I'm shocked they released him. By all accounts they loved him and he was involved in the starting offense this preseason. Yeah, the dude can't stay healthy, but he is now. Its not as if the broncos have an embarrassment of riches at WR. They have Sutton, Mims, and....?https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/41005879/source-broncos-release-wr-tim-patrick-no-trade
I sure hope he doesn't make it into the NFC West. This guy has had a bad run of injuries. When he's healthy he's a gamer.
By 4 p.m. ET on Tuesday, Aug. 27, all 32 teams must reduce their active rosters to 53 players.Deadline 12 noon or 1?
Damn, if only teams would quit misusing him.
View: https://x.com/TomPelissero/status/1828440662980673538
I agree with this. The Players Association can't do anything about league trends, which are driven by strategy, player availability from college, and all manner of other shit. That's not the hill to die on for them.The can cry all they want, but it still cant be considered collusion if the owners are spending to the cap limits. The NFLPA represents all of the players so in order to argue one position is paid less intentionally, the solution would be to pay them more which would require paying others less... Again, the pie is only so big, and since the teams all push the limits of the cap there really cant be collusion against any position.
Yeah.. calling it collusion is a stretch.. as you say, market forces are dictating that.I agree with this. The Players Association can't do anything about league trends, which are driven by strategy, player availability from college, and all manner of other shit. That's not the hill to die on for them.
But I still think a hill they should be dying on is limiting percentage of the team FA pie for one player. Or introducing some sort of requirement to ensure cap value is spread across the roster. I don't know the answer but I think that is something the union who is responsible for ALL players should feel strongly about.
Welp.. one thing I missed...And anybody else remember the stink raised when a few of us said Jefferson wouldn't be the highest paid WR for long? LOL
The Texans are loaded at WR that was an uphill battle for Ben.Was wondering since he played a lot in the last preseason game for Texans if he wasn't making it. At least we got to move our 7th to a 6th rounder in 2026. Will see what kind of pay off that has. Worst case scenario if he stays available we can always grab him in an emergency WR situation during the season since he can step in immediately and know the system.
Yes its a stretch but the NFLPA has a past history of suing the NFL for collusion. It wouldn't surprise me if they do play that card. Anyone saying otherwise just needs to research that and they'll see its a hand they've played before. Once again, doubt it'll do anything as well, but saying its something the NFLPA won't do is laughable at best. I also agree that they should definitely take a different approach but I have zero idea what that would be.Yeah.. calling it collusion is a stretch.. as you say, market forces are dictating that.
From everything I've heard/read.. the players are opposed to capping positions, so.. we'll see.
What I'd like to see is a compensation system for RBs based on touches.. since we know more touches = shorter lifespan. I'm not sure how, exactly, to structure it.. but an RB who's averaging 4+ a carry and getting 1200 + yards deserves to be compensated appropriately. In my mind.. their *rookie* contracts would be structured differently than other positions.. because of the short life span of the position.. and would include massive performance bonuses for great production.
Well of course, that is the play when filing a grievance, but it involves the players as a whole. IIRC there was a grievance over guaranteed contracts (that went nowhere), because that involved players as a whole. They cant accuse the league of collusion for under paying one position in order to pay another. That is basic supply and demandYes its a stretch but the NFLPA has a past history of suing the NFL for collusion
Once again agree with you there so not sure how many times I gotta say that part lol (teasing by the way). Its just a common play they like to use for whatever reason. Hopefully they find some solution to it but I just don't know what it would be as there's always a position or 2 thats gets shafted pay wise.Well of course, that is the play when filing a grievance, but it involves the players as a whole. IIRC there was a grievance over guaranteed contracts (that went nowhere), because that involved players as a whole. They cant accuse the league of collusion for under paying one position in order to pay another. That is basic supply and demand