PDA

View Full Version : Why no RFAs extended offer sheet?


CloakNNNdagger
04-06-2012, 08:35 PM
42 restricted free agents, no offers sheets (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/04/06/42-restricted-free-agents-no-offer-sheets/)


Free agency launched 24 days ago. The class included 42 restricted free agents.

And not a single one has been signed to an offer sheet.

Previously, the thinking was that restricted free agents would get sniffs after the unrestricted market dried up. That thinking arises in part from the fact, in past years, thatís exactly what happened.

So whatís happening this year? With the maximum compensation now reduced from a first-round and third-round pick to only a first-round pick and with the ďpoison pillĒ device dead and with nine of the 42 RFAís available with no compensation to the original team, itís surprising that no offer sheets have been signed. In fact, there have been few if any visits by restricted free agents to prospective employers.

The development comes at a time when many believed that Steelers receiver Mike Wallace and Ravens cornerback Lardarius Webb would have been targeted by teams picking in the bottom of round one. And while time remains for signing a player to an offer sheet, thereís no indication that it will happen.

Given the suspected prevalence of collusion in the uncapped year of 2010, when restricted free agency expanded to include players with four years and five years of service and only running back Mike Bell changed teams, and in light of the recent Redskins/Cowboys cap penalties that tend to confirm collusion in 2010, itís hard not to at least wonder whether teams have decided, verbally and discreetly, not to pilfer players via restricted free agency.

Iím not saying thatís what has happened. But given that the teams were told, verbally and discreetly, not to take full advantage of the rules of the uncapped year in 2010, the rubber band already has been stretched that far. The question is whether the NFL currently is pulling both ends of it.

badboy
04-06-2012, 09:35 PM
I think the players were allowed to run wild by owners as both sides were pig at the trough. Then owners like McNair got point across to other owners that belt tightening was good for owners. Result, new CBA + things like this. Collusion? Probably but players association should for once keep mouth shut. A player like Wallace isn't worth #26 in a WR starved roster? lol.

It is about the contract that go with the picks. The players are for the most part not worth the money regardless of how the contract is spread. It is a scantily veiled attempt to keep cash in owners pocket. Fans are willing to spend owners' money to get a super Bowl but I think most owners are not so eager to push chips to center of table. As someone else pointed out on another thread, players turned down a higher percentage of profits & then had to settle for less. Union officials boo boo'd big on that. Be a new election if I were the players.

CloakNNNdagger
04-06-2012, 09:56 PM
I think the players were allowed to run wild by owners as both sides were pig at the trough. Then owners like McNair got point across to other owners that belt tightening was good for owners. Result, new CBA + things like this. Collusion? Probably but players association should for once keep mouth shut. A player like Wallace isn't worth #26 in a WR starved roster? lol.

It is about the contract that go with the picks. The players are for the most part not worth the money regardless of how the contract is spread. It is a scantily veiled attempt to keep cash in owners pocket. Fans are willing to spend owners' money to get a super Bowl but I think most owners are not so eager to push chips to center of table. As someone else pointed out on another thread, players turned down a higher percentage of profits & then had to settle for less. Union officials boo boo'd big on that. Be a new election if I were the players.

DeMaurice Smith was recently re-elected NFL Players Association chief executive without opposition. Smith got a second three-year term.:vincepalm:

badboy
04-06-2012, 10:07 PM
DeMaurice Smith was recently re-elected NFL Players Association chief executive without opposition. Smith got a second three-year term.:vincepalm:maybe better for nfl in long run.

infantrycak
04-06-2012, 10:11 PM
As someone else pointed out on another thread, players turned down a higher percentage of profits & then had to settle for less. Union officials boo boo'd big on that. Be a new election if I were the players.

Devil is in the details. They got a smaller percentage of a larger pot (not everything was included in the salary cap calculation - now more is included) and got a floor installed.

badboy
04-06-2012, 10:20 PM
Devil is in the details. They got a smaller percentage of a larger pot (not everything was included in the salary cap calculation - now more is included) and got a floor installed.Maybe you can explain it to me as I just don't understand how the amount that NFL uses to determine the cap (minus the same $ one billion under old CBA) will keep going up but the cap will only rise moderately?

infantrycak
04-06-2012, 10:46 PM
Maybe you can explain it to me as I just don't understand how the amount that NFL uses to determine the cap (minus the same $ one billion under old CBA) will keep going up but the cap will only rise moderately?

I haven't heard the details but it sounds just like a free agent deal. You can go from $6 mil one year to $14 mil the next or graduate it up a mil per year. This time the new TV deal is graduated. Over time it will pay a lot more money but is going to ramp up instead of jump up.

badboy
04-06-2012, 10:52 PM
I haven't heard the details but it sounds just like a free agent deal. You can go from $6 mil one year to $14 mil the next or graduate it up a mil per year. This time the new TV deal is graduated. Over time it will pay a lot more money but is going to ramp up instead of jump up.So for example the first 3-4 years are small increases but last are overwhelmingly huge? If yes, how is that helpful to the owners?