Same old Orton
RickyBobby
Cleatarrior
> It was a good game until Orton started throwing interceptions.
And until the running game went south - which was right way...
Biff
wrote:
>It was a good game until Orton started throwing interceptions.
heckuva game, we broke double digits in rushing. that's the way to
keep pressure off a mediocre QB...
--
biff [hr14...@sneakemail.com]
(put "blackcherry" in the subject line to get through)
_______ ____
| /----/ (____)
c (.).) |Budw|
( (_)) (_)(__)
\ . | | (__)
\___/ | (__)
----
Words of Wisdom for Saturday, October 17, 2009...
Is there anything more beautiful than a beautiful,
beautiful flamingo, flying across in front of a beautiful
sunset? And he's carrying a beautiful rose in his beak,
and also he's carrying a very beautiful painting with his
feet. And also, you're drunk.
Biff
tonight... all those dollars and you get a 33 qb rating and five
picks. oh boy. I wouldn't look to orton to be the better qb, just
the better value for the buck, but when cutlers crappy night makes
ortons crappy night look good...
RickyBobby
"Biff" <hr14...@sneakemail.com> wrote in message
news:g1opf514qg409d11v...@4ax.com...
> for those down on orton, take a look at the franchise in chicago
> tonight... all those dollars and you get a 33 qb rating and five
> picks. oh boy. I wouldn't look to orton to be the better qb, just
> the better value for the buck, but when cutlers crappy night makes
> ortons crappy night look good...
> --
>
Getting away from the loser Bears does wonders for a player. Somehow Orton
got a lot better and Cutler got a lot worse when they switched teams.
It can also be noted that former Bears running backs Thomas Jones and Benson
are among the league leaders while the current Bears featured back has one
touchdown in nine games.
Do you wonder why the Broncos got two first round draft picks from the Bears
in the trade? It is because the loser Bears do not want any more first
round draft picks until there is a rookie salary structure. The Bears are
the cheapest team in the NFL by a wide margin. There are only a couple of
teams without cheerleaders and of course the Bears are among them.
The lapdog Chicago sports media and the idiot Bears/Cubs fans support the
Bears just like they were a real team that was trying everything in their
power to win.
You can make a pretty good case that the Bears were miffed about flying
across country to a Thursday game in a season that is going nowhere so they
played that way. In any event, it was not the Bears finest hour and having
a 4-5 record instead of a 5-4 record has almost certainly ended their
season. They are not playing like a team that is going to reel off seven
straight victories with that cast of players.
Cleatarrior
> Getting away
-snip-
Racist trolls are not welcome here.
Howard Brazee
wrote:
>for those down on orton, take a look at the franchise in chicago
>tonight... all those dollars and you get a 33 qb rating and five
>picks. oh boy. I wouldn't look to orton to be the better qb, just
>the better value for the buck, but when cutlers crappy night makes
>ortons crappy night look good...
Value for the buck is very, very important with salary caps -
especially for a team with as much dead salary as the Broncos have.
But another issue here is that it is a coach-quarterback combination
here. Some coaches can get more maturity out of quarterbacks than
others. If the Bears are going to get the most value out of
Cutler's skills, the coaches need to get him to play smarter.
That's coaching.
--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."
- James Madison
Howard Brazee
wrote:
>Do you wonder why the Broncos got two first round draft picks from the Bears
>in the trade? It is because the loser Bears do not want any more first
>round draft picks until there is a rookie salary structure. The Bears are
>the cheapest team in the NFL by a wide margin. There are only a couple of
>teams without cheerleaders and of course the Bears are among them.
As long as they are at the cap, this is a good thing. The Broncos
have the highest amount of dead salary which is a bad thing.
But the Bears won't be giving up a top 10 draft choice to the Broncos,
and a pick around 15 can get a very good lineman.
Biff
wrote:
>On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 21:28:55 -0700, Biff <hr14...@sneakemail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>for those down on orton, take a look at the franchise in chicago
>>tonight... all those dollars and you get a 33 qb rating and five
>>picks. oh boy. I wouldn't look to orton to be the better qb, just
>>the better value for the buck, but when cutlers crappy night makes
>>ortons crappy night look good...
>
>Value for the buck is very, very important with salary caps -
>especially for a team with as much dead salary as the Broncos have.
>
>But another issue here is that it is a coach-quarterback combination
>here. Some coaches can get more maturity out of quarterbacks than
>others. If the Bears are going to get the most value out of
>Cutler's skills, the coaches need to get him to play smarter.
>
>That's coaching.
coaching is part of it and Jr is supposed to be a QB's coach. Chicago
is where QBs go to die. there is a certain satisfaction in seeing
Cutler flounder, I'll admit that. but I'm a value for the buck kinda
guy.
Cleatarrior
> On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 17:20:45 -0700, Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net>
> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 21:28:55 -0700, Biff <hr14...@sneakemail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> for those down on orton, take a look at the franchise in chicago
>>> tonight... all those dollars and you get a 33 qb rating and five
>>> picks. oh boy. I wouldn't look to orton to be the better qb, just
>>> the better value for the buck, but when cutlers crappy night makes
>>> ortons crappy night look good...
>> Value for the buck is very, very important with salary caps -
>> especially for a team with as much dead salary as the Broncos have.
>>
>> But another issue here is that it is a coach-quarterback combination
>> here. Some coaches can get more maturity out of quarterbacks than
>> others. If the Bears are going to get the most value out of
>> Cutler's skills, the coaches need to get him to play smarter.
>>
>> That's coaching.
>
> coaching is part of it and Jr is supposed to be a QB's coach. Chicago
> is where QBs go to die. there is a certain satisfaction in seeing
> Cutler flounder, I'll admit that.
Why?
Are you just spiteful?
Biff
wrote:
pretty much. supported him up until the time he got whiny and wanted
to take his ball and go elsewhere.
Cleatarrior
Well that's honest!
> supported him up until the time he got whiny and wanted
> to take his ball and go elsewhere.
You mean until the new coach decided to dangle him without letting him
know first.
Biff
wrote:
that was one man's story, wasn't it?
RickyBobby
It is not a story at all. Cutler was put out there in a three way trade so
that Denver would wind up with Cassel. Everybody in the NFL and outside the
NFL knew it. When Cutler pitched a bitch about why was he trade bait the
lying cocksucker McDaniels stonewalled it. So Cutler said fuck McDaniels
and fuck the Broncos and put his houses up for sale and stopped showing up
for off season meetings. This is not he said, he said. These are
documented facts. Cutler would not even return calls from the coach or the
owner or anyone else. His agent said that Cutler would be on time for
mandatory activities. Again, these are well documented facts.
Maybe Cutler is indeed an immature crybaby who thinks he has a better
throwing arm than John Elway. But he did not start this shit with the
Broncos. He just ended it.
If that lying arrogant cocksucker McDaniels would have manned up and told
Cutler the truth then Cutler might still be throwing darts for the Broncos.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with McDaniels wanting Cassel. There is
everything wrong with McDaniels being a cowardly lying cocksucker when the
three way trade did not play out.
Cutler is not having any kind of great career revival with the Bears but
that is only because the Bears have no offensive line and no wide receivers.
Cutler is still young and if the Bears ever get their heads out of their
asses and get some halfway decent players on offense Cutler will do just
fine.
Orton still has a rag arm and cannot make NFL throws. That will not change.
Orton is a good team player and has a good head on his shoulders. The
problem with Orton is that he does not have a good arm on his shoulder.
McDaniels is a bag of shit with no honor. That will never change.
Maybe Cutler reacted badly to the three way trade rumor and maybe McDaniels
lied his ass off. I would sooner think that punk coach lied his ass off.
Cutler made the AFC Pro Bowl team and lived in Denver year around and was
very active in the Denver dogooder community. That stuff cannot be debated.
RickyBobby
"Cleatarrior" <nos...@xx.block> wrote in message
news:hdkcsi$27j$2...@news.datemas.de...
Let me tell you about this racist stuff. There is some nigger singer by the
name of Jennifer Hudson or something like that. Fine with me. A lot of
people like nigger singers and they sing real well and sell a lot of records
or whatever they call them now. Unfortunately, some criminal nigger cousin
of hers decided to nigger up and kill three or four members of the family.
Now you will have that. A lot of white people get all stressed and crazy
and kill half of their family and kill themselves. You see a story about
that just about every week. Five dead in Texas or four dead in Missouri or
three dead in New Jersey or whatever. Some poor soul gets overstressed and
starts killing those closest to them and then often kills themself or defies
the police to kill them.
So when the crack Chicago and Illinois law enforcement figured out that it
was the cousin of Jennifer Hudson simply because he gave them the big clue
of confessing the crime to a confidant they wisely went to arrest the
nigger.
His fat ugly nigger mother went on camera screaming something about "City of
Chicago gonna buy me a Bentley if they arrest my son". I am not making this
shit up. Ugly fat nigger mother of the nigger mass killer was screaming all
about the City of Chicago buying her a Bentley.
I understand that she is upset. I understand her not wanting to believe
that her son had nothing to do with the deaths of the other members of her
family. I understand her wanting to protect her son.
Am I a racist in terms of the behavior of black people in relationship to
the behavior of white people? Yes. I am.
A month ago their was this black kid who was flat out beaten to death by his
fellow blacks for being an Honor Student and carrying books instead of a gun
and a crack pipe. That is what I consider to be typical brain dead nigger
behavior.
I doubt that you would find too many students getting beaten in Utah for
carrying books.
According to the scientists the nigger should have the head start on all of
the rest of us because the nigger was the cradle of humanity. They sure are
not taking advantage of it.
Africa is the worst place in the world. You do not really find too much
high seas piracy and chattel slavery outside of Africa these days. Now that
the colonials are gone Africa is all niggers, all of the time.
The worst places in America are the nigger ridden inner cities. Funny
coincidence.
I do not think that the continent of Africa or the inner cities of America
are what you would call anecdotal evidence. It is just how niggers think
and act.
I am a behaviorist. I admire the heck out of the Buddhists and the Hindus
and the Jewish people and the Polynesian Islanders.
I really have nothing against niggers for being born niggers. I just have
some issues with the violent way they act.
KG
>
> Maybe Cutler reacted badly to the three way trade rumor and maybe McDaniels
> lied his ass off.
*Maybe* Cutler reacted badly? Ha.
Kyle Orton can throw the long ball eh? Watch the highlights tonite and
eat shit RikkiBooby.
Biff
wrote:
tell us how you really feel. that story has been denied and debated.
like I said, its one side orf it.
the way I see it, noone on a team is safe. you entertain any offer.
supposedly baby hoodie worked a deal, but he's denied it. we know
that jay whined his way out of town after everyone up to bowlen kissed
his ass.
in the end, he's getting what, 10x Orton money and he's playing like
orton? I'd take the bargain in a minute.
Adam Smith
> "Cleatarrior" <nos...@xx.block> wrote in message
>
> Let me tell you about this racist stuff.
[snip]
You've just gone and proven Cleat's point more thoroughly and
completely than he ever could have.
RickyBobby
"Adam Smith" <adamc...@fastmail.us> wrote in message
news:aa7f2c04-dc19-4e1b...@u20g2000vbq.googlegroups.com...
[snip]
Fine by me. It is my observation that Africa is the worst place on Earth
and the inner cities are the worst places in America. Some place like Utah
or Vermont with mostly non-niggers is the best place in America.
I did not make niggers so ignorant or knee jerk violent or drug addicted or
AIDS catching. That is all on the niggers.
I thought the story about the Chicago nigger honor student getting beat to
death by the apes to be telling. You can take the nigger out of the jungle
but you cannot take the jungle out of the ape.
Some super nigger like Tiger Woods or Michael Jordan or LeBron James may be
worth a billion dollars. Good for them for preying on nigger tastes. But
that does not excuses the behavior of the other forty million lowlives.
RickyBobby
Orton went to a better offensive unit and Cutler went to an offensive unit
that is truly offensive. You cannot even believe or understand how bad the
Bears offensive line and receivers are. Do not even try. It will hurt your
head.
KG
> "Biff" <hr14kb...@sneakemail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:i4v0g5d66p8u44s50...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 11:54:49 -0800, "RickyBobby" <nasca...@cox.net>
> > wrote:
>
> >>"Biff" <hr14kb...@sneakemail.com> wrote in message
> >>news:5lguf597ls5u4vf9i...@4ax.com...
> >>> On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 15:06:20 -0700, Cleatarrior <nos...@xx.block>
> >>> wrote:
>
> >>>>Biff wrote:
> >>>>> On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 12:23:41 -0700, Cleatarrior <nos...@xx.block>
> >>>>> wrote:
>
> >>>>>> Biff wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 17:20:45 -0700, Howard Brazee
> >>>>>>> <how...@brazee.net>
> >>>>>>> wrote:
>
Orton's QB rating with Denver's 2009 unit is better than Cutler's QB
rating with Denver's 2008 unit. He throws less touchdowns, but he also
throws less interceptions.
Biff
wrote:
>> > in the end, he's getting what, 10x Orton money and he's playing like
>> > orton? 锟絀'd take the bargain in a minute.
>> > --
>>
>> Orton went to a better offensive unit and Cutler went to an offensive unit
>> that is truly offensive. 锟結ou cannot even believe or understand how bad the
>> Bears offensive line and receivers are. 锟紻o not even try. 锟絀t will hurt your
>> head.
>
>
>Orton's QB rating with Denver's 2009 unit is better than Cutler's QB
>rating with Denver's 2008 unit. He throws less touchdowns, but he also
>throws less interceptions.
and my point remains. I'll take orton's skill and his salary over
cutler's skill and his salary... anytime.
Cleatarrior
You were there to verify the other's?
Cleatarrior
>
> "Cleatarrior" <nos...@xx.block> wrote in message
> news:hdkcsi$27j$2...@news.datemas.de...
>> RickyBobby wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Getting away
>>
>> -snip-
>>
>> Racist trolls are not welcome here.
>
> Let me tell you about this racist stuff. There is some nigger singer by
-plonk-
Cleatarrior
Sad, truly a sad person...
Cleatarrior
Ignore the racist troll please.
Cleatarrior
> On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 16:39:14 -0800 (PST), KG <kgrin...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>>> in the end, he's getting what, 10x Orton money and he's playing like
>>>> --
>>> Orton went to a better offensive unit and Cutler went to an offensive unit
>>> head.
>>
>> Orton's QB rating with Denver's 2009 unit is better than Cutler's QB
>> rating with Denver's 2008 unit. He throws less touchdowns, but he also
>> throws less interceptions.
>
> and my point remains. I'll take orton's skill and his salary over
> cutler's skill and his salary... anytime.
> --
Bit of a Hobson's choice thus far...
RickyBobby
"Cleatarrior" <nos...@xx.block> wrote in message
I am not at all sad. I have nothing against black people just for being
relatively dark skinned. I do not think that I am in any way "better" than
any person with more pigment in their skin.
If you look at a globe you may notice that Africa is roughly the size and
shape of South America. So why is South America full of decent functioning
nations and Africa a collection of hellholes?
I do not know why Africa is a collection of hellholes. I am not a political
scientist or anything else like that.
I want to go on record as saying that I am all for the improvement of black
people condition and all against all causes of black people despair.
I would give my right arm to end HIV/AIDS in Africa right now. If you can
get me that deal I will give my right arm at the shoulder.
I know that I am not any kind of political scientist but if it were up to me
the USA would take those 80,000 brave Marines and Soldiers out of Iraq and
Afghanistan and put them right down in Africa.
Do not mess with the culture. Just build some roads and bridges and sewer
systems and electric grid.
I saw this story on MSN about hope in the midst of despair this week. There
were these kids in some sort of school in some sort of refugee camp in
Africa who just wanted the chance to be somebody.
It is flat out heartbreaking that somebody can see something but cannot get
there. That kid should have a roof over her head and electrity and running
water and medical care twice a year and a school ten months a year. Maybe
she should even have a computer and a Hannah Montana video if you want to go
that far.
What nobody should have is misery and despair and hopelessness.
There has got to be a better way of doing things than the way we are doing
things now.
I am not talking about no form of communism or socialism or just averaging
everything out.
I am not asking Angelina Jolie to adopt that child I read about.
I just want that child to have a decent society to grow into. It should not
be that hard.
I do not cry when I read about people being killed. I only cry about people
who live where there is no hope or opportunity no matter who they may be or
how hard they may try.
Somebody should do something about that.
If some kid in Haiti is eating dirt for dinner he should be shipped off to
Italy. If some kid in Somalia is hearing bombs every night that kid should
be shipped off to Maryland.
It ain't nothing about race(which is imaginary to start). It is all about
human dignity.
Adam Smith
> If you look at a globe you may notice that Africa is roughly the size and
> shape of South America. So why is South America full of decent functioning
> nations and Africa a collection of hellholes?
Why would the shape of a continent have anything to do with how well-
governed it is?
KG
>
> If you look at a globe you may notice that Africa is roughly the size and
> shape of South America. So why is South America full of decent functioning
> nations and Africa a collection of hellholes?
>
> I do not know why Africa is a collection of hellholes. I am not a political
> scientist or anything else like that.
<snip>
Clearly you are not.
Europe went through a similar period of extreme feudal warfare in the
early seventeenth century (1618-1648). It was a series of wars, but
they are commonly grouped together into a convenient period named the
Thirty Year's War.
There is a school of thought which holds that what Africa is going
through now is equivalent to what Europe was going through in that
period. There were thousands of feudal kingdoms/cultures in Europe at
that time. It was a vastly unstable situation and it was natural that
the number of fiefdoms be reduced in order to be governable as the
Continent evolved.
Africa's got tribes which are analogous to those fiefdoms. Their
warlords are analogous to the kings/princes/dukes/whathaveyou. What's
happening is cultural/political, not genetic. It's all part of a very
long cycle. Someday the cultures of that continent will be ahead
again, although not in any of our lifetimes.
Adam Smith
> On Nov 16, 6:52 pm, "RickyBobby" <nasca...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > If you look at a globe you may notice that Africa is roughly the size and
> > shape of South America. So why is South America full of decent functioning
> > nations and Africa a collection of hellholes?
>
> > I do not know why Africa is a collection of hellholes. I am not a political
> > scientist or anything else like that.
>
> <snip>
>
> Clearly you are not.
[snip very good explanation]
What's funny is that in his previous post he seemed to think he knew
exactly why Africa was in such bad shape. In 24 hours, he went from
"Africa is screwed up cause it's full of [Africans]" to "Gosh, I don't
know why things are so bad over there, but I hope they get better.
Kum ba ya!"
Cleatarrior
Severely disturbed mind at work...his ;-(
Biff
wrote:
>>
>> that was one man's story, wasn't it?
>
>You were there to verify the other's?
you seem to have grasped my point. there were multiple stories...
Biff
the square ones are obviously run in a more functional way. erratic
shapes are just clumsy and confusing.
Biff
wrote:
well, given that's how the business works... you can't have cutler at
an orton salary. paying cutler means you need to trim talent
elsewhere. its all about give and take and getting some bang for your
buck.
KG
>
>
> Severely disturbed mind at work...his ;-(-
I feel sorry for those type of people. They don't realize it, but that
sort of internal hating of strangers just makes their own lives worse.
Cleatarrior
> On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 10:56:13 -0700, Cleatarrior <nos...@xx.block>
> wrote:
>
>>> that was one man's story, wasn't it?
>> You were there to verify the other's?
>
> you seem to have grasped my point. there were multiple stories...
Maybe the grownups shouldn't have been prone to that.
Cleatarrior
> On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 11:00:29 -0700, Cleatarrior <nos...@xx.block>
> wrote:
>
>> Biff wrote:
>>> On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 16:39:14 -0800 (PST), KG <kgrin...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> in the end, he's getting what, 10x Orton money and he's playing like
>>>>>> orton? I'd take the bargain in a minute.
>>>>>> --
>>>>> Orton went to a better offensive unit and Cutler went to an offensive unit
>>>>> that is truly offensive. You cannot even believe or understand how bad the
>>>>> Bears offensive line and receivers are. Do not even try. It will hurt your
>>>>> head.
>>>> Orton's QB rating with Denver's 2009 unit is better than Cutler's QB
>>>> rating with Denver's 2008 unit. He throws less touchdowns, but he also
>>>> throws less interceptions.
>>> and my point remains. I'll take orton's skill and his salary over
>>> cutler's skill and his salary... anytime.
>>> --
>> Bit of a Hobson's choice thus far...
>
> well, given that's how the business works... you can't have cutler at
> an orton salary. paying cutler means you need to trim talent
> elsewhere. its all about give and take and getting some bang for your
> buck.
I don't think this really was much about salary however.
Cleatarrior
And here I thought it was the nascar...
Biff
wrote:
bear in mind that I'm coming from the position that no one is off
limits. If I'm running the team, I'm entertaining every offer.
period.
for this situation, I'm thinking that coach hoodie sr jerked coach
hoodie jr around. don't have evidence, but I could see it where he
says hey, I'm sending your boy to KC where you get to face him twice a
year. or we can swing a deal where you get him, KC keeps a lousy QB
and you get a sweet deal. I don't remember the specifics, but I doubt
that jr could compete with sr in the mindgame dept.
as a highly paid athlete, you show up for work and earn your paycheck.
part of the deal is you could be traded at any time.
Biff
wrote:
but my original point was. I said I'd rather have orton at his salary
than cutler at his salary and fessed up to a certain satisfaction that
their performance hasn't been markedly different.
Howard Brazee
wrote:
>> well, given that's how the business works... you can't have cutler at
>> an orton salary. paying cutler means you need to trim talent
>> elsewhere. its all about give and take and getting some bang for your
>> buck.
>
>I don't think this really was much about salary however.
Why not? It's a capped league.
--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."
- James Madison
Cleatarrior
> On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 11:41:15 -0700, Cleatarrior <nos...@xx.block>
> wrote:
>
>> Biff wrote:
>>> On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 10:56:13 -0700, Cleatarrior <nos...@xx.block>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> that was one man's story, wasn't it?
>>>> You were there to verify the other's?
>>> you seem to have grasped my point. there were multiple stories...
>> Maybe the grownups shouldn't have been prone to that.
>
> bear in mind that I'm coming from the position that no one is off
> limits. If I'm running the team, I'm entertaining every offer.
> period.
Yes, but I was not aware they started getting offers, until he was dangled.
> for this situation, I'm thinking that coach hoodie sr jerked coach
> hoodie jr around. don't have evidence, but I could see it where he
> says hey, I'm sending your boy to KC where you get to face him twice a
> year. or we can swing a deal where you get him, KC keeps a lousy QB
> and you get a sweet deal. I don't remember the specifics, but I doubt
> that jr could compete with sr in the mindgame dept.
Agreed, 100%.
> as a highly paid athlete, you show up for work and earn your paycheck.
> part of the deal is you could be traded at any time.
Or cut, but Bowlen and co. sent mixed signals.
Cleatarrior
That point holds, as long as we admit Cutler got less star offensive
assets in the deal.
Cleatarrior
> On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 11:42:10 -0700, Cleatarrior <nos...@xx.block>
> wrote:
>
>>> well, given that's how the business works... you can't have cutler at
>>> an orton salary. paying cutler means you need to trim talent
>>> elsewhere. its all about give and take and getting some bang for your
>>> buck.
>> I don't think this really was much about salary however.
>
> Why not? It's a capped league.
>
If it was the reason, they hid it nicely.
Howard Brazee
wrote:
>>> I don't think this really was much about salary however.
>>
>> Why not? It's a capped league.
>>
>I guess because no one ever mentioned it at the time orsoon after.
>
>If it was the reason, they hid it nicely.
I mentioned it.
Adam Smith
It's worth noting that trading Cutler actually resulted in a cap hit
for the Broncos for this year, since the remaining pro-rated signing
bonus that was spread over the next several years of cap accelerated
against the 2009 cap. Trading Cutler freed up cap space for 2010 and
beyond, but it actually made the salary cap situation worse for 2009
(and it was already bad).
RickyBobby
"KG" <kgrin...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:fbd97a78-2a44-456f...@u16g2000pru.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 15, 4:29 pm, "RickyBobby" <nasca...@cox.net> wrote:
> "Biff" <hr14kb...@sneakemail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:i4v0g5d66p8u44s50...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 11:54:49 -0800, "RickyBobby" <nasca...@cox.net>
> > wrote:
>
> >>"Biff" <hr14kb...@sneakemail.com> wrote in message
> >>news:5lguf597ls5u4vf9i...@4ax.com...
> >>> wrote:
>
> >>>>Biff wrote:
> >>>>> On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 12:23:41 -0700, Cleatarrior <nos...@xx.block>
> >>>>> wrote:
> > orton? I'd take the bargain in a minute.
> > --
>
> Orton went to a better offensive unit and Cutler went to an offensive unit
> that is truly offensive. You cannot even believe or understand how bad the
> Bears offensive line and receivers are. Do not even try. It will hurt your
> head.
Orton's QB rating with Denver's 2009 unit is better than Cutler's QB
rating with Denver's 2008 unit. He throws less touchdowns, but he also
throws less interceptions.
Orton is coming back to Earth. The Broncos are not going anywhere with
Orton.
RickyBobby
"Cleatarrior" <nos...@xx.block> wrote in message
One has a personality disorder and the other has a rag arm. It is not
exactly like comparing Brady to Manning.
KG
> "KG" <kgringi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
The way to evaluate it is to compare how they do with the teams
relative to last year. What was the Bears record last year?
Biff
wrote:
>> but my original point was. I said I'd rather have orton at his salary
>> than cutler at his salary and fessed up to a certain satisfaction that
>> their performance hasn't been markedly different.
>
>That point holds, as long as we admit Cutler got less star offensive
>assets in the deal.
you saying that Cutler went to an offense that well, wasn't really
very good? hell, that's a no-brainer. Decent running game in Chicago
but no one that can catch a ball. that makes for a head scratcher
too. why go buy a (potential) Ferrari when the speed limit in your
town is 35?
Pretty much the same question I had when we used a #1 on Moreno. We
had half a dozen decent to quality RBs in camp so we need another? I
was looking for something on the other side of the ball, where the
Broncs pretty much blew chunks. Looks like we found a leader in
Dawkins though and it seems to be helping.
Biff
wrote:
>> as a highly paid athlete, you show up for work and earn your paycheck.
>> part of the deal is you could be traded at any time.
>
>Or cut, but Bowlen and co. sent mixed signals.
that's the thing... none of us have the real story of how it all went
down. Jay says one thing, Bowlen & Co another. We do know that
Bowlen wanted to talk to Cutler and Cutler wouldn't speak to him. Now
really, no matter how badly someone screws up (let's assume the
worst), you gotta give them the opportunity to apologize. 'specially
if the guy is writing you multimillion dollar paychecks.
Howard Brazee
wrote:
>Orton's QB rating with Denver's 2009 unit is better than Cutler's QB
>rating with Denver's 2008 unit. He throws less touchdowns, but he also
>throws less interceptions.
I can see that. Was that the same after 9 games?
Cleatarrior
> On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 12:16:22 -0700, Cleatarrior <nos...@xx.block>
> wrote:
>
>>> but my original point was. I said I'd rather have orton at his salary
>>> than cutler at his salary and fessed up to a certain satisfaction that
>>> their performance hasn't been markedly different.
>> That point holds, as long as we admit Cutler got less star offensive
>> assets in the deal.
>
> you saying that Cutler went to an offense that well, wasn't really
> very good? hell, that's a no-brainer. Decent running game in Chicago
> but no one that can catch a ball. that makes for a head scratcher
> too. why go buy a (potential) Ferrari when the speed limit in your
> town is 35?
Build for the future, especially when the goods are on sale.
> Pretty much the same question I had when we used a #1 on Moreno. We
> had half a dozen decent to quality RBs in camp so we need another? I
> was looking for something on the other side of the ball, where the
> Broncs pretty much blew chunks. Looks like we found a leader in
> Dawkins though and it seems to be helping.
I can sort of agree, though we did get Ayers and Smith and McBath, so
it's not like we abandoned need for best player availalble.
I just wish we'd gotten Josh Freeman.
Cleatarrior
> On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 12:15:22 -0700, Cleatarrior <nos...@xx.block>
> wrote:
>
>>> as a highly paid athlete, you show up for work and earn your paycheck.
>>> part of the deal is you could be traded at any time.
>> Or cut, but Bowlen and co. sent mixed signals.
>
> that's the thing... none of us have the real story of how it all went
> down. Jay says one thing, Bowlen & Co another. We do know that
> Bowlen wanted to talk to Cutler and Cutler wouldn't speak to him. Now
> really, no matter how badly someone screws up (let's assume the
> worst), you gotta give them the opportunity to apologize. 'specially
> if the guy is writing you multimillion dollar paychecks.
>
Sorry bro, I'm not much into the plantation mentality.
Cleatarrior
> On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 12:29:47 -0700, Cleatarrior <nos...@xx.block>
> wrote:
>
>>>> I don't think this really was much about salary however.
>>> Why not? It's a capped league.
>>>
>> I guess because no one ever mentioned it at the time orsoon after.
>>
>> If it was the reason, they hid it nicely.
>
> I mentioned it.
>
That you did.
But you're not a journalist or with the team, right?
Cleatarrior
...interesting...
Howard Brazee
wrote:
>> I guess because no one ever mentioned it at the time orsoon after.
>>>
>>> If it was the reason, they hid it nicely.
>>
>> I mentioned it.
>>
>
>That you did.
>
>But you're not a journalist or with the team, right?
Nope. The team doesn't tell us the truth - that isn't it's job.
Journalists should though.
Biff
wrote:
>Biff wrote:
plantation mentality?? because I think he should extend the courtesy
of listening to his boss when he wants to talk to him? uh, yeah.
Biff
wrote:
>> you saying that Cutler went to an offense that well, wasn't really
>> very good? hell, that's a no-brainer. Decent running game in Chicago
>> but no one that can catch a ball. that makes for a head scratcher
>> too. why go buy a (potential) Ferrari when the speed limit in your
>> town is 35?
>
>Build for the future, especially when the goods are on sale.
on sale? um, dude... have you seen what Jay C is getting paid?
Adam Smith
Isn't that just a bit hyperbolic?
Cleatarrior
> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 11:05:20 -0700, Cleatarrior <nos...@xx.block>
> wrote:
>
>> Biff wrote:
>>> On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 12:15:22 -0700, Cleatarrior <nos...@xx.block>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> as a highly paid athlete, you show up for work and earn your paycheck.
>>>>> part of the deal is you could be traded at any time.
>>>> Or cut, but Bowlen and co. sent mixed signals.
>>> that's the thing... none of us have the real story of how it all went
>>> down. Jay says one thing, Bowlen & Co another. We do know that
>>> Bowlen wanted to talk to Cutler and Cutler wouldn't speak to him. Now
>>> really, no matter how badly someone screws up (let's assume the
>>> worst), you gotta give them the opportunity to apologize. 'specially
>>> if the guy is writing you multimillion dollar paychecks.
>>>
>> Sorry bro, I'm not much into the plantation mentality.
>
> plantation mentality?? because I think he should extend the courtesy
> of listening to his boss when he wants to talk to him? uh, yeah.
No, because I don't think employers should treat the players like meat.
Cleatarrior
> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 11:04:24 -0700, Cleatarrior <nos...@xx.block>
> wrote:
>
>>> you saying that Cutler went to an offense that well, wasn't really
>>> very good? hell, that's a no-brainer. Decent running game in Chicago
>>> but no one that can catch a ball. that makes for a head scratcher
>>> too. why go buy a (potential) Ferrari when the speed limit in your
>>> town is 35?
>> Build for the future, especially when the goods are on sale.
>
> on sale? um, dude... have you seen what Jay C is getting paid?
IF he ever becomes what they need, it was a fire sale. I refer to picks,
not salary. All 1st rounder QBs get paid.
Cleatarrior
Given the players are treated like meat?
Not so much maybe...
Didja see what O'Dowd said today about Garret Atkins?
I mean OK, they guy's a FA nad all , but intimating he has no career
ahead if the swing doesn't heal right away?
Wow - harsh. I know, take it to the Rockies group...;-)
Cleatarrior
> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 11:06:23 -0700, Cleatarrior <nos...@xx.block>
> wrote:
>
>>> I guess because no one ever mentioned it at the time orsoon after.
>>>> If it was the reason, they hid it nicely.
>>> I mentioned it.
>>>
>> That you did.
>>
>> But you're not a journalist or with the team, right?
>
> Nope. The team doesn't tell us the truth - that isn't it's job.
I meant as a "leak"...
> Journalists should though.
At least in sports ;-)
Biff
wrote:
bowlen is considered to be one of the best owners in the game. he
asked to speak with Jay. Jay thumbed his nose at him and refused to
speak with him or acknowledge him. would that be prime rib or a pork
chop?
Adam Smith
> Adam Smith wrote:
> > On Nov 22, 1:05 pm, Cleatarrior <nos...@xx.block> wrote:
> >> Biff wrote:
> >>> On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 12:15:22 -0700, Cleatarrior <nos...@xx.block>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>>> as a highly paid athlete, you show up for work and earn your paycheck.
> >>>>> part of the deal is you could be traded at any time.
> >>>> Or cut, but Bowlen and co. sent mixed signals.
> >>> that's the thing... none of us have the real story of how it all went
> >>> down. Jay says one thing, Bowlen & Co another. We do know that
> >>> Bowlen wanted to talk to Cutler and Cutler wouldn't speak to him. Now
> >>> really, no matter how badly someone screws up (let's assume the
> >>> worst), you gotta give them the opportunity to apologize. 'specially
> >>> if the guy is writing you multimillion dollar paychecks.
> >> Sorry bro, I'm not much into the plantation mentality.
>
> > Isn't that just a bit hyperbolic?
>
> Given the players are treated like meat?
Just to make sure I'm clear on what we're discussing:
Are you using the phrase "plantation mentality" to refer to the
treatment of slaves in the American South before the Civil War?
Cleatarrior
That'd be you still buying one side of the spat and me the other.
Grownups find ways to get kids to the table for dinner.
Cleatarrior
I think that's the overall gist, yes. You know, drafted, property,
traded, cut, sold, etc.
I'm _not_ saying the full definition holds though, obviously.
KG
That's a bunch of crappola.
No one forces NFL players into their profession. They can quit and do
another profession any time they wish.
Being drafted, traded, cut, whatever, is just part of the job
description. If they don't like that aspect of it, they can stop and
go into a profession that has a set of parameters more to their liking.
Adam Smith
Yeah, I guess my point is that I don't see very much of it at all
holding.
Even if you look at just the employment-related aspects of it, there
are a lot of differences. Players have free agency after four years
in the league. They get paid for their work and can negotiate their
compensation. If they get fed up with the whole thing they can just
quit playing altogether and find a job somewhere else without being
considered criminals.
(That's aside from the other dehumanizing aspects of slavery that have
no parallel, like not having freedom of speech or assembly, not having
the right to an education, having your children born into slavery,
etc.)
Yeah, NFL players don't have a ton of job security. But that's why
the starting salary in 2009 is $310,000 for rookies, and double that
for players with 4+ years of experience, before bonuses. They get
paid for the privilege of being tradeable, cuttable, or whatever, and
they know that going in (or if they don't know it, it's because an
agent isn't doing his job.)
In Garrett Atkins' case, if I'm reading his ESPN page right, if his
career does end before the 2010 season starts, he'll be walking away
from a 5-year career with $12 million. Most people aren't going to
see $12 million in their entire lives. You could put $12 million
dollars in an FDIC-insured savings account bearing 5% interest,
withdraw $120,000 annually to live on, and you could still watch your
balance grow faster than inflation. He could literally support a
family indefinitely without having to work another day in his life,
and he's not even 30 years old yet!
In Cutler's case, he got an $11 million signing bonus when the Broncos
drafted him. I don't know the precise details of the rest of his
contract, but prior to his new contract with the Bears he was
scheduled to make $6.4 million in base salary in 2009. It's safe to
say that absent the new contract he would easily have finished his
fourth year in the NFL having made over $20 million.
And what was the worst thing the Broncos could have done to him this
year? If they'd traded him to some cesspool team where he had no
chance to win and was absolutely miserable, all he had to do was play
out the last year of his rookie contract, deposit his $6.4 million in
the bank, and then hit the offseason as a 26-year-old unrestricted
free agent.
So I honestly can't see where the moral outrage at McDaniels comes
from. He made bad decisions from a management standpoint, certainly
-- if you're a new coach and you want to have any chance to work with
the incumbent quarterback, you absolutely don't dangle him as trade
bait, and you especially don't let it become public. So calling him
foolish for that is right on target as far as I'm concerned, but I
don't really see how it makes him a bad guy.
(And for what it's worth, I don't think Cutler did anything wrong
either. He watched the trade news come out and said "Okay, this is
not a good scene for me. I need to get out of here." And he made it
happen. He could have been a little smoother about it, but in the end
he's got just as much right to play hardball as McDaniels.)
Adam Smith
> On Nov 24, 12:15 am, Cleatarrior <nos...@xx.block> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Adam Smith wrote:
> > > Are you using the phrase "plantation mentality" to refer to the
> > > treatment of slaves in the American South before the Civil War?
>
> > I think that's the overall gist, yes. You know, drafted, property,
> > traded, cut, sold, etc.
>
> > I'm _not_ saying the full definition holds though, obviously.
>
> Yeah, I guess my point is that I don't see very much of it at all
> holding.
[snip]
Re-reading what I wrote after a night of sleep, I didn't mean for it
to get that long and rant-y. I don't regret anything I said (at least
nothing I can think of) and I stand behind it all, but eight
paragraphs was a bit much. So, sorry about that.
Cleatarrior
So were you "drafted" and committed to an exclusive contract with your
first employer?
> No one forces NFL players into their profession. They can quit and do
> another profession any time they wish.
So do you have to do that if you want to find another path in your career?
> Being drafted, traded, cut, whatever, is just part of the job
> description.
Why yes, plantation style.
> If they don't like that aspect of it, they can stop and
> go into a profession that has a set of parameters more to their liking.
Athletically that would mean what, boxing?
The analogy holds, live with it.
Cleatarrior
Really?
So unless you're in the military I'm guessing you weren't committed to
one employer with no real chance to go elsewhere for a set period of
time, right?
> Even if you look at just the employment-related aspects of it, there
> are a lot of differences. Players have free agency after four years
> in the league. They get paid for their work and can negotiate their
> compensation. If they get fed up with the whole thing they can just
> quit playing altogether and find a job somewhere else without being
> considered criminals.
I know, but face it, being committed to anything for 4 years is by any
permutation indentured servitude.
And recall, that FA contract hold the same comittment for the player,
but NOT the team - waiver, trade, cut, etc.
> (That's aside from the other dehumanizing aspects of slavery that have
> no parallel, like not having freedom of speech or assembly, not having
> the right to an education, having your children born into slavery,
> etc.)
Remember, I didn't say all applied.
Let's not go all Jimmy the Greek on me here.
> Yeah, NFL players don't have a ton of job security. But that's why
> the starting salary in 2009 is $310,000 for rookies, and double that
> for players with 4+ years of experience, before bonuses. They get
> paid for the privilege of being tradeable, cuttable, or whatever, and
> they know that going in (or if they don't know it, it's because an
> agent isn't doing his job.)
So they are property, period.
> In Garrett Atkins' case, if I'm reading his ESPN page right, if his
> career does end before the 2010 season starts, he'll be walking away
> from a 5-year career with $12 million. Most people aren't going to
> see $12 million in their entire lives. You could put $12 million
> dollars in an FDIC-insured savings account bearing 5% interest,
> withdraw $120,000 annually to live on, and you could still watch your
> balance grow faster than inflation.
Which online calculator did you use on that sum?
> He could literally support a
> family indefinitely without having to work another day in his life,
> and he's not even 30 years old yet!
Of that $12 million, what percentage of it do you think he has socked
away, after taxes and expenses in interest bearing accounts or gold or
whatever.
Say $3 million? Which if you could find a truly _stable_ return of 5%
would yield what?
Take a lifespan of 50 more years and I assure you any good financial
planner would advise that is insufficient for a 30 year old family man
to retire on.
Ya, I know, he do other things with his life, but it's like wining the
cheap lotto ticket, most of those folks either blow it or return to work.
> In Cutler's case, he got an $11 million signing bonus when the Broncos
> drafted him. I don't know the precise details of the rest of his
> contract, but prior to his new contract with the Bears he was
> scheduled to make $6.4 million in base salary in 2009. It's safe to
> say that absent the new contract he would easily have finished his
> fourth year in the NFL having made over $20 million.
So he holds on to maybe $4-5 net, sound about right?
> And what was the worst thing the Broncos could have done to him this
> year? If they'd traded him to some cesspool team where he had no
> chance to win and was absolutely miserable, all he had to do was play
> out the last year of his rookie contract, deposit his $6.4 million in
> the bank, and then hit the offseason as a 26-year-old unrestricted
> free agent.
>
> So I honestly can't see where the moral outrage at McDaniels comes
> from. He made bad decisions from a management standpoint, certainly
> -- if you're a new coach and you want to have any chance to work with
> the incumbent quarterback, you absolutely don't dangle him as trade
> bait, and you especially don't let it become public. So calling him
> foolish for that is right on target as far as I'm concerned, but I
> don't really see how it makes him a bad guy.
I don't make him a "bad guy" per se, just a hungry young guy who
overreached in his first HC gig.
> (And for what it's worth, I don't think Cutler did anything wrong
> either. He watched the trade news come out and said "Okay, this is
> not a good scene for me. I need to get out of here." And he made it
> happen. He could have been a little smoother about it, but in the end
> he's got just as much right to play hardball as McDaniels.)
We agree there.
I place a lot of the blame here on Bowlen and Ellis, who are the
grownups in all this, or should have been.
KG
They'd have to make a living like any other normal person, doing
regular jobs. They do what they do when they're no longer good enough
to play in the NFL. The average NFL career lasts 3 years.
> The analogy holds, live with it.
The analogy does not hold because in our society today we have
choices. The slaves had no choices. They couldn't walk away from their
job and go do something else.
KG
Don't apologize, you thought it out well. There's no real rebutal to
what you wrote, at least not by a person thinking rationally.
Cleatarrior
No way, it was a good read.
Have you seen how dead a lot of the other nfl groups are?
Post on bro!
Cleatarrior
So if it's football they want the only other pro choices are Canada and UFL.
Plantations.
>> The analogy holds, live with it.
>
> The analogy does not hold because in our society today we have
> choices. The slaves had no choices. They couldn't walk away from their
> job and go do something else.
The "choice" in the NFL is indentured servitude, period.
Cleatarrior
Well it was good of you to take yourself off the board early then.
KG
Nobody forces football players into their profession. They have a
choice to try and do other jobs, just like everyone else.
Adam Smith
> Adam Smith wrote:
> > On Nov 24, 12:15 am, Cleatarrior <nos...@xx.block> wrote:
> >
> >> I'm _not_ saying the full definition holds though, obviously.
>
> > Yeah, I guess my point is that I don't see very much of it at all
> > holding.
>
> Really?
>
> So unless you're in the military I'm guessing you weren't committed to
> one employer with no real chance to go elsewhere for a set period of
> time, right?
Me, no. I've had friends who've taken jobs that required them to sign
non-compete agreements that would have restricted their ability to
work in the same field for a few years if they'd quit. The ones that
come to mind got paid fairly well for it, although none got $300,000 a
year.
> > Even if you look at just the employment-related aspects of it, there
> > are a lot of differences. Players have free agency after four years
> > in the league. They get paid for their work and can negotiate their
> > compensation. If they get fed up with the whole thing they can just
> > quit playing altogether and find a job somewhere else without being
> > considered criminals.
>
> I know, but face it, being committed to anything for 4 years is by any
> permutation indentured servitude.
I disagree. What's missing, from an employment angle at least, is
being forced to stay in the job. Indentured servants simply can't
quit. An NFL player can quit playing and find a job in some other
industry if he wants. Jake Plummer started playing handball after the
2006 season.
To me, the legal ability to force you to keep working when you want to
quit is the defining feature of slavery or indentured servitude, and
that's what's missing here.
> And recall, that FA contract hold the same comittment for the player,
> but NOT the team - waiver, trade, cut, etc.
That's true, but that's why player salaries start at $310k this year
and why agents negotiate contracts with large up-front signing bonuses
or other guaranteed money as a hedge against being cut.
Another big difference between the labor situation in the NFL and
slavery is that it's negotiated by the players on two levels. First,
by the NFLPA which negotiates collective-bargaining agreements with
the union, which define minimum player salaries and other conditions;
and second, by the individual players when they're signing contracts.
Nobody is ever forced to play pro football against their will, nor is
anyone ever forced to continue playing against their will.
> > (That's aside from the other dehumanizing aspects of slavery that have
> > no parallel, like not having freedom of speech or assembly, not having
> > the right to an education, having your children born into slavery,
> > etc.)
>
> Remember, I didn't say all applied.
>
> Let's not go all Jimmy the Greek on me here.
Yeah, so that's where I regret that my last post went on too long and
got a little too rant-y. Didn't mean to give the impression that I
thought you really believed there was a full equivalence here. Sorry
if I did.
Put another way, I DID think you were being hyperbolic. ;)
> > In Garrett Atkins' case, if I'm reading his ESPN page right, if his
> > career does end before the 2010 season starts, he'll be walking away
> > from a 5-year career with $12 million. Most people aren't going to
> > see $12 million in their entire lives. You could put $12 million
> > dollars in an FDIC-insured savings account bearing 5% interest,
> > withdraw $120,000 annually to live on, and you could still watch your
> > balance grow faster than inflation.
>
> Which online calculator did you use on that sum?
Atkins' salary came from his ESPN page.
The rest is pretty simple: If you want to withdraw 1% of your savings
per year and have your balance keep up with inflation, then you need
to find a safe investment with an annual return 1% greater than the
current inflation rate. That really shouldn't be hard. (I was
assuming an average 3% inflation rate over the long run, which is
about what it's been for the last 20 years or so, but it doesn't
matter as long as you can stay 1% ahead of it.)
Keep in mind that's also assuming that Garrett wants to pass the whole
nest egg on to his kids at the same (inflation-adjusted) value. If he
doesn't mind spending the money in his lifetime he can easily withdraw
more and make it last a long time. And of course he can get another
job, like most guys in their 30s have to.
> > He could literally support a
> > family indefinitely without having to work another day in his life,
> > and he's not even 30 years old yet!
>
> Of that $12 million, what percentage of it do you think he has socked
> away, after taxes and expenses in interest bearing accounts or gold or
> whatever.
The top marginal income tax rate is currently 36%, so assuming
absolutely no effort at all to reduce his tax liability he's still
walking home with over $7.5 million. Under the 1% plan that would
limit him to a $75,000 annual stipend, so if he wants to support his
family without working another day in his life I guess he'll have to
live somewhere inexpensive like the midwest. There are plenty of nice
small towns all over the country where families live comfortably on a
single salary of less than $75,000.
As for the rest, I'm not sure what you're referring to. I'm just
showing that a person who earns $12 million in 5 years can pretty
easily live off the interest from a safe investment. If he spends his
money on other things or invests it in other ways, that's his
decision.
> Ya, I know, he do other things with his life, but it's like wining the
> cheap lotto ticket, most of those folks either blow it or return to work.
Are you saying he needs to be paid enough to be safe from his own
spending habits?
> > In Cutler's case, he got an $11 million signing bonus when the Broncos
> > drafted him. I don't know the precise details of the rest of his
> > contract, but prior to his new contract with the Bears he was
> > scheduled to make $6.4 million in base salary in 2009. It's safe to
> > say that absent the new contract he would easily have finished his
> > fourth year in the NFL having made over $20 million.
>
> So he holds on to maybe $4-5 net, sound about right?
$13 minimum with a completely brainless accountant.
> I don't make him a "bad guy" per se, just a hungry young guy who
> overreached in his first HC gig.
Yeah, that's fair. I'd agree with that actually.
> > (And for what it's worth, I don't think Cutler did anything wrong
> > either. He watched the trade news come out and said "Okay, this is
> > not a good scene for me. I need to get out of here." And he made it
> > happen. He could have been a little smoother about it, but in the end
> > he's got just as much right to play hardball as McDaniels.)
>
> We agree there.
>
> I place a lot of the blame here on Bowlen and Ellis, who are the
> grownups in all this, or should have been.
Well, everyone SHOULD have been a grownup. I guess I can blame Cutler
the least; I did some things at his age that I'm not particularly
proud of looking back.
McDaniels should be a grownup; as I said I don't think he did anything
immature in his handling of Cutler. It was just stupid. (Same goes
for jawing with the Chargers players, now that I think about it.)
Howard Brazee
wrote:
>The "choice" in the NFL is indentured servitude, period.
The only real reason for the draft in a capped league is for the
publicity of draft day. The league would be better off if
everybody who applied was a free agent. They wouldn't have teams
afraid of getting the #1 draft choice and being forced to pay more
than they want.
Before the cap, the draft meant the rich teams couldn't restock. But
now they all have the same money to spend.
Adam Smith
> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 09:53:10 -0700, Cleatarrior <nos...@xx.block>
> wrote:
>
> >The "choice" in the NFL is indentured servitude, period.
>
> The only real reason for the draft in a capped league is for the
> publicity of draft day. The league would be better off if
> everybody who applied was a free agent. They wouldn't have teams
> afraid of getting the #1 draft choice and being forced to pay more
> than they want.
>
> Before the cap, the draft meant the rich teams couldn't restock. But
> now they all have the same money to spend.
I'd be all in favor of that. The draft is definitely one of the worst
features of the NFL labor market, and I agree that it doesn't serve a
purpose anymore that the cap doesn't serve just as well or better.
Cleatarrior
That was not the point nor the relevant idiom.
> They have a
> choice to try and do other jobs, just like everyone else.
Bu they have _no choice_ if they're draft-eligible.
KG
That is totally wrong. They are not legally compelled to play
football.
They can go do something else. For instance, Bo Jackson went and
played baseball. Mike Tillman, RIP, went off and joined the Army.
Roger Staubach served in the Navy for 4? years before getting into the
NFL.
Most of the guys play football because they can make the most money,
by far, doing that job. No one FORCES them to play football.
KG
>
> > I know, but face it, being committed to anything for 4 years is by any
> > permutation indentured servitude.
>
> I disagree. What's missing, from an employment angle at least, is
> being forced to stay in the job. Indentured servants simply can't
> quit. An NFL player can quit playing and find a job in some other
> industry if he wants. Jake Plummer started playing handball after the
> 2006 season.
>
> To me, the legal ability to force you to keep working when you want to
> quit is the defining feature of slavery or indentured servitude, and
> that's what's missing here.
You are right on the money.
I believe Cleatarrior has some misconceptions. In post #75, he wrote
that draft-eligible players are forced to play for the NFL which is,
as you are well aware given your posts here, untrue.
Cleatarrior
> On Nov 24, 11:40 am, Cleatarrior <nos...@xx.block> wrote:
>> Adam Smith wrote:
>>> On Nov 24, 12:15 am, Cleatarrior <nos...@xx.block> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'm _not_ saying the full definition holds though, obviously.
>>> Yeah, I guess my point is that I don't see very much of it at all
>>> holding.
>> Really?
>>
>> So unless you're in the military I'm guessing you weren't committed to
>> one employer with no real chance to go elsewhere for a set period of
>> time, right?
>
> Me, no. I've had friends who've taken jobs that required them to sign
> non-compete agreements that would have restricted their ability to
> work in the same field for a few years if they'd quit. The ones that
> come to mind got paid fairly well for it, although none got $300,000 a
> year.
Sure, and non-compete are not uncommon. We see it a lot with TV
personalities.
Usually they come with a hefty enough severance package to make any loss
of employment irrelevant.
>>> Even if you look at just the employment-related aspects of it, there
>>> are a lot of differences. Players have free agency after four years
>>> in the league. They get paid for their work and can negotiate their
>>> compensation. If they get fed up with the whole thing they can just
>>> quit playing altogether and find a job somewhere else without being
>>> considered criminals.
>> I know, but face it, being committed to anything for 4 years is by any
>> permutation indentured servitude.
>
> I disagree. What's missing, from an employment angle at least, is
> being forced to stay in the job. Indentured servants simply can't
> quit. An NFL player can quit playing and find a job in some other
> industry if he wants. Jake Plummer started playing handball after the
> 2006 season.
Now be fair, if football is your main trade, you're not going to make
similar money doing handball or selling insurance.
> To me, the legal ability to force you to keep working when you want to
> quit is the defining feature of slavery or indentured servitude, and
> that's what's missing here.
Like I said, it's not a 100% equation, but you are 100% sure not to be
able to go elsewhere in this league without forcing a trade/cut.
>> And recall, that FA contract hold the same comittment for the player,
>> but NOT the team - waiver, trade, cut, etc.
>
> That's true, but that's why player salaries start at $310k this year
> and why agents negotiate contracts with large up-front signing bonuses
> or other guaranteed money as a hedge against being cut.
Kind of a pittance with average career length at around six years.
> Another big difference between the labor situation in the NFL and
> slavery is that it's negotiated by the players on two levels. First,
> by the NFLPA which negotiates collective-bargaining agreements with
> the union, which define minimum player salaries and other conditions;
> and second, by the individual players when they're signing contracts.
> Nobody is ever forced to play pro football against their will, nor is
> anyone ever forced to continue playing against their will.
I'm not saying it's 100%, but there are enough aspects in common to make
it unpalatable compared to the real world.
>>> (That's aside from the other dehumanizing aspects of slavery that have
>>> no parallel, like not having freedom of speech or assembly, not having
>>> the right to an education, having your children born into slavery,
>>> etc.)
>> Remember, I didn't say all applied.
>>
>> Let's not go all Jimmy the Greek on me here.
>
> Yeah, so that's where I regret that my last post went on too long and
> got a little too rant-y. Didn't mean to give the impression that I
> thought you really believed there was a full equivalence here. Sorry
> if I did.
No problem.
> Put another way, I DID think you were being hyperbolic. ;)
I am, but only a bit.
>>> In Garrett Atkins' case, if I'm reading his ESPN page right, if his
>>> career does end before the 2010 season starts, he'll be walking away
>>> from a 5-year career with $12 million. Most people aren't going to
>>> see $12 million in their entire lives. You could put $12 million
>>> dollars in an FDIC-insured savings account bearing 5% interest,
>>> withdraw $120,000 annually to live on, and you could still watch your
>>> balance grow faster than inflation.
>> Which online calculator did you use on that sum?
>
> Atkins' salary came from his ESPN page.
OK.
> The rest is pretty simple: If you want to withdraw 1% of your savings
> per year and have your balance keep up with inflation, then you need
> to find a safe investment with an annual return 1% greater than the
> current inflation rate. That really shouldn't be hard. (I was
> assuming an average 3% inflation rate over the long run, which is
> about what it's been for the last 20 years or so, but it doesn't
> matter as long as you can stay 1% ahead of it.)
At age 30 I'd hate to have to make $3million last 50 years for myself
and a wife and kids is all.
> Keep in mind that's also assuming that Garrett wants to pass the whole
> nest egg on to his kids at the same (inflation-adjusted) value. If he
> doesn't mind spending the money in his lifetime he can easily withdraw
> more and make it last a long time. And of course he can get another
> job, like most guys in their 30s have to.
Almost any retirement calculator I've seen says if you try and punch out
at age 30 you'd need at least $8-9 million.
>>> He could literally support a
>>> family indefinitely without having to work another day in his life,
>>> and he's not even 30 years old yet!
>> Of that $12 million, what percentage of it do you think he has socked
>> away, after taxes and expenses in interest bearing accounts or gold or
>> whatever.
>
> The top marginal income tax rate is currently 36%, so assuming
> absolutely no effort at all to reduce his tax liability he's still
> walking home with over $7.5 million. Under the 1% plan that would
> limit him to a $75,000 annual stipend, so if he wants to support his
> family without working another day in his life I guess he'll have to
> live somewhere inexpensive like the midwest. There are plenty of nice
> small towns all over the country where families live comfortably on a
> single salary of less than $75,000.
>
> As for the rest, I'm not sure what you're referring to. I'm just
> showing that a person who earns $12 million in 5 years can pretty
> easily live off the interest from a safe investment. If he spends his
> money on other things or invests it in other ways, that's his
> decision.
I really question the numbers, based on my assumption that that $12
million compresses after taxes and expenses to maybe $3 million nest egg.
Does he have a significant league pension to go with it at this stage of
his career?
>> Ya, I know, he do other things with his life, but it's like wining the
>> cheap lotto ticket, most of those folks either blow it or return to work.
>
> Are you saying he needs to be paid enough to be safe from his own
> spending habits?
Don't we all? :-)
You probably read that Post series a few months back on the now pauper
Broncos.
>>> In Cutler's case, he got an $11 million signing bonus when the Broncos
>>> drafted him. I don't know the precise details of the rest of his
>>> contract, but prior to his new contract with the Bears he was
>>> scheduled to make $6.4 million in base salary in 2009. It's safe to
>>> say that absent the new contract he would easily have finished his
>>> fourth year in the NFL having made over $20 million.
>> So he holds on to maybe $4-5 net, sound about right?
>
> $13 minimum with a completely brainless accountant.
Not after taxes and expenses, I doubt it.
I wonder if, in this market, Jay was able to unload his Denver home.
Plummer hasn't - and that's after several price reductions.
>> I don't make him a "bad guy" per se, just a hungry young guy who
>> overreached in his first HC gig.
>
> Yeah, that's fair. I'd agree with that actually.
>
>>> (And for what it's worth, I don't think Cutler did anything wrong
>>> either. He watched the trade news come out and said "Okay, this is
>>> not a good scene for me. I need to get out of here." And he made it
>>> happen. He could have been a little smoother about it, but in the end
>>> he's got just as much right to play hardball as McDaniels.)
>> We agree there.
>>
>> I place a lot of the blame here on Bowlen and Ellis, who are the
>> grownups in all this, or should have been.
>
> Well, everyone SHOULD have been a grownup. I guess I can blame Cutler
> the least; I did some things at his age that I'm not particularly
> proud of looking back.
Oh brother, same here...
> McDaniels should be a grownup; as I said I don't think he did anything
> immature in his handling of Cutler. It was just stupid. (Same goes
> for jawing with the Chargers players, now that I think about it.)
Yeah, that was unique, can't imagine Shanny would have even talked to them.
Cleatarrior
> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 09:53:10 -0700, Cleatarrior <nos...@xx.block>
> wrote:
>
>> The "choice" in the NFL is indentured servitude, period.
>
> The only real reason for the draft in a capped league is for the
> publicity of draft day. The league would be better off if
> everybody who applied was a free agent. They wouldn't have teams
> afraid of getting the #1 draft choice and being forced to pay more
> than they want.
>
> Before the cap, the draft meant the rich teams couldn't restock. But
> now they all have the same money to spend.
>
I like this idea, a more libertarian way to approach the market.
Cleatarrior
I think you guys have it nailed there, make it a true free market.
But Goodell is expanding the draft to prime time coverage so I guess
that says all we'll hear about that.
Cleatarrior
I don't think you're getting my drift.
Yes they can go to Canada or the fledgling UFL.
But if the NFL was their dream, they're stuck.
> They can go do something else. For instance, Bo Jackson went and
> played baseball. Mike Tillman, RIP, went off and joined the Army.
> Roger Staubach served in the Navy for 4? years before getting into the
> NFL.
>
> Most of the guys play football because they can make the most money,
> by far, doing that job. No one FORCES them to play football.
Bu the NFL _does_ force them into the draft, if they're any good.
I can't think of too many more ways to phrase that for you, are you
getting it yet?
Cleatarrior
If they want to play big time football in the USA, that's it baby, no
other choices, period.
KG
If you want to be a stripper in the USA, you gotta take your bra off.
If you want to be a big time politician, you gotta go do the
unpleasant task of raising money. If you want to be a Special Forces
guy in the Army, you gotta go through boot camp and a lot of other
unpleasant training (torture camp, starvation camp, etc.) and go
wherever and do whatever the Army tells you to do. If you want to be a
plumber, you gotta work on dirty lines. If you want to be a football
player, you've gotta be willing to make the sacrifices that being a
football player entails just like the sacrifices people make in other
professions. Other professions have sacrifices too, just different
ones. And we all have a choice as to what profession we chose.
If the parameters of a given profession aren't good enough for ya,
don't cry about it, go do something else. There's plenty of
opportunity in the United States of America.
KG
> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 09:53:10 -0700, Cleatarrior <nos...@xx.block>
> wrote:
>
> >The "choice" in the NFL is indentured servitude, period.
>
> The only real reason for the draft in a capped league is for the
> publicity of draft day.
That's not true.
Parity is a reason for the draft. If all the incoming eligibles were
free agents, the teams with the most money would get them. Do you want
the Dallas Cowboys to get the top guys every year?
The great thing about the NFL is any team can beat any other team on
any given day. That's one of the reasons that it flourishes while its
antithesis, baseball, goes through a long, slow decline.
KG
No it doesn't. They don't have to play football.
Also, if football is someone's dream, they're not entitled to it. The
parameters are laid out and anyone who wants to be a football player
*knows* the score from the very beginning.
You're whining bit is like a downhill skier dreaming to be an Olympic
champion, but doesn't want to get cold, then whines about it.
KG
Nope, I agree with what Adam wrote.
Biff
wrote:
you know, everyone is pretty sympathetic to the plight of slaves in
this enlightened day and age. the comparison with slaves and athletes
demeans the slaves.
there are certain terms and conditions of employment in athletics that
have developed to maintain teams and if you wanna play, you gotta
follow the rules. not much different than with any other employer
except the paycheck is much nicer.
pro athletes are generally provided with a nice free college
education, or at least the opportunity. this would help them should
they decide to not play anymore and go into "regular" work.
sorry, cleartater, don't see this one your way, no way, no how.
--
biff [hr14...@sneakemail.com]
(put "blackcherry" in the subject line to get through)
_______ ____
| /----/ (____)
c (.).) |Budw|
( (_)) (_)(__)
\ . | | (__)
\___/ | (__)
----
Words of Wisdom for Saturday, October 17, 2009...
Is there anything more beautiful than a beautiful,
beautiful flamingo, flying across in front of a beautiful
sunset? And he's carrying a beautiful rose in his beak,
and also he's carrying a very beautiful painting with his
feet. And also, you're drunk.
Cleatarrior
> On Nov 24, 3:01 pm, Cleatarrior <nos...@xx.block> wrote:
>> KG wrote:
>>> On Nov 24, 11:20 am, Adam Smith <adamcsm...@fastmail.us> wrote:
>>>>> I know, but face it, being committed to anything for 4 years is by any
>>>>> permutation indentured servitude.
>>>> I disagree. What's missing, from an employment angle at least, is
>>>> being forced to stay in the job. Indentured servants simply can't
>>>> quit. An NFL player can quit playing and find a job in some other
>>>> industry if he wants. Jake Plummer started playing handball after the
>>>> 2006 season.
>>>> To me, the legal ability to force you to keep working when you want to
>>>> quit is the defining feature of slavery or indentured servitude, and
>>>> that's what's missing here.
>>> You are right on the money.
>>> I believe Cleatarrior has some misconceptions. In post #75, he wrote
>>> that draft-eligible players are forced to play for the NFL which is,
>>> as you are well aware given your posts here, untrue.
>> If they want to play big time football in the USA, that's it baby, no
>> other choices, period.
>
>
> If you want to be a stripper in the USA, you gotta take your bra off.
But you don't have to get drafted and then serve out a 4 year contract.
-spurious rhetoric deleted -
Cleatarrior
> On Nov 24, 11:41 am, Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
>> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 09:53:10 -0700, Cleatarrior <nos...@xx.block>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> The "choice" in the NFL is indentured servitude, period.
>> The only real reason for the draft in a capped league is for the
>> publicity of draft day.
>
>
> That's not true.
>
> Parity is a reason for the draft. If all the incoming eligibles were
> free agents, the teams with the most money would get them. Do you want
> the Dallas Cowboys to get the top guys every year?
Did you miss the term "capped"?
> The great thing about the NFL is any team can beat any other team on
> any given day. That's one of the reasons that it flourishes while its
> antithesis, baseball, goes through a long, slow decline.
Baseball has a draft too.
Cleatarrior
We're going in circles, how many more times do I have to repeat myself?
No draft - no play.
> Also, if football is someone's dream, they're not entitled to it.
Irrelevant.
> The
> parameters are laid out and anyone who wants to be a football player
> *knows* the score from the very beginning.
Also irrelevant.
> You're whining bit is like a downhill skier dreaming to be an Olympic
> champion, but doesn't want to get cold, then whines about it.
There is no draft for the US Ski team.
You've run out of bad analogies...I hope...
Cleatarrior
I suspect your immunity to mirth runs with your lack of reason.