What progress needs to be made on the 2021 CBA to avoid a lockout?

[August4th]

expecting the lockout to last longer than it did in 2011

[JAF-N72EX]

9 hours ago, Forge said:

I still think Discipline is going to be a major issue. The punishments are so random and arbitrary with no real recourse. There needs to be a disciplinary committee rather than just some random disciplinary czar (even if he is commissioner). 

I agree with this idea 100%. But ONLY under the condition that Goodell doesn't get to choose who is on said committee. We have already seen how awful that has turned out with the current competition committee. 

A "disciplinary committee" should come from an outside source with no direct ties to neither the players or owners to help eliminate any bias.

9 hours ago, Forge said:

With regards to the franchise tag, I don't want it to be done away with completely. I think that inherently, it's not an awful idea. And given other leagues such as MLB and NHL have a considerable amount of restrictions on when a player can hit free agency, what kind of control a team has over a player for a certain period of time, it's hardly the worst thing compared to other sports. That being said, I'd do away with multiple tags. One time franchise tag and that's it. There's no reason for a team to be able to have multiple years to tag a player in my opinion.

I disagree. While in most cases I don't think any team should ever shackle a player and force him to be in a situation that he doesn't wanna be in,  but multiple tags can serve a good purpose in certain instances. For example, Kirk Cousins. Snyder and McCloughan handled that situation beautifully IMO [save for Alex Smith] and I actually wish more teams would do the same.

Instead of jumping the gun and signing Cousins to a long-term deal-- ultimately paying him like a franchise QB. He basically told him "hey, it's gonna take more than just 1 or 2 years for me to pay you 20-25M per year for 5-6 years until you can show me that you can take this team to the next level. I've seen this movie too many times. And if that means tagging you....so be it. Because I can easily draft a QB in the first round and only have to pay him 6 or 7M."

--Year 1) He put up decent numbers in his first year as a starter and showed some promise, but can he could do it consistently and help take the team to the next level? Or was this this just another instance of a player playing well during a contract year? Tagged. Lets see what you can do in year 2.

--Year 2) Again, put up decent numbers and maintained his mid-tier status. But is he really worth betting on, long-term wise? Will he ever be a top-10 QB? No? Lets tag him again and give him one more year to prove himself.And the rest is history. So again, having the ability to have more than one consecutive FA tag in a contract can be very useful and beneficial. 

And Snyder wasn't wrong on of any that. Sure, Cousins put up decent numbers but did you ever believe that Cousins was anything more than an average QB? I know certainly didn't it. Make him prove himself first.
 

9 hours ago, Forge said:

I'd also do away with the arbitrary extension date which to me makes little sense and is counter intuitive to the idea of the tag, in my opinion. Let them negotiate throughout the season and come to an agreement (the deadline can still exist in a way that after a certain date, the new contract can no longer affect the current year cap, so you can't restructure the current year deal and it's locked in as a 1 year deal at whatever the tag is). 

The problem with this suggestion is that if you take away the deadline for an exclusive tag (or even extend it to run throughout the season), then you would need to do the same across the board. Including transition tags and non-exclusive tags. Which would then have a major affect on free agency--which may also have to be extended as well (because FA tags that are given, in most cases, are based on position salary(or 120%) and players wait until a similar is signed to a new contract to use as leverage). Which would be a disaster. 

If you think QB contracts are too high and seeing players now such as Bell holding out are BS........eliminating a deadline or extending them throughout the season would become unbearable. Players would be holding out left and right.  The snowball effect would not only be dreadful for owners but for sport itself. 

I just don't see how it would be possible to ONLY extend the exclusive FA tag without it effecting the rest of the off-season in major way. 

[3rivers]

Players:

RB's are UFA after 3 years

Other players UFA after 4 years

higher percentage guaranteed salary

No tags

16 game schedule 

 

Owners 

more control than they have now

 

get ready for no NFL for a bit

[Superman(DH23)]

Allow a history lesson here.  2011 was an owner lockout while there was an existing CBA in place.  Why? Bc it was basically built into the CBA.  The owners didnt like the share of the pie that they agreed to and claimed they were Paupers and needed more money.  That's it.  That's what these negotiations always come down to.  The financial split between owners/players.  All these people that think these grand changes are coming, its posturing at best.  Most likely everything will remain exactly as it is now so that the players can continue to get the amount of revenue they want.  Their will certainly be no lockout bc that comes from ownership and their wont be a strike bc the players really dont care about anything other than money.

[MWil23]

I'm not sure from the players' perspective, as they're hard to gauge on some things, but I'll take a shot:

1. Franchise Tag: I don't see it going away, but I could see the price % going up and it not being allowed after 1 year on the same player.

2. Player Safety/Healthcare: I think it will come down to pensions, guaranteed healthy insurance for life, etc. With the shelf life of football players being a lot less compared to most professional athletes, I could see this being tweaked/changed.

3. Player Discipline: They need clear cut rules, a third party to hear appeals, etc.

4. While this may not happen, if I'm a player, I'm adamant about NOT playing in London AND NOT playing Thursday night games, unless they incorporate 18 regular season games where each team has TWO built in bye weeks, so each Thursday night game is two teams coming off of a buy.

[Forge]

8 hours ago, JustAnotherFan said:

I disagree. While in most cases I don't think any team should ever shackle a player and force him to be in a situation that he doesn't wanna be in,  but multiple tags can serve a good purpose in certain instances. For example, Kirk Cousins. Snyder and McCloughan handled that situation beautifully IMO [save for Alex Smith] and I actually wish more teams would do the same.

Instead of jumping the gun and signing Cousins to a long-term deal-- ultimately paying him like a franchise QB. He basically told him "hey, it's gonna take more than just 1 or 2 years for me to pay you 20-25M per year for 5-6 years until you can show me that you can take this team to the next level. I've seen this movie too many times. And if that means tagging you....so be it. Because I can easily draft a QB in the first round and only have to pay him 6 or 7M."

--Year 1) He put up decent numbers in his first year as a starter and showed some promise, but can he could do it consistently and help take the team to the next level? Or was this this just another instance of a player playing well during a contract year? Tagged. Lets see what you can do in year 2.

--Year 2) Again, put up decent numbers and maintained his mid-tier status. But is he really worth betting on, long-term wise? Will he ever be a top-10 QB? No? Lets tag him again and give him one more year to prove himself.And the rest is history. So again, having the ability to have more than one consecutive FA tag in a contract can be very useful and beneficial. 

And Snyder wasn't wrong on of any that. Sure, Cousins put up decent numbers but did you ever believe that Cousins was anything more than an average QB? I know certainly didn't it. Make him prove himself first.

You're looking at it from a team perspective, I'm looking at it from the player. If I were a team, I'd be doing more of this as well lol. It's the right move in a lot of cases. I'm also more lenient when it comes to quarterbacks because of the length of their career. A couple of tags won't cripple them. For someone like Mack, coming into the league at 22, 5 years contract below market value, then two franchise tags, he's not hitting free agency until 29. That's kind of brutal. Some positions don't lend themselves to aging well (Edge rusher is kind of hit and miss...there can be some considerable drop off after 30, then you have guys like Wake and Peppers who just do their thing for eternity). 

If I'm a player, I'm fighting to have that second tag removed (or the salary increased to say 140-150% of the previous salary so that it's a really hard decision to make). IF the compromise is that quarterbacks are left on the table for multiple tags, I'm good with that as well. 

8 hours ago, JustAnotherFan said:

The problem with this suggestion is that if you take away the deadline for an exclusive tag (or even extend it to run throughout the season), then you would need to do the same across the board. Including transition tags and non-exclusive tags. Which would then have a major affect on free agency--which may also have to be extended as well (because FA tags that are given, in most cases, are based on position salary(or 120%) and players wait until a similar is signed to a new contract to use as leverage). Which would be a disaster. 

If you think QB contracts are too high and seeing players now such as Bell holding out are BS........eliminating a deadline or extending them throughout the season would become unbearable. Players would be holding out left and right.  The snowball effect would not only be dreadful for owners but for sport itself. 

I just don't see how it would be possible to ONLY extend the exclusive FA tag without it effecting the rest of the off-season in major way. 

Not sure how that has an affect on free agency for the year of the tag, as there would be no change there from what we do now. They place the tag, free agency starts and that's that. They have until july to sign a deal right now - that doesn't affect current year's free agency at all. So instead of making that the deadline to have a new deal in place, that becomes the deadline for any extension to affect the current year. Right now, if someone is tagged and they sign an extension, the extension can affect the current year (so they can decrease the cap hit, for example and restructure even the current year) so long as the total in guaranteed money is equal to or greater than the guaranteed money on the franchise tag. I believe that is the only requirement. In this situation, LIS, you would utilize that deadline for a contract extension to affect the current year's cap - which means any contract signed can't restructure or change anything on the current year cap, and would be a true extension in that it wouldn't start until the following year, and the player would play the current year on the tag. It would have no effect on the 120% calculations. You could do that for transition tags too. I didn't mention them because I was specifically talking about franchise tags. 

The domino belief is a really, really weak argument not to try something. Could holdouts increase? Sure. But there is nothing that supports that right now. I'm not keen on the idea of letting fear of something that has no support keep me from trying something....

[FrantikRam]

After what has happened in the NBA the past few years, the only way they avoid a lockout is if the owners just bend over.

NFL players will be out for an increase in their share of revenue AND looking for guaranteed contracts. The NFL owners are so hardheaded that I don't see this going anywhere.

[Vladimir L]

shorter rookie contract 3 years with player 4th year option

18 game season

[Ketchup]

43 minutes ago, FrantikRam said:

After what has happened in the NBA the past few years, the only way they avoid a lockout is if the owners just bend over.

NFL players will be out for an increase in their share of revenue AND looking for guaranteed contracts. The NFL owners are so hardheaded that I don't see this going anywhere.

That’s all fine until they actually start missing games and that means missing game checks. Most players aren’t really good at saving/investing. They count on these game checks. This big deal with the franchise tag is silly. Sure, a compromise should be made with a player only being able to be tagged once in his career. That said, it’s not going anywhere. The tag effects less then 1% of players so it won’t be a huge point for the players union. I don’t see a lock out lasting long enough to actually miss games. 

[Mega Ron]

22 hours ago, Malfatron said:

the owners get 18 game seasons, and the franchise tag gets elimimated to make the players happy.

maybe they will go in that direction.

 

I can see that. Maybe more than 18.

I think they should extend the season and add more bye weeks as well.

It might make a difference to fitness and would allow more time for the PEDs to take effect.

[Tetsujin]

5 hours ago, MWil23 said:

 

4. While this may not happen, if I'm a player, I'm adamant about NOT playing in London AND NOT playing Thursday night games, unless they incorporate 18 regular season games where each team has TWO built in bye weeks, so each Thursday night game is two teams coming off of a buy.

I'd love to have Thursday night games eliminated except for Thanksgiving. I'd love to see the London game gone even more. 

[Forge]

35 minutes ago, freak_of_nature said:

I'd love to have Thursday night games eliminated except for Thanksgiving. I'd love to see the London game gone even more. 

I Don't mind opening the season on a thursday, but other than that, I agree. Thanksgiving only, and all teams playing thanksgiving should have their bye week the week prior. 

[Kiwibrown]

All the players on the bottom half of the roster should ask to double he minimum salary, most players spend most of their careers at the bottom of the roster. 

[Nabbs4u]

13 hours ago, Superman(DH23) said:

Allow a history lesson here.  2011 was an owner lockout while there was an existing CBA in place.  Why? Bc it was basically built into the CBA.  The owners didnt like the share of the pie that they agreed to and claimed they were Paupers and needed more money.  That's it.  That's what these negotiations always come down to.  The financial split between owners/players.  All these people that think these grand changes are coming, its posturing at best.  Most likely everything will remain exactly as it is now so that the players can continue to get the amount of revenue they want.  Their will certainly be no lockout bc that comes from ownership and their wont be a strike bc the players really dont care about anything other than money.

Agreed with most of this but the ending.

There will be a hold out/strike/stoppage. Only question IMO is who gives in first. Players losing "precious weekly" game checks or Owners losing 10's of Millions.

Tag is going nowhere but could be adjusted but only if the owners get their 18. Don't think either issue gets resolved quickly since neither wants the opposite to occur.

Which means OTA's, Mini, TC missed. Games will be effected! As will be the overall product.

[Johnny Nix]

New CBA could destroy the small market teams chances to maintain a successful team. These teams rely on those 5th year options and franchise tags to keep their talent from leaving to the highest bidder.