|
|
Post by afboltfan on Jul 27, 2023 16:28:20 GMT -7
Ohhhh dang... Right before that big contract too!
|
|
|
|
Post by ohioboltfan on Jul 28, 2023 6:19:18 GMT -7
Bengals fans hearts are in their throats and their breathing has stopped. Dr. Chao believes it is most likely a calf strain & not an Achilles. Oh Geez! I hope he's good because I really want to see the "rivalry" between the three QBs drafted together continue and not be marred by an asterisk of injury. Both Tua and Burrow have missed several games over their first three seasons and Herbert has been hurt pretty bad himself.
|
|
|
|
Post by ohioboltfan on Jul 28, 2023 6:23:35 GMT -7
I know that they have one (Breece Hall), but he is coming off of an ACL tear (currently on PUP) so they don't want him to have a heavy load of carries coming off the injury and the Jets are in "all in" mode after acquiring Rodgers. Thinking more about it, Cook won't be offered an $8 million contract, but he'll be playing in the nation's #1 media market and have a chance for a ring. We'll see if the $$$ or the ring matters more for him at this stage of his career. Michael Carter too. He's not bad. Filler inner for Hall. He's only 24 too. Yep, those are the two names I was trying to recall. That's a good observation, Joe, and I knew Hall had that injury but it was the other Michael Carter that I thought could spell Hall until he was ready to take back the lion's share. Getting Dalvin Cook at a value price would NOT be bad for any team though!
|
|
|
|
Post by joemcrugby on Jul 28, 2023 7:27:22 GMT -7
Michael Carter too. He's not bad. Filler inner for Hall. He's only 24 too. Yep, those are the two names I was trying to recall. That's a good observation, Joe, and I knew Hall had that injury but it was the other Michael Carter that I thought could spell Hall until he was ready to take back the lion's share. Getting Dalvin Cook at a value price would NOT be bad for any team though! Having a RB group of LT, Michael Turner & Darren Sproles (with Lo Neal leading the way at fullback) wasn't a bad RB group for the Chargers back in the 2005-2007 era. I have a photo of the RB group from the 2006 training camp somewhere in my files where they are shot from behind. Even an untucked jersey and loose shorts could not conceal The Burner's prodigious bubble, so you know where his power came from. Yes, today's game has changed towards being far more passing-oriented, but having a glut of talent at RB ain't a bad thing.
|
|
|
|
Post by frozendisc on Jul 28, 2023 8:51:23 GMT -7
Having plenty of talent on the roster is a very good thing, eh
|
|
|
|
Post by frozendisc on Jul 29, 2023 7:49:19 GMT -7
So in an attempt to justify more money to RB's, Derrick Henry is saying that there are times the RB touches the ball more than the QB.....and that RB's just want their fair share. Not too sure how the NFLPA handles this, but they will need to have a plan long before approaching the League.
Owners love cost certainty, and results based pay.....not seeing the NFLPA ever accepting that.
|
|
|
|
Post by chargerfreak on Jul 31, 2023 5:11:55 GMT -7
So in an attempt to justify more money to RB's, Derrick Henry is saying that there are times the RB touches the ball more than the QB.....and that RB's just want their fair share. Not too sure how the NFLPA handles this, but they will need to have a plan long before approaching the League. Owners love cost certainty, and results based pay.....not seeing the NFLPA ever accepting that. That's not even possible. Unless Henry is running the Wildcat for 3+ quarters. But I get what he's saying. Tannehill handing Henry the ball and tippy toeing backwards while 10 guys in the box are try to kill Henry isn't exactly equitable...
|
|
|
|
Post by frozendisc on Jul 31, 2023 6:10:56 GMT -7
So in an attempt to justify more money to RB's, Derrick Henry is saying that there are times the RB touches the ball more than the QB.....and that RB's just want their fair share. Not too sure how the NFLPA handles this, but they will need to have a plan long before approaching the League. Owners love cost certainty, and results based pay.....not seeing the NFLPA ever accepting that. That's not even possible. Unless Henry is running the Wildcat for 3+ quarters. But I get what he's saying. Tannehill handing Henry the ball and tippy toeing backwards while 10 guys in the box are try to kill Henry isn't exactly equitable... Clearly an inaccurate statement, but the second part is more interesting. RB's just wanting their fair share seems innocuous enough, but this is a 'capped' system, which means if a share of one 'group' is to grow, another 'group's' must shrink. This is where I see the NFLPA treading into dangerous ground, as it would be imperative to not allow player versus player develop in this 'fair share' drive.
|
|
|
|
Post by amped on Jul 31, 2023 6:16:27 GMT -7
That's not even possible. Unless Henry is running the Wildcat for 3+ quarters. But I get what he's saying. Tannehill handing Henry the ball and tippy toeing backwards while 10 guys in the box are try to kill Henry isn't exactly equitable... Clearly an inaccurate statement, but the second part is more interesting. RB's just wanting their fair share seems innocuous enough, but this is a 'capped' system, which means if a share of one 'group' is to grow, another 'group's' must shrink. This is where I see the NFLPA treading into dangerous ground, as it would be imperative to not allow player versus player develop in this 'fair share' drive. This has already happened.
QB, Edge, O-line, WR and CB have all taken the a piece of RB share. The RB have just noticed this and want their share back.
|
|
|
|
Post by afboltfan on Jul 31, 2023 6:18:25 GMT -7
That's not even possible. Unless Henry is running the Wildcat for 3+ quarters. But I get what he's saying. Tannehill handing Henry the ball and tippy toeing backwards while 10 guys in the box are try to kill Henry isn't exactly equitable... Clearly an inaccurate statement, but the second part is more interesting. RB's just wanting their fair share seems innocuous enough, but this is a 'capped' system, which means if a share of one 'group' is to grow, another 'group's' must shrink. This is where I see the NFLPA treading into dangerous ground, as it would be imperative to not allow player versus player develop in this 'fair share' drive. I'm sure they are already there... The jealousy and bitterness is likely intense behind the scenes and not just with the RB group.
|
|
|
|
Post by chargerfreak on Jul 31, 2023 6:26:57 GMT -7
Clearly an inaccurate statement, but the second part is more interesting. RB's just wanting their fair share seems innocuous enough, but this is a 'capped' system, which means if a share of one 'group' is to grow, another 'group's' must shrink. This is where I see the NFLPA treading into dangerous ground, as it would be imperative to not allow player versus player develop in this 'fair share' drive. I'm sure they are already there... The jealousy and bitterness is likely intense behind the scenes and not just with the RB group. The Longsnapper's will start Zoom meetings this week......................
|
|
|
|
Post by lightsout42 on Jul 31, 2023 6:36:46 GMT -7
Clearly an inaccurate statement, but the second part is more interesting. RB's just wanting their fair share seems innocuous enough, but this is a 'capped' system, which means if a share of one 'group' is to grow, another 'group's' must shrink. This is where I see the NFLPA treading into dangerous ground, as it would be imperative to not allow player versus player develop in this 'fair share' drive. This has already happened.
QB, Edge, O-line, WR and CB have all taken the a piece of RB share. The RB have just noticed this and want their share back.
Maybe they should talk to those other players. |
|
|
|
Post by frozendisc on Jul 31, 2023 7:08:50 GMT -7
Clearly an inaccurate statement, but the second part is more interesting. RB's just wanting their fair share seems innocuous enough, but this is a 'capped' system, which means if a share of one 'group' is to grow, another 'group's' must shrink. This is where I see the NFLPA treading into dangerous ground, as it would be imperative to not allow player versus player develop in this 'fair share' drive. This has already happened.
QB, Edge, O-line, WR and CB have all taken the a piece of RB share. The RB have just noticed this and want their share back.
Has it, or has it always been so.....an ebb and flow, or back and forth over the years. (well at least since NFL had cap)
|
|
|
|
Post by frozendisc on Jul 31, 2023 7:09:36 GMT -7
This has already happened.
QB, Edge, O-line, WR and CB have all taken the a piece of RB share. The RB have just noticed this and want their share back.
Maybe they should talk to those other players. Much more likely the NFLPA pushes for a no cap CBA......
|
|
|
|
Post by chargerfreak on Jul 31, 2023 7:17:13 GMT -7
This has already happened.
QB, Edge, O-line, WR and CB have all taken the a piece of RB share. The RB have just noticed this and want their share back.
Has it, or has it always been so.....an ebb and flow, or back and forth over the years. (well at least since NFL had cap) Yes it has. The latest is when the mantra of "its a passing league" started, the writing was on the wall for running backs. One example is Tight Ends used to be the lowest paid, and it wasn't that long ago either.
|
|
