Clowney Trending for some reason.

[BADOLBILZ]

6 minutes ago, ScottLaw said:

 

 

My point is it doesn't take 4 years to rebuild a football team. The Dolphins can very well be a contender a year from now so how is making a trade for one of the leagues best pass rushers a bad move? 

 

Hell, they would know. They went 1-15 one year and made the playoffs the next. 

 

 

In reality re-builds typically happen fast or fail.    I don't think Flores expects to get a 3rd season to get into contention.    

[Royale with Cheese]

23 minutes ago, ScottLaw said:

Are you that thick?

 

My point is it doesn't take 4 years to rebuild a football team. The Dolphins can very well be a contender a year from now so how is making a trade for one of the leagues best pass rushers a bad move? 

 

Hell, they would know. They went 1-15 one year and made the playoffs the next. 

 

Oh they really do?  That happened 12 years ago.  They have a completely new roster and completely new front office/GM.  So I guess the Bills current Front Office know how to get to the Super Bowl because we have done it before.

 

You have no idea what the Dolphins final roster looks like for 2019 but in 2020.....that roster could be good enough to compete.  LOL...grow up.

[Logic]

24 minutes ago, KayAdams said:

 

If the Bills aren't ready to compete for a Super Bowl title by NEXT SEASON, then something wrong happened along the way with this latest rebuild. Rebuilds in pro football aren't supposed to take longer than 3 or 4 years. The salary cap template for this roster is such that there is plenty of room allocated for 1 elite Jim Johnson-style 4-3 DE, especially for the time that Allen is on his rookie contract.

??

[BillsVet]

48 minutes ago, KayAdams said:

If the Bills aren't ready to compete for a Super Bowl title by NEXT SEASON, then something wrong happened along the way with this latest rebuild. Rebuilds in pro football aren't supposed to take longer than 3 or 4 years. The salary cap template for this roster is such that there is plenty of room allocated for 1 elite Jim Johnson-style 4-3 DE, especially for the time that Allen is on his rookie contract.

 

For years, fans here have been quick to celebrate average or even mediocre teams.  Case in point: During the 2008 season I distinctly remember people happy that after 2+ seasons of Jauron-ball, the Bills were 6-5 after whipping the Chiefs 54-31 in KC.  My contention then was the same as it is now...that after 3 off-seasons of rebuilding it was completely unsatisfactory that Buffalo was barely .500 at that juncture.  And this was after a 5-2 start.

 

If an entity is not getting better, it is getting worse.  It's why going 8-8 or 9-7 is not enough improvement after all the drafts, UFA dollars, coaching changes, and scheme consistency by now.  Deep down, a lot of fans here are afraid to expect a 10+ win season because there's a chance that it won't happen.  It's why, after all the chest thumping, their expectations remain low.  No sense in having a bruised ego from one's favorite team not achieving.  

[stinky finger]

1 hour ago, BADOLBILZ said:

 

 

In reality re-builds typically happen fast or fail.    I don't think Flores expects to get a 3rd season to get into contention.    

 

I think we can agree the Dolphins will suck this year. What would he have to do in year 2 to expect a 3rd year? Make the playoffs?

[BADOLBILZ]

2 minutes ago, inaugural balls said:

 

I think we can agree the Dolphins will suck this year. What would he have to do in year 2 to expect a 3rd year? Make the playoffs?

 

The quality of play will have to be good.

 

Something like McD's 7 blowout losses and a -105 point differential in year 2 will get Flores fired, IMO.

 

You hire a Patriots assistant because you want a coach who does more with less.

[Royale with Cheese]

2 hours ago, ScottLaw said:

And neither do you.

 

You are assuming there is no way the Dolphins are a competitive team in the near future. That's a ridiculous assumption given the recent history of certain teams in the league.

 

No I never said that.  I clearly said we don’t know at all what their roster looks like now or a year from now.  Somehow that means me saying they won’t be good?

Edited August 28, 2019 by Royale with Cheese

[SectionC3]

5 hours ago, Rochesterfan said:

@SectionC3

 

Since they closed the other thread.

 

Here is my response:

 

 

 

Is a journalist working on these things more knowledgeable than you who have read one section of the CBA.

 

Again - please show me anyone interpreting the CBA your way as opposed to the multiple reports over the last several years showing that once the date passes - the contract is set and cannot be discussed until the end of the NFL year.

 

I understand what you are saying, but you seem to be alone in your understanding and have nothing to stand on other than your interpretation.  

 

Here is another her article from when Bell was on the Tag last year:

 

 

 

Bell's contractual status

Players with unsigned tenders can't be traded until signed. I dealt with this particular aspect of Bell's situation while an agent. One of the players I helped represent was cornerback Jimmy Hitchcock. The Patriots informed us during the 1998 NFL Draft, after they used a first-round pick to select Tebucky Jones, a safety who would be moved to cornerback, that a trade with the Ravens had been worked out for Hitchcock. Since Hitchcock didn't want to be dealt to a team that drafted a cornerback in the first round, we advised him to refuse to sign his restricted free-agent tender. His refusal killed the trade. Hitchcock subsequently signed his tender for a trade to the Vikings, who hadn't used a high draft choice on a cornerback. Essentially, Bell has a de facto no-trade clause or veto power of a trade.

 

By CBA rule, franchise players who don't sign long term by the mid-July deadline are prohibited from signing a multi-year contract until after the 2018 regular season, which ends on Dec. 30. This prohibition on signing a long-term deal also applies to any team acquiring Bell in a trade.

 

 

Now just show me one recent article or point of view of anyone in the NFL circle saying he can sign a deal with the new team.  I get it you read the one section of the CBA on way, but I am telling you the people that may actually know something and have actual sources to talk to in the league office are all pointing out the same message above.  This is not the first issue with a player not signing the tag after the July drop dead date and these guys have a lot more information and data to draw on.

 

Sorry to keep ruining your day. ?

 

You aren't ruining my day.  I do this for a living.  It's a bad provision, and it only takes one smart lawyer to exploit it. All you're doing is regurgitating articles by people who are parroting the same misconception.  Repetition doesn't add validity to a point.  

 

EDIT - the point you emphasize in your quote seems to be a journalist's explanation of the CBA.  No CBA language is cited in that passage; by contrast, I quoted it earlier nd explained precisely how the clause could and should be attacked in favor of the player. 

 

Along those lines, nothing you've referenced addresses my point (one that you have been unable to rebut, for what it's worth) - the language is ambiguous and it has the potential to cause a problem for the league if a smart agent tries to exploit it.  

 

Things like this have happened before even in the NFL context - I believe Brees had a tag grievance that nobody saw coming that he won.  On the flip side, the moron who represents Bell didn't realize that Bell could have been subject to a franchise/transition tag for the 2019 season until deep into Bell's holdout.

 

In point of fact, issues like the one I've presented arise all of the time in the "real world."  You would be surprised how much your homeowners' and auto policies are litigated, even though the "guts" of those contracts have been around for years, if not for decades. 

Edited August 28, 2019 by SectionC3

[Rochesterfan]

1 hour ago, SectionC3 said:

 

You aren't ruining my day.  I do this for a living.  It's a bad provision, and it only takes one smart lawyer to exploit it. All you're doing is regurgitating articles by people who are parroting the same misconception.  Repetition doesn't add validity to a point.  

 

EDIT - the point you emphasize in your quote seems to be a journalist's explanation of the CBA.  No CBA language is cited in that passage; by contrast, I quoted it earlier nd explained precisely how the clause could and should be attacked in favor of the player. 

 

Along those lines, nothing you've referenced addresses my point (one that you have been unable to rebut, for what it's worth) - the language is ambiguous and it has the potential to cause a problem for the league if a smart agent tries to exploit it.  

 

Things like this have happened before even in the NFL context - I believe Brees had a tag grievance that nobody saw coming that he won.  On the flip side, the moron who represents Bell didn't realize that Bell could have been subject to a franchise/transition tag for the 2019 season until deep into Bell's holdout.

 

In point of fact, issues like the one I've presented arise all of the time in the "real world."  You would be surprised how much your homeowners' and auto policies are litigated, even though the "guts" of those contracts have been around for years, if not for decades. 

 

 

Yep I am sure all of these Tags - year after year and not one has challenged it because they are all stupid.  Or maybe as you stated originally- you only read that part of the CBA and do not know what other rules and subtexts are part of it.

 

Again - all I can say is should I believe all of the articles, research, lawyers working for the networks, and NFL guys that state one thing OR a guy that is on the internet and read one small passage and thinks he knows more than everyone else the last 15+ years.

 

Hmm choices - not sure ? - I will go with the vast majority understand something you don’t - whether it is a hidden provision that you do not have, whether it was something explicitly stated elsewhere, or whether it has never come up and will never come up.

 

Finally - Again at least I have cited references of why I believe the point is what it is.  You can disagree, but you can not provide me with one scrape of proof that your interpretation is at all within the scope of the CBA.  In fact you even admitted early on that you have not read the CBA - just a small section you quoted - that other pointed out - they believe you totally misinterpreted, but stand your ground and have fun.  

 

I am sure just like your AB example - this would end up another loss where the agent looks like a total moron for trying to exploit a loophole that isn’t there. ?

[Reed83HOF]

 

[stinky finger]

3 hours ago, BADOLBILZ said:

 

The quality of play will have to be good.

 

Something like McD's 7 blowout losses and a -105 point differential in year 2 will get Flores fired, IMO.

 

You hire a Patriots assistant because you want a coach who does more with less.

 

If this timeline is true I suspect a coaching change.

[BADOLBILZ]

Just now, inaugural balls said:

 

If this timeline is true I suspect a coaching change.

 

I don't have any reason to believe Stephen Ross has changed nor do I believe that Flores is proving to be a personnel whisperer so I'd say that's a reasonable bet.

 

Maybe he has the coaching chops to get away with things like he did with Stills but I wouldn't even be surprised if he got a one-and-done

 

[Gugny]

32 minutes ago, BADOLBILZ said:

 

I don't have any reason to believe Stephen Ross has changed nor do I believe that Flores is proving to be a personnel whisperer so I'd say that's a reasonable bet.

 

Maybe he has the coaching chops to get away with things like he did with Stills but I wouldn't even be surprised if he got a one-and-done

 

 

Flores was hired as a token because the other teams filled all the vacancies with white coaches and Lynn was the last African American hired to such a post in 2017. 

 

He was one-and-done as soon as he signed the contract.

 

[SectionC3]

10 hours ago, Rochesterfan said:

 

 

Yep I am sure all of these Tags - year after year and not one has challenged it because they are all stupid.  Or maybe as you stated originally- you only read that part of the CBA and do not know what other rules and subtexts are part of it.

 

Again - all I can say is should I believe all of the articles, research, lawyers working for the networks, and NFL guys that state one thing OR a guy that is on the internet and read one small passage and thinks he knows more than everyone else the last 15+ years.

 

Hmm choices - not sure ? - I will go with the vast majority understand something you don’t - whether it is a hidden provision that you do not have, whether it was something explicitly stated elsewhere, or whether it has never come up and will never come up.

 

Finally - Again at least I have cited references of why I believe the point is what it is.  You can disagree, but you can not provide me with one scrape of proof that your interpretation is at all within the scope of the CBA.  In fact you even admitted early on that you have not read the CBA - just a small section you quoted - that other pointed out - they believe you totally misinterpreted, but stand your ground and have fun.  

 

I am sure just like your AB example - this would end up another loss where the agent looks like a total moron for trying to exploit a loophole that isn’t there. ?

 

Your references are journalist-based.  You don't seem to get it.  Your beliefs that lawyers contributed to those articles is an assumption.  

 

Since you seem to enjoy playing lawyer, instead of citing one article after another by somebody who graduated from Mizzou or Newhouse or wherever, try reading the CBA and prove that I'm wrong.  Or find some arb decisions that say I'm wrong.  Put your money where your mouth is. I'll be here all day. 

 

EDIT:  And, for what it's worth, you still can't refute the point that the clause is very, very poorly written and leaves open the possibility that it could be construed my way by an independent arbitrator.   

Edited August 28, 2019 by SectionC3

[GunnerBill]

4 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

 

Your references are journalist-based.  You don't seem to get it.  Your beliefs that lawyers contributed to those articles is an assumption.  

 

Since you seem to enjoy playing lawyer, instead of citing one article after another by somebody who graduated from Mizzou or Newhouse or wherever, try reading the CBA and prove that I'm wrong.  Or find some arb decisions that say I'm wrong.  Put your money where your mouth is. I'll be here all day. 

 

EDIT:  And, for what it's worth, you still can't refute the point that the clause is very, very poorly written and leaves open the possibility that it could be construed my way by an independent arbitrator.   

 

I still totally disagree with you on your interpretation of the CBA. I interpret legislation for a living and I don't think your interpretation holds water. That has nothing to do with what a journalist thinks I just don't read the words as being capable of meaning the meaning you infer. It is very clear to me. The only contract that can be signed is a one year player contract with his prior club. That excludes the possibility of the player signing any other contrat that season. 

[SectionC3]

2 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

 

I still totally disagree with you on your interpretation of the CBA. I interpret legislation for a living and I don't think your interpretation holds water. That has nothing to do with what a journalist thinks I just don't read the words as being capable of meaning the meaning you infer. It is very clear to me. The only contract that can be signed is a one year player contract with his prior club. That excludes the possibility of the player signing any other contrat that season. 

 

So do I.  And, as noted, the phraseology is poor.  Here's the sentence in question:

 

"After that date, the player may sign only a one-year Player Contract with his Prior Club for that season, and such Player Contract may not be extended until after the Club’s last regular season game of that League Year."

 

Your interpretation would be rock solid if the language was "the only contract a player may sign until the completion of the Prior Club's last regular season game of that League Year is a one-year Player Contract with his Prior Club for that season."  (And, in point of candor, my point would be rock solid if the language read, "After that date, the player may sign with his Prior Club only a one-year Player Contract for that season).  

 

In any event, your interpretation would still be pretty close to rock solid if the sentence referenced above is read in isolation.  The problem remains that the first sentence of the paragraph (not quoted here) suggests that the limitation on contract applies only to the franchising club.  As noted in a prior post, the last clause of the sentence I quoted above creates a problem from the player's perspective - it suggests that a one-year agreement signed by a franchised player can't be extended until after the Prior Club's final regular season game.  But that clause must be read in conjunction with the first sentence of the paragraph, which, again, suggests that the prohibition against extension applies only to the relationship between the franchising club and the franchised player. 

 

Taking a broader view of this issue, it's common sense that the league is going to interpret this clause the way that you and the Rochester guy (whatever his name is) do.  Allowing the player to sign a multi-year agreement with 31 teams, but only a one-year agreement with the franchising team, incentivizes stalling on the part of the player to force a trade to a team eligible to reach a long-term agreement with him.  That can't be what owners want.  But it would be much better from the player's perspective if he was eligible to sign a long-term agreement with any of the 31 other teams in the league after July 15.  In Clowney's case, it might be an $80 million issue.  To borrow from Chuck Dickerson, you bet your bippy that I would be all over this if I was his counsel. 

[thebandit27]

7 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

 

So do I.  And, as noted, the phraseology is poor.  Here's the sentence in question:

 

"After that date, the player may sign only a one-year Player Contract with his Prior Club for that season, and such Player Contract may not be extended until after the Club’s last regular season game of that League Year."

 

Your interpretation would be rock solid if the language was "the only contract a player may sign until the completion of the Prior Club's last regular season game of that League Year is a one-year Player Contract with his Prior Club for that season."  (And, in point of candor, my point would be rock solid if the language read, "After that date, the player may sign with his Prior Club only a one-year Player Contract for that season).  

 

In any event, your interpretation would still be pretty close to rock solid if the sentence referenced above is read in isolation.  The problem remains that the first sentence of the paragraph (not quoted here) suggests that the limitation on contract applies only to the franchising club.  As noted in a prior post, the last clause of the sentence I quoted above creates a problem from the player's perspective - it suggests that a one-year agreement signed by a franchised player can't be extended until after the Prior Club's final regular season game.  But that clause must be read in conjunction with the first sentence of the paragraph, which, again, suggests that the prohibition against extension applies only to the relationship between the franchising club and the franchised player. 

 

Taking a broader view of this issue, it's common sense that the league is going to interpret this clause the way that you and the Rochester guy (whatever his name is) do.  Allowing the player to sign a multi-year agreement with 31 teams, but only a one-year agreement with the franchising team, incentivizes stalling on the part of the player to force a trade to a team eligible to reach a long-term agreement with him.  That can't be what owners want.  But it would be much better from the player's perspective if he was eligible to sign a long-term agreement with any of the 31 other teams in the league after July 15.  In Clowney's case, it might be an $80 million issue.  To borrow from Chuck Dickerson, you bet your bippy that I would be all over this if I was his counsel. 

 

Here's the CBA for anyone that wants to analyze:

https://nfllabor.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/collective-bargaining-agreement-2011-2020.pdf

 

The first sentence of the paragraph in question doesn't imply what you're suggesting.  Here's the whole paragraph:

 

Any Club designating a Franchise Player shall have until 4:00 p.m., New York time, on July 15 of the League Year (or, if July 15 falls on a Saturday or Sunday, the first Monday thereafter) for which the designation takes effect to sign the player to a multiyear contract or extension. After that date, the player may sign only a one-year Player Contract with his Prior Club for that season, and such Player Contract may not be extended until after the Club’s last regular season game of that League Year.

 

It's pretty clear: player gets tagged, tagging club has until the deadline to sign him to a new deal. After that date, player can only sign a one-year contract with his prior club, and can't be extended until after that club's final regular season game.

[r00tabaga]

A lot of poster pooh flying around tidayyy

Smh-

[buffalobloodfloridahome]

It's very similar to when we got Mario Williams and until we tried to make him a coverage DE he was a stud for us

[ColoradoBills]

23 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

 

So do I.  And, as noted, the phraseology is poor.  Here's the sentence in question:

 

"After that date, the player may sign only a one-year Player Contract with his Prior Club for that season, and such Player Contract may not be extended until after the Club’s last regular season game of that League Year."

 

Your interpretation would be rock solid if the language was "the only contract a player may sign until the completion of the Prior Club's last regular season game of that League Year is a one-year Player Contract with his Prior Club for that season."  (And, in point of candor, my point would be rock solid if the language read, "After that date, the player may sign with his Prior Club only a one-year Player Contract for that season).  

 

In any event, your interpretation would still be pretty close to rock solid if the sentence referenced above is read in isolation.  The problem remains that the first sentence of the paragraph (not quoted here) suggests that the limitation on contract applies only to the franchising club.  As noted in a prior post, the last clause of the sentence I quoted above creates a problem from the player's perspective - it suggests that a one-year agreement signed by a franchised player can't be extended until after the Prior Club's final regular season game.  But that clause must be read in conjunction with the first sentence of the paragraph, which, again, suggests that the prohibition against extension applies only to the relationship between the franchising club and the franchised player. 

 

Taking a broader view of this issue, it's common sense that the league is going to interpret this clause the way that you and the Rochester guy (whatever his name is) do.  Allowing the player to sign a multi-year agreement with 31 teams, but only a one-year agreement with the franchising team, incentivizes stalling on the part of the player to force a trade to a team eligible to reach a long-term agreement with him.  That can't be what owners want.  But it would be much better from the player's perspective if he was eligible to sign a long-term agreement with any of the 31 other teams in the league after July 15.  In Clowney's case, it might be an $80 million issue.  To borrow from Chuck Dickerson, you bet your bippy that I would be all over this if I was his counsel. 

 

I see you point in your interpretation of the 1st bolded but that explains the tagging teams.  The thing that isn't specified there is that when a team

trades a player they are trading the contract with all its details, which is specified in a different location of the CBA.

 

The 2nd bolded would make "tagging" useless.  This whole franchise tag system will be changed or abandoned in the next CBA in my opinion.