Sources: Owners push for an expanded season

[gilder121]

Follow up on LJ-

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1167133126533013506

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1167142337795022848

This guy might need some help.

 

[Toast88]

Expanded playoffs is going to happen sooner rather than later. Bank on it. Both the players and the owners are in favor of it—easy common ground.

As far as an extended season, I think that’s also inevitable but might take longer. More logistics to work out. The players will insist on higher salaries for the longer season. The owners will balk. They’ll haggle. They’ll eventually both sign on. I’m personally not in favor. 16 games is perfect.

 

[Monsieur Tirets]

But player safety is a priority...

At this rate we'll have a game everyday of the week with a summer break.

 

[Visionman]

Do you really credit Wilson as leading his team to a superbowl when he averaged at or below 200 yards passing in the playoffs?

My point was that Wilson and the LOB are proof that you dont have to pay a scrambling QB who averages 200 yards per game in the playoffs and still win a superbowl and make multiple appearances, and that once you paid him your superbowl chances go from very possible to highly improbable. Not only can Wilson not pull the numbers offensively to shootout against great defenses, his contract ties up money so he cant protect himself. Not with a great power runner or a solid offensive line. He has to stay on the field, deliver points and take damage. With the LOB gone its likely the days of winning championships in Seattle are over.

So to get back to my point. In the future if you have an elite defense it may be better to get rid of your QB if he hasnt already proven to be an Elite QB. The players that have proven this before their big contracts are Brady and Roethlisberger.

Franchise QBs in the future will be about winning. Not hoping and gambling your QB can win after he gets a huge payday. Rotting the talent on the team around the unproven QB. I know this is not how things are now, but would from a data analytics point of view be the logical way to go. Unless the actual goal is selling jerseys and not actually winning.

100% agree with you on all this, sir. In the current market, teams that choose to pay middling or unproven And top dollar contracts effectively put the nail in the coffin for any possible SB hopes.

If a QB can't carry his team, then you have to have the cap room to build a quality team around him...

 

[Toast88]

I’m not in favor of any change you have to explain in-depth. Such things are gimmicks. Keep the gimmicks out. Stuff like:

-Playing more regular season games but putting a 16-game cap on players

-Adding an odd number of games + whatever gimmick you’re thinking up to make the odd number of games make sense.

 

[Starion]

No way the players ever try to limit their own pay. This would cause huge fighting within the NFLPA and probably lawsuits by QB's against their own union.

I originally thought by Max Cap you meant a max cap hit regardless of salary. The union would love this but it would quickly lead to what amounts to a Cap # that basically doesn't count QB's as most teams would all max out the starting QB and thus have the same non QB money to spend.
That would allow teams to overpay questionable FA starters like , Cousins and Garapollo, without penalty for making bad decisions. Hell, teams would cycle through aging overpaid starters on Max deals with impunity. Their should be consequences for making a bad decision to overpay any player.

Just putting it out there for discussion. You make some good points. Mine is that of the 1696 active roster players, only about 20 top Qbs make a MASSIVE cut of the total salary pool. Still think the players wouldn't vote to share the wealth a little, or am I missing something?

Second point you made is interesting but yes, could get really dicey and confusing. Doubt you could pay a QB anything but cap the cap hit. Not sure that would make sense or even be possibly to split total pay and cap hit for reasons you gave and more.

I agree that big draft & FA misses should impact a team negatively, for sure. FA misses should hurt more (which the currently do).

I also think that wildly successful elite hits shouldn't crush a team after the 4-5 year rookie deal runs out and an awesome pick = ugly hold outs and/or shredding the roster due to enormous cap hit. Ask Jerry in Dallas x2. Hitting hurts the team hard.

I get that NFL wants parity, but it seems a bit too crushing to the teams that draft & develop the best...hard to blame players who can't help but try for every penny when they're playing at an elite level. NBA max deal guys aren't crying or holding out about their 16mil or whatever it is now. It's an honor to them. No bitching about wanting to be "top paid RB" for pride as much as money, at all costs.

------------------------------------
Possibly nothing is really needed TBH. Interesting points given the new agreement standoff pending.

 

[iueyedoc]

Slightly different angle, but I think it would be cool to have a rule along the lines of a franchise tag but it would be a cap hit tag. The point would be to allow teams to retain it's own players, taking things back to when teams kept their stars for their whole career. The cap tag would allow a team to sign their own player( maybe even restrict it to players that started their career with the team) but only having to count 80-90% of the contract towards the cap. Max it out to 1 or 2 of these tags a year.

The player would still be able to sign elsewhere, just the "home" team would have a negotiating advantage over the other 31 clubs.

Thoughts?

 

[E.F.Hutton]

If they want to expand the season they would also have to expand the rosters. Or relax/abolish the injured reserve rules. Otherwise by the end of the season a lot of stars would be watching from the sideline and we would be watching preseason football.