Bearded Kirklander Posted August 26, 2004 Share Posted August 26, 2004 Heard about Woodson reporting and how mad he was about being tagged with the Franchise tag. It got me wondering if people think that the option is lame and should be gotten rid of. Anyone? To me, it sounds like Upshaw sold the players out. Not fully guaranteed contracts and this Franchise player thing seems to really undermine the players in the union, at least at first glance. Link to comment https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/209014-anyone-think-the-nfl-franchise-player-rule-sucks/ Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toxikk Veteran Posted August 26, 2004 Veteran Share Posted August 26, 2004 i dunno. he wanted more money. i do not think he really has a reason to complain. being placed with the franchise tag does that... ensure you get the top salaries of your position. some players are just lame. Link to comment https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/209014-anyone-think-the-nfl-franchise-player-rule-sucks/#findComment-584435718 Share on other sites More sharing options...
.... Posted August 26, 2004 Share Posted August 26, 2004 It also prevents you from really being traded if you are unhappy with your surroundings. Link to comment https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/209014-anyone-think-the-nfl-franchise-player-rule-sucks/#findComment-584435889 Share on other sites More sharing options...
IceDogg Posted August 26, 2004 Share Posted August 26, 2004 I know that a team is also limited on how many franchise tags they can use. Anyone know how many that is?? Link to comment https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/209014-anyone-think-the-nfl-franchise-player-rule-sucks/#findComment-584436715 Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattmatik Posted August 26, 2004 Share Posted August 26, 2004 I think you can only have 1 franchise tag. The 49ers used theirs on Julian Peterson in the Spring and then all Summer we were wondering if he was even going to be on the team this year. I don't fully understand the meaning of it other than you get top dollar from the team that designates you. So, I don't really have an opinion on whether it's good or not. By the way, contracts are never guaranteed in the NFL. You may hear about so and so signing a multi-million dollar deal, but most contracts are filled with performance bonuses and such that bump the value of the contract. That's why guys hold out for a huge signing bonus - that is the only "guaranteed" money they will see. Link to comment https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/209014-anyone-think-the-nfl-franchise-player-rule-sucks/#findComment-584436742 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearded Kirklander Posted August 26, 2004 Author Share Posted August 26, 2004 It also prevents you from really being traded if you are unhappy with your surroundings. That is part of the thing that I object too. It restricts freedom of movement, even if you do not have a contract. Link to comment https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/209014-anyone-think-the-nfl-franchise-player-rule-sucks/#findComment-584438029 Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChicoCahill Posted August 26, 2004 Share Posted August 26, 2004 player contracts in the nfl are crap, the players should have gauranteed contracts Link to comment https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/209014-anyone-think-the-nfl-franchise-player-rule-sucks/#findComment-584438411 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steffan Posted August 26, 2004 Share Posted August 26, 2004 player contracts in the nfl are crap, the players should have gauranteed contracts yes and no. think about it, if you pay someone $5 million or more a year and he breaks his leg and is out for a year, you will have to pay him. If a player, like Leaf, doesn't live up to what he's going to do, then you should have the option to waive him and use the salary towards a proven vet. The franchise player rule benefits the team way too much. Link to comment https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/209014-anyone-think-the-nfl-franchise-player-rule-sucks/#findComment-584438558 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearded Kirklander Posted August 26, 2004 Author Share Posted August 26, 2004 yes and no.? think about it, if you pay someone $5 million or more a year and he breaks his leg and is out for a year, you will have to pay him.? If a player, like Leaf, doesn't live up to what he's going to do, then you should have the option to waive him and use the salary towards a proven vet. The franchise player rule benefits the team way too much. What about having contracts guaranteed at 50% and the elimination of the signing bonus? That might help serve both sides. Broken legs and stuff are covered by Insurance, I believe. I would simply eliminate the Franchise tag completely, I think. If I remember, it was the Brian Bosworth situation that triggered this non-guaranteed contract push from the owners. But then you look at some idiot like Ricky Williams and you think "Hmmm - maybe guaranteed contracts and signing bonuses are not warranted." Hmmm.... Link to comment https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/209014-anyone-think-the-nfl-franchise-player-rule-sucks/#findComment-584438671 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts