NFL Wild Card Round: Browns picked to finish last in AL Central in 2016.

[JonSnow4President]

Seattle over Minnesotta.  Russel Wilson + Legion of Boom.  Good enough for me.

Green Bay over Washington.  As a Cowboys fan, I refuse to pick the Redskins on principle.  

Pitt over Cinci (one I'm least confident about).  Given Cinci's history, and Antonio ridiculous receiver Brown, I'm taking pitt.

KC over Houston.  I like KC's defense over Houston outside of Watt, and for those team's styles, I'm taking the better D.

[Mexal]

Oh hey, my predictions:

Seattle over Minnesota. I think this will be a very close game, actually, with Seattle struggling early due to Minnesota being able to put pressure on Wilson thanks to getting back their defensive line - but I think that Seattle's defense still matches up way too well with Minnesota's offense and focus on the run game, and will just get enough to win. Something like a 16-6 game, I think.

Washington over Green Bay: I think Aaron Rodgers is the best QB in the NFL right now and I think this is a good example of how you need a good team, not just one good QB. In particular GB's defense isn't good enough, their corners are super shaky right now and going up against one of the best sets of receivers in the league. Mostly, it's that the GB offensive line is horrible, and GB is on the road.

Cinci over Pittsburgh: I know that McCarron is playing. I know that Pittsburgh is hot. I also know that Pittsburgh is heavily hurt by injuries, lost to friggin Baltimore the other day, and isn't playing out of their mind right now. Plus McCarron has had some time to get reps and isn't being thrown in the middle of the game like he was. 

KC over Houston: Houston isn't that good. They are, by DVOA, the worst playoff team. KC is a well balanced team that has big advantages in defense and special teams. 

Basically the way I see Wild Card weekend. In my heart I have Cincy winning though I'm going into the game with low expectations to manage my feelings if they lose.

[DanteGabriel]

 Regarding the millionaire athletes versus billionaire owners thing, I think you have to take it on a case by case basis. Like would anyone at this point defend Ol "Billy" Football against the Browns? I think there are instances in which the athlete is just wrong.

Probably not. But Jimmy Haslam makes that tougher than it should be. A politically-connected crooked billionaire with a revolving door hiring policy vs. spoiled bratty douchebag? I'd just pray for a meteorite to take out their meeting room.

Oh and in other news, RG3 said, if he's cut by Washington, he'd like to be a Cowboy. Wonderful news! Which disgraced and recently tossed to the curb quarterback it going to be, Jones Boys? Griffin or Manziel? Maybe BOTH. You should go for both. 

[Maithanet]

Every player also sits there and signs a contract allowing them to do so.  

What does that even mean?  Both parties are there when the contract is signed.  The club can rip up the contract whenever a player underperforms.  A player cannot void his contract, but can sit out and ask for a new contract.  Why is a player "despicable" for exercising that option when he overperforms when teams so readily cancel contracts for players who underperform?

I feel like if all contracts were guaranteed, I would agree with you.  You sign the contract, and both parties are taking a risk.  If you overperform, then the team got a great deal, and you have to live with it.  If you underperform, the player got a great deal, as he is being overpaid for his performance.  But the NFL would never never accept fully guaranteed contracts like the NBA and MLB have.   

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

NFL franchises have no time for sentiment, but demand it from players when convenient, and from fans at all times. 

Strangely enough USA Today has a pretty solid article based on that very premise...

http://ftw.usatoday.com/2016/01/rams-chargers-raiders-move-to-los-angeles-london-nfl-owners-proposal?utm_source=fark&utm_medium=website&utm_content=link

 

[JonSnow4President]

What does that even mean?  Both parties are there when the contract is signed.  The club can rip up the contract whenever a player underperforms.  A player cannot void his contract, but can sit out and ask for a new contract.  Why is a player "despicable" for exercising that option when he overperforms when teams so readily cancel contracts for players who underperform?

I feel like if all contracts were guaranteed, I would agree with you.  You sign the contract, and both parties are taking a risk.  If you overperform, then the team got a great deal, and you have to live with it.  If you underperform, the player got a great deal, as he is being overpaid for his performance.  But the NFL would never never accept fully guaranteed contracts like the NBA and MLB have.   

Because the players (or agents) specifically sit down, negotiate what money is guaranteed wholesale, what is guaranteed for injury, what time periods that will be distributed in.  All of this takes place under a broader CBA, which the union, which represents the players, borrows for.  

They have their protections in place.  If they aren't happy with the outcomes of their own negotiations, both individual and collective, screw em.  

[Maithanet]

Because the players (or agents) specifically sit down, negotiate what money is guaranteed wholesale, what is guaranteed for injury, what time periods that will be distributed in.  All of this takes place under a broader CBA, which the union, which represents the players, borrows for.  

Rrright, and the player is sitting out, which is explicitly his right under the CBA.  Why is this despicable?

[ljkeane]

What does that even mean?  Both parties are there when the contract is signed.  The club can rip up the contract whenever a player underperforms.  A player cannot void his contract, but can sit out and ask for a new contract.  Why is a player "despicable" for exercising that option when he overperforms when teams so readily cancel contracts for players who underperform?

I feel like if all contracts were guaranteed, I would agree with you.  You sign the contract, and both parties are taking a risk.  If you overperform, then the team got a great deal, and you have to live with it.  If you underperform, the player got a great deal, as he is being overpaid for his performance.  But the NFL would never never accept fully guaranteed contracts like the NBA and MLB have.   

I absolutely think the way NFL contracts work should be illegal, it's ridiculous. If I actually think about it I feel kind of bad for watching the games and tacitly supporting the system.

[Kalbear]

Because the players (or agents) specifically sit down, negotiate what money is guaranteed wholesale, what is guaranteed for injury, what time periods that will be distributed in.  All of this takes place under a broader CBA, which the union, which represents the players, borrows for.  

They have their protections in place.  If they aren't happy with the outcomes of their own negotiations, both individual and collective, screw em.  

And if the ownership wants a harder line on holdouts, they can negotiate for that. If they aren't happy with the outcomes of their own negotiations which allow things like holdouts and retirements, screw 'em. 

Why are you upset with one side and not the other?

[Maithanet]

I absolutely think the way NFL contracts work should be illegal, it's ridiculous. If I actually think about it I feel kind of bad for watching the games and tacitly supporting the system.

Just for fun, imagine a system where the reverse were true.  All contracts are guaranteed by the teams, but players can tear them up at any time and become free agents.  If a player is unhappy with his contract, he could come into the office and say "you better give me another million, or I'm going to be playing somewhere else next week".  It would be ANARCHY. 

I feel like virtually all fans underestimate the pressure on all players to perform every week or be cut.  Half the roster could be cut or placed on IR after a couple of bad games.  And this in spite of the fact that injuries are an inevitable part of football. 

[Kalbear]

I'm becoming more convinced that the cap and the whole thing just needs to go away. Fully guaranteed contracts, no cap. Screw it. Let's go back to the days of the 80s. 

It's not like we don't have largely the same teams doing well year in and year out anyway. 

[Rhom]

Sean Payton staying in NO. Damn, wanted to see what he could do elsewhere.

Just saw that and was coming to post.

As a Niners fan, I was intrigued by the chance to have a known commodity at head coach... but also didn't want to give up draft picks as compensation.

[Kalbear]

It's interesting how little coaching movement there is.

Lions still haven't fired Caldwell. We get renews in Indy and SD. Fisher isn't fired. Jags are sticking with whatshisface. And no announcements about coaching hires yet. 

[JonSnow4President]

It's interesting how little coaching movement there is.

Lions still haven't fired Caldwell. We get renews in Indy and SD. Fisher isn't fired. Jags are sticking with whatshisface. And no announcements about coaching hires yet. 

What's Indy doing with the GM?  As an outsider, I'd put this season much more on a GM than I would on Pagano.  That team is very little besides Andrew Luck and some duct tape.  

Also think Bradley showed progress (even off the scoreboard) with the Jags, so he deserves at least one more year.  That was a hell of a rebuild.  Bortles looked good, Hurns looked very good, and Robinson looked downright great.  

[Kalbear]

What's Indy doing with the GM?  As an outsider, I'd put this season much more on a GM than I would on Pagano.  That team is very little besides Andrew Luck and some duct tape.  

Grigson is being retained, but for how long no one knows. 

[Maithanet]

Grigson is being retained, but for how long no one knows. 

Most likely when Irsay drops whatever shiny object he is holding. 

[JonSnow4President]

Grigson is being retained, but for how long no one knows. 

I'd be pissed if I was an Indy fan.  

As a Cowboys fan, I know all about how it is to have a crap GM who isn't (or can't) be fired when they deserve it.  It's a sad world when i'm glad Steven Jones seems to be doing more than Jerry.

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

That is a harsh policy, but I could get behind it. Or maybe add an addendum, if you have ever used taxpayer money to build a stadium your team can never relocate. 

Couldn't they get around that by just shutting down the franchise and then opening an expansion a few years later?

I suppose you could make it a rule that a city that lost a team get first dibs on expansions, but that's not always feasible.

I'm becoming more convinced that the cap and the whole thing just needs to go away. Fully guaranteed contracts, no cap. Screw it. Let's go back to the days of the 80s. 

It's not like we don't have largely the same teams doing well year in and year out anyway. 

with or without free agency?

[Ramsay B.]

Just saw that and was coming to post.

As a Niners fan, I was intrigued by the chance to have a known commodity at head coach... but also didn't want to give up draft picks as compensation.

Yeah. I wanted Payton back with G-Men but heard they wanted a 2nd round pick and that's just too much with the lack of talent this team has.

[Kalbear]

with or without free agency?

With, presumably.