While some players do well "betting on themselves", that's what it is... a gamble... and in such a violent sport, the odds favor the owners.
Teams don't ignore injuries as they shouldn't which is why players seek guaranteed monies in a violent game as befits looking out for their specific monetary interests.
Excellent discussion.
CTE, debilatating limb injuries, back injuries.....all good reason to get as much money as you can to play this violent game.
And then there are the rule changes, some of which piss off fans who aren't risking any of those issues. Can't hit the QB, except in that "strike zone" from the shoulders to just below the waist. No blocking wedge. No momentum for onside kicks. Defenseless player. Etc. All designed to lessen injuries.
As far as "odds favor the owners", sure because they don't play. They make the real money. Lots of it, but still when they sign a player to a multi-year deal and he is injured and unable to produce like he had previously, they are out a considerable amount of money, (see Gurley) and fans of other teams might say, "well that's the risk you took giving him all that guaranteed money" or "you paid him before you should have" (see Cooks, Gurley and Goff).
Reality is, it's a violent game with inherent physical risks that could affect a player for life. Previous to 2011, some of these players (a small percentage) were paid huge sums of money for what they "might become". Now they're paid much less until they've proven themselves. The result is less risk on ownership as the failures don't cost them nearly as much. But it also gives young players less money to bank should they get injured badly. And most fans were "on board" with that change because without it, their favorite team could be set back many years by that failure, potentially as long as a decade. Back then, even the 2nd and 3rd round selections got paid more than they do now, coming into the league. That old pay scale for incoming players would go a long way towards protecting their future in the event of serious injury. But even the players association was on board with that change. So I ask, those fans who are on board with Watson (or other players), where did you come down on that rookie cap?
It's screwed up to some degree. We, as fans (some? many? most?), love the big hits, the physicality of the game yet we want to have it both ways? The owners are all rich, so sure, they can afford it. Yet when someone signs a contract with a lot of guaranteed money, then demands a trade for whatever reason, it's the NFL without that rookie cap again....teams potentially going under for a few years because of that dead money. Could a different structure with respect to guaranteed money alleviate that issue and make it easier for a player to move? In other words, if a player's bonus which is prorated over the life of deal, could be transferred to the team who obtains him make that an easier event? I would think there would be problems with that too, for sure. That could lower a team's desire to obtain said disgruntled player.
"Get all you can get, but prove yourself first". That goes back to the "you knew how dangerous playing this game was going to be, so why are you whining?" Seems *sometimes* players (and fans) want it both ways.
