Wide Receiver Options

[Packerbacker1996]

League needs to come down on this premadonna crap. You signed a contract you play it out.

And all this greedsticks are doing is hurting the leagues integrity and ******** on the fan base

 

[OldSchool101]

League needs to come down on this premadonna crap. You signed a contract you play it out.

And all this greedsticks are doing is hurting the leagues integrity and ******** on the fan base

It’s interesting. The players aren’t supposed to care about what us “fans” think. They are above us.

Yet don’t we effectively employ them with our personal $$ expenditures? I’d argue that its the Fans that are the NFL.

(Although some fans have been duped into thinking we are somehow their subjects!)

 

[Spanky]

IMO whether its BS or not comes down to if he plays or not. I don't have a problem with a player asking to be traded if he doesn't like the way he is being treated. After all trades are a legitimate thing in the NFL. If he threatens to not play or otherwise not honor his contract that's another thing. Usually you get the opposite though, a player wants to be traded because he is not being used enough not because he is being used too much.

If it was Deebo saying, "I'd like to be traded." And the 49ers saying, "No." And then Deebo plays for them it's a non-issue. But look at the recent history of the league. Tyreek Hill, Davante Adams, and Deshaun Watson saying they wanted to be traded and then saying they will never play for their current team again if they're not traded.

If I was the GM I'd say: "You have two choices, retire or play for us. And if you retire you're going to pay back the pro-rata share of your signing bonus."

 

[Packerbacker1996]

It’s interesting. The players aren’t supposed to care about what us “fans” think. They are above us.

Yet don’t we effectively employ them with our personal $$ expenditures? I’d argue that its the Fans that are the NFL.

(Although some fans have been duped into thinking we are somehow their subjects!)

Right on brother.
Just like everything else in this life currently.
A relatively small group of very rich people convinced the rest of humanity through some creative mind control and manipulation of perception that they are working hard to make the world a better place for everyone but things are constantly getting worst and the masses get poorer while losing more and more freedoms while they centralize wealth and power in fewer and fewer hands.

Time to wake up.
Everything is corrupt to its core. Including the NFL.

Money is cancer and the whole world is sick.

 

[sschind]

If it was Deebo saying, "I'd like to be traded." And the 49ers saying, "No." And then Deebo plays for them it's a non-issue. But look at the recent history of the league. Tyreek Hill, Davante Adams, and Deshaun Watson saying they wanted to be traded and then saying they will never play for their current team again if they're not traded.

If I was the GM I'd say: "You have two choices, retire or play for us. And if you retire you're going to pay back the pro-rata share of your signing bonus."

I really don't think you can include Adams with the others. He played out his contract and wanted to play with the Raiders. The Packers thought they could change his mind and they were wrong. He did everything he signed on to do

As far a Deebo goes what do we really know other than he doesn't like his role and he has requested a trade. Until he doesn't suit up or says he won't I'll consider this a non issue.

 

[Spanky]

I really don't think you can include Adams with the others. He played out his contract and wanted to play with the Raiders. The Packers thought they could change his mind and they were wrong. He did everything he signed on to do

No. Adams was franchise tagged as the CBA allows. He refused to play under the franchise tag and demanded a trade. If players will not provide services under the franchise tag why did the NFLPA approve it under the CBA? Adams should have been given the choice between playing under the franchise tag, agreeing to a contract extension, or retiring.

Adams cheated the system and Gutey rolled over like a 10 year old golden retriever.

 

[OldSchool101]

No. Adams was franchise tagged as the CBA allows. He refused to play under the franchise tag and demanded a trade. If players will not provide services under the franchise tag why did the NFLPA approve it under the CBA? Adams should have been given the choice between playing under the franchise tag, agreeing to a contract extension, or retiring.

Adams cheated the system and Gutey rolled over like a 10 year old golden retriever.

As I said earlier. The only way to get these guys to play through their contract is make their $$$$ tied to full completion of said contract.

A daily fine paid to the team from the first day to report would do it?
Maybe 1% of their salary each actual workday to be cleared and paid every Friday at 4pm.
At 101 workdays without showing, they collect no paycheck for that season and pay a 10% of salary fine to the league. Failure to pay an on-time payment in any scenario would result in the loss of 50% of any future career benefit. Fines may be paid in cash by 5pm daily to stay in accordance with the penalty.

I would volunteer to count the $$

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Deebo Samuel confirmed to ESPN's Jeff Darlington earlier today that he's asked the 49ers to trade him.
Supposedly it is not down to just money (Albert Breer said "money isn't central to it") but rather his role and the wear/tear he receives being deployed as a hybrid WR/tailback.

He just turned 26 in January and is on the last year of his rookie contract. I would suspect that SF wouldn't take anything less than a first at minimum and I suspect he'd be asking for 20m+ per year at worst; I wonder if we would seriously be interested?

And of course you have to think that being an in-conference rival who they just barely beat in the playoffs last season would probably make the asking price a bit steeper for us.

In my opinion the cost would be too steep for the Packers to acquire Deebo and then sign him to an extension. As a side note, I think that teams not wanting to trade with an opponent within the same conference is totally overblown. As long as one of them makes the best offer I don't believe anyone cares.

No. Adams was franchise tagged as the CBA allows. He refused to play under the franchise tag and demanded a trade. If players will not provide services under the franchise tag why did the NFLPA approve it under the CBA? Adams should have been given the choice between playing under the franchise tag, agreeing to a contract extension, or retiring.

You have to realize that a player isn't under contract as long as he doesn't sign the franchise tag though. Therefore Adams situation was completely different than the other ones mentioned.

As I said earlier. The only way to get these guys to play through their contract is make their $$$$ tied to full completion of said contract.

A daily fine paid to the team from the first day to report would do it?
Maybe 1% of their salary each actual workday to be cleared and paid every Friday at 4pm.
At 101 workdays without showing, they collect no paycheck for that season and pay a 10% of salary fine to the league. Failure to pay an on-time payment in any scenario would result in the loss of 50% of any future career benefit. Fines may be paid in cash by 5pm daily to stay in accordance with the penalty.

Players are fined for not reporting for mandatory practices. In addition there aren't being paid a game check if they sit out either. Your suggestion is completely unrealistic though.

 

[Mondio]

I wouldn't put Adams in that group at all either. There was never a question about his commitment to the team, his work ethic, his level of play etc. He was pure Packer and excellent player year after year. Didn't play anything out in the media, didn't bad mouth anyone, didn't "unfollow" his teams social media LOL, call them names, nothing. He just wanted to be somewhere else and when his contract was up, they acted like responsible adults on both sides and as far as I'm concerned it's a win/win for both team and player. some might call getting a 1st and 2nd for a 30 year old WR that doesn't want to be on the team any more rolling over, but I have a feeling most in the know would call it pretty shrewd.

 

[Arod2gjdd]

Pickens>Olave. Book it.

 

[Pkrjones]

Pickens>Olave. Book it.

I like them both so would be happy with either or both. You may be correct, eventually... but I have not seen even 1 draft expert or website that has Pickens rated higher than Olave.

 

[Firethorn1001]

I like them both so would be happy with either or both. You may be correct, eventually... but I have not seen even 1 draft expert or website that has Pickens rated higher than Olave.

When was the last time the Packers drafted someone in the 1st round where if you looked at the current 'best player available' that player was in that group. Seems like every pick is like 10-15 slots sooner than where the player is expected to go so, for me, everything about Pickens screams 1st round pick for the Packers.

 

[sschind]

If

No. Adams was franchise tagged as the CBA allows. He refused to play under the franchise tag and demanded a trade. If players will not provide services under the franchise tag why did the NFLPA approve it under the CBA? Adams should have been given the choice between playing under the franchise tag, agreeing to a contract extension, or retiring.

Adams cheated the system and Gutey rolled over like a 10 year old golden retriever.

I am not mistaken players are not required to sign the franchise tag tender as the the CBA allows as well so as Captain pointed out Adams was not under contract. The CBA allows the teams to apply the FT and it allows the players the option to sign or not sign.

 

[gopkrs]

The CBA allows the teams to apply the FT and it allows the players the option to sign or not sign.

How is that a real option? You mean they could quit football? Obviously the franchise tag was good for us.

 

[Mondio]

How is that a real option? You mean they could quit football? Obviously the franchise tag was good for us.

and him signing last minute or at any point would have counted just over 20M against our cap this year. Adams had real leverage against the team. It's the trade off the players and the teams give up. On one hand, teams aren't going to be in a position to be held to develop a player, be faced with high demands and lose players as soon as they're investment should be paying off. Continuity is good for the league and the teams and ultimately the players as it is what builds brands and loyalty and bank accounts.

It also gives the players some power as a 20M cap hit for 1 year of service and no promise of future years motivates a team to get them somewhere else, or pay them some money and spread it out.

It's not ideal for either, but can work for both, as it did in the Adams situation.

 

[tynimiller]

When was the last time the Packers drafted someone in the 1st round where if you looked at the current 'best player available' that player was in that group. Seems like every pick is like 10-15 slots sooner than where the player is expected to go so, for me, everything about Pickens screams 1st round pick for the Packers.

Green Bay doesn't run a pure BPA approach however (not many teams do unless a drop of a player occurs) - it is a relatively weighed BPA as I describe it. I've attempted to illustrate a thought process and how it is a sliding scale depending on needs, even the round of the draft one is in and BPA on your boards.

Gary wasn't a position of need at the time, yet was crazy high on our board relative to our pick and we couldn't ignore it and grabbed him.

It is suspected and somethings shared point to a similar approach with Love - Gute had him much higher than he went and at a point of the draft he couldn't ignore the falling of a prospect according to his board.

Even Stokes or the Dillon pick were examples as well....not massive needs at the time but that player's ranking mixed with the positional value and the "need" level of the position either presently or into the future years made them a "must pick" at their respective positions.

So to answer your "when was the last time" question...honestly I suspect Stokes very well might have been, Gary seems to have been as well when listening to descriptions, even Jaire appeared to have been given the conversations of moving back to get him and the reasons why. Even Love sounds like he was as well according to their board.

 

[Voyageur]

Green Bay doesn't run a pure BPA approach however (not many teams do unless a drop of a player occurs) - it is a relatively weighed BPA as I describe it. I've attempted to illustrate a thought process and how it is a sliding scale depending on needs, even the round of the draft one is in and BPA on your boards.

Gary wasn't a position of need at the time, yet was crazy high on our board relative to our pick and we couldn't ignore it and grabbed him.

It is suspected and somethings shared point to a similar approach with Love - Gute had him much higher than he went and at a point of the draft he couldn't ignore the falling of a prospect according to his board.

Even Stokes or the Dillon pick were examples as well....not massive needs at the time but that player's ranking mixed with the positional value and the "need" level of the position either presently or into the future years made them a "must pick" at their respective positions.

So to answer your "when was the last time" question...honestly I suspect Stokes very well might have been, Gary seems to have been as well when listening to descriptions, even Jaire appeared to have been given the conversations of moving back to get him and the reasons why. Even Love sounds like he was as well according to their board.

Good points.

 

[Firethorn1001]

So to answer your "when was the last time" question...honestly I suspect Stokes very well might have been, Gary seems to have been as well when listening to descriptions, even Jaire appeared to have been given the conversations of moving back to get him and the reasons why. Even Love sounds like he was as well according to their board.

Sorry, I was speaking in general terms of that you can generally throw away rankings of scouts/BPA when looking at what the Packers will probably do in the 1st round. Whatever the pick is I'm sure social media will have the regular gnashing of teeth that "They could have traded down 15 spots and got that guy!" If the Packers picked Pickens over Olave I'd be fine with it (to me, seems like the WRs are really just who prefers what and I could see them going in any number of order), but that pick seems like the type of pick that would cause twitter to melt down because "Olave is ranked over Pickens on everyone's list!"

 

[Schultz]

When was the last time the Packers drafted someone in the 1st round where if you looked at the current 'best player available' that player was in that group. Seems like every pick is like 10-15 slots sooner than where the player is expected to go so, for me, everything about Pickens screams 1st round pick for the Packers.

Expected to go where by who? These so called experts would have jobs in the NFL if they actually were experts. I did not read your response to Tyni before posting this. Seems like we are actually on the same page.

 

[Spanky]

If

I am not mistaken players are not required to sign the franchise tag tender as the the CBA allows as well so as Captain pointed out Adams was not under contract. The CBA allows the teams to apply the FT and it allows the players the option to sign or not sign.

Yes. They can refuse to sign the franchise offer. And if the Packers decide not to trade the player (as they have the right to refuse to do) then the player can retire.

 

[sschind]

Yes. They can refuse to sign the franchise offer. And if the Packers decide not to trade the player (as they have the right to refuse to do) then the player can retire.

Correct. The franchise tag is not a contract. Essentially it an an offer of a 1 year contract by the team and it is applied after a player fulfils the obligation of his most recent contract. A contract obligates the player to play (they don't always) but a FT does not obligate them to play. It just prevents them from playing for someone else as long as the tag is in place. The player has the option to sign the tag and play for the money or sit out the year and then he becomes a free agent again (I don't think a team can apply the tag a second time if the player sits but I could be wrong.)

Bottom line, the Packers held the rights to Adams by placing the tag on him but he was not obligated to sign the tag or play for them because there is no signed contract. I guess you could say that by saying he wouldn't play for them he forced them to trade him but they could have rescinded the tag and let him walk. They chose the smarter option and got a 1st and a 2nd this year rather than a likely 3rd next year.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

Just once, I would love to see a team run like these militant fans want; absolutely zero concern for how the players feel, just treat them like robots that we've contracted from Catepillar. No free agents would play there, a team made up solely of guys playing on their rookie contracts. It would be like the Jaguars but with less compassion.

I completely understand why athletes check out on fans. some fans literally see them as nothing more than contracted labor that has to suck it up and play for whatever the team agreed to pay them, nevermind that the team can cut them whenever they want. Oh, and most of the players also get no say in where they are employed thanks to the draft and their careers last about 3 years. I'll forgive the occasional player for trying to make as much as they can since it's basically what the teams are doing as well. Do these same fans holler as loudly when the team cuts a player under contract? Where do I hear the impassioned pleas for the Packers to honor the contract that Z Smith signed?

 

[Voyageur]

Athletes are employees just like each of us are on our jobs. I wonder how many fans would be happy about their lives being turned into a fish bowl existence like the athletes? My guess is, the number wouldn't be too high. Especially after the unfounded rumors and accusations by idiots start to enter the picture.

 

[Spanky]

Just once, I would love to see a team run like these militant fans want; absolutely zero concern for how the players feel, just treat them like robots that we've contracted from Catepillar.

A GM is not being a jerk by standing his ground on rights granted by the CBA. But most GM's these days lack any spine so they capitulate at the drop of a hat.

 

[KiDcUdI]

Athletes are employees just like each of us are on our jobs. I wonder how many fans would be happy about their lives being turned into a fish bowl existence like the athletes? My guess is, the number wouldn't be too high. Especially after the unfounded rumors and accusations by idiots start to enter the picture.

Athletes are not employees like us. Unless you work for a monopoly with no competition on a contractual job you are not like them. If anything they’re closest to the military. Sign a 4 year deal with the possibility of unvolintarily having your service extended even if you have a better deal on the table (5th year option, franchise tag).

Most jobs if you excel in your field you would look for a raise. If you are denied that raise you could go pursue another job in your field with a competing job. If worth more you will get the raise you deserve.

Pro athletes can’t do that because there are no competing leagues.