dll2000 Posted February 21, 2020 Share Posted February 21, 2020 Increasing roster size and practice squad size will allow an enterprising team to start a developmental program. Meaning it might be an opportunity to finally do what I have said needs to be done for years. Start moving former TEs and DL to OL and start mining baseball and basketball athletes that aren't skilled enough for those sports professionally. Everyone knows 9x out of 10 the better athlete at a lower level of football will play DL versus OL. This means at highest level the OL are not typically the elite level athletes that DL are and there is a disparity. I think in a lot of cases top U.S. athletes do not choose to play football for various reasons and instead make a go of it in baseball or basketball. If there was an enterprising team could develop some of that talent they would have an advantage. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WindyCity Posted February 21, 2020 Share Posted February 21, 2020 The 5th year option is not becoming fully guaranteed when picked up at a rate based on performance. The Bears won't be able to pick up Mitch's option at all if that is the case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AZBearsFan Posted February 21, 2020 Share Posted February 21, 2020 The one thing I’ll be hoping the PA pushes for is the abolishment of mandatory game day inactives. I personally would flip it - make it a mandatory MINIMUM 46 active players. 46 is established as enough to field a fully capable game day roster, but everyone healthy can dress. What’s the down side? More available depth. Would allow for greater specialization. Would give end of the roster players a better chance to actually get a chance especially in blowouts. We’d also see less situations where guys are forced to play well out of position if a few injuries hit during a game. ST role players would be easier to define which should serve to reduce injuries to primary players who also work on teams. There really isn’t a negative with fully active rosters IMO, and from a gameplay perspective it could open up to some pretty interesting stuff like maybe a team rosters a few 6’11” former basketball players they use only for kick block and Hail Mary type situations, or plays in bleed the clock situations where the offense spreads the field in a 4 WR set but all those WR are extra OL reported eligible for wide blocking purposes, or something like that. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
malagabears Posted February 21, 2020 Share Posted February 21, 2020 https://twitter.com/TomPelissero/status/1230915404828160001?s=20 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dll2000 Posted February 21, 2020 Author Share Posted February 21, 2020 46 minutes ago, WindyCity said: The 5th year option is not becoming fully guaranteed when picked up at a rate based on performance. The Bears won't be able to pick up Mitch's option at all if that is the case. Definitely changes decision making. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dll2000 Posted February 21, 2020 Author Share Posted February 21, 2020 8 minutes ago, malagabears said: https://twitter.com/TomPelissero/status/1230915404828160001?s=20 It still gives you the basic outline even if there are minor changes to be made. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dll2000 Posted February 21, 2020 Author Share Posted February 21, 2020 The revenue percentage split is the big thing. If you agree on that everything else is peanuts and minor details aside from Franchise and other player tags. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nads786 Posted February 21, 2020 Share Posted February 21, 2020 I love the idea of a farm system for football, or a secondary league in the offseason. First off it allows us to keep watching football at lower stakes and second gives players an opportunity to showcase their talents outside of college. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dll2000 Posted February 21, 2020 Author Share Posted February 21, 2020 I wouldn't agree to a $250k cap on 17th game. Why? That unfairly screws higher paid players already under contract. Just add another game week of their salary whatever it is. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dll2000 Posted February 21, 2020 Author Share Posted February 21, 2020 2 minutes ago, Nads786 said: I love the idea of a farm system for football, or a secondary league in the offseason. First off it allows us to keep watching football at lower stakes and second gives players an opportunity to showcase their talents outside of college. They don't want to put that effort into it. They like just using CFB and whatever minor leagues pop up form time to time. Like XFL. I've always thought a two tier minor league based on age would be successful. One that is U22 and one that is 22+. But right now they have college football and that works for them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soulman Posted February 24, 2020 Share Posted February 24, 2020 I haven't even come close to reading it but I kinda expect that little has changed from the past. The owners move an inch but ask the players to move a foot. A 1% increase in the revenue split was a given but hardly generous. One issue I addressed in another post is WTF is that $250k limit on a player's salary for a 17th game all about? If a top player is making $1 mil per game you're gonna ask him to work overtime at 1/4 of his usual and customary pay? How 'bout a counter offer of all proceeds from 17th game including TV revenues will be shared 25% to the owners and 75% to the players? That makes just as much sense to me. Why even put a "deal killer" like that in there unless you're either just trying to show up and embarrass more highly paid players or you plan to use it to bargain for something else you want even more. If they were a metal fabricator it would look like this. Union Rep: OK, we got managements offer and the good news is you minimum wage laborers are getting a small raise and more hours. The bad news is the guys in the machine shop making $30 an hour will now have to work one extra weekend a month for $7.50 an hour. My other criticism would be roster size. If the owners are truly interested in player safety then allow all 53 players on the active roster to dress and play. Less need for starters to play ST as well, more depth for more frequent substitutions, no need for an emergency QB since you could carry 3 if needed. Take that additional 2% and do something with it that actually helps the game for players and fans alike. It has never made any sense to me to allow a 53 man roster then restrict it's use on game days. Suit 'em all up and let 'em play. That we will eventually see more games is a given but adding one to make it 17 is nonsense. Add two along with a second bye week and along with expanded game day rosters and a larger PS have done with it. Just give it a couple of years before you start it so players can begin to condition themselves for a longer season. You know once they get to 17 they'll push for 18 anyway so stop messing around and just do it but without any limitations on players paychecks. The owners know damn well how much more money they'll get from 18 game TV deals and expanded playoffs so stop clowning around and pay the players for it. JMHO 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
malagabears Posted February 25, 2020 Share Posted February 25, 2020 https://www.si.com/nfl/2020/02/24/nfl-owners-nflpa-cba-negotiations-combine-preview If the league gets to $20 billion over the life of this CBA, over 10 years, it estimates the players will have raked in $2.5 billion for that extra 1.5%, or $8 million per team per year. And one involved party told me that, depending on how the TV deals are structured, the cap should jump 30-35 percent over the next three years, which would have it creeping closer to $300 million. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abstract_thought Posted February 25, 2020 Share Posted February 25, 2020 The issue with development systems in football is that there are no CBA rules to help teams keep the prospects they develop. In sports like baseball and hockey where development systems are more ubiquitous, the CBAs grant teams exclusive rights to a player in their minor league system. In the NFL you could spend multiple years developing an athlete and he leaves as soon as he starts to show potential. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dll2000 Posted February 25, 2020 Author Share Posted February 25, 2020 3 hours ago, abstract_thought said: The issue with development systems in football is that there are no CBA rules to help teams keep the prospects they develop. In sports like baseball and hockey where development systems are more ubiquitous, the CBAs grant teams exclusive rights to a player in their minor league system. In the NFL you could spend multiple years developing an athlete and he leaves as soon as he starts to show potential. Yes, its disappointing though. Obviously there is a lot of American talent left out from basketball, baseball or guys playing wrong position in football. Worldwide there are obviously lots of guys who have athletic ability to play in NFL, but no way to develop football experience. Plenty of monsters in Scandinavian countries and Eastern Europe and plenty of speed in the islands. Brazil is a huge country that basically is soccer or bust, a lot of football body types don't have an athletic outlet. If ever someone could find a way to tap into that it and also keep the rights to a developing player, it would be a large advantage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soulman Posted February 25, 2020 Share Posted February 25, 2020 5 hours ago, abstract_thought said: The issue with development systems in football is that there are no CBA rules to help teams keep the prospects they develop. In sports like baseball and hockey where development systems are more ubiquitous, the CBAs grant teams exclusive rights to a player in their minor league system. In the NFL you could spend multiple years developing an athlete and he leaves as soon as he starts to show potential. Therein lies the problem we may need to lay at least some of at the players feet. Since their careers are typically much shorter than those in other sports they want their freedom to negotiate second contract sooner and of course unlike MLB or NFL and NBA deals theirs are not fully guaranteed and the owners show no sign whatsoever of ever giving in to that. A 20 year old MLB prospect may spend 3-4 years in the minors before coming to the show. The NHL also has a massive "farm sytem" of developmental leagues here and in Europe. The NFL has college football, the CFL, and whatever other upstart pro league that may be trying to gain a foothold again and none of that costs them a plug nickel. There's no motivation to change. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.