The good it did Ramsey? Nothing but millions of dollars and a chance to play in the NFL. The good it did the team? Gave them his rights for the amount of time dictated. He has no options but to play where and for who dictated or sit and not be paid or accrue time.

Lol, the fact that a team is forced to survey options for him is a pretty good example of how his options can effect a team

Fact remains. If the Jags do not trade him or do trade him he will play where dictated by others than himself or sit and not be paid.

---

Looking to troll? Don't bother, we supply our own.

 

 

Lol, the fact that a team is forced to survey options for him is a pretty good example of how his options can effect a team

Fact remains. If the Jags do not trade him or do trade him he will play where dictated by others than himself or sit and not be paid.

That's very true, bar the fact that Jalen has an influence on team that trades for him.

---

 The good it did Ramsey? Nothing but millions of dollars and a chance to play in the NFL. The good it did the team? Gave them his rights for the amount of time dictated. He has no options but to play where and for who dictated or sit and not be paid or accrue time.

Lol, the fact that a team is forced to survey options for him is a pretty good example of how his options can effect a team

Your take on this is trollish. Your ideas would destroy the most popular sport in the country. Employees are not owners, and it's going to be just a minute before the owners remind them of that fact.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

 The good it did Ramsey? Nothing but millions of dollars and a chance to play in the NFL. The good it did the team? Gave them his rights for the amount of time dictated. He has no options but to play where and for who dictated or sit and not be paid or accrue time.

Lol, the fact that a team is forced to survey options for him is a pretty good example of how his options can effect a team

Except the team is NOT forced to survey options for him.

I actually heard the argument posited that the Jags are blowing his trade request up to generate more interest for him - so they get picks, and don't have to give him the huge payday he will demand (when his contract expires, that is...)

The front office is a lot smarter than many here think.  We'll probably know next year what the general plan was, and I'm really interested in seeing how this all plays out.  As I said in an earlier thread, this could wind up being a huge long-term break for the Jags.

---

Lol, the fact that a team is forced to survey options for him is a pretty good example of how his options can effect a team

Except the team is NOT forced to survey options for him.

I actually heard the argument posited that the Jags are blowing his trade request up to generate more interest for him - so they get picks, and don't have to give him the huge payday he will demand (when his contract expires, that is...)

The front office is a lot smarter than many here think.  We'll probably know next year what the general plan was, and I'm really interested in seeing how this all plays out.  As I said in an earlier thread, this could wind up being a huge long-term break for the Jags.

They are surveying options literally right now..

And no the front office has proven to be terribly dumb since it got power

---

Lol, the fact that a team is forced to survey options for him is a pretty good example of how his options can effect a team

Except the team is NOT forced to survey options for him.

I actually heard the argument posited that the Jags are blowing his trade request up to generate more interest for him - so they get picks, and don't have to give him the huge payday he will demand (when his contract expires, that is...)

The front office is a lot smarter than many here think.  We'll probably know next year what the general plan was, and I'm really interested in seeing how this all plays out.  As I said in an earlier thread, this could wind up being a huge long-term break for the Jags.

Hahaha they’re so smart that they gave Bortles an extension then released him the following year, drafted Fournette, drafted Taven Bryan, resigned AJ Cann, traded a 5th rounder for Carlos Hyde.....

So smart.

---

1. Get rid of the draft and rookie pay scales. If a team wants to pay Baker Mayfield star money right out of college instead of Kirk Cousins (insert any other names obviously) on a huge FA deal they should be allowed to do that.

2. Guarantee contracts and make them non renegotiable. Force teams to actually play by the salary cap. No getting out of deals after 2 years of the 5 year contract, no dummy years that spread out the cap hit. This will ensure parity continues.

3. Players must honor their contracts. No hold outs, no demanding trades. If you think you aren't being offered fair money now and will outperform the contract, negotiate a 1 or 2 year deal and then go back to the table when you have a better resume. Players automatically get no trade clauses. If you want to trade them the teams and the players have to be happy about it.

Players will love being able to choose their teams right away and have their contract guaranteed. Teams will like the freedom of being able to dip into either the college or FA player pools and won't have to deal with the "inmates running the asylum" problem.

---

Hahaha they’re so smart that they gave Bortles an extension then released him the following year, drafted Fournette, drafted Taven Bryan, resigned AJ Cann, traded a 5th rounder for Carlos Hyde.....

So smart.

They also, y'know, drafted Jalen Ramsey and assembled a team that was a play away from the Super Bowl.  But that was so long ago....

I'll put you in the "FO don't know what their doing LOLOL" camp.  You have lots of company.

I think the FO knows exactly what they're doing.  Looking forward to seeing how this plays out.

---

---

Players can want out of bad situations all they want.
 Making it easy for them to extricate themselves is simply going to create a landslide redistribution of talent away from small markets and struggling teams. How in the heck does that make the league better?

The more empowered players are in a brutal sport like the NFL the better for them. We've seen two HOF caliber talents retire due to how tough the sport is on their body and mind. 

If the billionaires want to prevent their team from suffering from a superstar leaving they should make a competent team. 

Parity in the NFL is forced via the draft and salary cap. Stars leaving awful teams I'd a direct reflection of bad organisations making bad decisions

I'll not belabour our differing views on this. I'll only say that I believe you have an overly optimistic view of how things will work out for the league if players are as empowered as you'd like them to be. That's fine. We envision that outcome differently. 

It sounds cliché - but there are only 32 teams and 22 starting spots for each. It's a tremendous honor to win any of those jobs among the legions vying for the positions. I don't think some great empowerment to move about within that structure is required. 

I won't sit here and pretend to have all the answers to remedy the situation. I'll only say I don't want to see the league relegate small markets to a state of near-constant struggle because players are dictating personnel moves about the league.

---

Well thankfully the only solution to the problem are two things that are good for each party, pay the the players money and/or be a competent organisation.

Like most NFL deals are essentially 2/3 years of actual money and security, bar some of the big QB deals. Teams want to be able to escape the deals and revaluate the player and their situation. Now players do get more up front, which they prefer, but also it represents that an NFL teams loyalty to a player is pretty short term unless it's a rookie deal, which they automatically have control over for a longer period at a cheap wage.

I guess my overall point is, why should NFL players be completely loyal to teams when teams will drop players as soon as they start not fulfilling their end of the bargain? Most players are happy to collect their money, even if the situation is not ideal, but stars who know they can make huge money anywhere+ have a huge market+ have a brand , are clearly going to use their leverage to do what's best for them Vs the team. You and I would do the exact same I presume

---

So then this only applies to 'good' players.  You really see no problem with this?  Wow.  

You're going to turn this into baseball or basketball where a small-market team like Jacksonville has zero chance to compete.

Sorry, I guess I'm just being a 'boomer'.  So hurtful.

Somewhere, in a galaxy long ago, the NFL Commissioner Pete Rozelle and NYG owner Wellington Mara put their heads together and developed a vision for the league where teams would compete on a level playing field. This has worked marvelously well for 50 years or so.

MLB has allowed the rich teams- NYY, BOS, LAD, etc- to attract the best players and, duh, they win or get close every year. What fun is that to watch for a KC, PIT, TB, CINN fan?

The NBA has allowed some players to dictate where they are going to play and it will only get worse there. Where would you rather play in the winter- South Beach or Minneapolis?

The NFL has enjoyed this popularity for a long time and for a simple reason- a Green Bay or Jacksonville can compete with NY and LA, et al...they shouldn't let this slip away.

Lol, the fact that a team is forced to survey options for him is a pretty good example of how his options can effect a team

Except the team is NOT forced to survey options for him.

I actually heard the argument posited that the Jags are blowing his trade request up to generate more interest for him - so they get picks, and don't have to give him the huge payday he will demand (when his contract expires, that is...)

The front office is a lot smarter than many here think.  We'll probably know next year what the general plan was, and I'm really interested in seeing how this all plays out.  As I said in an earlier thread, this could wind up being a huge long-term break for the Jags.

Some truth to this- I'm not sure  the FO is smarter than we think (maybe a little...nah) but the sentiment that this could become a long-term break is viable. We are now stuck with the Foles contract, adding Ramsey to it ties us down. Throw in Ngakoue and Jack and you are financially hamstrung.

For me, Ramsey-fatigue has set in and, frankly, I hope he leaves and we get 3 guys who want to be here, including a CB who can catch.

---

Season Ticket holder since 2004.

 

        

Well thankfully the only solution to the problem are two things that are good for each party, pay the the players money and/or be a competent organisation.

...

I still think you are glossing over exactly how competent a small market organization could actually be when it's best players routinely flee for larger markets.

---

Well thankfully the only solution to the problem are two things that are good for each party, pay the the players money and/or be a competent organisation.

...

I still think you are glossing over exactly how competent a small market organization could actually be when it's best players routinely flee for larger markets.

Let's just let Dallas, Chicago, New York, and New England have full, uncontested control of the league, that's how you make the League great!

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Well thankfully the only solution to the problem are two things that are good for each party, pay the the players money and/or be a competent organisation.

Like most NFL deals are essentially 2/3 years of actual money and security, bar some of the big QB deals. Teams want to be able to escape the deals and revaluate the player and their situation. Now players do get more up front, which they prefer, but also it represents that an NFL teams loyalty to a player is pretty short term unless it's a rookie deal, which they automatically have control over for a longer period at a cheap wage.  

I guess my overall point is, why should NFL players be completely loyal to teams when teams will drop players as soon as they start not fulfilling their end of the bargain? Most players are happy to collect their money, even if the situation is not ideal, but stars who know they can make huge money anywhere+ have a huge market+ have a brand , are clearly going to use their leverage to do what's best for them Vs the team. You and I would do the exact same I presume

Its funny how you pretty much think the organizations should work for the players.  A guy that signs a huge contract can be lazy and not live up to the contract he signed but those teams need to honor that and pay him all that money regardles.lol. If i seen these comments and coulldnt see a name on who was making them, I could of guessed they were coming from you lol.  The league of the lazies and early retirement if this were to ever happen haha, good stuff

---

Well thankfully the only solution to the problem are two things that are good for each party, pay the the players money and/or be a competent organisation.

...

I still think you are glossing over exactly how competent a small market organization could actually be when it's best players routinely flee for larger markets.

You have that backwards, competency is required to keep the players. Competency should be encouraged at every possible venue for the NFL to work

---

Well thankfully the only solution to the problem are two things that are good for each party, pay the the players money and/or be a competent organisation.

Like most NFL deals are essentially 2/3 years of actual money and security, bar some of the big QB deals. Teams want to be able to escape the deals and revaluate the player and their situation. Now players do get more up front, which they prefer, but also it represents that an NFL teams loyalty to a player is pretty short term unless it's a rookie deal, which they automatically have control over for a longer period at a cheap wage.  

I guess my overall point is, why should NFL players be completely loyal to teams when teams will drop players as soon as they start not fulfilling their end of the bargain? Most players are happy to collect their money, even if the situation is not ideal, but stars who know they can make huge money anywhere+ have a huge market+ have a brand , are clearly going to use their leverage to do what's best for them Vs the team. You and I would do the exact same I presume

Its funny how you pretty much think the organizations should work for the players.  A guy that signs a huge contract can be lazy and not live up to the contract he signed but those teams need to honor that and pay him all that money regardles.lol. If i seen these comments and coulldnt see a name on who was making them, I could of guessed they were coming from you lol.  The league of the lazies and early retirement if this were to ever happen haha, good stuff

Not at all, not that I'm surprised you got this wrong too.A contract between an NFL player and a team is a partnership, for the most part a very simple deal, you play for us and devote your time and in exchange you get money. This dynamic changes as the money gets higher and the ability of the player gets higher too. They are more valuable assets and thus are treated differently. 

Like in many walks of life the better you are at your  profession the more leverage you have Vs the people who pay you. A high level player in the NFL may use this leverage to get better pay, more contract security and occasionally to get to a new team. 

What is your fundamental problem with a player using their earned leverage to increase earnings or job happiness?

---

I still think you are glossing over exactly how competent a small market organization could actually be when it's best players routinely flee for larger markets.

You have that backwards, competency is required to keep the players. Competency should be encouraged at every possible venue for the NFL to work

I'm afraid you are just missing my point. Here it is:

There is no contingency for small market teams to remain competent  under the proposals you have laid out in this thread.
They will bleed money to elite players and still lose them to larger markets.  

They will very simply be unable to compete with the draw of the larger markets when star players prefer those. Which will happen frequently.

---

You have that backwards, competency is required to keep the players. Competency should be encouraged at every possible venue for the NFL to work

I'm afraid you are just missing my point. Here it is:

There is no contingency for small market teams to remain competent  under the proposals you have laid out in this thread.
They will bleed money to elite players and still lose them to larger markets.  

They will very simply be unable to compete with the draw of the larger markets when star players prefer those. Which will happen frequently.

When have we ever seen a player demand a trade from a successful small market team purely to move to a bigger market? 

Players aren't trying to force moves from successful teams to bad big market teams just because the market and location is better.

Also what proposals have I laid out bar supporting players utilizing their leverage as best they can to get the best situation for themselves?

---

I'm afraid you are just missing my point. Here it is:

There is no contingency for small market teams to remain competent  under the proposals you have laid out in this thread.
They will bleed money to elite players and still lose them to larger markets.  

They will very simply be unable to compete with the draw of the larger markets when star players prefer those. Which will happen frequently.

When have we ever seen a player demand a trade from a successful small market team purely to move to a bigger market? 

Players aren't trying to force moves from successful teams to bad big market teams just because the market and location is better.

Also what proposals have I laid out bar supporting players utilizing their leverage as best they can to get the best situation for themselves?

A)  You can't bar that facet. Wanting to move to a larger market falls under that umbrella of "best situation for themselves."
It equates to a quality of life improvement to many players and a much, much deeper pool of endorsement dollars. 

b -  To your first sentence -  I'm forecasting that the small to large market move will become commonplace with the empowerment of players to move about the league. 

You obviously don't see that happening.  I feel it would happen to the point of instability for small markets. We can move on.

---

When have we ever seen a player demand a trade from a successful small market team purely to move to a bigger market? 

Players aren't trying to force moves from successful teams to bad big market teams just because the market and location is better.

Also what proposals have I laid out bar supporting players utilizing their leverage as best they can to get the best situation for themselves?

A)  You can't bar that facet. Wanting to move to a larger market falls under that umbrella of "best situation for themselves."
It equates to a quality of life improvement to many players and a much, much deeper pool of endorsement dollars. 

b -  To your first sentence -  I'm forecasting that the small to large market move will become commonplace with the empowerment of players to move about the league. 

You obviously don't see that happening.  I feel it would happen to the point of instability for small markets. We can move on.

No I'm barring that facet as in "this is the only kind of proposal I made", not denying it's potential effects.  

I could see it happening too, but in my view the competitiveness of the old or new side will still be more important. I think the NBA and sport of basketball is way more conducive to just hunting out the best market/location and if the team happens to be good then so be it.

And yeah we've made our points fairly succinctly I feel

---