Jump to content

Roquan Smith - ILB #8 overall


bkokot

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, topwop1 said:

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.

 

Expecting to have more control over the players as employees than they should expect to have in the 21st century. NFL players are elite. If the NFL was a hospital the players would be the surgeon "EMPLOYEES" and not the "employees" and even that is a lousy comparison. There are 52,000 surgeons in the USA. Assume each 'roster' is 75 (53 active, PT, and guys added during season, etc.) and there are about 900 active NFL players during a season. You don't nickel and dime elite employees. How hard is it to specify you lose guaranteed money if you get caught screwing a goat at a petting zoo and not via a helmet hit? Personally, I think they (many or most owners) want to maintain control of the guaranteed money for taking a knee and other similar issues that have nothing to do with ambiguous rule changes. The Eagles had some refs explaining the new helmet to helmet rules. Two things. After the session the players said that they were more confused than before and one of the video examples was seen as a flag by half the refs and not a flag by the other half. It's control. Not helmet hits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, 51to54 said:

Expecting to have more control over the players as employees than they should expect to have in the 21st century. NFL players are elite. If the NFL was a hospital the players would be the surgeon "EMPLOYEES" and not the "employees" and even that is a lousy comparison. There are 52,000 surgeons in the USA. Assume each 'roster' is 75 (53 active, PT, and guys added during season, etc.) and there are about 900 active NFL players during a season. You don't nickel and dime elite employees. How hard is it to specify you lose guaranteed money if you get caught screwing a goat at a petting zoo and not via a helmet hit? Personally, I think they (many or most owners) want to maintain control of the guaranteed money for taking a knee and other similar issues that have nothing to do with ambiguous rule changes. The Eagles had some refs explaining the new helmet to helmet rules. Two things. After the session the players said that they were more confused than before and one of the video examples was seen as a flag by half the refs and not a flag by the other half. It's control. Not helmet hits.

It appears as though this has nothing to do with the new helmet to helmet hit rule.  Trevethan is a good example of this.  Last season after his helmet to helmet hit on Davante Adams and subsequent suspension the Bears had the ability under his contract terms to take back some guaranteed money  due to his suspension but out of good faith they didn't.  I just think they are looking to keep things consistent with how they structure their contracts for all their players and not give any specific player preferential treatment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It reads to me like the Bears are willing to tell Roquan they won’t go after his money and he wants it in writing, but they won’t go there. If they mean what they say then it shouldn’t matter if they put the clause in from the team side. It’s a bad look for them. That a similar clause was not in White’s or Floyd’s contract is irrelevant because they were signed before the league wide rules changes were made.

In reality we are talking about the Bears drafting a guy to be a cornerstone player at a prime position for a decade and then squabbling about guarantees in a contract from under which they will almost certainly never try to get themselves anyway. It reads like petty for petty’s sake from a franchise with what has really been under a misplaced label of being cheap for a long time. This isn’t just about Smith either. It’s about future draft picks and future FA as well. In the grand scheme even if Roquan went Billy Cole in game 1 and they were still forced contractually to pay his full guarantee the financial hit to the team would be negligible to the franchise in the grand scheme. 

I’m over this, and I don’t blame Roquan one bit. Just get it done already. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, AZBearsFan said:

It reads to me like the Bears are willing to tell Roquan they won’t go after his money and he wants it in writing, but they won’t go there. If they mean what they say then it shouldn’t matter if they put the clause in from the team side. It’s a bad look for them. That a similar clause was not in White’s or Floyd’s contract is irrelevant because they were signed before the league wide rules changes were made.

In reality we are talking about the Bears drafting a guy to be a cornerstone player at a prime position for a decade and then squabbling about guarantees in a contract from under which they will almost certainly never try to get themselves anyway. It reads like petty for petty’s sake from a franchise with what has really been under a misplaced label of being cheap for a long time. This isn’t just about Smith either. It’s about future draft picks and future FA as well. In the grand scheme even if Roquan went Billy Cole in game 1 and they were still forced contractually to pay his full guarantee the financial hit to the team would be negligible to the franchise in the grand scheme. 

I’m over this, and I don’t blame Roquan one bit. Just get it done already. 

I agree with your points but again this may be a matter of principle with the team when it comes to contract structure and uniformity across the team.

I'd be curious to see if fellow draft class LB Joel Iyiegbuniwe agreed to the terms that the Bears want Roquan and his reps to sign.  I'm pretty sure he did and he plays the same position and will be subject to the same rules.

They need to come to a compromise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, from what I heard on the radio this morning, only 3 teams in the league provided the language that Roquan Smith is holding out for... I'm sorry, this is on him.

It's his money and good for him and blah blah blah, I get it, but let's not forget as mentioned earlier that only 3 out of 40,000 hits reviewed last season would have resulted in fines.

This is petty and it's on the player. It doesn't mean I hate him or will boo him or any of that crap, but it is IMO ******* stupid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, G08 said:

So, from what I heard on the radio this morning, only 3 teams in the league provided the language that Roquan Smith is holding out for... I'm sorry, this is on him.

It's his money and good for him and blah blah blah, I get it, but let's not forget as mentioned earlier that only 3 out of 40,000 hits reviewed last season would have resulted in fines.

This is petty and it's on the player. It doesn't mean I hate him or will boo him or any of that crap, but it is IMO ******* stupid.

According to the Suntimes the negotiations are a standstill. Nagy is now frustrated. No end in sight methinks.

https://chicago.suntimes.com/sports/bears-mum-rookie-roquan-smiths-holdout-becomes-second-longest-new-cba/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm trying to figure out why Smith and his agent are so adamant about having it explicitly stated in his contract that the team will not void any of his guarantees for on the field conduct after the team apparently gave them their word that they would treat each situation with good judgement as they did with the Danny Trevethan suspension last year.

I mean, isn't that clause in there to protect the team if Roquan for whatever reason becomes some malicious player who gets suspended for purposely trying to hurt guys like a Vontaze Burfict type of player would?  He has yet to play an NFL down so we don't know how he will be as a player in the NFL, even though I would never think he's that type of player from watching his college film, but I can see why the team would want that in there just in case for unforeseen situations.

Anyway, I hope something gets resolved soon because Roquan hasn't exactly had a great start to his NFL career off the field with the iPad incident and now this.  Like I said, he has every right to do what's best for him but something has got to give eventually.  I really don't see the team budging with Trevethan back healthy and Kwiatkoski off to a good start in camp.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, topwop1 said:

I'm trying to figure out why Smith and his agent are so adamant about having it explicitly stated in his contract that the team will not void any of his guarantees for on the field conduct after the team apparently gave them their word that they would treat each situation with good judgement as they did with the Danny Trevethan suspension last year.

I mean, isn't that clause in there to protect the team if Roquan for whatever reason becomes some malicious player who gets suspended for purposely trying to hurt guys like a Vontaze Burfict type of player would?  He has yet to play an NFL down so we don't know how he will be as a player in the NFL, even though I would never think he's that type of player from watching his college film, but I can see why the team would want that in there just in case for unforeseen situations.

Anyway, I hope something gets resolved soon because Roquan hasn't exactly had a great start to his NFL career off the field with the iPad incident and now this.  Like I said, he has every right to do what's best for him but something has got to give eventually.  I really don't see the team budging with Trevethan back healthy and Kwiatkoski off to a good start in camp.

 

I just don't know how long this will play out and if he holds out well into preseason he may wind up on the bench for a couple to few regular season games. Like you said notnyhe best start to your pro career but if he kills it, the Bears have a decent record and possibly make the playoffs, and he gets some sort of accolade as a rookie this will be stuff in the rear view mirror. Until then we will have to wait & hope for the best.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, malagabears said:

 

If true that is a concern...I don't have an issue with the helmet to helmet stuff...that is about him trying to make plays for this ball club and not wanting to be fined if he is too aggressive...off field stuff is totally different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, malagabears said:

 

If do then I stand by the Bears not signing him yet and blackmailing that agency's players from here on out. 

 

You get paid to play, if you get caught doing anything illegal that is on you and you should lose money for it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Sugashane said:

If do then I stand by the Bears not signing him yet and blackmailing that agency's players from here on out. 

 

You get paid to play, if you get caught doing anything illegal that is on you and you should lose money for it. 

Bingo. Like I said, this is entirely on the player and his agents. If he wanted to be in camp, he'd tell CAA to cut this **** out and get the deal signed already.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, G08 said:

Bingo. Like I said, this is entirely on the player and his agents. If he wanted to be in camp, he'd tell CAA to cut this **** out and get the deal signed already.

 

Absolutely, if I was in Pace's shoes I'd probably have already bashed CAA publicly. He's handled it with more class, but I'd want to put pressure on them and be loud about it. Likely with a press conference just to explain the situation and verabaly abuse them. I'm talking Brandon Marshall dismantling Warren Sapp destroy.

The best way to deal with a bully is to punch them back twice as hard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bar none, and I mean bar none, the WORST move by Ryan Pace since he’s become GM. I don’t care if Roquan signs tomorrow. Replacing arguably the best in the business in Cliff Stein with your      buddy Joey Laine is inexcusable. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...