old 12-17-2018, 06:48 PM
Chromeburn's Avatar
Chromeburn Chromeburn is offline
Post whore
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 5,253
Thanks: 1,407
Thanked 3,582 Times in 2,004 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chaka View Post
Dude, I don't know if I'm not explaining myself well, or whether you're just intentionally missing my points. Are you just trying to test me to see how long I will continue responding to you? If so, you're making headway.

I'm confused by your response - what was the reason you think I stated? Please go back and read at my post again (post #64) - I said "the pressure you're referring to is not from the initial tag itself, but rather from the escalator clauses that kick in if the team insists on re-tagging a player for multiple years. This is what Cousins took advantage of, but what Bell balked at for some reason."

I did not give a reason why he balked, because I don't have a clue. I only know that he didn't sign the tender, so he didn't go the Cousins path for some reason. I think that was a mistake for all the reasons I've stated previously.
Umm...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chaka View Post
the pressure you're referring to is not from the initial tag itself, but rather from the escalator clauses that kick in if the team insists on re-tagging a player for multiple years. This is what Cousins took advantage of, but what Bell balked at for some reason.
You do realize the sentence above that you wrote literally says Bell balked at the escalating clauses and that is the reason he did not sign the tender.

Then the very next sentence you write:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chaka View Post
I did not give a reason why he balked, because I don't have a clue.
I don't know what to say. I think maybe you should proof your posts first, because yeah you are not explaining it that well. It doesn't really matter why Bell didn't sign it, the reasons are his own. I assume it wasn't because he would make more money.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chaka View Post
All your sarcasm is duly noted. I don't even know where to begin with this one because there are so many problems with what you've said:

1. So you're point is that it's not impossible that a team could use the tag on a non-QB for three years in a row? Of course that's true, and I never said otherwise. But as a practical matter, I just don't think it's ever going to happen for the reasons I've stated. I won't repeat them again. That's what it comes down to.
Yes. I know its true, that is why I said it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chaka View Post
2. As to your fixation on my use of the term "guarantee", it's an expression of strong belief, ok? It doesn't even mean what you seem to think it means, so look it up. And, if we're going to be microanalyzing every word, you may want to look back at my original post because I actually said "virtually guarantee" in recognition of the possibility that the Raiders or some organization like that could do something stupid.
You used the word incorrectly and then tell me to look up the definition? Wow, ok. I think we have already established you need to proof your posts. I cannot interpret your true meaning behind your poor word usage.

Using more accurate words would help. Maybe actually using the word belief, or believe, or think, or postulate, or have faith.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chaka View Post
3. QB salaries obviously have everything to do with our discussion. Please go read the language of the CBA if you don't believe me - particularly Article 10, Section 2(a)(ii). Here's a link for your convenience:

https://nfllabor.files.wordpress.com...-2011-2020.pdf

Bottom line: No matter what position they play, if you tag a player three times in a row they will be paid - at a minimum - the average of the top 5 players at the most expensive position (so, QB). This means that if you tag a non-QB a third time, you automatically make him one of the top 2 or 3 paid players in the entire league (because the top 5 are all QBs - are you following my logic now?). And that salary is 100% guaranteed. Again, I don't see any team doing this.
Yes, I know, we already established this is your opinion in another part. The problem is you did not explain it properly before. You just posted it and wrote "notice QB's make a lot of money".

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chaka View Post
4. Cap hit v. Salary - I note that you don't provide a better chart in response. I'm assuming that's because you can't find one. You're proposal is to take the contract and divide it by the years? Are you kidding? That only works if its 100% guaranteed, and there are very few such contracts out there - probably none for RBs. And even that's not enough unless you know what the contract is specifically guaranteed against. There are many, many articles out there which outline why this is. As to your speculation about what the younger RBs will be paid when the reach free agency, we'll see - but regardless of the amount, I think the salaries of QBs will keep pace well ahead of the RB salaries.
I didn't try to find a better chart. It is not my job to support your points. Yet another divergence from the argument at hand. It is impossible for you to stay on target.

We've already seen it because Gurley received a larger contract.

I know that not all contracts will be 100% guaranteed. Unless you are Miss Cleo and can tell me which ones will not be fulfilled, we have to assume they will be. Why? Because they signed a contract and if both parties adhere to the contract it will be fulfilled. Also the contract counts against the cap if they adhere to it. Just because they could cut a player does not negate the team's perceived value of the player when they signed the contract. The player could underperform, maintain his level of performance, or even outperform the contract. The fact is, they created the contract and both parties agreed to it.

Did I say QB salaries will not keep pace ahead of RB salaries?... Nope, I did not say this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chaka View Post
5. Re "Douche Canoe" - go ahead and cite to the 2020 versions of Gurley and David Johnson. Even at those salaries, and assuming neither is cut or renegotiates their deal, Gurley is 28th and Johnson is 58th overall in salary for that year. And they will fall down the list further as new contracts are put in place over the next two offseasons.
So you are saying the increasing cap makes their salaries more digestible for the team over time. Hmm one of my earlier points, thanks.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chaka View Post
But by saying you think there's a serious chance that a team will tag a RB for three straight seasons, you are essentially saying that a RB should be paid - not only the same as a QB - but more than nearly all but the top 2 or 3 QBs in the league. See above explanation.
I am not saying he should or should not be paid the same as a QB. This implies a belief I do not possess, nor am I pushing. This is a faulty conclusion on your part.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chaka View Post
As to Gurley's newly-signed "guaranteed" contract, here's a link to Over the Cap which gives a bit more detail about those so-called guarantees:

https://overthecap.com/player/todd-gurley/3858/

Essentially, only the $22 million is truly guaranteed at signing. The other payments appear to be guaranteed on a rolling basis as each season arrives. So if Gurley tears his knee up, well, those later "guarantees" probably don't amount to much. This is a good example of why you can't just take the contract amount and divide it by the years.
Actually, the contract details I used for those couple sentences were cut and pasted from NFL.com or CBS sports. You have issue with the wording then I would take it up with them. I guarantee they would love one of your convoluted imprecise e-mails criticizing their lack of precision.

I said there was a serious chance that a team will tag a RB three times in a row? You like to add false emphasis into my statements to make them seem more absolute than they actually are. No, I said there is a chance it will be a non-QB. Not specifically a RB. Just we are close to seeing this situation with a RB considering Bell is currently at two tags.

I drew the conclusion that there is a greater chance it will happen to a non-QB because the vast majority of players tagged are not QB's.

Using the average was an attempt to simplify a point you seem hell-bent on overcomplicating. The details of the contract are not relevant to the overall point. Your suggestion that he could tear his knee is immaterial. I could counter and say he will outperform his contract and they will give him even more money. Neither statement is valid. Also, your statement does not eliminate the fact that they gave Gurley the contract.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chaka View Post
Not "yada yada" - please look at the CBA I cited to above. It doesn't work the way you are saying.

As to Bell getting "hosed", I'll go back to my original points - I don't think getting paid a fully guaranteed $14.5 million is getting 'hosed". More importantly, if everyone in your mind is entitled to be paid 100% of their open market value, then why have a CBA at all? Just let everyone become a free agent! No - the teams and the players negotiated a deal which is far more complicated, and has many more pulleys and levers than simply the franchise tag. To get the franchise tag, rest assured the owners had to concede to the players on other issues which benefit the players. So don't vilify the Steelers for making use of a term they all agreed to.
You love those straw men. I don't think everyone should become free agents. I don't think everyone should be paid whatever they think. I never said anything like that, nor endorsed it.

Vilifying the Steelers, another exaggeration on your part. The Steelers are taking advantage of the situation as much as they can. I think if they can't sign him they should let him go. If they don't, I would call them petty, all it does is rob the fans and league of watching another great player. I would hardly call that vilifying.

As for being hosed. Receiving millions of dollars less than his perceived value is a negative thing in my opinion. I think most people would call that a negative thing. Maybe losing millions is ok to you, then that would be your opinion, mine: it is being hosed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chaka View Post
Please read my post again - While you never said this explicitly, it is the necessary consequence of what you are saying. As I said, it's a zero sum game. If the RB revolution you are predicting takes place and RBs take on greater relative importance under the salary cap, this has to come at the expense of another position(s). There is only 100% of the pie to go around.
I read it, it is a false dichotomy. I am not going to make your argument for you. If you think highly paid elite RBs are going to take money from someone else. You prove your own point. Who are they going to take money from and why? Who is getting shortchanged and as a group will not make as much money? I certainly don't think that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chaka View Post
Make valid points and I will concede more. As to Bell, this isn't a free market and nobody is obligated to "even out" any of his perceived underpayments. It's a contract, and the players union has done a good job installing protections to limit any losses due to the inefficiencies you've referenced. But I'm not convinced there are any monetary losses here - just Bell's desire for a long term contract that the Steelers don't have to provide. Now if he'd played out this year...
If you make valid points I will reciprocate. I never said anyone is obligated to "even out" his contract. Whether you are convinced or not doesn't make it any less than what it is.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chaka View Post
See above. There is a massive difference between using a tag twice on a player, and using it three times. It is apparent the players union would tolerate it twice, but made it so difficult to do a third time that no team is likely to attempt it except in the most extreme situations (i.e. top QB).c
Ok, this was also never under debate. Yet you act like it was. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Reply With Quote
  #82  
Old 12-17-2018, 08:03 PM
sherck's Avatar
sherck sherck is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Dayton, Ohio
Posts: 3,746
Thanks: 1,780
Thanked 1,189 Times in 523 Posts
Default

Girls, girls. You are both pretty.

Can we stop fighting now?



Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
__________________
==============
Thad
The future is so bright; I gotta triple up!
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to sherck For This Useful Post:
smitty46953 (12-17-2018)
  #83  
Old 12-17-2018, 08:31 PM
Chromeburn's Avatar
Chromeburn Chromeburn is offline
Post whore
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 5,253
Thanks: 1,407
Thanked 3,582 Times in 2,004 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sherck View Post
Girls, girls. You are both pretty.

Can we stop fighting now?



Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
I'm prettier goddamit.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Chromeburn For This Useful Post:
Luck4Reich (12-17-2018)
  #84  
Old 12-17-2018, 09:07 PM
TheMugwump's Avatar
TheMugwump TheMugwump is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Posts: 1,801
Thanks: 1,608
Thanked 1,550 Times in 883 Posts
Default

Seriously, if you guys are so fond of being master debaters on threads I start, I'll start one called "Chromeburn and Chaka get a room..FINALLY".
Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to TheMugwump For This Useful Post:
Chromeburn (12-18-2018), Luck4Reich (12-17-2018), Puck (12-17-2018)
  #85  
Old 12-17-2018, 09:13 PM
Luck4Reich's Avatar
Luck4Reich Luck4Reich is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Destin FL
Posts: 4,558
Thanks: 1,988
Thanked 3,108 Times in 1,639 Posts
Default

And the most quoted responses award goes to Chromeburn
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Luck4Reich For This Useful Post:
Chromeburn (12-18-2018), Puck (12-17-2018)
  #86  
Old 12-17-2018, 09:21 PM
1965southpaw's Avatar
1965southpaw 1965southpaw is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: USA
Posts: 997
Thanks: 548
Thanked 818 Times in 391 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMugwump View Post
Seriously, if you guys are so fond of being masturbaters on threads I start, I'll start one called "Chromeburn and Chaka get a room..FINALLY".
there. Fixed it for you.
Reply With Quote
  #87  
Old 12-18-2018, 10:07 AM
Chaka's Avatar
Chaka Chaka is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 859
Thanks: 337
Thanked 667 Times in 286 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sherck View Post
Girls, girls. You are both pretty.

Can we stop fighting now?



Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
Fair enough Sherck– At this point, I kind of feel like I’m just repeating myself anyway.
Reply With Quote
  #88  
Old 12-18-2018, 01:24 PM
TheMugwump's Avatar
TheMugwump TheMugwump is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Posts: 1,801
Thanks: 1,608
Thanked 1,550 Times in 883 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1965southpaw View Post
there. Fixed it for you.
I am the stiletto. You are the sledgehammer.
Reply With Quote
  #89  
Old 12-18-2018, 01:50 PM
Chromeburn's Avatar
Chromeburn Chromeburn is offline
Post whore
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 5,253
Thanks: 1,407
Thanked 3,582 Times in 2,004 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chaka View Post
Fair enough Sherck– At this point, I kind of feel like I’m just repeating myself anyway.
Well you hung in there dude, most people would have told me to fuck off by now.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:27 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
ColtFreaks.com is in no way affiliated with the Indianapolis Colts, the NFL, or any of their subsidiaries.