Joey007
Pro Bowl Player
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2010
- Messages
- 16,019
- Reaction score
- 21,178
Registered Members experience this forum ad and noise-free.
CLICK HERE to Register for a free account and login for a smoother ad-free experience. It's easy, and only takes a few moments.I think the concern is players who are likely to get cut at roster cut-down day and don't necessarily have a high chance of making another 53-man roster in the future - they can opt-out now for $150k and then not play anymore. From what I saw, teams are concerned that even though it's a "loan" against future money, if the player doesn't earn any future money they don't feel confident they'll get it back. Multiply that situation against 10+ players on all 32 teams and it's a substantial amount of money... though you'd think the NFL can afford it, regardless.This doesn't make much sense because unless those players are in a high risk group they will have to pay those 150k back next year. It is an advance and not new money.
Why? Billy isn't doing anything with the $20M already handed to him.Please opt out, Sanu.
Yeah, the NFL is not getting that money back from players like Vitale and LaCosse who probably won't get another job. And it would be a bad look for the NFL trying to get $150k from a player who wasn't a high earner and opted out in fear of the virus.From what I saw, teams are concerned that even though it's a "loan" against future money, if the player doesn't earn any future money they don't feel confident they'll get it back.
With all those concussions, I just hope he’s still thinking in general.Jordan Reed still thinking about playing?
I think the concern is players who are likely to get cut at roster cut-down day and don't necessarily have a high chance of making another 53-man roster in the future - they can opt-out now for $150k and then not play anymore. From what I saw, teams are concerned that even though it's a "loan" against future money, if the player doesn't earn any future money they don't feel confident they'll get it back.
Izzo is in fact a better blocker, but at the end of the day who cares..they both ultimately suckOnly thing true is that he is cheaper. He shouldn't even sniff the roster.
I thought I read that the $150K/$350K was not a grant but an advance/loan that must be paid back.. Granted I'd like to see them get it from cut players ......I was reading on PFT that teams are worried that guys not likely to make the roster will start opting out to ensure a paycheque.
Could be the case here.
Why? Billy isn't doing anything with the $20M already handed to him.
I think the concern is players who are likely to get cut at roster cut-down day and don't necessarily have a high chance of making another 53-man roster in the future - they can opt-out now for $150k and then not play anymore. From what I saw, teams are concerned that even though it's a "loan" against future money, if the player doesn't earn any future money they don't feel confident they'll get it back. Multiply that situation against 10+ players on all 32 teams and it's a substantial amount of money... though you'd think the NFL can afford it, regardless.
IMO - it could happen for some players - but the fact the player is restricted from opting back in also might dissuade many others. Yeah you could opt out for $150k but then in 3 weeks when the team you spent camp with needs a guy at your position because their guy got hurt/sick/etc you're not able to come back and get signed for more potentially. So realistically it only makes sense for some few JAG level players who are at the very end of their careers.
Unless the Pats sign a veteran like Delanie Walker you will now have to deal with Izzo making the team instead. I'd much rather would have had a healthy LaCosse.
It’s not a matter of the league affording it. It comes off the cap, so ultimately it affects other players not owners.I think the concern is players who are likely to get cut at roster cut-down day and don't necessarily have a high chance of making another 53-man roster in the future - they can opt-out now for $150k and then not play anymore. From what I saw, teams are concerned that even though it's a "loan" against future money, if the player doesn't earn any future money they don't feel confident they'll get it back. Multiply that situation against 10+ players on all 32 teams and it's a substantial amount of money... though you'd think the NFL can afford it, regardless.
IMO - it could happen for some players - but the fact the player is restricted from opting back in also might dissuade many others. Yeah you could opt out for $150k but then in 3 weeks when the team you spent camp with needs a guy at your position because their guy got hurt/sick/etc you're not able to come back and get signed for more potentially. So realistically it only makes sense for some few JAG level players who are at the very end of their careers.
Izzo has the potential to be a good blocker. Last year he stank. Badly.Izzo is a good blocker. I’ll take him at TE 3.
As mentioned in another thread, I heard Andrew Brandt's podcast (former Green Bay director of football operations) and his response to getting the money back was "good luck". Sure you can litigate but that costs the team thousands of dollars of legal fees and results in bupkis. He said in the past the team has given players advances etc and then cut them and they know they will not see that money ever again in most cases. He's said he's been pleasantly surprised in a few cases, but only a few.I don't understand what you are saying. They have to pay it back the same way that you'd have to pay back any loan. The teams will be able to just go to court and litigate that. Do you think those players will be able to go off the grid and change their names or something ?
I mean they have still about 40-50 years of working life ahead of them if they can't make any NFL roster.
The league is just spinning this into a non existing problem when in reality they are just scared that more players will opt out and make the league look like the bozos they are once they have been in the facilities and have a better idea what this year will look like.
Not saying I think it’s likely or reasonable, I am just saying what I’ve seen said. IMO I think the league is being ****ty here.I don't understand what you are saying. They have to pay it back the same way that you'd have to pay back any loan. The teams will be able to just go to court and litigate that. Do you think those players will be able to go off the grid and change their names or something ?
I mean they have still about 40-50 years of working life ahead of them if they can't make any NFL roster.
The league is just spinning this into a non existing problem when in reality they are just scared that more players will opt out and make the league look like the bozos they are once they have been in the facilities and have a better idea what this year will look like.