English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

8 answers

I think you guys are giving these players a bad rep. How many players are there in the NFL? A couple hundred and how many of them actually cause problems for their teams? its about 20 maybe 30 guys that we hear about. That is a fairly small percentage, considering the number of guys in the league. Granted their are some bad seed but man you guys act like every good player in the league acts like that. We need to focus more on the good guys.

BTW: Elway did that to the than Baltimore Colts not the Chargers.

2007-03-08 08:27:35 · answer #1 · answered by MJMGrand 6 · 0 0

The NFL is a league loaded with never-wases, wanna-bes and prima donnas, whom are all self absorbed spoiled brats. I remember the days of loyalty to a team and respect for the game. Thats now a joke. Its all about players getting what they want, guaranteed money, and endorsements. Its a slap in the face of the game and a slap in the face of the football players who play for all the right reasons. GM's take chances on these primadonnas and malcontents because of the $$$. They want to win and few pay to watch losers. So they'll take on a player with questionable character, baggage, or a lack of team concept just for a few more W's. They're more concerned with extra Sportscenter time and dollars and cents that they overlook the damage it can do to the team structure. If I'm a GM, I avoid signing any player who has history of being a malcontent or a player of questionable character

2007-03-08 16:13:42 · answer #2 · answered by Quiet Storm 5 · 1 1

Well, when players register for the NFL draft, if they don't sign with a team that drafts them, they must wait a year before filing for free agency. This protects teams from players picking and choosing which team they want to play for so that one team (a Super Bowl winner for example) doesn't end up with all the best prospects.

But with million dollar free agent signees, teams are not obligated to resign players and they can be cut at anytime, however with the increasing size of signing bonuses and gaurunteed money, owners are more willing to let an unhappy player go to protect their investments.

Look at Randy Moss, for example. Instead of trading him when he wanted, Moss got back at the Raiders by playing piss poorly. So all of the money they signed to him was completly wasted. Had they traded him, they would've gotten something back for him, and at least protected their investment.

Because they waited, Moss's stock went down, and now they're paying the price. They won't get a good trade for him and may be forced to cut him instead, which is a losing situation for both Moss AND the Raiders because even though both eventually got what they wanted, they will be out millions of dollars because of it.

2007-03-08 16:11:20 · answer #3 · answered by Adam C 4 · 0 0

GM's and head coaches don't want players who will cause trouble or not play as hard as they can. So, in order to get something back for their "investment" in a player, they generally wind up accommodating them. John Elway once told the San Diego Chargers that he would not play for them - he even threatened to play baseball for the New York Yankees instead.

2007-03-08 15:58:41 · answer #4 · answered by dmspartan2000 5 · 0 1

NFL contracts are not guaranteed - meaning players who make big bucks want to be in the best situation for long-term gain. since the owners aren't bound to honor the contract (the team simply cuts the player by a certain deadline), the players feel more compelled to dictate where they play. fair trade really. you don't see this nearly as much in any of the other major U.S. pro sports

2007-03-08 15:57:40 · answer #5 · answered by Super G 5 · 1 1

gm's tend to do this because they've seen the patriots have success with role players who want to play there and want to win, and they are just following the blueprint...they would rather build for the future by getting draft picks rather than deal with a player who doesn't want to play for them and will disrupt team chemistry

2007-03-08 15:55:23 · answer #6 · answered by sabes99 6 · 0 1

I'd make the crybaby players sit, they don't want to play for me and they are not free agents, then they can sit and be suspended. I don't owe them anything. Just like it is in the real world. You try telling your boss you don't like it, or don't want to work somewhere, he/she will tell you where to go. Their not going to help you find another company that you'll like.

2007-03-09 12:38:04 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

I don't know...When you are under contract, you should be under contract...and if the team has to pay the player, the player has to play for the team...

2007-03-08 15:54:55 · answer #8 · answered by Terry C. 7 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers