Umadogg1 Posted January 8, 2017 Report Share Posted January 8, 2017 Tour, I can't think what the NFLPA would complain about regarding the way McCarron was handled as a rookie. The player in question was paid and his medical expenses were covered despite never being active or practicing. If that means the player doesn't accrue a season towards FA, well...that doesn't seem like a bad bargain or trade off. Most teams would have completely removed from their draft boards any player unlikely to contribute or even practice for them so it's the player who benefits the most and it's the team who assumes all of the risk. For a more recent example, look at the Cowboys selection of Notre Dame LB Jaylon Smith. Smith may never play a down in the NFL. So which party assumed all of the risk? And which party benefited? So ask yourself, does Dallas choose to assume that risk if Smith accrues a season towards FA for each year he rehabs? The McCarron example isn't THAT unique. In fact, the Bengals have a DT, Brandon Thompson, who had a serious knee injury but signed a 1-year FA contract last season. Because Thompson was never active or practiced last season his 1-year contract rolls over to this season intact. There's no negotiation. Finally, the only reason we're still talking about this is precisely because not accruing a season towards FA makes McCarron a more attractive trade asset. As I've noted, any team looking for a new starting QB could trade for McCarron and give him a two year audition for peanuts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Suomi Posted January 8, 2017 Report Share Posted January 8, 2017 Roll with RG III, Kessler and (X) this year. Instead of selecting a QB early in the draft, the Brown's glaring defensive needs should be addressed - particularly since it is very deep with defensive talent and offers the Browns quality players through the first two rounds. Josh Allen from WY, if he returns to college this year, should be the QB target in 2018. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tour2ma Posted January 8, 2017 Report Share Posted January 8, 2017 Tour, I can't think what the NFLPA would complain about regarding the way McCarron was handled as a rookie. The player in question was paid and his medical expenses were covered despite never being active or practicing. The McCarron example isn't THAT unique. I get what you're saying, but when a player is stashed and fails to accrue a season, even if it's a "benign" situation, I can't imagine the NFLPA not getting involved. And the more common the situation, to my mind, the more likely it would be for the NFLPA to get involved. It's all about the money... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonBrown Posted January 8, 2017 Report Share Posted January 8, 2017 Bridgewater lol, he sucks when he's 100% healthy let alone now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Umadogg1 Posted January 8, 2017 Report Share Posted January 8, 2017 Tour, you guys seem pretty happy when a player doesn't accrue a season towards FA when it's Josh Gordon. So yeah, how many times has your team taken advantage of the same kind of wrinkle? And you can't even claim Gordon was injured...unless we're talking about self-inflicted head wounds. Plus, I'm pretty sure your team was allowed to restrict and control Gordon's FA rights at least once after allowing him to practice with the team. In the McCarron example the wrinkle is used strategically as an incentive encouraging teams to draft injured players. In the Gordon example the wrinkle is used as strictly as damage control. A way for a team to continue controlling the salvage value of a damaged asset it never should have drafted in the first place. But we're getting sidetracked. Because whether you deem the strategy to be fair or unfair the end result is what's important. And there's the rub because all things being equal all things are NOT equal between Garrapalo and McCarron when discussing salary, free agency, the draft picks needed to acquire, OR in the amount of experience each QB already has running your teams offense. The shiny apple comparison only goes so far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tour2ma Posted January 8, 2017 Report Share Posted January 8, 2017 Not sure my surprise over any action taken or left untaken is a statement of my stance, but whatever... The Gordon situation is entirely different since he was place on the Commisioners list... twice. And for the record the NFLPA did chime in when we suspended him for the final game of 2015 for being late to one meeting too many... a game that would have been his critical 6th. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Umadogg1 Posted January 9, 2017 Report Share Posted January 9, 2017 Right, but it's entirely different only because one use of the tactic is as an incentive and the other is used as damage control or punishment. Small wonder the NFLPA has a bigger problem with anything that delays a veteran players direct pathway to FA than an incentive that encourages teams to draft and start paying college players before they're healthy. Correct me if I'm wrong but Hue said flatly Gordon was no longer in Cleveland's future plans, right? But the team hasn't released him, and probably won't until they've exhausted their quest to get a draft pick in return. And the same is true for Johnny Feetball, right? Your team chooses to restrict the movement of potential FAs it no longer wants because it can, and because it doesn't cost them a thing to do so. By comparison the Bengals haven't blocked McCarron from anything, paid for his surgery and rehab, paid his salary when they knew he couldn't play OR practice, will happily continue paying his salary if he's retained, and seem willing to grant his trade request now, before his contract expires, if another NFL team will meet their trade demands. So which teams actions seem punitive? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbedward Posted January 9, 2017 Report Share Posted January 9, 2017 I really liked Jimmy G when he came out. Wanted the browns to take him but didn't expect the pats to take him as high as they did. I'd be fine with him, anybody who would give up the #12 pick for him is mad though. 2nd rounder this year is iffy to me too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canton Mike Posted January 9, 2017 Report Share Posted January 9, 2017 I really liked Jimmy G when he came out. Wanted the browns to take him but didn't expect the pats to take him as high as they did. I'd be fine with him, anybody who would give up the #12 pick for him is mad though. 2nd rounder this year is iffy to me too. I've always liked him too, but I WOULD give up our Titans 2nd rounder & a conditional 2018 pick. It is shaping up to be a very interesting off season. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrownB499 Posted January 9, 2017 Report Share Posted January 9, 2017 Roll with RG III, Kessler and (X) this year. Instead of selecting a QB early in the draft, the Brown's glaring defensive needs should be addressed - particularly since it is very deep with defensive talent and offers the Browns quality players through the first two rounds. Josh Allen from WY, if he returns to college this year, should be the QB target in 2018. Sam Darnold will be the target of every QB hungry team 2018!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.