Tannenbaum on Gholston, "He did everything we asked"..

[Steveg]

On Vernon Gholston:

Certainly when you let a player go, they can go in your division and that's always a concern. Vernon is a guy that I'm rooting for. He did everything we asked; he worked hard. He didn't have the success here, clearly, as a six pick that he had hoped or we had hoped, but it wasn't for a lack of effort. His career's not over; he';s still a young guy. He's only been in the league for three years. Obviously it hasn't gone that well so far, but certainly it's not over yet, and I really truly wish him well.

I guess the Jets forgot to ask him to sack the QB..

Full articleon Randy Moss, QBs, and more....

[Maxman]

On Vernon Gholston:

Certainly when you let a player go, they can go in your division and that's always a concern. Vernon is a guy that I'm rooting for. He did everything we asked; he worked hard. He didn't have the success here, clearly, as a six pick that he had hoped or we had hoped, but it wasn't for a lack of effort. His career's not over; he';s still a young guy. He's only been in the league for three years. Obviously it hasn't gone that well so far, but certainly it's not over yet, and I really truly wish him well.

I guess the Jets forgot to ask him to sack the QB..

Full articleon Randy Moss, QBs, and more....

Good line Steve. I was going to say the same thing. They must have asked him the wrong things....

[Larz]

of course he did

VG figured out early on if he showed up for work, stayed out of trouble and did what he was asked, he would get to keep his signing bonus, and that is all he ever cared about

that clown in buffalo, maybin, is the same way

I really hope the league is allowed to fix this, it's total BS to hand these kids such huge contracts

[serphnx]

of course he did

VG figured out early on if he showed up for work, stayed out of trouble and did what he was asked, he would get to keep his signing bonus, and that is all he ever cared about

that clown in buffalo, maybin, is the same way

I really hope the league is allowed to fix this, it's total BS to hand these kids such huge contracts

Okay, in that case, you should be all for a payment by statistical performance. So when Chris Johnson is on pace for 2k yards a season, you get to pay him $20M instead of the contract you signed him for that year.

Fair is fair.

[madmikeisback]

How about just saying, "I f*cked up?"

[visajets]

VG walked away from the NYJETS a very rich man. He is also injury free. I think this was his plan all along. Either that or something psychological went very wrong with him as a football player. I doubt he resurfaces in the NFL.

[SenorGato]

I hope Gholston turns into a player somewhere.

[bitonti]

I'd love to know what percentage of defense snaps Gholston played over 3 years

further i'd like to know what percentage were in passing downs.

it seems to me he was stuck behind Pace, Thomas and Jason Taylor at LB and he was stuck behind Pryce, Ellis, Devito Etc at DE.

other teams take a guy and let him play all game long cause they have no better options.

he never was given a shot like most teams give their first rounders

in 2010 he was basically a 2nd/3rd team DE and special teamer on 46 Bear looks. Not gonna get much production that way...

this will be taken as a gutless defense of the pick (and maybe that's true) but in the end it's a stats game and you can't get stats without snaps.

[Larz]

Okay, in that case, you should be all for a payment by statistical performance. So when Chris Johnson is on pace for 2k yards a season, you get to pay him $20M instead of the contract you signed him for that year.

Fair is fair.

the point is VG didn't have the character to give more than he had to to keep his bonus. I'd have to say you are in the 1% minority if you like the current system the way it is for rookie 1st rounders getting huge deals before they even make the team

and that 1% is all agents

[Larz]

I'd love to know what percentage of defense snaps Gholston earned over 3 years

further i'd like to know what percentage were in passing downs.

it seems to me he couldn't beat out Pace, Thomas and Jason Taylor at LB and he couldn't beat out Pryce, Ellis, Devito Etc at DE.

other teams take a guy and let him play all game long cause they have no better options.

he never earned his reps like most teams expect of first rounders

in 2010 he was basically a 2nd/3rd team DE and special teamer on 46 Bear looks. never gave the jets good production that way...

this will be taken as a gutless defense of the pick (and maybe that's true) but in the end it's a stats game and you can't get stats without snaps.

fixed

[ZachEY]

I'd love to know what percentage of defense snaps Gholston played over 3 years

further i'd like to know what percentage were in passing downs.

it seems to me he was stuck behind Pace, Thomas and Jason Taylor at LB and he was stuck behind Pryce, Ellis, Devito Etc at DE.

other teams take a guy and let him play all game long cause they have no better options.

he never was given a shot like most teams give their first rounders

in 2010 he was basically a 2nd/3rd team DE and special teamer on 46 Bear looks. Not gonna get much production that way...

this will be taken as a gutless defense of the pick (and maybe that's true) but in the end it's a stats game and you can't get stats without snaps.

Oh give it a rest already.

Do you think they bring in well past their prime Jason Taylor or Trevor Pryce is they believed at all in Gholston. Those signings are reflective of the fact that they knew they had nothing with him.

Further, I think all Jets fans are thrilled by the play they've gotten from Mike Devito, but good players don't get stuck behind Mike Devito. They prove quickly in practice that they're better than him. Same probably goes for every linebacker you mentioned, considering at least this year, none of them were exactly setting the world on fire.

You think this is what the Jets wanted? You think they just didn't know he was on the roster? You think Devito and Thomas are great players that naturally hold off #6 overall picks in their 3rd season?

It's ok to say, "you know what guys, I really blew this one". It's really ok.

[T0mShane]

How about just saying, "I f*cked up?"

Because Tannenbaum can still tell Woody that Gholston has made both the Pro Bowl and "All-Intergalactic Superstar Team" for another five seasons minumum before Woody notices he's gone.

[bitonti]

It's ok to say, "you know what guys, I really blew this one". It's really ok.

I didn't make the pick. My position is he was only pick that made sense at the time and the jury is not yet out. No he did not fit the 3-4 defense. for the Jets the jury is out but he's gonna play in the league and probably for a while yet.

I do think that VG is why they won't take a Brooks Reed or Sheard. or even a Quinn or Aldon Smith if they were higher up. they won't convert a DE to LB in rd1 as long as Tanny is in charge. Its too risky of a pick in rd1.

[T0mShane]

I didn't make the pick. My position is he was only pick that made sense at the time and the jury is not yet out. No he did not fit the 3-4 defense. for the Jets the jury is out but he's gonna play in the league and probably for a while yet.

I do think that VG is why they won't take a Brooks Reed or Sheard. or even a Quinn or Aldon Smith if they were higher up. they won't convert a DE to LB in rd1 as long as Tanny is in charge. Its too risky of a pick in rd1.

He will not be in the league in 2012. No heart, no guts, no talent. It won't take long for his next team to find this out.

[Klecko73isGod]

Guys, get over it.

It was a bad pick, it didn't work out.

What I will never get is the need some have to demonize this kid. He's not a good football player. It doesn't make him a bad person. It doesn't mean he's lazy. It doesn't mean he's greedy. It doesn't mean he's stupid (the kid actually graduated on time.) It doesn't mean he's weak willed or a pussy.

It just means he can't play football at the NFL level.

Fortunately, his lack of success didn't hurt the team all that badly. Get over it.

[billo83]

+1. There are many examples but Blair Thomas comes to mind as a great college player that just couldn't cut it in the NFL

[Bleedin Green]

Guys, get over it.

It was a bad pick, it didn't work out.

What I will never get is the need some have to demonize this kid. He's not a good football player. It doesn't make him a bad person. It doesn't mean he's lazy. It doesn't mean he's greedy. It doesn't mean he's stupid (the kid actually graduated on time.) It doesn't mean he's weak willed or a pussy.

It just means he can't play football at the NFL level.

Fortunately, his lack of success didn't hurt the team all that badly. Get over it.

Klecko as the voice of reason? Holy sh*t, who knew.

Seriously though, I agree with this 100%. There's a reason that the NFL players and owners are currently arguing over billions of dollars, and it's because there's a very small group of people in the entire world who can do what these guys do at the level they do it. It turns out that Gholston really wasn't one of those guys. At least not to the level that he was projected and we all hoped.

[serphnx]

the point is VG didn't have the character to give more than he had to to keep his bonus. I'd have to say you are in the 1% minority if you like the current system the way it is for rookie 1st rounders getting huge deals before they even make the team

and that 1% is all agents

Then 99% of people are communists.

Do you think a Harvard grad gets a 6 figure offer on Wall St. because he's proven he's a top professional before he's even worked a day in a firm?

People get their salary for their first job based on their potential and the market. Top picks for the NFL happen to have the most potential, they are the I-Bankers out of Yale undergrad or Wharton B-school. They are the people selected top 10 in the entire world out of every single applicant.

Why should an artificial system be put in place to limit these offers? How does that make any sense at all? Nobody puts a gun to the owners' heads forcing them to make those offers. The owners are just looking to depress player salaries because the rookie salaries will have an impact on the other players. They can adjust everything downwards.

For all the crap Revis got, that's what would always happen with breakout players, unless we are going to a totally communist system of locking in the player salaries for years. I asked you a simple question, and you refused to answer it.

If player salaries are locked down for their rookie years irregardless of potential, why shouldn't there be a counter performance raise? Why should Chris Johnson play for $450k when he's putting up $20M stats? Why is that fair to you, but Sam Bradford getting a big contract bothers you?

[jason423]

I'd love to know what percentage of defense snaps Gholston played over 3 years

further i'd like to know what percentage were in passing downs.

it seems to me he was stuck behind Pace, Thomas and Jason Taylor at LB and he was stuck behind Pryce, Ellis, Devito Etc at DE.

other teams take a guy and let him play all game long cause they have no better options.

he never was given a shot like most teams give their first rounders

in 2010 he was basically a 2nd/3rd team DE and special teamer on 46 Bear looks. Not gonna get much production that way...

this will be taken as a gutless defense of the pick (and maybe that's true) but in the end it's a stats game and you can't get stats without snaps.

I dont have the exact figures but I believe it was somewhere around 16%, 25%, and 21% in his 3 years. I cant say those are totally accurate and the 16% in year 1 surprised me since I could only remember seeing him in 1 game on defense used more than just for a snap here and there (against the Broncos), but hose are about the ballpark numbers. Year 2 was almost all in 3 of the 4 Pace suspension games. He didnt play much in week 2 (Patriots) and after Pace came back. Year 3 I doubt he was in at all in passing downs as he was put in for run defense.

I agree that other teams may have given him more of a chance than the Jets did early on. He was probably hurt a bit by coming in late because of college commitments, but mainly it was Mangini having a criteria by which he judged his players and Gholston simply getting a failing grade. On other teams the GM may have forced the coaches hand, but on the Jets Tannenbaum doesnt get involved that way. After that it was a contract issue. They gave him his shot in 2009 and he sucked. Tannenbaum will get involved with that and Im sure he informed Rex that they had to cut back on him to protect the team because he cant play.

Id disagree that the Jets had better options as to why he wasnt given a chance. The Jets pass rush was terrible. At best Bryan Thomas is serviceable. Pace is all kinds of inconsistent and missed 8 games in 2 years. Taylor hasnt been good in 5 years. If the Jets saw a glimmer they would have given him a chance, but he never did. Still I would not be stunned if they brought him back for another chance this year. I do think some team will give him a tryout, but I think he will be hard pressed to make it. I think he also falls into that category where he has 13-15 million sitting in the bank and has to wonder if getting ripped in the media and showing up for work is worth the 600K he will likely make in free agency. Most guys in his position just retire and fade away to only be seen on draft day bust footage once a year on ESPN.

[T0mShane]

I'd disagree that the Jets had better options as to why he wasnt given a chance. The Jets pass rush was terrible. At best Bryan Thomas is serviceable. Pace is all kinds of inconsistent and missed 8 games in 2 years. Taylor hasnt been good in 5 years. If the Jets saw a glimmer they would have given him a chance, but he never did. Still I would not be stunned if they brought him back for another chance this year. I do think some team will give him a tryout, but I think he will be hard pressed to make it. I think he also falls into that category where he has 13-15 million sitting in the bank and has to wonder if getting ripped in the media and showing up for work is worth the 600K he will likely make in free agency. Most guys in his position just retire and fade away to only be seen on draft day bust footage once a year on ESPN.

+1

I can't for the life of me understand how anyone who has watched this guy play any snaps at all still holds out any hope for him. There is no there there. This isn't a lightbulb issue, it's a fundamental series of disabilities issue.

[SoFlaJets]

+1

I can't for the life of me understand how anyone who has watched this guy play any snaps at all still holds out any hope for him. There is no there there. This isn't a lightbulb issue, it's a fundamental series of disabilities issue.

when Marcus Dixon is held in higher regard than the former #6 pick-it's just bad-"like eggs rolled in sand"

[NJ]

for the Jets the jury is out but he's gonna play in the league and probably for a while yet.

This statement assumes that some teams or a team has the need for a body double that has all the physical attributes of a professional defensive lineman - but the heart and guts of a sissy (think Kerry Rhodes - yes I know we're not a better team without him - ha ha ... ha ha ha ha ha ha ...) that doesn't want to hit or get hit.

I don't know where that position exists in the football. Thankfully it doesn't exist on the Jets or we would still have the 2 pee squatters mentioned in this post.

[Larz]

Then 99% of people are communists.

Do you think a Harvard grad gets a 6 figure offer on Wall St. because he's proven he's a top professional before he's even worked a day in a firm?

People get their salary for their first job based on their potential and the market. Top picks for the NFL happen to have the most potential, they are the I-Bankers out of Yale undergrad or Wharton B-school. They are the people selected top 10 in the entire world out of every single applicant.

Why should an artificial system be put in place to limit these offers? How does that make any sense at all? Nobody puts a gun to the owners' heads forcing them to make those offers. The owners are just looking to depress player salaries because the rookie salaries will have an impact on the other players. They can adjust everything downwards.

For all the crap Revis got, that's what would always happen with breakout players, unless we are going to a totally communist system of locking in the player salaries for years. I asked you a simple question, and you refused to answer it.

If player salaries are locked down for their rookie years irregardless of potential, why shouldn't there be a counter performance raise? Why should Chris Johnson play for $450k when he's putting up $20M stats? Why is that fair to you, but Sam Bradford getting a big contract bothers you?

when did I refuse to answer your question ? lighten up dude, I don't scan every thread all day long

your analogy has serious flaws

do you really think those rookie brokers are making more than 10 year vets ?

LOL

do you really think they get a signing bonus that sets them up for life ?

LOL

having an system heavily weighted on individual stats would ruin the NFL. every week there would be some TO like drama going on with guys crying about their snaps and touches. it would be an absolute nightmare

I would restrict the first 45 picks deals (mostly on bonus money) and spread that money to the retirees and veterans

[serphnx]

when did I refuse to answer your question ? lighten up dude, I don't scan every thread all day long

your analogy has serious flaws

do you really think those rookie brokers are making more than 10 year vets ?

LOL

do you really think they get a signing bonus that sets them up for life ?

LOL

having an system heavily weighted on individual stats would ruin the NFL. every week there would be some TO like drama going on with guys crying about their snaps and touches. it would be an absolute nightmare

I would restrict the first 45 picks deals (mostly on bonus money) and spread that money to the retirees and veterans

I know for a fact that a Yale law grad that's never practiced a day makes 5 times more than attorneys that have practiced for 14 years. Higher pay based entirely on seniority and nothing on merit or background is communism.

You are absolutely ignorant of how the world works. Why in the hell should Brunell get paid more than Sam Bradford right now? In your example Bradford would be required not to make 10x more than Brunnell, or whatever dumb theory you come up with.

I have nothing personal against you, but you are an absolute fool.

[Klecko73isGod]

I know for a fact that a Yale law grad that's never practiced a day makes 5 times more than attorneys that have practiced for 14 years. Higher pay based entirely on seniority and nothing on merit or background is communism.

You are absolutely ignorant of how the world works. Why in the hell should Brunell get paid more than Sam Bradford right now? In your example Bradford would be required not to make 10x more than Brunnell, or whatever dumb theory you come up with.

I have nothing personal against you, but you are an absolute fool.

Bradford/Brunnell? Nice cherry picking there. Why should Jamarcus Russell have ever gotten paid more than a trash collector?

[T0mShane]

I know for a fact that a Yale law grad that's never practiced a day makes 5 times more than attorneys that have practiced for 14 years. Higher pay based entirely on seniority and nothing on merit or background is communism.

You are absolutely ignorant of how the world works. Why in the hell should Brunell get paid more than Sam Bradford right now? In your example Bradford would be required not to make 10x more than Brunnell, or whatever dumb theory you come up with.

I have nothing personal against you, but you are an absolute fool.

To be fair, the Yale Law and Harvard Business degrees probably serve as better predictors of success than anything a collegiate football player ever does on the field, so the future employer is assuming a significantly lower risk when he hires the degree holder than an owner does when he drafts a QB. I totally agree with you, though, that there should be no weeping for the owners who got stuck paying Jamarcus Russell and Vernon Gholston, because they invariable reap a return on the Chris Johnson's and and Aaron Rodgers' of the world. I think, inevitably, you're going to see all rookie salaries depressed with the assurance that all those monies get re-invested into veterans. Not necessarily fair at all, obviously, but if the intent of the new CBA (as the owners would have you believe) is to ensure that every team gets a shot at being competitive, limiting the penalty that a Jacksonville accrues for drafting a bust like Derrick Harvey is probably the best place to start. A fair compromise might be to limit all rookie contracts to a three-year maximum, so if they over-achieve they'll reap the rewards. I think where it gets to be unfair is when a rookie gets locked into a 5-6 year contract that limits the options of both the owner and player in consideration of his performance.

[Larz]

I know for a fact that a Yale law grad that's never practiced a day makes 5 times more than attorneys that have practiced for 14 years. Higher pay based entirely on seniority and nothing on merit or background is communism.

You are absolutely ignorant of how the world works. Why in the hell should Brunell get paid more than Sam Bradford right now? In your example Bradford would be required not to make 10x more than Brunnell, or whatever dumb theory you come up with.

I have nothing personal against you, but you are an absolute fool.

wait, we're on lawyers now ? way to move the goal posts

I recruited hot shots for 3 years into 250k jobs, so I am not ignorant, I just disagree with you with how the NFL should work. comprende ?

now you are all over the place and putting words in my mouth

don't take it personal dude, it's an football message board

If I had the time or attention span I could explain my position I would, but I don't

so lets just get back to the original point

I think gholston lost all of his incentive to play above what was asked of him because of the deal he got, the bonus set him up for life, and he didn't have the character to work as hard as the other guys

got it ?

and wtf does the real world have to do with the NFL ? or politics for that matter ?

you know, the NFL with it's anti-trust exemption, hard salary cap, player draft, tampering rules....when I was negotiating offers for those hot shots, we never had to fit a deal in under the cap

LOL, real world, that's ******* hilarious

you call me an ignorant fool and you are comparing the NFL to real world private industry

as my daughter would say, whatev

[ZachEY]

I know for a fact that a Yale law grad that's never practiced a day makes 5 times more than attorneys that have practiced for 14 years. Higher pay based entirely on seniority and nothing on merit or background is communism.

You are absolutely ignorant of how the world works. Why in the hell should Brunell get paid more than Sam Bradford right now? In your example Bradford would be required not to make 10x more than Brunnell, or whatever dumb theory you come up with.

I have nothing personal against you, but you are an absolute fool.

The Harvard Grad does not make more money from the same firm as the 14 year vet.

That's like saying one guy gets paid more from the NFL than another guy from the CFL.

And, for what it's worth, your anger doesn't impress anyone.

[serphnx]

To be fair, the Yale Law and Harvard Business degrees probably serve as better predictors of success than anything a collegiate football player ever does on the field, so the future employer is assuming a significantly lower risk when he hires the degree holder than an owner does when he drafts a QB. I totally agree with you, though, that there should be no weeping for the owners who got stuck paying Jamarcus Russell and Vernon Gholston, because they invariable reap a return on the Chris Johnson's and and Aaron Rodgers' of the world. I think, inevitably, you're going to see all rookie salaries depressed with the assurance that all those monies get re-invested into veterans. Not necessarily fair at all, obviously, but if the intent of the new CBA (as the owners would have you believe) is to ensure that every team gets a shot at being competitive, limiting the penalty that a Jacksonville accrues for drafting a bust like Derrick Harvey is probably the best place to start. A fair compromise might be to limit all rookie contracts to a three-year maximum, so if they over-achieve they'll reap the rewards. I think where it gets to be unfair is when a rookie gets locked into a 5-6 year contract that limits the options of both the owner and player in consideration of his performance.

I disagree with that. I would argue that collegiate football is a direct simulation of future work conditions, whereas academia has never correlated with actual work. For non-sports, potential is the direct reason to hire somebody, rather than what they have done since there is no direct experience to draw from. 4 years of academia won't change that, and generally for most professions the first few years on the job are considered the training periods and the employer is taking a risk on the hire. All new employees are overpaid in comparison to the business they bring in and the work they can perform. Hence why in our current recession younger people have a higher rate of unemployment/underemployment.

Irregardless of that however, we both know that the promise to re-invest in veterans will be an empty one. The NFL wants to increase the number of games and also increase roster sizes. By dropping rookie contracts they'll be able to get more players overall under the cap without a corresponding raise in contract amounts for veterans. There might be a small bump, especially initially, but a few years down the line, especially if the salary cap starts to drop (which it will, either as a deflationary measure or through smaller revenue streams due to lack of interest/weaker consumer spending power) overall the contracts will be down across the board.

The owners are engaging in a classic divide and conquer strategy as well as getting the players to fight their battles for them. In politics these tactics are used constantly. For some reason most people generally don't see this happening even though it should be pretty obvious.

There is no way for anyone that believes in capitalism to come up with any argument for why an owner, who has all the bargaining power to begin with, should be given special rules to protect them from the contracts they want to offer. It's just absolutely ridiculous. I'm not angry about it, I make no money off of it, but it's just intellectually laughable.

However, as a compromise, your suggest could be used. A 2 year automatic contract could be used for NFL rookies. Every franchise gets to sign a rookie to a pre-determined maximum 2 year contract with zero rights to retain the player after those 2 years; the compensation amount would be based on draft slot and position. These contracts would also be guaranteed so the player can't be cut except for certain exceptions (behavior etc.). If you want anything longer than that, you're totally free to negotiate with the player and let capitalism take over. The owners don't want this however, as their position is they should be allowed to lock players in long term for low amounts, be able to cut them whenever they want, and have rights to retain those players even after the actual contract is up. They aren't looking to be fair, they're looking to maximize their positions and screw over the players if those players actually pan out. If the players don't pan out, they can always just get rid of them whenever they want.

A rookie maximum makes a lot more sense in basketball or baseball where contracts are guaranteed and the teams can't just cut players. The NFL owners already have the least risk of all the other major sports on player contracts. If the player's union doesn't extract concessions from the owners they are screwed, you can never give in on any issue easily. I guess there isn't a union now though so I'm not really sure who does the negotiating. Haven't followed this dispute too much since I have other things to follow usually.

[Klecko73isGod]

Irregardless is not a word.

[T0mShane]

I disagree with that. I would argue that collegiate football is a direct simulation of future work conditions, whereas academia has never correlated with actual work. For non-sports, potential is the direct reason to hire somebody, rather than what they have done since there is no direct experience to draw from.

A couple things: The difference between the two scenarios is that, obviously, in law and business you're looking for predictors of intellect as opposed to the NFL, where you're looking at physical/athletic predictors. A kid who makes it through Harvard Business, etc., and finishes in the top, say 5% of his class (the types we're referring to who would draw recruitment and high starting salaries) has sufficiently proven that he has the tools to compete in a high-yield intellectual environment simply by being in that position in the first place. To put it simply, carrying a 4.0 through Harvard Business is likely a more accurate predictor of future success in the working world than would running a 4.3 or rushing for 1,500 yards in the SEC be a predictor of success in the NFL. I'd also disagree with the idea that collegiate football is a "direct simulation" of the NFL game, considering the incredibly small percentage of players in any collegiate game are of the caliber of even the worst NFL players. The fiftieth best student at Harvard Law is an infinitely better professional prospect than is the 10th best player on any college team.

4 years of academia won't change that, and generally for most professions the first few years on the job are considered the training periods and the employer is taking a risk on the hire. All new employees are overpaid in comparison to the business they bring in and the work they can perform. Hence why in our current recession younger people have a higher rate of unemployment/underemployment.

The difference here is that the NFL player's career is 1/5th that of a lawyer. An NFL player's "first few years," on average, equate to half of their total career, and he has to produce at a high level. The law student's first few years are spent in preparation for a career that will last 40+ years. You're making a long-term investment in the law student. With the NFL player, you need immediate return.

Irregardless of that however, we both know that the promise to re-invest in veterans will be an empty one. The NFL wants to increase the number of games and also increase roster sizes. By dropping rookie contracts they'll be able to get more players overall under the cap without a corresponding raise in contract amounts for veterans. There might be a small bump, especially initially, but a few years down the line, especially if the salary cap starts to drop (which it will, either as a deflationary measure or through smaller revenue streams due to lack of interest/weaker consumer spending power) overall the contracts will be down across the board.

The owners are engaging in a classic divide and conquer strategy as well as getting the players to fight their battles for them. In politics these tactics are used constantly. For some reason most people generally don't see this happening even though it should be pretty obvious.

There is no way for anyone that believes in capitalism to come up with any argument for why an owner, who has all the bargaining power to begin with, should be given special rules to protect them from the contracts they want to offer. It's just absolutely ridiculous. I'm not angry about it, I make no money off of it, but it's just intellectually laughable.

However, as a compromise, your suggest could be used. A 2 year automatic contract could be used for NFL rookies. Every franchise gets to sign a rookie to a pre-determined maximum 2 year contract with zero rights to retain the player after those 2 years; the compensation amount would be based on draft slot and position. These contracts would also be guaranteed so the player can't be cut except for certain exceptions (behavior etc.). If you want anything longer than that, you're totally free to negotiate with the player and let capitalism take over. The owners don't want this however, as their position is they should be allowed to lock players in long term for low amounts, be able to cut them whenever they want, and have rights to retain those players even after the actual contract is up. They aren't looking to be fair, they're looking to maximize their positions and screw over the players if those players actually pan out. If the players don't pan out, they can always just get rid of them whenever they want.

A rookie maximum makes a lot more sense in basketball or baseball where contracts are guaranteed and the teams can't just cut players. The NFL owners already have the least risk of all the other major sports on player contracts. If the player's union doesn't extract concessions from the owners they are screwed, you can never give in on any issue easily. I guess there isn't a union now though so I'm not really sure who does the negotiating. Haven't followed this dispute too much since I have other things to follow usually.

We agree on the rest of this. I am definitely pro-player in these negotiations, and I think the NFL contract, even as currently structured, is for sh*t. Granted, it's a better deal than most working people get, but it still blows when you look at baseball and basketball. The owners are sumbags and I hope they get screwed.

[GhostOfGlennFoley]

Goddammit, I had so much hope for this guy. Especially after seeing the videos of him blowing through Jake Long while they were both in school. What the hell happened to THAT guy? Long has been an excellent player and will be for years to come, why couldn't Gholston compete on the same level after kicking his a$$ in college?

[Vudu]

Sure he did. He did everything he was asked to do EXCEPT MAKE A IMPACT PLAY!