Shady Slim Posted November 11, 2018 Share Posted November 11, 2018 21 minutes ago, canadaluvsdallas said: I mean all around it's a terrible situation from both parties. It's not like he had any brothers in the locker room they way they reacted besides AB. I just think he's in a toxic environment right now in that locker room and that brings out the worst in people. No matter what Leveon Bell did, it wasn't even close to the amount of scummy behaviour the steelers players and FO has shown him. I'm fully on Bell's side. I'm just throwing my thoughts out there. I don't think at this point theres anything that can change my mind about this. the players weren’t mad about him not showing up though - they took an issue with the stuff i detailed before... the circus around whether or not he showed it, the fact it meant that all eyes in the media were constantly pounding the club with questions about bell, the narratives it spun, etc. i think it was decastro early on who essentially said, if you’re not showing up until week eleven then just say i think so we can get on with our business Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaguarCrazy2832 Posted November 11, 2018 Share Posted November 11, 2018 1 hour ago, Nabbs4u said: Closest was Vincent Jackson but he at least came back Week 11 to "Guarantee" FA the following season. This makes no sense. I get not wanting to play, not wanting to risk injury but to assume they won't Transition tag/trade is playing Russian Roulette is it not? They could hold said Tag until the very last minute then rescind it after all FA have signed? No? Dont you have to have the available cap space before making an offer? If anything he could just say screw it and sign then the Steelers either have to cut someone else or cut Bell and i think cutting someone franchises probably has a dead cap hit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canadaluvsdallas Posted November 11, 2018 Share Posted November 11, 2018 1 hour ago, FourThreeMafia said: What scummy behavior did the players and FO show him? Quote "Honestly, it's a little selfish," Pouncey said of Bell after practice. "I'm kind of pissed right now. It sucks that he's not here. We'll move on as a team. It doesn't look like he'll be in the game plan at this point (for Week 1). (Second-year running back James) Conner looks great. We'll worry about (Bell) in Week 2." Quote "He's making seven times what I make, twice as much as Al (Villanueva) is making and we're the guys who do it for him," Foster said. and FO just generally how they have handled this situation..pay the man or let him go or trade him. FO acted like kids. Create a toxic environment for people and you will see the worst out of them. Why is that so surprising for everyone to grasp? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
43M Posted November 11, 2018 Share Posted November 11, 2018 1 minute ago, canadaluvsdallas said: and FO just generally how they have handled this situation..pay the man or let him go or trade him. FO acted like kids. Create a toxic environment for people and you will see the worst out of them. Why is that so surprising for everyone to grasp? Youre reaching or trolling. Not sure which. None of that is "scummy". The players felt betrayed (and quite frankly didnt say anything that bad about him) and the front office was doing whats best for them, just like Bell is doing whats best for him. They franchised Bell. That's perfectly within the rules. He decided not to play. He decided not to sign the long term deal they offered. Blame the NFLPA if you have an issue with that. I have no issue with Bell trying to get paid and I have no issue with people being on his side. Deluded people like you acting like he is some kind of victim is what I find comical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas5737 Posted November 11, 2018 Share Posted November 11, 2018 8 minutes ago, canadaluvsdallas said: and FO just generally how they have handled this situation..pay the man or let him go or trade him. FO acted like kids. Create a toxic environment for people and you will see the worst out of them. Why is that so surprising for everyone to grasp? Obviously the team respects what he brings to the team so their goal was to have him play for them. Second best scenario is that he plays for no one so they pretty much accomplished what was best for the team. Not the ideal outcome but better than him helping another playoff team when they play against them this postseason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas5737 Posted November 11, 2018 Share Posted November 11, 2018 2 minutes ago, FourThreeMafia said: Youre reaching or trolling. Not sure which. None of that is "scummy". The players felt betrayed (and quite frankly didnt say anything that bad about him) and the front office was doing whats best for them, just like Bell is doing whats best for him. They franchised Bell. That's perfectly within the rules. He decided not to play. He decided not to sign the long term deal they offered. Blame the NFLPA if you have an issue with that. I have no issue with Bell trying to get paid and I have no issue with people being on his side. Deluded people like you acting like he is some kind of victim is what I find comical. Agree with this except for the "blame the NFLPA" that gets brought up all of the time. They have very very little power because they have very very little negotiating ability because of the average career of an NFL player they can't hold out because for 80% of them they are losing the majority of their career paychecks and the owners know this and because of that have all of the power and just use the NFLPA as a public relation tool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
43M Posted November 11, 2018 Share Posted November 11, 2018 2 minutes ago, Thomas5737 said: Agree with this except for the "blame the NFLPA" that gets brought up all of the time. They have very very little power because they have very very little negotiating ability because of the average career of an NFL player they can't hold out because for 80% of them they are losing the majority of their career paychecks and the owners know this and because of that have all of the power and just use the NFLPA as a public relation tool. I'm speaking more from the franchise tag perspective, which I think couldve definitely been negotiated better. I feel bad for RBs in this league. They get used heavily and then discarded because they have the shortest shelf life and arent especially hard to replace relative to other positions. IMO, rookie RBs should have different contracts relative to other positions....3 year contracts (2 years and 3rd year option)....that way, most of them would be still be young when they are up for their first contract, and teams would be forced to pay them a better contract or let them walk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas5737 Posted November 11, 2018 Share Posted November 11, 2018 1 minute ago, FourThreeMafia said: I'm speaking more from the franchise tag perspective, which I think couldve definitely been negotiated better. I feel bad for RBs in this league. They get used heavily and then discarded because they have the shortest shelf life and arent especially hard to replace relative to other positions. IMO, rookie RBs should have different contracts relative to other positions....3 year contracts (2 years and 3rd year option)....that way, most of them would be still be young when they are up for their first contract, and teams would be forced to pay them a better contract or let them walk. I, and every RB in the league would agree with you. However the rest of the players in the league aren't going to risk losing a year or more of pay holding out for it so it probably isn't going to happen. If this was MLB they could hold out for a couple years which could theoretically cripple the league so the players have power. In the NFL you are asking a large majority of the league to sacrifice a large majority of their career earnings to sacrifice for future players and that just doesn't make economical sense to current players and the owners know it so they can do pretty much what they want and they aren't going to want to figure out a way to make the 3rd or 4th most important offensive player on a team earn more money. The NFLPA would have to get really creative (at the expense of something else) to get that to happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canadaluvsdallas Posted November 11, 2018 Share Posted November 11, 2018 59 minutes ago, FourThreeMafia said: Youre reaching or trolling. Not sure which. None of that is "scummy". The players felt betrayed (and quite frankly didnt say anything that bad about him) and the front office was doing whats best for them, just like Bell is doing whats best for him. They franchised Bell. That's perfectly within the rules. He decided not to play. He decided not to sign the long term deal they offered. Blame the NFLPA if you have an issue with that. I have no issue with Bell trying to get paid and I have no issue with people being on his side. Deluded people like you acting like he is some kind of victim is what I find comical. Nah he's a victim. Steelers are an organisation with rich history, championships and generally good history of treating players well. He's one man. One player who is just looking out for himself and his money. The organisation as a whole is just held to a higher standard than how they acted in this children's episode. You can't throw your own teammate under a bus when he negotiates for money. Keep another man's money outta your mouth. It's a golden unwritten rule as old as time. You guys created a terrible enviroment for him, if a man refuses to play for you why do you demand until the end of time you have to keep him on your roster even if he has no benefit to you on the field ? Calling me a troll isn't wiping away how bad your organisation and players look in this whole ordeal. It's all kinds of scummy. The degree of maturity expected from a locker room and an old ogranization as the Steelers is NO where close you can expect to get from Bell. It's like an adult throwing a fit at a kid for eating his ice cream. Handled this whole ordeal like a hot mess and you best believe rest of the players are watching this in the NFL when it comes to Free Agency. Your organisation didn't have any concern for the best interests for Bell. none. top to down. All I need to say. why should he then ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evilpimp972 Posted November 11, 2018 Share Posted November 11, 2018 Crazy situation. I've seen people saying Bell is all about money, but isn't that funny, that he gave up 14 millions this year? I mean if he was smart he would have reported by week 1 and faked an injury or something lol I fully support him, maybe it's because I'm also a soccer fan, and the rules of the NFL are among the worst I've ever seen for players lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sammymvpknight Posted November 11, 2018 Share Posted November 11, 2018 8 hours ago, FourThreeMafia said: Youre reaching or trolling. Not sure which. None of that is "scummy". The players felt betrayed (and quite frankly didnt say anything that bad about him) and the front office was doing whats best for them, just like Bell is doing whats best for him. They franchised Bell. That's perfectly within the rules. He decided not to play. He decided not to sign the long term deal they offered. Blame the NFLPA if you have an issue with that. I have no issue with Bell trying to get paid and I have no issue with people being on his side. Deluded people like you acting like he is some kind of victim is what I find comical. There are three stakeholders here...the small group of people who support that the Steelers, the even smaller group of people who support Bell, and the enormous group of fantasy footballers who support James Conner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaguarCrazy2832 Posted November 11, 2018 Share Posted November 11, 2018 8 hours ago, FourThreeMafia said: I'm speaking more from the franchise tag perspective, which I think couldve definitely been negotiated better. I feel bad for RBs in this league. They get used heavily and then discarded because they have the shortest shelf life and arent especially hard to replace relative to other positions. IMO, rookie RBs should have different contracts relative to other positions....3 year contracts (2 years and 3rd year option)....that way, most of them would be still be young when they are up for their first contract, and teams would be forced to pay them a better contract or let them walk. I agree with everything you're saying about the not so scummy thing for Bell's teammates to say and all plus the feeling bad for RBs because they are overworked, used up and then kicked to the curb. However if you make their rookie contract smaller and therefore lessen their guarantees. If they have a significant injury during it, they get even less money long term. Idk if they would want that. Its a gamble some are/aren't willing to take by dropping 1-2 years of guarantees for a shot at a 2nd big contract. Seems like a lot of these guys want their guarantees mores than just a big # Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
43M Posted November 11, 2018 Share Posted November 11, 2018 3 hours ago, JaguarCrazy2832 said: I agree with everything you're saying about the not so scummy thing for Bell's teammates to say and all plus the feeling bad for RBs because they are overworked, used up and then kicked to the curb. However if you make their rookie contract smaller and therefore lessen their guarantees. If they have a significant injury during it, they get even less money long term. Idk if they would want that. Its a gamble some are/aren't willing to take by dropping 1-2 years of guarantees for a shot at a 2nd big contract. Seems like a lot of these guys want their guarantees mores than just a big # I agree... But there is no perfect solution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vikesfan89 Posted November 11, 2018 Share Posted November 11, 2018 19 hours ago, canadaluvsdallas said: mans just trying to get his money. fans hating on him just want thier team to have his services to win. everyones got thier own "selfish" intentions. It's ironic. He's just looking out for himself so we paint him into a bad light as a terrible human being. whatta world. before you lay the selfish label on him look at your own intentions first He's losing out on a lot of money this year Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canadaluvsdallas Posted November 11, 2018 Share Posted November 11, 2018 1 hour ago, vikesfan89 said: He's losing out on a lot of money this year Gotta think long term. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.