CosmicBills

I can't stand Gruden. He's such a f'ing blowhard. But it's a good clip.

I'm not comparing it to slavery. But it's a fact that every owner is white and the vast majority of players are not. You never hear the argument going the other way -- unless it's about Ralph being cheap -- you never hear "what's the difference between 3 million dollars and 5 million when you make 300 million plus a year", but you always hear, "he should be happy to be making 3 million dollars! just shut up and sign the contract". Why is that? The owners get off light. I will never understand why fans take the side of the owner over the player when they have far more in common with the player than the owner.

I'm not arguing if they make too much money. That's a losing argument. But facts are they make what they make because there's a market for it. That's the thing. The average fan hears he's holding out for 12 million more, or 2 million more and they freak out because "how much money do you need?!" But then again, the owners, who make significantly more, are trying to hold out from paying 2 or 12 million more ... which is the same thing. But people don't look at it that way because they see someone as selfish for holding out. That's just not the case. It's business. And the owners are far more greedy than the players. Thems are just the facts.

This is a ridiculous stance on many, many levels. Athletes have a very limited time to make their lifetime earnings -- if they're lucky they get 2 contracts. If they're really lucky they get 3. During any of those contracts they're a play away from a career ending injury, possibly a life ending one. Owners exploit the talents of these young men and have the right to cut them, void their contracts AT ANY POINT they wish. No other job can you be fired without cause like you can in sports. The owners can't be fired. They have guaranteed money from TV deals that dwarf the sums made by the players they depend on to deliver the product. The Owners also play you, the fan, for a fool in this situation. Where is all this bad press coming from about Revis? From the owners. They want the public to pressure him to play. Yet when Revis, or any player, tries to do the same, it's considered whining. No one blinked an eye when the Jets fu*C*ed over Washington. This guy was negotiating on good faith. Playing out his contract as everyone here says Revis should -- then he gets hurt and rather than get the money the Jets promised, they traded him to Seattle where he has to start over again. Is that really fair? Take the dollars out of it. They make more than 99% of us ever will. That's just the business. People get blinded by how much they're making and don't look at the real issues. This is a violent sport where rich white owners laugh their way to the bank while players don't ride off into the sunset, the hobble into it. If they even make it in the first place.

+1 Don't think the Washington situation isn't playing a role here. Jets players saw first hand how "loyal" the front office is. Not that they're any different than the rest of the owners. Washington was negotiating in good faith, got hurt, and never got his deal. Fug 'em. Why people side with billionaires over millionaires is crazy to me.

That was my thought too ... watching him run away when he lost the bat was the funniest part.

Thanks, Dean!

They took the video down ... anyone have another link? Thanks!

I like that bet! You're on

I'll go on record right now and take any bets ... unless he gets hurt in camp, Hardy is on the 53 man roster come September 12th.

McCargo has had enough chances. Hardy hasn't.

Hardy's a lock as well. You're crazy if you think otherwise. They've invested a high pick in him and too much money. He lost a year to injury and another to a lousy system and coaching turmoil. He's going to make the team. And he will contribute. Will he be any good? Who knows. But they won't cut him ... this year.

Sarcasm? Spiller is going to end up being the number 3 WR on the roster ... which means they need room to keep (another) runningback because obviously Jackson and Lynch aren't enough.

It's possible for sure. But normally those moves are made at the same time ... it wouldn't be unprecedented, but it'd be a surprise if that was the reason.

That's certainly the "glass half full" view point. Reality is this team doesn't have a number 2 WR, just a 1 and a bunch of 4s.

Stupar over Nelson? Barf.

Saw the pilot at work a few months ago ... it's going to be a huge hit. It's a lot of fun.

Awww, neither link works.

Um .. except all three starters are playing positions that they've never played at the NFL level before. Some would argue they're playing positions they're not physically suited for. That's not set. That's a disaster waiting to happen.

My mistake on the year -- that's what I get for trying to do this on the fly:) Still, beg to differ about Dilfer and Johnson. Dilfer was a probowl QB (in 97). Is he a HOF'er. No. Was he a franchise QB for Tampa? Yes. Especially in 97 and 98. And Johnson threw for close to 30,000 yards in his career with 166 TDs, was a two time pro bowler and has a ring. So again, you're just wrong. Johnson was indeed a franchise QB. And a very good one.

Not what I said, but well played

Both had franchise type QBs. The Ravens won in 2001 (9 years ago, so on the bubble of what we're really talking about) but Dilfer was a probowl QB who played on a run first, defensive team. And yes, they won. But he's still better than any of the QBs on the Bills roster since Bledsoe left. The Bucs won in 97, that's 13 years ago! 13!!! The game has changed. Which is my point. But, still, the Bucs had Johnson -- another probowl, franchise type QB.

And none of those teams won the Super Bowl. In the past decade no team has won the Super Bowl without a Franchise QB. None. I'm not talking about getting to the playoffs. Yes, a good running game and no QB can get you 9 wins, maybe 10 and if you get hot you can make a run in the playoffs. But in order to with CHAMPIONSHIPS, you need to have that key component.

First, you're just flat out wrong in your assumption that there was no movement to be had in the draft. There were PLENTY. Denver traded the 11 to SF for the 13, Miami traded back from 12th, Denver traded back AGAIN from 13 to 24 ... etc etc. There were moves to be made. But really you're just missing my real point and honing in on the wrong thing. The point is they didn't TRY to make a trade. They picked Spiller right away without even looking. I'd be totally fine with them taking Spiller if they tried and failed to move back. But they didn't. And that's what's alarming. Because of what THAT shows about their thought process on how to build a team in the modern NFL. You don't do it with RBs. Not when you have huge holes at far more important positions.

Well said. And, let me say one thing about the last thing you wrote, I'm ROOTING for Spiller to be a huge hit. I'm not someone who roots to be right over the good of the team they love. You know? Also, just a finer point -- I didn't mean to imply that only young GMs can succeed. That's clearly not true. But when you're starting what is potentially a 3 year rebuilding process (these holes can't be filled in one off season), I'd prefer to have the job be done by someone who won't be damn near 75 when it's done. That's all I meant by that.