LeVeon Bell Holdout?

[Hornsby]

Bell played high-stakes poker - and he lost.
he needs to fold his cards, and move on.

oh, James Conner had a pretty fair game today in his place today - 31 carries, 135 yards. 6 catches, 52 yards. you think those linemen furious with Bell weren't super-motivated?

I'm not anti-player, I'm just anti-stupid.

Playing the only cards that he's dealt, and he's still in the game...and it's irrelevant what Connor did, Bell is moving on after this season anyway.

He's got about 3-4 seasons left in his career, and he needs to max out his earning potential. And the only way that he can do that is if some other team thinks that he's worth a 3 year deal for guaranteed money.

Stupid would be if he reported and tore up his knee over the next couple of months with no contract and no future...

[chancellor]

Gotta agree with Hornsby here. At this point, to use the poker analogy, he had a bad flop but the turn card hasn't even been played yet. Connor could turn into a pumpkin, get hurt or both anytime in the next few games, which would greatly increase Bell's leverage. And if it doesn't work, he loses about a half season pay and if he can stay healthy over the last regular season weeks and playoff, at least generate a 2-3 year offer elsewhere.

[Gregg]

If that's the attitude that Coaches and GM's have, I couldn't support the player more. These are future quality of life issues here, players who may be crippled by age 50, or have CTE...

I'll never forget how tormented Junior Seau was...so much so that he shot himself in the chest to save his brain for study.

I'll be on the players side every damn time...

The discussion on contracts in the NFL is a different one than a signed player not playing (which is what I was responding to).

I do not think ownership should be able to cut anybody with a contract unless you are paying them the balance of the contract. Guaranteed contracts should be for all.

[Hornsby]

The discussion on contracts in the NFL is a different one than a signed player not playing (which is what I was responding to).

I do not think ownership should be able to cut anybody with a contract unless you are paying them the balance of the contract. Guaranteed contracts should be for all.

But Bell is NOT signed, he hasn't signed the franchise tag...he's simply the property of the Steelers until the franchise tag expires...

[In the Corn]

Bell's problem is the lack of perceived value of the RB position in the current NFL. Running backs are a dime a dozen...most teams look for someone that is above "serviceable".

It's Bell this year. It will be Zeke in two years, and then Dalvin Cook three years after that.

Those running back stay in shape and hope to get picked up when the young buck goes down for the year...I'm looking at your Alfred Morris and Adrian Peterson.

[revo]

Bell's problem is the lack of perceived value of the RB position in the current NFL. Running backs are a dime a dozen...most teams look for someone that is above "serviceable".

It's Bell this year. It will be Zeke in two years, and then Dalvin Cook three years after that.

Those running back stay in shape and hope to get picked up when the young buck goes down for the year...I'm looking at your Alfred Morris and Adrian Peterson.

And now Bell's problem is Conner.......why would the Steelers sign Bell to a long-term deal, if they know they have a solid option in place who can be paid far less. At this point, the Steelers probably want Bell to leave after the year, so a long-term contract isn't even in the cards.

[Hornsby]

And now Bell's problem is Conner.......why would the Steelers sign Bell to a long-term deal, if they know they have a solid option in place who can be paid far less. At this point, the Steelers probably want Bell to leave after the year, so a long-term contract isn't even in the cards.

Exactly, and Bell and his agents know that...pretty sure that Bell didn't want to stay anyway after being franchised for, what, three years now? I can see an Oakland signing him to a 3 year deal, maybe Tampa Bay, it's just not going to be a QB, 90 million type of deal.

[Ken]

Exactly, and Bell and his agents know that...pretty sure that Bell didn't want to stay anyway after being franchised for, what, three years now? I can see an Oakland signing him to a 3 year deal, maybe Tampa Bay, it's just not going to be a QB, 90 million type of deal.

I'm lost as to what you guys are talking about. As I posted a couple pages back he cannot sign a long term deal.

With anyone. Even if traded to another team, he still cannot sign a long term deal. He was franchised. His window to sign a deal passed. According to the CBA he has to sign his franchise deal and play out the season... or not. No other options. If he gets traded the same thing applies.

So I'm not sure how Oakland is going to sign him to a 3 year deal? Am I missing something?

[revo]

I'm lost as to what you guys are talking about. As I posted a couple pages back he cannot sign a long term deal.

With anyone. Even if traded to another team, he still cannot sign a long term deal. He was franchised. His window to sign a deal passed. According to the CBA he has to sign his franchise deal and play out the season... or not. No other options. If he gets traded the same thing applies.

So I'm not sure how Oakland is going to sign him to a 3 year deal? Am I missing something?

Right, this is after the season. Bell is allowed to negotiate his franchise tender, meaning he can still get paid more (or get "reimbursed" for time missed), but can only play out this year. What I meant was that Pittsburgh may not be interested in signing Bell to a long-term deal at any point. And his obvious concern is that if PIT is not interested in signing him to a long-term deal -- and Conner's emergence could be a primary factor -- they may just run him into the ground, which I suppose is his fear.

[The Feral Slasher]

Right, this is after the season. Bell is allowed to negotiate his franchise tender, meaning he can still get paid more (or get "reimbursed" for time missed), but can only play out this year. What I meant was that Pittsburgh may not be interested in signing Bell to a long-term deal at any point. And his obvious concern is that if PIT is not interested in signing him to a long-term deal -- and Conner's emergence could be a primary factor -- they may just run him into the ground, which I suppose is his fear.

I wonder if we will see carry limits or snap limits in football ? I little bit different than pitch count in baseball, but seems like something that might happen eventually.

[In the Corn]

I wonder if we will see carry limits or snap limits in football ? I little bit different than pitch count in baseball, but seems like something that might happen eventually.

I think for skill players there isn't any way of that happening. There is too much chess being played. With snap limit or carry limit audibles would be almost impossible.

[The Feral Slasher]

I think for skill players there isn't any way of that happening. There is too much chess being played. With snap limit or carry limit audibles would be almost impossible.

I don't understand how audibles would factor into this.

[In the Corn]

I don't understand how audibles would factor into this.

When a team has a set formation, let's say 1 RB, 3 WR and 1 TE, they have a set of plays. Perhaps they have a pass play called, The QB looks at the defense and realizes that a run can exploit a weakness in the alignment. QB has to think, "How many times has X RB carried already,"

The variables of down and distance, also make it virtually impossible.

Football would suck if you have your team lined up at the goal line with 30 seconds left, and you have two tackle eligibles trying to carry the ball in for the winning score because your running backs carry count is expended,

[The Feral Slasher]

When a team has a set formation, let's say 1 RB, 3 WR and 1 TE, they have a set of plays. Perhaps they have a pass play called, The QB looks at the defense and realizes that a run can exploit a weakness in the alignment. QB has to think, "How many times has X RB carried already,"

The variables of down and distance, also make it virtually impossible.

Football would suck if you have your team lined up at the goal line with 30 seconds left, and you have two tackle eligibles trying to carry the ball in for the winning score because your running backs carry count is expended,

Sure at some point in a game that could cause strategic issues. I don't think the examples would be a deal breaker. The only way it would ever happen is if it is beneficial to both the player and the league/team. If people stop watching because it is considered to violent and unhealthy. Or if players or former players sue the league because of injuries due to multiple violent collisions. Moving forward I think health of players will become more of an issue and may lead to rules changes. Or may not I suppose

[Hornsby]

I'm lost as to what you guys are talking about. As I posted a couple pages back he cannot sign a long term deal.

With anyone. Even if traded to another team, he still cannot sign a long term deal. He was franchised. His window to sign a deal passed. According to the CBA he has to sign his franchise deal and play out the season... or not. No other options. If he gets traded the same thing applies.

So I'm not sure how Oakland is going to sign him to a 3 year deal? Am I missing something?

As revo said, this is for next year and beyond...a player can only be exclusively franchise tagged for so long before he actually hits what might be considered "true" free agency in the NFL. And if Bell plays this season, he apparently is going to be a true Free agent for the 2019 season...