Roquan Smith - ILB #8 overall

[Heinz D.]

On 7/27/2018 at 6:07 PM, Gary said:

I had my doubts about this kid when he had his note pad stolen.  Now he is missing valuable practice time.  I don't like it when these rookies don't even know if they can play well in the NFL, and they hold out losing time.  Half this country is in poverty and this kid wants to be paid before showing he can do anything! 

 

Just frustrated!!!!!!!

Isn't that sort of always how it works? 

7 hours ago, Epyon said:

Rumors now are the hold up is over Roquan /agent wanting protection from the fines /penalties /money lost over suspensions if he goes helmet to helmet. 

With the guaranteed increase in the number of fines defenders are going to have to face with the latest round of rule changes, I think that sort of haggling will become more and more common, especially with rookies. Hopefully it doesn't become a big deal. 

[51to54]

So I stumbled onto this NFL com story about why Smith is holding out. Helmet hits and suspensions and teams being able to withhold guaranteed money per suspensions.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000942843/article/roquan-smith-deal-holdup-related-to-new-helmet-rule

 

The two upsides? He assumes he will be a high tackle player and thus more likely to have a suspension. He picked an agency that is on top of the changing rules and how they could impact his guaranteed money.

If this is indeed the case the Bears could find a way to protect him losing guaranteed money over a helmet his suspension while still protecting themselves from a suspension for other issues.

[GOGRIESE]

This is a freaking mess. The Bears should just pay him the guaranteed money and get this over with. They dont want to set the precedent but too bad. 

[Sugashane]

13 minutes ago, GOGRIESE said:

This is a freaking mess. The Bears should just pay him the guaranteed money and get this over with. They dont want to set the precedent but too bad. 

Agreed. What is the expected risk opposed to what are we losing with him not getting the reps here? They should be able to take a quick look at the average number of calls for high volume players, see it averages 1-2 per year at most, and just say we will cover the first 2 per year, if more than that we hold back. If that is unacceptable they might need to cave before it is more detrimental to the team, then just say F*** that agency and be done with them.

 

Plus the contract isn't like Kuechely's, what are you saving in the grand scheme of things?

 

[malagabears]

3 hours ago, 51to54 said:

So I stumbled onto this NFL com story about why Smith is holding out. Helmet hits and suspensions and teams being able to withhold guaranteed money per suspensions.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000942843/article/roquan-smith-deal-holdup-related-to-new-helmet-rule

 

The two upsides? He assumes he will be a high tackle player and thus more likely to have a suspension. He picked an agency that is on top of the changing rules and how they could impact his guaranteed money.

If this is indeed the case the Bears could find a way to protect him losing guaranteed money over a helmet his suspension while still protecting themselves from a suspension for other issues.

There is more to it than the helmut rule. Apparently CAA wants further protection on other guarantees apart from the helmut.

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2018/07/29/saquon-barkley-todd-gurley-got-the-language-roquan-smith-wants/

AP

Bears coach Matt Nagy explained on Saturday that “very few” contracts protect players against having their future guarantees voided by a suspension arising from on-field misconduct. He may be right, but other players definitely have that protection, and it’s smart for more and more to try to do the same.

It’s also smart for more and more teams to provide that protection.

Per a source with knowledge of the situation, Roc Nation has secured this term in the contracts recently signed by Giants running back Saquon Barkley and Rams running back Todd Gurley. Given the position they play, a real possibility exists of being flagged, fined, ejected, and/or suspended for dropping their helmets and initiating contact while running between the tackles, or for using any portion of their helmets to butt, spear, or ram an opponent who is trying to tackle them. Especially since no one knows how aggressively the new helmet rules will or won’t be enforced.

Given that Smith’s four-year contract is fully guaranteed, and given that he plays linebacker, why shouldn’t he want that protection? It’s one thing to have guarantees wiped out due to off-field misbehavior. It’s quite another to risk forfeiting guarantees for simply doing what the coaching staff wants him to do.

So the Bears should budge on this one. Given that the Giants and Rams (wisely) already have, the Bears and all other teams should follow suit

[pigsooie5]

This situation could get reaaalllllyyyy interesting. IF Roquan doesn’t sign until ~Aug 29th( Bosas signing date last year), I think there’s virtually zero chance he starts ahead of Kwit week 1. Someone I’m extremely high on. Then what? The 8th overall pick rides the bench the entire season? ?

[Sugashane]

58 minutes ago, pigsooie5 said:

This situation could get reaaalllllyyyy interesting. IF Roquan doesn’t sign until ~Aug 29th( Bosas signing date last year), I think there’s virtually zero chance he starts ahead of Kwit week 1. Someone I’m extremely high on. Then what? The 8th overall pick rides the bench the entire season? ?

Honestly if Fangio is dead set on rushing 4, I wouldn't be opposed to Floyd being the rush backer and then fielding DT, Smith, and Kwiatkoski. Acho offers little passrush and is more of a run/cover defender.

 

You could literally put Floyd on the edge then have Smith at the SAM, DT at the MIKE, and Kwiatkoski at the WILL. With my lack of trust in Lynch and concern on FItts being able to stay healthy this might actually be the best option. Then occasionally Smith can get a speedrush off the edge to let Floyd drop into coverage. Might be the best overall talent group they can put back there. Or simply throw Kwiatkoski at the JACk since he showed to be a good passrusher in his chances IIRC.

[Mudderfudder77]

 

[topwop1]

1 hour ago, Mudderfudder77 said:

 

Hmm..I thought I read that the Bills gave Edmunds the language his reps were looking for.  Either way you'd think since both Edmunds and Roquan share the same agent that whatever offset laguage the Bills and Edmunds agreed to should be good enough for Roquan and the Bears to sign.  I don't know why this is taking so long.

I like Pace, but squabbling over a few million dollars in guarantees when the franchise is worth billions is a bad look.  From a player's perspective you only get so many guarantees in the NFL.  As much as I want him in camp I don't blame Roquan and his agent at all here for holding out.

[CBears019]

Darnold expected to sign today, leaving Smith as the lone first round pick still unsigned.

[topwop1]

After reading up more on it it appears that the issue isn't really the new helmet to helmet rule but more of a clause that appears to be standard in all Bears players' contracts.

Roquan Smith's holdout is justified: Why Bears are to blame

Looking at it from both sides I can see each party's argument.  Bears don;t want to give Smith preferential treatment by giving him different terms from what his teammates received and Roquan is just looking out for his best interests by having peace of mind that he'll get every single dollar from his rookie contract.

Tough situation and I hope it gets resolved soon but I don't see Bears management caving in on this one because then it'll set a precedent. 

[51to54]

It's ironic that 4 games for career White is still on the roster at the same time the Bears are burning daylight haggling about a guy that would have to come out of the locker room for his first game helmet hitting the banner holders, security detail, linesmen, waterboys, etc. to miss as many games as White.

 

[51to54]

15 minutes ago, topwop1 said:

After reading up more on it it appears that the issue isn't really the new helmet to helmet rule but more of a clause that appears to be standard in all Bears players' contracts.

Roquan Smith's holdout is justified: Why Bears are to blame

Looking at it from both sides I can see each party's argument.  Bears don;t want to give Smith preferential treatment by giving him different terms from what his teammates received and Roquan is just looking out for his best interests by having peace of mind that he'll get every single dollar from his rookie contract.

Tough situation and I hope it gets resolved soon but I don't see Bears management caving in on this one because then it'll set a precedent. 

NFL rules change. Contacts standards change. CBA regulations change. Precedents change. Owners trying to 'own' the players doesn't.

 

 

 

[topwop1]

2 minutes ago, 51to54 said:

NFL rules change. Contacts standards change. CBA regulations change. Precedents change. Owners trying to 'own' the players doesn't.

 

 

 

Owning may be a bit of a controversial term but if what you mean by that is having control over the players then yes, and it shouldn't change as far as they're concerned. It's their teams and money at the end of the day. It's also a privilege and not a right for these players to play in the NFL.

This is not me taking the owners sides by the way, I'm just saying there's two sides to the spectrum.

I have no problem with Roquan holding out for what he thinks is important to him.  Like I said these guys only get so many guarantees as an NFL player.  I just hope it gets resolved soon so we can have Roquan practicing with his teammates and ready for week 1.

 

[WindyCity]

I do not know why the Bears are stuck on this.  Most NFL teams have budged on this and the precedent is set against the Bears.

I do not think this is going to end anytime soon. I think the Bears are being stupid and we are eventually going to get to the place where it effects the season.