Official FIRE KEVIN COLBERT Thread

[Chieferific]

7 hours ago, Dcash4 said:

This is the part that I don't understand. Because owners have rich backgrounds, they win? They don't own teams out of the goodness of their heart to give others employment -- they own teams to make money. How much would their team be worth with no players? 

Meaning, the Owners could find other ways to make money without a League. The Players are more dependent on the League. Most (if not all) wouldn't find another another career with this much earning potential. And no offense taken. Just a friendly debate. Nobody has called the other stupid (yet).

[43M]

7 hours ago, Dcash4 said:

From 150M to $5B.....thats a lot of help...

Okay....but again, its Jerry's money on the line.  He made the investment in those players and made the moves to make alot of that money.     If those moves hadnt paid off, would those players have to pay their salaries back?   No.     Jerry on the the hand would lose it all.

And Jerry has made a ton of players very very rich people.

And just for the record....I cant stand Jerry Jones.  

 

7 hours ago, Dcash4 said:

If I told you that there were two irreplaceable entities that couldn't thrive without each other....you would consider them __________ ? Superior and subordinate isn't the first thing that pops to my mind. 

????  

Not really sure what youre saying here.

7 hours ago, Dcash4 said:

And thats all I am saying, I dont think a backup guard should be able to make requests and have concessions -- but AAron sure should. This started with a comment of "The players have too much power because they are an employee, not an employer", and I just cant wrap my head around that when the league is purely driven by those players and their successes. 

Again....because its the owners money on the line.

If a player doesnt work out, do they have to pay back their guaranteed money?  

The owner of any business incurs the most risk of running said business....why shouldnt they have the most power and say over said business?     Like I said, if an owner signs a players to a huge contract, and that player doesnt work out, does the player have to pay any of his money back?   No....but the owner's wallet is hit and his business (team) is hurt going forward.    Yes, players make the teams and owners alot of money....but those players make a ton of money themselves.

I think we are in the same page in regards to thinking players should have more control in CERTAIN situations.....but I am getting the impression you seem to think that the players should have more control over how the league is run than the owners, and Im sorry, thats totally illogical if thats what you are saying.   

[43M]

7 hours ago, AlanFanecaFan said:

Colbert can redeem himself somewhat with going out and getting 2 starters in FA...they have the $$$

He'll get fringe starters.

He wont get any impact players, which is what we need.

Colbert and the entire front office are total f'ing morons.    We have a 37 year old QB who is in his twilight, and instead of going all out and trying to win now,  Colbert is trading elite players because he has no balls, signing FAs who really dont have much to offer outside of maybe being a semi-decent stop gap, and drafting players who are better athletes than players and need alot of development before they can have impact.

This front office has gone full retard....

[Bassomatic]

Apparently, I'm the only Steeler fan who a) feels relieved that the Antonio Brown saga is over, and b) doesn't consider his fandom to be a chore. Antonio Brown can **** off, and so can any Steeler fan who wants to lynch Art Rooney, Kevin Colbert, Mike Tomlin or Ben Roethlisberger. Mistakes were made by the front office, but unlike many (most?) Steeler fans, I forgive them. The shiny hood ornament got ripped off the front of the car, but amazingly, the car still runs.

If there's any lesson to be learned here, it's to make four-year rentals out of the two most disposable positions on a football team: RB and WR. Invest the big money only in the QB, the offensive line and the defense. The QB is the engine. The offensive line is the transmission. The defense is the chassis. The RBs and WRs are superficial trim pieces. If they want to stay in Pittsburgh, then they can settle for less. If not, then they can be replaced in the draft.

[43M]

9 minutes ago, Bassomatic said:

Apparently, I'm the only Steeler fan who a) feels relieved that the Antonio Brown saga is over,

First off, alot of Steelers fans are saying that.

Secondly, its hard to feel relieved when your front office was embarrassed as bad as any front office has been embarrassed in recent memory.  

9 minutes ago, Bassomatic said:

and b) doesn't consider his fandom to be a chore. Antonio Brown can **** off, and so can any Steeler fan who wants to lynch Art Rooney, Kevin Colbert, Mike Tomlin or Ben Roethlisberger. Mistakes were made by the front office, but unlike many (most?) Steeler fans, I forgive them.

Good for you, I guess?

The team is a trainwreck.    Its been obvious for awhile.   This just showed exactly how incompetent they are.

9 minutes ago, Bassomatic said:

The shiny hood ornament got ripped off the front of the car, but amazingly, the car still runs.

Sure....if you dont mind driving without a steering wheel and three flat tires.

But sure, yeah....it runs.

 

9 minutes ago, Bassomatic said:

If there's any lesson to be learned here, it's to make four-year rentals out of the two most disposable positions on a football team: RB and WR. Invest the big money only in the QB, the offensive line and the defense.

Thats a pretty weird lesson to take away IMO....but okay.

I mean, Im never a fan of paying RBs big money....but thats more because RBs are easy to find and have short shelf lifes.

There are alot of highly paid WRs that didnt turn into headcases.    

You have to be careful of where you spend money, regardless of position.    

Lets look at Brown as the POS individual he turned into, rather than claiming no WRs are worth the investment because of him.

9 minutes ago, Bassomatic said:

The QB is the engine. The offensive line is the transmission. The defense is the chassis. The RBs and WRs are superficial trim pieces. If they want to stay in Pittsburgh, then they can settle for less. If not, then they can be replaced in the draft.

Poor analogy.  

Not every QB is Tom Brady, or a QB who can have success with pretty much anyone.

If the QB is the engine, RBs and WRs are more like the motor oil.....you can get by with the cheap stuff, but your engine isnt going to run as well and will end up breaking down faster.

[warfelg]

21 hours ago, Dcash4 said:

You would be a good person to comment from the side of Team (your club) and Player (you). There are people that love the Club, and by that love the pro. There are people that just love the pro, and he is the reason they go to the club. 

So if you brought people through the doors for lessons, grew inventory sales since you started, and you grew membership (if you are a membership club) XYZ% YOY -- what do you think would be this boards general outlook if you decided you were going to demand more money or leave the club for greener pastures? Think they would believe you have too much power because their is a hierarchy and your not at the top of it?

You are in a production based business in which your production dictate your career. You are in a limited field of qualified prospects. You are in a work sector with a small number of business/clubs (and keeps getting smaller). Sounds an awful lot like the NFL. 

Its where I dont understand the logic of some of these arguments. If @warfelg didn't produce, he would lose his job and its onto the next. Business decision from the ownership standpoint from people on the outside looking in. But if he killed it at his job and made himself irreplaceable especially considering his small prospect pool, and if he chooses to go find a higher bidder he would be bashed because ownership should make those decisions or because he agreed to the job at a certain salary when he started?

Its not a perfect argument and I know that the rebuttal is that we as workers have the option to look for other employment inside our specific jobs, but the NFL/Players don't. They are drafted and told where to play. They get trade and told where to go. Rookies now sign contracts they are not a part of. There are things in place like the franchise tag that as soon as you reach FA because the team decided not to work on a long term deal -- no just kidding, you stay here with no long term solution or ability for you to choose where to go because we the owners have rules! There is no other league to go to "work" in. You can say they dont have to play football, but thats not a solution. 

I might be assuming that War is on the players side -- and I do apologize brother if I am seemingly putting words in your mouth. 

I'm actually on the owners side because of many of the things you brought up.

Let's say I choose to work at a low quality course.  They likely have a low operating budget and like to get someone in that's still building.  Yes bringing in more lessons is one way to show my value.  But the other way is out working my contract between hours, feedback, lesson taught.  Sounds like I would be on the players side so far right?  Here's why I'm not: I went to that course knowing there's a limit to earnings because of the operating costs.  They don't have the ability to pay me the same as other places or risk not making as much money.  If the course can't make that much money then the chances of me continuing to produce there dips.

This is where I had a problem with Brown and Bell.  They knew where the hard cap was, and they were asking for more than what the Steelers could feasibly pay.  That like me going to a GM, who I know has a weekly golf shop operating budget of $2500 a week, and wanting to be paid $1500 a week, then complaining mid summer that I'm over worked and don't have enough staff.  Well if you have 150 hours a week to fill and $1000 in operating budget....

That's why I'm on the owners side.  Both Bell and Brown have asked for more money than what the Steelers can contractually pay them thanks to the CBA.  So maybe for Bell's case, him staying comes at the expense of one of his blockers, Brown getting paid more might come at the expense of other pass catchers that can pull attention away.

 

Now to better cover the Brown situation I got to go elsewhere:

Say I work as Director of Instruction.  Most that work with this get a base salary of $30,000; and lesson income offsets up to that amount (IE you are guaranteed $30,000 a year; but basically the club expects you to teach at least that in a year); and you get a percent (let's say 25% of a $100 lesson) of what you teach over that.  So let's say that I teach to the point that I make $45,000 in a year.  Let's akin that to what Brown did with incentives.  Made above what he should have.  Ok, no problem.  Proving their worth.

So then the club comes, says that they will be willing to pay me $40,000 base with 35% of lesson value taught over that.  With the same number of lessons taught means I would make $47,000.  So a $2,000 raise because of my performance.  Let's make that akin to what Brown got to make him the highest paid WR in the NFL.

But now 2 years after that raise, I go to the GM, am still teaching the same number of lessons, and I ask for $45,000 guaranteed and 65% of lesson value taught over that.  Now I'm getting $49,000 per year.  So with maybe some better quality teaching, but mostly producing the same throughout my time there, the club is paying me $4,000 MORE a year AND if I start teaching even more, it's really hurting the club.  And, again at 65% of the lesson value taught, the club only make $35/lesson from me as opposed to $65/lessons taught.  So it makes sense for the club to go find a pro that would have to teach an almost insurmountable number of lessons to get back to what I was making.

That's where Brown is.  He was making a small enough amount that the club was ok with it.  Then he made more, which again they were ok with because the ROI was worth it.  They did it one more time, and the ROI wasn't as great but he was a well known commodity at that point.  Then finally he asked one more time, and the club hits this point of the ROI is there and we're going to pay him for something he isn't going to do.

 

Anyways this is why I'll always be on the side of owners even though I want to see players get the most I can.  You have a hard set amount that you can spend, and these guys were asking in a way that hurts operations elsewhere because you would have to cut guys elsewhere.  Ownership has an entire team to worry about, not just a few guys.  Yet these players want to always act like the cap doesn't exist and they can get what they want.

Consider a $188mil cap.  $22mil for Ben, $18mil for Brown, $15mil for Brown, $11mil for Pouncey, $9mil for DeCastro/Villanueva.  35% of your cap to spend on 6 guys.  That means $122million for 47 guys (not accounting for IR players and IR player replacements).  That's an average of $2.6mil per player for the rest of your roster.  And that doesn't even account for high payed defensive players.  So you can't ask for all of that then complain when other players aren't good, or the defense can't make a stop.

[warfelg]

Anyways long story short:

Because of the cap and operating budgets, you can never be truly pro-player unless you want to see a basketball/baseball style cap of a soft cap and lux tax.  Because of operating budgets there's always going to be a limit to the spending a team can have and the earning power.

[Steelers22]

12 hours ago, FourThreeMafia said:

He'll get fringe starters.

He wont get any impact players, which is what we need.

Colbert and the entire front office are total f'ing morons.    We have a 37 year old QB who is in his twilight, and instead of going all out and trying to win now,  Colbert is trading elite players because he has no balls, signing FAs who really dont have much to offer outside of maybe being a semi-decent stop gap, and drafting players who are better athletes than players and need alot of development before they can have impact.

This front office has gone full retard....

hahahahah most accurate analysis I've seen to date

 

 

(I'm still expecting him to land 1 or 2 legit starters in FA this year though)

[cjfollett]

6 hours ago, Bassomatic said:

Apparently, I'm the only Steeler fan who a) feels relieved that the Antonio Brown saga is over, and b) doesn't consider his fandom to be a chore. Antonio Brown can **** off, and so can any Steeler fan who wants to lynch Art Rooney, Kevin Colbert, Mike Tomlin or Ben Roethlisberger. Mistakes were made by the front office, but unlike many (most?) Steeler fans, I forgive them. The shiny hood ornament got ripped off the front of the car, but amazingly, the car still runs.

If there's any lesson to be learned here, it's to make four-year rentals out of the two most disposable positions on a football team: RB and WR. Invest the big money only in the QB, the offensive line and the defense. The QB is the engine. The offensive line is the transmission. The defense is the chassis. The RBs and WRs are superficial trim pieces. If they want to stay in Pittsburgh, then they can settle for less. If not, then they can be replaced in the draft.

I'm glad the saga is over, but I am disappointed by the outcome. The way Brown treated the organization, he did not deserve to get what he wanted. I personally would have kept him on the Steelers team until I got what I wanted. 1st round pick.  That's the going rate. I would have called his bluff about playing next year, and if he was insubordinate, I would suspend him and fine him.

Oh and as an aside, the name of the team is the Pittsburgh Steelers. You are a Steelers fan, not a Steeler fan. Sorry, I cannot help myself sometimes.

[43M]

1 hour ago, cjfollett said:

Oh and as an aside, the name of the team is the Pittsburgh Steelers. You are a Steelers fan, not a Steeler fan. Sorry, I cannot help myself sometimes.

Oh, so you're gonna be THAT guy.  

[August4th]

 

[Dcash4]

17 hours ago, Chieferific said:

Meaning, the Owners could find other ways to make money without a League. The Players are more dependent on the League. Most (if not all) wouldn't find another another career with this much earning potential. 

That part I understand, I just don't understand the relevance. If you and I create a product/company...we share an idea or a goal, but you are the money and I am the designer....you get to dictate everything because you have the deepest pockets? In an environment where there is no other solution (ie, Im the only designer for the project and you are the only financial backer), thats not how that works. There is no other league for the player to go to just as their is no other play pool as talented as this one for the owners to go to. Its a marriage in which both parties are better off with each other. Thats a partnership. Not a Employee/Employer because ones pockets came into the arrangement a little more lined. 

14 hours ago, FourThreeMafia said:

I think we are in the same page in regards to thinking players should have more control in CERTAIN situations.....but I am getting the impression you seem to think that the players should have more control over how the league is run than the owners, and Im sorry, thats totally illogical if thats what you are saying.   

Correct in the first part, not in the second. I do not think the players should have more power than owners, I simply think it is, or at least should be, a lot closer to 50/50 stake. 

I wont quote off the rest, but Yes -- the owners risk their money (I could go into a tangent where there is no risk in professional sports ownership -- look at their sale numbers across the board .-- but lets shelve that). But the players risk their bodies. I don't know of any owner who because of his duties to the league cant remember where he lives, cant play with his kids, takes their own lives, or cant walk straight. 

The conversation usually now turns to "they don't HAVE to play", but thats a weak argument. Without THESE good players, the league isn't as profitable. Without the owners, the league doesn't exist. Its a two way street, which is my argument. 

Quote

@warfelg

Not gonna quote it all to take up room, but did want to keep it separate. There are couple big differences 1) You have choice (as you even highlighted) 2) Your facilities are limited in spend, because they are limited in income in a dying game. Players dont have choice in many matters and the league is not hurting for funds - again, its increased drastically and made the owners very, very rich people . Its a something I stated before...I cannot believe how many people fight the millionaire to draw a line in the sand and stand with the billionaire.

Even with a limited work base and workers like you showed before...you are free at anytime to fire up that resume and search for a better opportunity INSIDE your field of choice. If you CHOOSE to go to that lower level business, whose funds will be limited, you can use succeeding there to spring board yourself up at anytime. Guys in the league have to wait. They have to risk injury. They have to assume the teams have their best interest in mind, and they dont. 

Look at Mahomes and Darrius Leonard -- Both on rookie deals, both All Pros, one was MVP of the league. In our world, they fire up that resume and search for the next best opportunity and usually get an immediate raise in their current situation to keep great workers. In their world, they have to wait until AFTER year three because dems da rules (rules neither of them were there to create). Even after year 3...that doesn't mean the team HAS to sign them long term, in Mahomes case, the team actually has 2 more years of control. Those are two of the best players in the league. Two guys who will sell jerseys. Reasons to go to the stadium. Reasons to buy Sunday ticket. And the league views them as a terrific deal, because they dont have to pay them their actual financial worth. Ive never seen Art Rooney on a fantasy team, or on the back of a jersey. I sure have seen those two though. Mahomes is the 35th, best paid QB.........35th. League MVP. 35th. Yet his abilities will drive more popularity, and more money to the league and he has no way to improve his outcome until after this year -- and even then is limited. 

The salary cap is a poor case, because its a factor built by the owners to keep guys like Dan Snyder from buying the entire league and destroying parity with deep pockets and to keep costs down for the owners. Players dont need to be conscious of that or conform to it. If YOU cant pay them, let them find someone that will. Its a very fan based argument that they need to view the salary cap as a reason to not push for more money or be able to have a vehicle to be able to find it -- especially if they have well outperformed their deals. Because if they dont play up to or in some cased outperform their deals....teams cut them without a second thought and dont live up to their end of the contracts. 

My true issue isnt even players vs owners...its the fan perception that the players should just be thankful for everything the league has given them and damned if they have other ideas! Because the league needs to ALSO be thankful for all the players have given it. They cannot live without each other, but fans will immediately run to the ownerships side because its "their teams" that are getting discussed. 

I really dont want to go down the next rabbit hole that usually comes -- the whole CBA angle. Negotiations aren't perfect. There is give and take. Current players dont have say on something done 8 years ago. Whats good for some players is not good for others. The league has changed within that time frame. Etc.

I just really hate the "you are an employee and should act accordingly because thats how jobs work". This isnt our jobs. This isnt like our world. And they are a gigantic reason why the league is where it is today financially. Jerry doesn't go from $150M to $5B with the AAF. 

[warfelg]

7 minutes ago, Dcash4 said:

Your facilities are limited in spend, because they are limited in income in a dying game.

It doesn't matter if your operating budget is $10 or $10,000,000,000.  A budget is a budget.

[Dcash4]

20 minutes ago, warfelg said:

It doesn't matter if your operating budget is $10 or $10,000,000,000.  A budget is a budget.

And the point is that a choice is a choice. You can, at any time, look to improve your situation. They cannot. Yet they are a the driven reason for success of the entity. 

If you choose to work at a low budget place, you can choose to leave it at anytime. If a player is drafted to a low cap team, he cannot choose to leave it at anytime. 

[warfelg]

1 hour ago, Dcash4 said:

And the point is that a choice is a choice. You can, at any time, look to improve your situation. They cannot. Yet they are a the driven reason for success of the entity. 

If you choose to work at a low budget place, you can choose to leave it at anytime. If a player is drafted to a low cap team, he cannot choose to leave it at anytime. 

How can they not chose?  They can chose to sign a shorter contract right?