Nick Collins Contract

[13 Times Champs]

I know a Redskin fan who is irate over the fact the League has taken away Redskin cap money. He alleges collusion and says other teams have done the same thing. He mentioned the Packers did the same thing with Nick Collins. JS online reported this about the deal at the time.

http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/fanblogs/87533992.html

Anyone know whether the Packers front loaded his contract just like the Skins are accused of?

 

[Bagadeez04]

Ted is a stickler for the rules...I think we all know that...he even probably takes adhering to the rules too far sometimes to some people on here. I'm sure whatever he did was perfectly within the rules.

The teams we are talking about here are organizations that we all know, in the absence of a salary cap, would spend far more money than the rest of the league would be able to. They know it and everyone else does too...so what did they do when they had a shot at an uncapped year? They tried getting away with front loading contracts, and ultimately they failed.

I'm sure they knew what they were doing was pushing it, but they tried anyways. There is a reason why the owners unanimously voted to punish the two teams.

People will say that they can't be punished because the NFL approved the contracts...but I'm not shedding any tears for Jerry Jones and Dan Snyder.

 

[okcpackerfan]

I disagree with the above. I don't know as much as I should about this particular situation but if the NFL agreed then I don't think teams should be punished when the rules changed. I don't like Jerry Jones or Dan Snyder...at all, but I don't think they should be punished. Think of yourself in that situation, you do something which is perfectly legal at the time, the rules changed, and then they go back and punish you for it. Doesn't seem very logical to me.

Now if they were knowingly breaking a current NFL rule then that is another story but if everything they did was approved by the NFL then I don't see how they can be punished.

Who cares if all the other teams voted to punish, all the other teams have their own interests at stake. In cases like this the use of an impartial arbitrator is usually best.

 

[Vltrophy]

Ted is a stickler for the rules...I think we all know that...he even probably takes adhering to the rules too far sometimes to some people on here. I'm sure whatever he did was perfectly within the rules.

The teams we are talking about here are organizations that we all know, in the absence of a salary cap, would spend far more money than the rest of the league would be able to. They know it and everyone else does too...so what did they do when they had a shot at an uncapped year? They tried getting away with front loading contracts, and ultimately they failed.

I'm sure they knew what they were doing was pushing it, but they tried anyways. There is a reason why the owners unanimously voted to punish the two teams.

People will say that they can't be punished because the NFL approved the contracts...but I'm not shedding any tears for Jerry Jones and Dan Snyder.

Snyders pockets are SO deep u could drill for "oil" a mile deep before hitting anything & that's just the tip of it. Jones is the same way.

 

[SpartaChris]

I disagree with the above. I don't know as much as I should about this particular situation but if the NFL agreed then I don't think teams should be punished when the rules changed. I don't like Jerry Jones or Dan Snyder...at all, but I don't think they should be punished. Think of yourself in that situation, you do something which is perfectly legal at the time, the rules changed, and then they go back and punish you for it. Doesn't seem very logical to me.

Now if they were knowingly breaking a current NFL rule then that is another story but if everything they did was approved by the NFL then I don't see how they can be punished.

Who cares if all the other teams voted to punish, all the other teams have their own interests at stake. In cases like this the use of an impartial arbitrator is usually best.

FWIW, the league did tell teams, multiple times, not to take advantage of the uncapped year and go crazy with it. It would be one thing if the salary cap was going away, but since it was a one year gap, the league didn't want teams using it to circumvent rules that would otherwise be in place. Plus the NFLPA agreed to allow the teams to be penalized in exchange for getting the salary cap to $120 Million this year. Otherwise the cap would have gone down to either $113 or $116 Million, I don't remember which.

 

[ivo610]

Its front loaded I am pretty sure.

He is due 3.4 mil this year and 4.3 mil next season after that he is a free agent. In 2010 he signed a 26.7 mil contract.

 

[Wood Chipper]

That fan should stop acting like a whiny teenager and be mature. Pointing fingers at other teams will not in any way help your team.

 

[13 Times Champs]

^^^^
Well I totally agree with that. I told him the Skins are lucky they didn't lose draft picks in Bountygate. Williams employed the same system in Washingon. One ex-Redskin players tweeted Greg Williams threw $15,000 on the table before a game to anyone who would take out Brad Johnson.

But I still don't understand what applied on the one hand to the Redskins and not other teams. There must be a difference in the way the Skins did it. Certainly other teams wrote contracts like the one Collins got.

 

[TJV]

My guess is the Redskins and Cowboys went far beyond the Packers and other teams in taking advantage of the uncapped year. BTW, the Saints and Raiders did so to a lesser extent because while they don’t have to surrender cap space they don't get to share in the extra cap space surrendered by the 'boys and 'skins the other 28 teams do.

I'm not going to lose any sleep over this but what I don't understand is:

∙ The uncapped year was negotiated between the NFLPA and the NFL.

∙ All the contracts submitted during the uncapped year to the league by the Redskins, Cowboys, Saints, Raiders and every other team were approved by the league before they were put in place.

If part of that agreement was the teams couldn't really treat it as an uncapped year, why were the contracts approved? If that was not part of the agreement, upon what authority did the league warn the teams while approving those contracts?

Like I said, I'm not losing any sleep over this and I appreciate any financial edge the small town Packers can get. But I think the penalized teams have a legit *****.

 

[SpartaChris]

If part of that agreement was the teams couldn't really treat it as an uncapped year, why were the contracts approved? If that was not part of the agreement, upon what authority did the league warn the teams while approving those contracts?

They were approved so the league could avoid a collusion claim by the NFLPA, even though they were, you know, colluding. The NFLPA ultimately signed off on it, probably because they needed to work out a deal with the NFL in order to avoid looking like idiots when the salary cap DECREASED for the first time ever.

And now we think we know how they did it: http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...-salary-caps-to-get-to-120-6-million-in-2012/

 

[Vltrophy]

The Bucs did as well. That's why they abstained from voting in this situation

 

[Dan115]

Should find out about Nick this week.

 

[FrankRizzo]

http://www.jsonline.com/sports/pack...tml?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter#

Great article on Nick's medical situation

 

[bozz_2006]

Thanks For posting. Excellent article. I remain confident he will be back in green and gold next season.

 

[Dan115]

I am on pins and needles waiting to hear about Nick.

 

[TheStone]

Dear Nick,

We would love to see you back on the field, but think well and do it with your brain, not with your heart!!

 

[realcaliforniacheese]

If I could go into space for two weeks knowing that I would burn up in reentry I would do it. If the risk to Nick is minimal why not let him do the thing he loves most. This game is full of risk every time they go on the field and modern medicine has been able to do things that even 20 years ago would seem impossible. If the Doc's say he's good then let him play. Just my unbiased opinion

 

[TJV]

If Nick retires I'll completely understand and wish him all the best. But if he is OK'd to play and decides to resume his NFL career, I will be pissed if Thompson and McCarthy release him. I appreciate their concern for Nick but it's his decision and if he wants to assume the risk - and all NFL players assume some risk - the Packers should welcome him back with open arms.

From the linked jsonline article:

McCarthy and Thompson are reticent to allow Collins to play for the Packers again. In their discussions, the two longtime football men have agreed they wouldn't want their own sons to return to full-contact football after a serious neck injury and feel similarly about their star safety.

As badly as they need the three-time Pro Bowl selection back in their lineup, they have stopped just short of telling him he should retire. Sometime before the end of the month they will meet with Collins and his agents and make a decision whether to clear him.

McCarthy has said there must be a consensus among those in the room for that to happen. If the Packers decide they don't want to accept the risk, Collins could ask for his release and play for another team.

I hope the Packers aren't seriously considering that option.

 

[PackMan13x]

Everyone keeps saying his return seems more and more unlikely, but I'm not getting that vibe. I'm being optimistic, see you in 2012, Nick! Can't wait!

 

[Southpaw]

We've been waiting like 6 weeks for the bottom line on Collins' status. It seems like every week they are saying "we'll know next week" then it's the week after that and the week after that. Can we just get a ******** answer?

It's really grinding my gears. They better fricking figure it out before the draft. As a fan I'd kinda like to know what to expect from our draft class. If Collins plays or not I think will determine how early we look for a Safety

 

[13 Times Champs]

I'm not in favor of cutting him if the doctors rule he can play. We've let too many good players walk with little or no compensation involved.

Like the previous poster I'm GD tired of it.

 

[TeamTundra]

A local sports radio program (WFAN) today interviewed former Packer Sean Jones, who is
a regular weekly guest and he sounded certain that Nick Collins would be back based on his
contacts with the team, for what it is worth.

 

[Dan115]

OTA's start Monday. I thought we would know about Nick by now.

 

[weebles]

My general idea is that if it's taking this long to come out, it means he wants to play, but the coaches are not making anything official to give him time to think it over and make certain it's what he wants. We can't release him if he wants to play, to great of a player for that, and he could end up playing against us. I don't really care anymore if he comes back or not, frankly I'd be freaked out every time he goes up to make a tackle on a RB.

 

[bozz_2006]

My general idea is that if it's taking this long to come out, it means he wants to play, but the coaches are not making anything official to give him time to think it over and make certain it's what he wants. We can't release him if he wants to play, to great of a player for that, and he could end up playing against us. I don't really care anymore if he comes back or not, frankly I'd be freaked out every time he goes up to make a tackle on a RB.

I'm with you 100% up to that last sentence.