Ragnarok Posted March 4, 2019 Share Posted March 4, 2019 Just now, SirA1 said: I'm going to head out as I had a super long day at work and am probably a little cranky and tired. This is why I didn't want to have an owners meeting now because it serves no purpose when we have too much that needs changing in order to keep this thing going. We still love you buddy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bcb1213 Posted March 4, 2019 Share Posted March 4, 2019 Huh? We made it through three proposals in three days basically. I don't see why you guys think this is taking forever Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hockey5djh Posted March 4, 2019 Share Posted March 4, 2019 34 minutes ago, SirA1 said: I'm going to head out as I had a super long day at work and am probably a little cranky and tired. This is why I didn't want to have an owners meeting now because it serves no purpose when we have too much that needs changing in order to keep this thing going. I don't know what the timing has to do with it, I just think it's a very large change that's asking for a lot in one proposal. It's not a simple "can you freely cut a guy who retired". I think if you broke it down to an a,b,c like Ted did on the first one you might get more traction/discussion rather than the standard "people are generally averse to change" responses than you've been getting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pheltzbahr Posted March 4, 2019 Share Posted March 4, 2019 1 hour ago, bcb1213 said: I'm also totally disgusted by the you vote for my proposal I'll vote for yours that happened Collusion! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pheltzbahr Posted March 4, 2019 Share Posted March 4, 2019 Generally, I'm not in favor of fixing things that aren't broken. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pheltzbahr Posted March 4, 2019 Share Posted March 4, 2019 Also, as far as taking away 6th and 7th rounders, you are taking away capital to move up/down in the draft as well as moving cap dumps for 3Ds Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BringinDaPain Posted March 4, 2019 Share Posted March 4, 2019 2 minutes ago, pheltzbahr said: Also, as far as taking away 6th and 7th rounders, you are taking away capital to move up/down in the draft as well as moving cap dumps for 3Ds Agree Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BringinDaPain Posted March 4, 2019 Share Posted March 4, 2019 4 minutes ago, pheltzbahr said: Also, as far as taking away 6th and 7th rounders, you are taking away capital to move up/down in the draft as well as moving cap dumps for 3Ds As I currently have one to trade..(3D) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xmad Posted March 4, 2019 Share Posted March 4, 2019 lol to the practice squad when we have 70 roster spots. As for the draft instead of 5 rounds I'd suggest we keep 7 but have the final 2 rounds be after the NFL draft, that way you still keep your draft picks and nothing really changes besides allowing you to have additional information for the good scrubs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ragnarok Posted March 4, 2019 Share Posted March 4, 2019 All this said, I will approve the 'all rookie contracts are 4 year deals' part. There's no reason not to do that and it will make everyone's life easier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PR Posted March 4, 2019 Share Posted March 4, 2019 Just now, Ragnarok said: All this said, I will approve the 'all rookie contracts are 4 year deals' part. There's no reason not to do that and it will make everyone's life easier. Absolutely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ragnarok Posted March 4, 2019 Share Posted March 4, 2019 And approving that part for the upcoming draft removes one issue. Then we can look at the rest in the summer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuskieTitan Posted March 4, 2019 Share Posted March 4, 2019 8 hours ago, PR said: This is another view that a team should be penalized for a player choosing to retire. Why should a team be punished for a player choosing to retire? Why does there need to be a consequence for a locked player coming off a roster when they retire when an unlocked player doesnt have a consequence and can be cut at any time? This makes no damn sense @RuskieTitan If you decide to offer a 35 year old player a 5 year contract to limit how much per season impact he has, and he ends up retiring b/c of preseason cuts and no one signs him, that should be on you, as a decision to risk it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuskieTitan Posted March 4, 2019 Share Posted March 4, 2019 Vote No on Issue #4 Practice Squad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PR Posted March 4, 2019 Share Posted March 4, 2019 29 minutes ago, RuskieTitan said: If you decide to offer a 35 year old player a 5 year contract to limit how much per season impact he has, and he ends up retiring b/c of preseason cuts and no one signs him, that should be on you, as a decision to risk it. Except it is never just 35 year old. Jack Mewhort retired at age 26 this year. Chris Borland retired at 24 following his rookie season. Patrick Willis right when he turned 30. Jason Worilds at 27. Jake Locker at 26. Sidney Rice 27. Chris Gamble the day he turned 30. Ryan Swope retired 3 months after he got drafted. We have players killed as rookies and veterans. It is short sighted to only think the only people who retire are 35 year olds. That's why we passed proposition 3. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.