The Weird, Wacky and Awesome World of the NFL - General Banter thread V3

Podge_irl

billr67 wrote: »

Bell over the run of his entire contract would have made far more with the Steelers and this piddling narative that guaranteed money was the issue is just getting old at this stage. That is the way the Steelers do contracts and they always come through. Once you sign your deal they front load your money each season into bonuses as that's just the way they work their cap.

They don't cut players mid way through second contracts even after injury so just because you don't get a lot of guarentees means nothing when it comes to the Steelers because they will always do right by their players.

Anyone who simply trusts an NFL organisation to "do good by them" is a fool, no matter who the organisation is.

billr67

Podge_irl wrote: »

Anyone who simply trusts an NFL organisation to "do good by them" is a fool, no matter who the organisation is.

That might be true for most NFL franchises but find me a single player that the Steelers cut two years into their second contract due to injury? I just need one name....

I can save you the bother looking because you won't find one.

Trust as you say is important but sometimes having an agent that simply won't do his homework is criminal.

The_Honeybadger

billr67 wrote: »

That might be true for most NFL franchises but find me a single player that the Steelers cut two years into their second contract due to injury? I just need one name....

I can save you the bother looking because you won't find one.

Trust as you say is important but sometimes having an agent that simply won't do his homework is criminal.

I think the Shazier situation adds credence to this. Very few franchises would keep him on the books and keep paying him after that injury.

Bell got a fair offer from the Steelers imo but he overvalued himself and also may have wanted to leave for reasons other than money. If Conner and Samuels continue to develop they are better off without him, Bell held out twice and was also suspended twice in just a couple of years with the team. As brilliant as he is good luck to him.

Brown will be harder to replace and as you say may make them look at how they manage the cap and player contracts going forward. Very few players would do what he did though, I can’t see it becoming a trend.

billr67

The_Honeybadger wrote: »

Brown will be harder to replace and as you say may make them look at how they manage the cap and player contracts going forward. Very few players would do what he did though, I can’t see it becoming a trend.

I'd agree but at the end of the day he got what he wanted and he helped the Raiders get him at a discount by acting like a jerk. I'd hate to see it become a trend but there may be players who'll look at what happened and take notice.

Paully D

Foxtrol wrote: »

How do you feel about the cost? I know everyone is overpaying but $22m in the first 9 months looks a lot given his history.

Do you have a lot of cap space coming off letting all those guys go?

It’s a huge risk but after losing so much defensive leadership and having the opportunity to add the best safety in the game to a team in a division with the likes of Green, JuJu and Odell it’s probably too tempting to not make the move.

Worst case scenario he’s a shell of his former self and can be cut nice and cleanly at the end of 2020 after paying $32m for 2 seasons. It would be sickener but wouldn’t be something that will kill us for years to come.

Cap space (taking into account Earl and Ingram’s hit) should be around $17m left. There should even be enough there to add a FA rusher if they want. Someone like Houston would be ideal if the price isn’t mad.

The Ravens secondary looks absolutely fantastic now: Thomas, Jefferson, Humphrey, Smith (if he can get back to any sort of form), Young. However, they’ll be well tested!

The_Honeybadger

billr67 wrote: »

I'd agree but at the end of the day he got what he wanted and he helped the Raiders get him at a discount by acting like a jerk. I'd hate to see it become a trend but there may be players who'll look at what happened and take notice.

It was despicable behaviour and I am sure other players and even owners have taken notice, the league will not want to see this becoming a regular occurrence. I’m all for players getting paid but what Brown did was not right, it was genius on his part, but still not right. Only a really elite player would get away with it because somebody will always take a chance on you when you are that good.

Shedite27

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Well bell holding out last season seems a bad move in hindsight. All that unnecessary off the field distraction and he lost whatever the franchise tag was and got maybe $2 million more. Say what you want about AB but at least he bothered his ass to play last season

The_Honeybadger wrote: »

He got an additional €2m guaranteed by the looks of it, and was lucky to get it if reports are to be believed as the Jets were the only team left talking to him.

Sitting out last year looks like a terrible decision that benefitted nobody.

The_Honeybadger wrote: »

Oh yeah it cost him a fortune. He should have signed the Steelers very fair offer last year.

New contract will be in tax-free Nevada tho, so he'll be up money

The_Honeybadger

Shedite27 wrote: »

New contract will be in tax-free Nevada tho, so he'll be up money

Since when is New York in Nevada?

And in bells case state taxes are significantly higher in New York than Pennsylvania

billr67

Shedite27 wrote: »

New contract will be in tax-free Nevada tho, so he'll be up money

He's in New York not Nevada

OOnegative

Shedite27 wrote: »

New contract will be in tax-free Nevada tho, so he'll be up money

He’s going to the New York Jets not the Las Vegas Jets.

Foxtrol

billr67 wrote: »

That might be true for most NFL franchises but find me a single player that the Steelers cut two years into their second contract due to injury? I just need one name....

I can save you the bother looking because you won't find one.

Trust as you say is important but sometimes having an agent that simply won't do his homework is criminal.

Find me a single time that the Steelers made an RB the highest paid player in their position and they blew out their knee during the first season of that contract, potentially never to be the same player again. I just need one name…

As Podge pointed out, a player and an agent is a fool if they think an NFL organization is going to do what is best for them at the expense of their team.

Christy42

The_Honeybadger wrote: »

billr67 wrote: »

That might be true for most NFL franchises but find me a single player that the Steelers cut two years into their second contract due to injury? I just need one name....

I can save you the bother looking because you won't find one.

Trust as you say is important but sometimes having an agent that simply won't do his homework is criminal.

I think the Shazier situation adds credence to this. Very few franchises would keep him on the books and keep paying him after that injury.

Bell got a fair offer from the Steelers imo but he overvalued himself and also may have wanted to leave for reasons other than money. If Conner and Samuels continue to develop they are better off without him, Bell held out twice and was also suspended twice in just a couple of years with the team. As brilliant as he is good luck to him.

Brown will be harder to replace and as you say may make them look at how they manage the cap and player contracts going forward. Very few players would do what he did though, I can’t see it becoming a trend.

As you say very few franchises would do it. Is it worth taking the risk that the Steelers franchise will always be different to the rest. Or that they would always show the same loyalty to all players. To begin with as soon as they announcer the tag it was obvious the plan was run Bell into the ground.

Franchises are there for the money. Look at how quick they are to shaft cities whenever they feel like they haven't been given enough money.

Bell wanted to see what he was worth on the market and the Steelers fought tooth and nail to prevent him from doing so. Hardly loyalty endearing stuff. You win some and you lose some on the market but I will never begrudge a player from wanting to test the market when they are out of contract (out a year at that point).

He is not exactly out very much and reduces the risk of an injury destroying him as well.

Trust any of the franchises, even the ones looking relatively clean, at your own peril.

Foxtrol

The_Honeybadger wrote: »

I think the Shazier situation adds credence to this. Very few franchises would keep him on the books and keep paying him after that injury.

Shazier situation has absolutely nothing to do with this unless Bell’s injury was one where he was potentially paralyzed for life. I don’t think there was a team out there that is scummy enough and would have risked the potential fan and media backlash to cut a guy like that. It is completely different to a guy blowing out their knee.

Bell got a fair offer from the Steelers imo but he overvalued himself and also may have wanted to leave for reasons other than money. If Conner and Samuels continue to develop they are better off without him, Bell held out twice and was also suspended twice in just a couple of years with the team. As brilliant as he is good luck to him.

It is debatable about whether the Steelers offer was fair or not but it was a foul move for them to tag him for a second time. They were within their rights to do it, just like Bell was to sit out, but tag is supposed to be used with the aim of signing a long term deal and it was obvious that the Steelers were never going to give him the guaranteed money he wanted. I think if he was let go last year, he would have made the type of money he expected, however there was a near perfect storm in devaluing RB contracts since then (UDFAs taking RB jobs, Gurley’s knee injury after getting paid, cheap veterans stepping in for big names, less teams in the market).

Brown will be harder to replace and as you say may make them look at how they manage the cap and player contracts going forward. Very few players would do what he did though, I can’t see it becoming a trend.

There are very few players who have the leverage to do it, but I think we’re likely to see more guys do it, now that they’ve seen it work.

Aside from the two things you point out, I would hope it would also make them look at how they treat (or mistreat) their players. I don't think it is a surprise that the two teams that are blowing up this year are those who are pandering to their aging QBs to the detriment of other players

billr67

Foxtrol wrote: »

Find me a single time that the Steelers made an RB the highest paid player in their position and they blew out their knee during the first season of that contract, potentially never to be the same player again. I just need one name…

As Podge pointed out, a player and an agent is a fool if they think an NFL organization is going to do what is best for them at the expense of their team.

That's an incedibly stupid argument, the Steelers were trusting Bell and all he needed to do was trust them in return. To prove that trust, they could point to the fact that they'd never done exactly what you're suggesting above.

The Steelers never give a lot of guarenteed money never have, however they are the best organisation in NFL history for paying out the full value of contracts. So saying that I don't have enough guarenteed money was meaningless history should have told Bell that the Steelers would back him.
Hell they'd already backed him through injuries and suspensions already.

I get him not wanting to sign the tag but the contract he was offered works out worse per year and not a lot better in guarentees to go to an organisation which will play second or third fiddle to the Patriots until the devil decides it's time to collect Brady or Belichick's soul (depending on who made the deal with him).

OOnegative

The whole Bell situation could well be he wanted out of Pittsburgh as it just wasn’t for him, New York is a much better audience for his rap music career also. I get the whole trust argument being a Steelers fan but it’s business at the end of the day.

billr67

Christy42 wrote: »

Bell wanted to see what he was worth on the market and the Steelers fought tooth and nail to prevent him from doing so. Hardly loyalty endearing stuff.

I don't quite get this, they tagged him to work out a long term deal (lots of teams do this). When he wouldn't sign the tag they retained his rights and freed him the following year so that they retained his comp pick value (probably a third rounder next year).

I don't think many teams would just free a guy who refused to sign the tag but "tooth and nail and loyalty endearing stuff" not sure what you mean.

Either way he backed himself and lost, I guess he wasn't to know that Connor and Samuels would work out, or that the Gurley arthritis situation would make teams change their minds on running back value but the 17.5 million he's missed out on he'll never get back.

billr67

OOnegative wrote: »

The whole Bell situation could well be he wanted out of Pittsburgh as it just wasn’t for him, New York is a much better audience for his rap music career also. I get the whole trust argument being a Steelers fan but it’s business at the end of the day.

That might work out for the best, but honestly if Buffalo had offered him 16 or 17 million a season he'd have gone there instead. Let's not kid ourselves this was all about money not the destination.

Foxtrol

billr67 wrote: »

That's an incedibly stupid argument, the Steelers were trusting Bell and all he needed to do was trust them in return. To prove that trust, they could point to the fact that they'd never done exactly what you're suggesting above.

They were never faced with putting so much money in a RB and them a career altering injury before. He eventually signed the franchise tag the year before (which again is supposed to be used to give more time to come to a deal), they then ran him into the ground, and franchise tagged him for a second time, when it was clear they were going to come to a deal.

How were they trusting him? Are you saying they included no voids to his guarantees if he was banned?

The Steelers never give a lot of guarenteed money never have, however they are the best organisation in NFL history for paying out the full value of contracts. So saying that I don't have enough guarenteed money was meaningless history should have told Bell that the Steelers would back him.
Hell they'd already backed him through injuries and suspensions already.

They backed him when he was under his rookie contract, where he was vastly underpaid for his out put.

‘This is how we always do it’ is one of the worst phrases to hear in business. Times are changing when it comes to what players demand and they may have to now change too.

I get him not wanting to sign the tag but the contract he was offered works out worse per year and not a lot better in guarentees to go to an organisation which will play second or third fiddle to the Patriots until the devil decides it's time to collect Brady or Belichick's soul (depending on who made the deal with him).

He is joining a team which looks to be moving in the right direction and has the opportunity to be one of the biggest names in NY sport (especially with OBJ gone). That might be an upgrade on what looks to be a toxic Steelers organization, where the FO abused the tag on him twice, coaches ran him into the ground, gave the team free reign (FO/coaches possibly encouraging) his ‘teammates’ to call him out, allowed his ‘teammates’ to raid his locker, and being treated like one of Big Ben’s ’52 kids’.

The_Honeybadger

Foxtrol wrote: »

There are very few players who have the leverage to do it, but I think we’re likely to see more guys do it, now that they’ve seen it work.

Aside from the two things you point out, I would hope it would also make them look at how they treat (or mistreat) their players. I don't think it is a surprise that the two teams that are blowing up this year are those who are pandering to their aging QBs to the detriment of other players

Don’t disagree with most of what you say, Bell is gone now and I think it worked out for the best although they should have released him last year no doubt about it and iirc Colbert has admitted as much.

The Brown situation was badly handled although he is clearly a very difficult character and the whole thing seems to have been brewing a while. Ben is no saint and no doubt causes issues but nobody outside the team knows the full story.

As for the organisation blowing up let’s wait and see. They are ageing in places but still have a good QB, good Oline, decent pass rush and not that many holes in the roster compared to many other teams. If they have a good draft things may not be as bad as they seem. Removing all the drama of recent seasons may be just what they need.

billr67

Foxtrol wrote: »

They were never faced with putting so much money in a RB and them a career altering injury before. He eventually signed the franchise tag the year before (which again is supposed to be used to give more time to come to a deal), they then ran him into the ground, and franchise tagged him for a second time, when it was clear they were going to come to a deal.

How were they trusting him? Are you saying they included no voids to his guarantees if he was banned?



They backed him when he was under his rookie contract, where he was vastly underpaid for his out put.

‘This is how we always do it’ is one of the worst phrases to hear in business. Times are changing when it comes to what players demand and they may have to now change too.



He is joining a team which looks to be moving in the right direction and has the opportunity to be one of the biggest names in NY sport (especially with OBJ gone). That might be an upgrade on what looks to be a toxic Steelers organization, where the FO abused the tag on him twice, coaches ran him into the ground, gave the team free reign (FO/coaches possibly encouraging) his ‘teammates’ to call him out, allowed his ‘teammates’ to raid his locker, and being treated like one of Big Ben’s ’52 kids’.

I said injury not discipline so if he was banned all bets were off, and by the way his New York contract is void if he's banned too quote "$28 million of that number was guaranteed for skill, injury, and cap, which is another way of saying that it’s fully guaranteed (can only be voided due to suspension or discipline)."

Again I don't get this abuse the tag nonsense if players don't like the tag get rid of it in a new CBA but don't rag on teams for using what you negotiated and what do you mean by "franchise tagged him for a second time, when it was clear they were going to come to a deal." When was it clear he was going to sign the Steelers deal? are you saying this is part of the reason he held out?

Your last paragraph is funny, "toxic organisation" don't believe everything you read in the papers and it also got a whole lot less toxic with Brown gone. "Teammates calling him out" then don't lie to your teammates who trusted you to show up when you said you would. "Teammates raiding his locker" even Bell thought that was funny and liked Bud Dupree's picture of him wearing his shoes, and the 52 kids thing was a stupid thing that Colbert should never have said, use inexperienced or lacking in Superbowl experience (which was what he was really getting at).

That's a stick that's been used by Brown ever since, although I have to say it was really funny in his press conference yesterday when he said that Gruden is like a dad to him (don't call him kid or son Jon), or when Mike Mayock said “I mean, Jon had 400 clips of Antonio in the office. I walked in this morning, the two of them were sitting in there like little KIDS watching 400 cut ups of Antonio. Everything he did, everything. I mean, they were like little KIDS in a laboratory and that’s why we’re so excited.” Amazing how easy it is to use the word kids isn't it.

OOnegative

https://es.pn/2HgTq6l

Might be a one way feeling this one!!

billr67

OOnegative wrote: »

https://es.pn/2HgTq6l

Might be a one way feeling this one!!

He bought a billboard in downtown Pittsburgh with a "Thank You Pittsburgh" message on it.

Well that makes up for everything then! :rolleyes:

Morrison J

Paully D wrote: »

Redskins releasing Zach Brown.

He’d make a lot of sense for the Ravens.

Knex. wrote: »

Why are they doing that? He's a fantastic player and only signed a contract last year. Would love him with the Giants.

jack presley wrote: »

Like a lot of teams, cap space.

He's also a bit of a nutjob and pretty overrated as a player imo. Probably not worth the headache.

Foxtrol

The_Honeybadger wrote: »

Don’t disagree with most of what you say, Bell is gone now and I think it worked out for the best although they should have released him last year no doubt about it and iirc Colbert has admitted as much.

The Brown situation was badly handled although he is clearly a very difficult character and the whole thing seems to have been brewing a while. Ben is no saint and no doubt causes issues but nobody outside the team knows the full story.

As for the organisation blowing up let’s wait and see. They are ageing in places but still have a good QB, good Oline, decent pass rush and not that many holes in the roster compared to many other teams. If they have a good draft things may not be as bad as they seem. Removing all the drama of recent seasons may be just what they need.

Alongside Ben they also let AB away with far too much over the years. I feel the media in Steelers is much more team friendly than other markets and drama isn’t as sensationalized.

Chris Simms mentioned it on PFT that the Raiders could have tampered with AB and I’m starting to believe it. Since the trade he has completely toned back on all the borderline mental breakdown stuff.

Blowing up is an overstatement by me for the Steelers, but I do see similarities with the Giants as far as bending over backwards to keep an aging QB happy to the detriment of the team.

OOnegative

Foxtrol wrote: »

Blowing up is an overstatement by me for the Steelers, but I do see similarities with the Giants as far as bending over backwards to keep an aging QB happy to the detriment of the team.

When Ben starts sucking at Eli’s level we’ll start worrying. Ben hasn’t been no angel over the years and has had plenty of controversy himself but he’s the face of the organisation still, multiple SuperBowl winner(apart from Eli & Brady the only active multiple QB winner in the NFL). He led the league in passing yards last year, he’s not on the wane yet.

Shedite27

Shedite27 wrote: »

New contract will be in tax-free Nevada tho, so he'll be up money

Sorry, thought we were talking bout Brown

Foxtrol

billr67 wrote: »

I said injury not discipline so if he was banned all bets were off, and by the way his New York contract is void if he's banned too quote "$28 million of that number was guaranteed for skill, injury, and cap, which is another way of saying that it’s fully guaranteed (can only be voided due to suspension or discipline)."

What were the Steelers ‘trusting’ him with then? How would giving him a minimal guarantee show it was trust not to get injured? That concept doesn’t even make sense, how do you even trust someone not to get injured, when no player makes a choice to get injured?

Again I don't get this abuse the tag nonsense if players don't like the tag get rid of it in a new CBA but don't rag on teams for using what you negotiated and what do you mean by "franchise tagged him for a second time, when it was clear they were going to come to a deal." When was it clear he was going to sign the Steelers deal? are you saying this is part of the reason he held out?

He was clear for over 2 years that he wanted sizeable guarantees in case of injury and the Steelers best offer was $10m fully guaranteed and clearly wouldn’t budge. As you said they don’t normally give big guarantees, so it was clear after all that time neither side was budging. They played chicken and it looks like both sides lost.

If you understand the origins of the franchise tag, it wasn’t brought in so teams could repeatedly tag a player and run them into the ground. There’s nothing in the CBA to say the Steelers couldn’t do it, but similarly Bell was within his rights to sit out for the year and a large portion of Steelers fans lost their minds over it.

The_Honeybadger

Foxtrol wrote: »

Alongside Ben they also let AB away with far too much over the years. I feel the media in Steelers is much more team friendly than other markets and drama isn’t as sensationalized.

Chris Simms mentioned it on PFT that the Raiders could have tampered with AB and I’m starting to believe it. Since the trade he has completely toned back on all the borderline mental breakdown stuff.

Blowing up is an overstatement by me for the Steelers, but I do see similarities with the Giants as far as bending over backwards to keep an aging QB happy to the detriment of the team.

I saw that on PFT too and it had crossed my mind before that given the way he seemingly batted away any other suitors. If so, it was executed perfectly.

Call me crazy but as talented as the Browns are now I still think the Steelers can win that division for at least another year or two. Once Ben retires and the Oline are all well on the wrong side of 30 it may get ugly for a while but I believe they’ll be more competitive than a lot of people think for a while yet.

Foxtrol

OOnegative wrote: »

When Ben starts sucking at Eli’s level we’ll start worrying. Ben hasn’t been no angel over the years and has had plenty of controversy himself but he’s the face of the organisation still, multiple SuperBowl winner(apart from Eli & Brady the only active multiple QB winner in the NFL). He led the league in passing yards last year, he’s not on the wane yet.

Yeah, if his performances start falling off there’ll be an even bigger issue for the team. At least Eli does his complaining to the media behind closed doors unlike Ben who instead goes in front of cameras to throw people under the bus for mistakes that he himself made. Never know when he is going to follow through on his threats to quit, maybe it’ll be if he finds next year tougher without Bell and AB.

billr67

Foxtrol wrote: »

What were the Steelers ‘trusting’ him with then? How would giving him a minimal guarantee show it was trust not to get injured? That concept doesn’t even make sense, how do you even trust someone not to get injured, when no player makes a choice to get injured?

You're misunderstanding me, the trust from the Steelers side wasn't that he wasn't going to get injured, it was that they'd stand by him if he did. As they had always done for every other player on their second contract. With that history why do you think they'd suddenly turn around and dump him just because it was Bell who got injured.

Contract details show that he'd have made $33 million over the first two years of his Steelers deal, yes only £10 million guarenteed but that's still more that this new Jets deal. As I said his agent will have to do a serious spin job to make this sound good. He's also Tevin Coleman's agent and he's done a pretty lousy job there too.

billr67

Foxtrol wrote: »

Yeah, if his performances start falling off there’ll be an even bigger issue for the team. At least Eli does his complaining to the media behind closed doors unlike Ben who instead goes in front of cameras to throw people under the bus for mistakes that he himself made. Never know when he is going to follow through on his threats to quit, maybe it’ll be if he finds next year tougher without Bell and AB.

Actually this is one of the funnier takes from AB and it was backed up by his hyenas in the national media, this line that Ben never takes the blame. A guy on Steelers Depot took 30 minutes and Google to find 14 examples of Ben taking ownership of losses, mistakes bad decisions etc.

Of course why tell the truth Antonio when you need the narrative to suit your "I have to get out of here" story.

Also don't forget Ben's I quit "threat" was also a form of taking the blame remember the "maybe I just don't have it any more" line which was then spun into a "Ben about to announce his retirement" story.

I'm not excusing everything he's done by the way, his blaming AB for the Denver loss last year was inexcusable and I'd love him to shut up on the radio, but never taking the blame that's ridiculous.

OOnegative

Foxtrol wrote: »

Yeah, if his performances start falling off there’ll be an even bigger issue for the team. At least Eli does his complaining to the media behind closed doors unlike Ben who instead goes in front of cameras to throw people under the bus for mistakes that he himself made. Never know when he is going to follow through on his threats to quit, maybe it’ll be if he finds next year tougher without Bell and AB.

He’s put his hands up on more than one occasion that fcuk ups were on him. His former teammates should take criticism on the chin like the grown men they are and cop on and realise maybe Ben is onto something here than throwing the toys out of the pram like they have done. He’ll quit when he’s ready i’m sure. As long as he’s under center for the Steelers they always have a chance of winning.

Christy42

billr67 wrote: »

Christy42 wrote: »

Bell wanted to see what he was worth on the market and the Steelers fought tooth and nail to prevent him from doing so. Hardly loyalty endearing stuff.

I don't quite get this, they tagged him to work out a long term deal (lots of teams do this). When he wouldn't sign the tag they retained his rights and freed him the following year so that they retained his comp pick value (probably a third rounder next year).

I don't think many teams would just free a guy who refused to sign the tag but "tooth and nail and loyalty endearing stuff" not sure what you mean.

Either way he backed himself and lost, I guess he wasn't to know that Connor and Samuels would work out, or that the Gurley arthritis situation would make teams change their minds on running back value but the 17.5 million he's missed out on he'll never get back.

I get most teams would have done the same. Most teams don't seem to have players who fully buy into the organisation either. Everyone knew Bell and is worth were going to be driven into the ground if he signed that tag. That is not loyalty. That is burning out a player's body while you can.

I don't get the comment about the billboard either. He owes Pittsburgh nothing. He worked there for a few years and the Steelers made the most of his rookie contract.

Bell obviously didn't trust their loyalty and they could have just offered the guaranteed money if they were going to pay it anyway. Aside from Shazier I am not sure how many players they could have walked away from but I am not sure too many would have the same cap hit as Bell.

OOnegative

Christy42 wrote: »

I get most teams would have done the same. Most teams don't seem to have players who fully buy into the organisation either. Everyone knew Bell and is worth were going to be driven into the ground if he signed that tag. That is not loyalty. That is burning out a player's body while you can.

I don't get the comment about the billboard either. He owes Pittsburgh nothing. He worked there for a few years and the Steelers made the most of his rookie contract.

Bell obviously didn't trust their loyalty and they could have just offered the guaranteed money if they were going to pay it anyway. Aside from Shazier I am not sure how many players they could have walked away from but I am not sure too many would have the same cap hit as Bell.

Your getting your players mixed up, comments re Billboard were regarding Brown.

Christy42

OOnegative wrote: »

Christy42 wrote: »

I get most teams would have done the same. Most teams don't seem to have players who fully buy into the organisation either. Everyone knew Bell and is worth were going to be driven into the ground if he signed that tag. That is not loyalty. That is burning out a player's body while you can.

I don't get the comment about the billboard either. He owes Pittsburgh nothing. He worked there for a few years and the Steelers made the most of his rookie contract.

Bell obviously didn't trust their loyalty and they could have just offered the guaranteed money if they were going to pay it anyway. Aside from Shazier I am not sure how many players they could have walked away from but I am not sure too many would have the same cap hit as Bell.

Your getting your players mixed up, comments re Billboard were regarding Brown.

Ah whoops. Thanks for the correction.

Foxtrol

billr67 wrote: »

You're misunderstanding me, the trust from the Steelers side wasn't that he wasn't going to get injured, it was that they'd stand by him if he did. As they had always done for every other player on their second contract. With that history why do you think they'd suddenly turn around and dump him just because it was Bell who got injured.

You said ‘the Steelers were trusting Bell and all he needed to do was trust them in return’, how were they trusting Bell? They were asking for trust and giving none.

OOnegative

Foxtrol wrote: »

You said ‘the Steelers were trusting Bell and all he needed to do was trust them in return’, how were they trusting Bell? They were asking for trust and giving none.

So sticking by a player who incurred multiple drug suspensions & suffers from knee issues is not sticking by a player and trusting them...... They could have cut him after the second drug violation like every other NFL organisation would have.

Foxtrol

billr67 wrote: »

Actually this is one of the funnier takes from AB and it was backed up by his hyenas in the national media, this line that Ben never takes the blame. A guy on Steelers Depot took 30 minutes and Google to find 14 examples of Ben taking ownership of losses, mistakes bad decisions etc.

Of course why tell the truth Antonio when you need the narrative to suit your "I have to get out of here" story.

Also don't forget Ben's I quit "threat" was also a form of taking the blame remember the "maybe I just don't have it any more" line which was then spun into a "Ben about to announce his retirement" story.

I'm not excusing everything he's done by the way, his blaming AB for the Denver loss last year was inexcusable and I'd love him to shut up on the radio, but never taking the blame that's ridiculous.

OOnegative wrote: »

He’s put his hands up on more than one occasion that fcuk ups were on him. His former teammates should take criticism on the chin like the grown men they are and cop on and realise maybe Ben is onto something here than throwing the toys out of the pram like they have done. He’ll quit when he’s ready i’m sure. As long as he’s under center for the Steelers they always have a chance of winning.

Great double strawman there, where did I say he never takes blame? I’ve seen him take blame and I’ve seen him throw team mates under the bus when he was the one at fault, like the Denver situation you pointed out.

AB or OBJ are treated like diva WR trouble makers while Ben’s sins are brushed under the carpet.

OOnegative

Foxtrol wrote: »

Great double strawman there, where did I say he never takes blame? I’ve seen him take blame and I’ve seen him throw team mates under the bus when he was the one at fault, like the Denver situation you pointed out.

AB or OBJ are treated like diva WR trouble makers while Ben’s sins are brushed under the carpet.

Picking what posts that suit your argument best, i’ve said Ben has had his fair share of controversy a while back. Fairly clear you don’t like the Steelers organisation.

Foxtrol

OOnegative wrote: »

So sticking by a player who incurred multiple drug suspensions & suffers from knee issues is not sticking by a player and trusting them...... They could have cut him after the second drug violation like every other NFL organisation would have.

In 2016, the year of his 2nd suspension, he was being paid 850k for the season and in 15 games made 1,600 yards rushing and 600 yards receiving.

He was on a guaranteed rookie contract and massively underpaid compared to his output so to act like the Steelers were offering some sort of charity to him is hilarious. They could have cut him but he wouldn’t have cleared waivers.

OOnegative

Foxtrol wrote: »

In 2016, the year of his 2nd suspension, he was being paid 850k for the season and in 15 games made 1,600 yards rushing and 600 yards receiving.

He was on a guaranteed rookie contract and massively underpaid compared to his output so to act like the Steelers were offering some sort of charity to him is hilarious. They could have cut him but he wouldn’t have cleared waivers.

No other team would have given a rookie in the same circumstances anything different so to try pin your argument on the Steelers is laughable.

The_Honeybadger

Christy42 wrote: »

I get most teams would have done the same. Most teams don't seem to have players who fully buy into the organisation either. Everyone knew Bell and is worth were going to be driven into the ground if he signed that tag. That is not loyalty. That is burning out a player's body while you can.

I don't get the comment about the billboard either. He owes Pittsburgh nothing. He worked there for a few years and the Steelers made the most of his rookie contract.

Bell obviously didn't trust their loyalty and they could have just offered the guaranteed money if they were going to pay it anyway. Aside from Shazier I am not sure how many players they could have walked away from but I am not sure too many would have the same cap hit as Bell.

He wouldn’t have been driven in to the ground, by the time it came to decision time Conner had emerged and was having a pro bowl season, they would have shared the load and been one of the best duos in the league.

There is a theory that he didn’t come back because he knew he’d be in trouble for substance abuse again. I don’t know if that’s true but it wouldn’t surprise me given his record.

Foxtrol

OOnegative wrote: »

Picking what posts that suit your argument best, i’ve said Ben has had his fair share of controversy a while back. Fairly clear you don’t like the Steelers organisation.

Calling what Ben has done and been accused of ‘his fair share of controversy’ is exactly what I’m talking about when I say brushing things under the carpet.

I think Ben is horrible excuse for a human, I think the organization treated Bell horribly by tagging him a second time, I think the organization/players/fans treated Bell during his hold out was uncalled for, I think the leniency they give Ben and the rest of the players is unwise, but other than that I quite like the Steelers.

Nice to see you’ve gone down the route of some Patriots fans on here, that questioning players or decisions equates to not liking a team.

OOnegative

Foxtrol wrote: »

Calling what Ben has done and been accused of ‘his fair share of controversy’ is exactly what I’m talking about when I say brushing things under the carpet.

I think Ben is horrible excuse for a human, I think the organization treated Bell horribly by tagging him a second time, I think the organization/players/fans treated Bell during his hold out was uncalled for, I think the leniency they give Ben and the rest of the players is unwise, but other than that I quite like the Steelers.

Nice to see you’ve gone down the route of some Patriots fans on here, that questioning players or decisions equates to not liking a team.

Not gone down any route of any team thanks very much, no need to be getting personal on it. You have your view on the situation I have mine, it’s a discussion forum at the end of the day, we’re not all going to agree. I think you being a 49ers fan, are just a small bit pissed Jimmy G ain’t going to be throwing to AB next year.....

Foxtrol

OOnegative wrote: »

No other team would have given a rookie in the same circumstances anything different so to try pin your argument on the Steelers is laughable.

The guy had already been selected to the pro bowl and wasn’t even getting $1m a year, few teams would have cut him for a 3 game suspension (and made another pro bowl that season). The Steelers weren’t being martyrs for keeping him while they had him on that deal.

Teams rarely cut talented guys on rookie deals unless they have to and even then they’ll get picked up.

j8wk2feszrnpao

Ah yes, the same person has to take a shot at Pats fans, in a non-Patriots discussion. Typically. The same infatuation as always.

OOnegative

munstermagic11 wrote: »

Ah yes, the same person has to take a shot at Pats fans, in a non-Patriots discussion. Typically. The same infatuation as always.

Possibly a 6 time Super Bowl winning thing!!!

Foxtrol

OOnegative wrote: »

Possibly a 6 time Super Bowl winning thing!!!

Have you found a correlation between winning and their fans not being able to deal with criticism of their team? :pac:

OOnegative

Foxtrol wrote: »

Have you found a correlation between winning and their fans not being able to deal with criticism of their team? :pac:

No problem you criticising the Steelers but take the blinkers off every now and then, your not always right.

Foxtrol

Changing subject, I'm not sure if Elway is just trolling at this stage but he came out today saying that Flacco is just coming into his prime...

Following on from his comments yesterday about college QBs not being ready for the NFL as they play too much shotgun when NFL average is 79% snaps from shotgun and Flacco played from 80% shotgun last year.