GunnerBill Posted January 2 Share Posted January 2 2 minutes ago, The Jokeman said: Why? It's like when the Bills sat Tyrod a few seasons back in the season finale to avoid some cap hit/payout the following season incase he got hurt. It isn't that bit they might be in trouble for. They are entitled to do that. Threatening to bench a player unless they concede a previously agreed to guarantee in their contract however is potentially a breach of the CBA 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Hindsight Posted January 2 Share Posted January 2 6 minutes ago, The Jokeman said: Why? It's like when the Bills sat Tyrod a few seasons back in the season finale to avoid some cap hit/payout the following season incase he got hurt. I saw something with the NFLPA being involved and what the broncos asked was kind of a no-no. I doubt they lose a pick, but I could see some kind of fine Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted January 2 Share Posted January 2 18 minutes ago, GunnerBill said: While the Broncos season was not technically lost they conceded it was all but. In fact, weren’t they eliminated prior to kickoff even? 14 minutes ago, GunnerBill said: It isn't that bit they might be in trouble for. They are entitled to do that. Threatening to bench a player unless they concede a previously agreed to guarantee in their contract however is potentially a breach of the CBA While I won’t weigh in on CBA legalities- I will say as a player I’d rather have the choice to waive it instead of simply being benched because of the unspoken dynamic of it existing 1 hour ago, Mr. WEO said: The Stidham for Carr I already covered in another post. Ditto for The Broncos squeezing Wilson months ago to relinquish the injury clause or get benched (he said no and the NFLPA got the Broncos to back off--see above)--so it's the same issue with the same player and team. Jimmy G was benched for cause--they had just fired McDaniels and Garoppolo was playing poorly (he had already missed games due to an injury and concussion), going 3-3 and 7 TDs on 9 INTS. He wasn't benched because he refused to remove an injury guarantee from his contract. The question hasn't changed. Tyrod Taylor an Jimmy Garoppolo were the wrong answers, for the obvious reasons (stated). you probably should stay in your Robert Kraft obsession lane.... my point with the Denver news article coming out prior to the ask even happening was that benching to avoid injury risk is relatively common. So much so that Denver writers were talking about it as a play even prior to the team broaching it. Unless you think they were bringing some new and novel idea the league had not seen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted January 2 Share Posted January 2 1 hour ago, NoSaint said: In fact, weren’t they eliminated prior to kickoff even? While I won’t weigh in on CBA legalities- I will say as a player I’d rather have the choice to waive it instead of simply being benched because of the unspoken dynamic of it existing my point with the Denver news article coming out prior to the ask even happening was that benching to avoid injury risk is relatively common. So much so that Denver writers were talking about it as a play even prior to the team broaching it. Unless you think they were bringing some new and novel idea the league had not seen. It isn't a common play to actually bench your recently big contract signed vet QB1 midseason for fear of having to pay him money you have decided you no longer want to pay him. There's Carr and there's Wilson. That's the list. The other guys you listed don't fall into this category. Wilson, in the end, was not given this choice. He said no the first time, got some backup from the NFLPA, then they did it anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.