Bigfatbillsfan Posted November 7, 2013 Posted November 7, 2013 You know, I can respect his decision. We forget sometimes that the NFL is a job for these guys the same way our jobs are for us. He isn't hurting anyone by walking away. The worst is there is less depth on the O-line. And a guy playing without real passion for the game may be a bigger liability to the team than the guy that walks away just because he's not happy playing the game anymore. It's his right to do what he chooses. It would be different if this was the military and he quit on his brothers in arms during a firefight, or refused to deploy. Then I think we could pass some judgment on his character over it. But the NFL is a job like any other. I would quit if I was unhappy in my job, why shouldn't a NFL player be able to do the same? You're treating dissimilar situations as though they were similar. A football player is basically and employee who signs a contract to complete a 17-21 week project. There is a possibility that circumstances may arise where the project manager may have to replace the contractor, but the contractor gets paid for the full project regardless. And if I contracted you to a 17-21 week project, you agreed, and then up and quit midway through while I still had potential need of your services, then yes, I'd say you were a jerk off too. But what if this person you hired for said project was so unhappy doing it that he may be a liability to others on the job as far as safety and moral? Wouldn't you rather that person walked away than force that kind of risk on you?
CountDorkula Posted November 7, 2013 Posted November 7, 2013 Pro sports are different than a normal workplace in this regard. Due to roster, salary, and timing issues, there are no adequate substitutes for losing a good lineman mid season. Also, this guy assumed the risk of injury when he signed a big contract. Unless he has a specific injury issue or concern, I think it's poor form to say to claim a generalized injury concern. The bottom line is that this guy went home for the bye, is having a good time, and doesn't want to go back to the grind of playing football in the winter. That is a huge assumption. We criticize people for going through the motions in theses sports just to get paid and say to just quit. Now we are criticizing a guy who walked away from getting paid. Which way do we want it?
Rob's House Posted November 7, 2013 Posted November 7, 2013 while i agree in a general sense, id be curious what your take is with him being traded on august 20th, as opposed to having been a free agent that signed on to play for the Broncos? Any effect on your opinion? It's somewhat mitigating, but I still say he made a deal and baled on his responsibility. But what if this person you hired for said project was so unhappy doing it that he may be a liability to others on the job as far as safety and moral? Wouldn't you rather that person walked away than force that kind of risk on you? Whether I want him on the job is irrelevant to my assessment of his character.
Clippers of Nfl Posted November 7, 2013 Posted November 7, 2013 (edited) But the NFL is a job like any other. I would quit if I was unhappy in my job, why shouldn't a NFL player be able to do the same? He's not allowed to quit!! Wait, why not? I like your point a lot. It sucks. But nothing you can do except hope no other employees jump ship. It's somewhat mitigating, but I still say he made a deal and baled on his responsibility. Whether I want him on the job is irrelevant to my assessment of his character. Not everyone is as responsible as you Rob. That's the way it is in the business world though. Attract responsible employees and retain them. That is a potential risk in any business. Edit: I did a little research and found that he will leave an estimated $312,500 on the table for the remainder of this season and $752,500 in non-guaranteed salary in 2014. I read the article yesterday. I believe it was the orinal article from the op. I think it said something like he left 1.5 million on the table. That is a valid point. If he took the money and ran. Found some loophole to walk away with it, then it would be wrong. But this guy quit and left money behind. This is a decision that looks good NOW for him. But he may regret later. For letting his teamates down and for missing out on money that he may need/want later in life. At the end of the day (everyone's favorite line), he has the right to quit in my book. That's all folks. Edited November 7, 2013 by Clippers of Nfl
Rob's House Posted November 7, 2013 Posted November 7, 2013 Not everyone is as responsible as you Rob. That's the way it is in the business world though. Attract responsible employees and retain them. That is a potential risk in any business. I agree with you, I'm just not sure what your point is.
Clippers of Nfl Posted November 7, 2013 Posted November 7, 2013 I agree with you, I'm just not sure what your point is. I agree with you, I'm just not sure what your point is about not understanind my point. I thought it was pretty straight forward. I was kind of defending the guy. He has the right to do what he wants. I believe he is 3rd string. He's not letting anyone down.... And he knows that. If he was their starter, then he would be a jerk. But under this situation, he's ok in my book.
1B4IDie Posted November 8, 2013 Posted November 8, 2013 I believe it was in February that he retired. Before the draft and before free agency began. If he was on the roster at the beginning of the season, I believe his full salary would have been guaranteed. So he did walk away from some money but it wasn't millions. He was making something like $700k this year so he walked away from about half of that. His salary for next season was not guaranteed. While you don't want a guy to quit on his teammates halfway through the season, If I'm on this team, I'd rather he walk away now than go half hearted and possibly get Peyton killed because he's not into it. Edit: I did a little research and found that he will leave an estimated $312,500 on the table for the remainder of this season and $752,500 in non-guaranteed salary in 2014. Dudes NFL contracts are not guaranteed. It doesn't matter if you were on the roster or not. The point is he was almost certainty getting cut by the Broncos that week. So he didn't leave any money on the table. He's not allowed to quit!! Wait, why not? I like your point a lot. It sucks. But nothing you can do except hope no other employees jump ship. Not everyone is as responsible as you Rob. That's the way it is in the business world though. Attract responsible employees and retain them. That is a potential risk in any business. I read the article yesterday. I believe it was the orinal article from the op. I think it said something like he left 1.5 million on the table. That is a valid point. If he took the money and ran. Found some loophole to walk away with it, then it would be wrong. But this guy quit and left money behind. This is a decision that looks good NOW for him. But he may regret later. For letting his teamates down and for missing out on money that he may need/want later in life. At the end of the day (everyone's favorite line), he has the right to quit in my book. That's all folks. See above.
BuffaloBill Posted November 8, 2013 Posted November 8, 2013 Pro sports are different than a normal workplace in this regard. Due to roster, salary, and timing issues, there are no adequate substitutes for losing a good lineman mid season. Also, this guy assumed the risk of injury when he signed a big contract. Unless he has a specific injury issue or concern, I think it's poor form to say to claim a generalized injury concern. The bottom line is that this guy went home for the bye, is having a good time, and doesn't want to go back to the grind of playing football in the winter. I still disagree. One he has free choice how he wants to make a living. Teams cut guys all the time as they make roster moves. The only person he owes anything to is himself. This may sound selfish but at the end of the day who is most responsible for looking at his interests?
Saint Doug Posted November 8, 2013 Posted November 8, 2013 (edited) I still disagree. One he has free choice how he wants to make a living. Teams cut guys all the time as they make roster moves. The only person he owes anything to is himself. This may sound selfish but at the end of the day who is most responsible for looking at his interests? This. As for "letting his teammates down", turn on any football game next Sunday and I bet you see a handful of examples of players letting their teammates down. Difference is, they're still collecting a paycheck. Look at Byrd. Another shinning example of letting your teammates down while getting rich. This guy did the best thing for himself and his (former) team. Besides, teams use players just the same. Just ask Flynn. Edited November 8, 2013 by kas23
NDBUFFCUSEFAN Posted November 8, 2013 Posted November 8, 2013 Dudes NFL contracts are not guaranteed. It doesn't matter if you were on the roster or not. The point is he was almost certainty getting cut by the Broncos that week. So he didn't leave any money on the table. See above. NFL contracts are guaranteed for the season if you start the season on the roster.
1B4IDie Posted November 8, 2013 Posted November 8, 2013 NFL contracts are guaranteed for the season if you start the season on the roster. Incorrect.
NDBUFFCUSEFAN Posted November 8, 2013 Posted November 8, 2013 Incorrect. Well we are both correct and incorrect. The benefits of making an NFL roster are plentiful for young players, but for veterans, being on the Week One roster means a guaranteed paycheck. At 4 p.m. ET on Saturday, all "vested veterans" around the league will have their entire season salary guaranteed. For those unaware, a "vested veteran" is a player with four or more accredited NFL seasons.
1B4IDie Posted November 8, 2013 Posted November 8, 2013 Well we are both correct and incorrect. The benefits of making an NFL roster are plentiful for young players, but for veterans, being on the Week One roster means a guaranteed paycheck. At 4 p.m. ET on Saturday, all "vested veterans" around the league will have their entire season salary guaranteed. For those unaware, a "vested veteran" is a player with four or more accredited NFL seasons. I guess in theory we're both right. In practice Moffit is not a vested veteran so he was not guaranteed a dime after the Broncos cut him. So he did not leave money on the table. Also there are a million caveats to vested veterans. Like if you were on the practice squad that doesn't count towards vested veteran. So the pool of players that are vested veterans is a small percentage of the actual NFL. Players. Most if they are cut they song get a dime.
voodoo poonani Posted November 8, 2013 Posted November 8, 2013 Who hasn't quit a job they didn't like? It's just a game, maybe not to us, but to him it's a job. He's free to quit and fans are free to hate him for it.
NoSaint Posted November 8, 2013 Posted November 8, 2013 Who hasn't quit a job they didn't like? It's just a game, maybe not to us, but to him it's a job. He's free to quit and fans are free to hate him for it. all rob was saying is if the project is over in a few weeks, most of us would also just stick it out if it was simply not having passion for it and not something more immediate and pressing.
BarleyNY Posted November 8, 2013 Posted November 8, 2013 (edited) While it would have been better for him to have done this in an offseason at least he didn't pull a Bob Hallen. He was the backup center on the Browns and was content to pick up his check as long as he didn't have to play. As soon as their starting center went down with injury he retired and said it was because he didn't want to start. That left the Browns hurting big time. He did it on the bye and when he wasn't really being relied on except as depth so he softened it as much as possible. Teams have to look at a lot of facets in regards to their players - desire to play in the NFL is obviously a big one. It is what it is as they say. As for the outrage for him quitting on his team, I disagree. Teams cut players and pick up replacements during the season regularly. Just check the transaction wire. If the Broncos thought they could replace him with someone better or cheaper next week they'd do it and it would be looked at as "business". If he got injured in week 17 of next season just as his contract ran out he'd never be given another thought. I'll give him the same regard. I hope he really is happy with his decision, though. Because there is no going back. Edited November 8, 2013 by BarleyNY
RuntheDamnBall Posted November 8, 2013 Posted November 8, 2013 I think with the context that he was on a team that he didn't sign a contract with, his conduct looks a bit less reprehensible. I don't fault a guy for falling out of love with a profession that can do lasting damage to your health. If he left mid-season after having signed a contract with the Broncos, that'd be a bit more of an issue. As it stands, he doesn't leave them in a terrific spot, but they have the look of a team that should be able to adjust.
BarleyNY Posted November 8, 2013 Posted November 8, 2013 (edited) I would agree that it is his right to do it. But my point is that it's really selfish and I think he shouldn't be praised as some hero. Instead, he should be viewed as a guy who is a quitter, and who basically would rather look out for himself at the potentially great expense of his team. It would be the equivalent of quitting your job without giving any notice; you probably could do it, but it's really bad form. Is it like a team cutting a player with no notice because they picked up someone else who might be better or cheaper or plays a position of more dire need? Edited November 8, 2013 by BarleyNY
RuntheDamnBall Posted November 8, 2013 Posted November 8, 2013 How does everybody feel about Barry Sanders, btw? He took a signing bonus from the team then walked out on them when he decided it was clear they weren't committed to winning... He did this in the offseason, but it still tarnishes his legacy a bit.
NoSaint Posted November 8, 2013 Posted November 8, 2013 Instead, he should be viewed as a guy who is a quitter, and who basically would rather look out for himself at the potentially great expense of his team. i think that a lot of times this is overplayed in the sports arena. its a job and a game, not battle. his employer will only look out for him so much so he needs to look out for himself, and his team will survive - likely with no trouble at all. while its obviously not ideal, sometimes its not a big deal either.
Recommended Posts