Adam Schefter on NFL contracts

[Broncobuddy7]

Adam Schefter on todays NFL Total Access.

"We’ve hear over and over…mostly for Terrell Owens super-agent Drew Rosenhaus how an NFL player’s contract isn’t guaranteed, how a player can be cut at any time, how it just isn’t fair. And maybe it isn’t, but then, neither is this.

There are an equal number of players who signed huge deals, never live up to them and don’t ever offer a rebate for any of that money. When Ryan Leaf crashed and burned did he rebate any portion of the $11.25 million dollar signing bonus that the Charger awarded him before he played a down? How about Cincinnati’s #1 draft choice Akali Smith? When he failed to live up to his potential how much of his $10.8 million dollar signing bonus did he rebate to the Bengals…any? And has Ricky Williams paid back any of the $8.6 million dollars in bonuses that an independent arbitrator ruled that he owed the Dolphins after he walked out on Miami before last season? Other than former Cleveland left tackle Ross Burba and former Detroit running back Barry Sanders players usually don’t fumble away cash to their former employer. And teams generally don’t bestow you contracts on players who have six years remaining on deals they signed only one year ago, like T.O. did.

These are the rules, and the rules like Refrigerator Perry in his prime for the Chicago Bears go both ways. Some players outperform their contracts, some never perform up to them, and the majority fall right smack in the middle earning exactly what they should for their football services. Some agents, especially those who publicly pushing for new deals love to point out that football is the only sport in which the contracts aren’t guaranteed. Right again. But there’s a notable emission from that little factoid. The signing bonuses in them are. When a player lands a monster one like Michael Vick or Peyton Manning did it makes that player virtually un-cutable and un-tradable. They have a guarantee that not only are they set for life, but they’re not going anywhere anytime soon.

With T.O. wanting a new deal in Philly, with Jevon Walker wanting a new one in Green Bay, with even Sean Taylor wanting a new one in Washington we keep hearing how there are no guaranteed contracts for players. True. There also are no money back guarantees from the players either. It’s the system, like life it isn’t always fair."

[clarker]

Adam Schefter on todays NFL Total Access.

"We’ve hear over and over…mostly for Terrell Owens super-agent Drew Rosenhaus how an NFL player’s contract isn’t guaranteed, how a player can be cut at any time, how it just isn’t fair. And maybe it isn’t, but then, neither is this.

There are an equal number of players who signed huge deals, never live up to them and don’t ever offer a rebate for any of that money. When Ryan Leaf crashed and burned did he rebate any portion of the $11.25 million dollar signing bonus that the Charger awarded him before he played a down? How about Cincinnati’s #1 draft choice Akali Smith? When he failed to live up to his potential how much of his $10.8 million dollar signing bonus did he rebate to the Bengals…any? And has Ricky Williams paid back any of the $8.6 million dollars in bonuses that an independent arbitrator ruled that he owed the Dolphins after he walked out on Miami before last season? Other than former Cleveland left tackle Ross Burba and former Detroit running back Barry Sanders players usually don’t fumble away cash to their former employer. And teams generally don’t bestow you contracts on players who have six years remaining on deals they signed only one year ago, like T.O. did.

These are the rules, and the rules like Refrigerator Perry in his prime for the Chicago Bears go both ways. Some players outperform their contracts, some never perform up to them, and the majority fall right smack in the middle earning exactly what they should for their football services. Some agents, especially those who publicly pushing for new deals love to point out that football is the only sport in which the contracts aren’t guaranteed. Right again. But there’s a notable emission from that little factoid. The signing bonuses in them are. When a player lands a monster one like Michael Vick or Peyton Manning did it makes that player virtually un-cutable and un-tradable. They have a guarantee that not only are they set for life, but they’re not going anywhere anytime soon.

With T.O. wanting a new deal in Philly, with Jevon Walker wanting a new one in Green Bay, with even Sean Taylor wanting a new one in Washington we keep hearing how there are no guaranteed contracts for players. True. There also are no money back guarantees from the players either. It’s the system, like life it isn’t always fair."Very good points.

[yavoon]

**** points and he should be ashamed of making them.

1)there are things called incentives in contracts now, performance clauses are in, so no whining about underperforming.

2)no other sport and no business I can think of operates w/ less security than a football players contract. even the damn coaches have buyout clauses.

3)honestly its a little bit of a weird system to have non-guarenteed contracts stacked on top of holdouts and the other rigamarol. but u have to realize this, at the end of the day the setup of nfl contracts for the players sucks compared to their peers in other sports. so in reality ur spending all this time and effort yelling at the ppl who got the worst deal out of it. good job.

[Florida_Bronco]

Good article, thanks for posting it BroncoBuddy7.

I can see both sides of the argument, but I tend to feel that players need to honor the contracts they sign, for the most part.

[Kaylore]

Good article, thanks for posting it BroncoBuddy7.

I can see both sides of the argument, but I tend to feel that players need to honor the contracts they sign, for the most part.
I agree. They can complain that they will "just get cut" but they were the ones who agreed to sign a backloaded contract. If you don't like the contract, don't sign. You will get offered what you are worth, and often a little bit more. I have zero sympathy for TO. He signed a contract, he should honor it.

[SoCalBronco]

I agree. They can complain that they will "just get cut" but they were the ones who agreed to sign a backloaded contract. If you don't like the contract, don't sign. You will get offered what you are worth, and often a little bit more. I have zero sympathy for TO. He signed a contract, he should honor it.

I dont like it when it happens to us, but the player is right. It either applies both ways or it doesnt apply at all. Teams can disregard it whenever they like. Yes they knew the team had the ability to do that when they signed it, but the team also knows players routinely hold out and have the right to (ofcourse without pay) when they like, so its forseeable on both sides. The argument that they do not pay back when they have substandard years doesnt really work. Teams can force you to take a pay cut in derogation of what you agreed to as a penalty for your poor year so long as what they are asking you to give up is something that you probably could not get back on the open market if they cut you.

[clarker]

I dont like it when it happens to us, but the player is right. It either applies both ways or it doesnt apply at all. Teams can disregard it whenever they like. Yes they knew the team had the ability to do that when they signed it, but the team also knows players routinely hold out and have the right to (ofcourse without pay) when they like, so its forseeable on both sides. The argument that they do not pay back when they have substandard years doesnt really work. Teams can force you to take a pay cut in derogation of what you agreed to as a penalty for your poor year so long as what they are asking you to give up is something that you probably could not get back on the open market if they cut you.Sure they can cut a player if he sucks, but they can't get back any signing bounses. Ryan Leaf is the prime example but he is hardly the only one.

[Kaylore]

I dont like it when it happens to us, but the player is right. It either applies both ways or it doesnt apply at all. Teams can disregard it whenever they like. Yes they knew the team had the ability to do that when they signed it, but the team also knows players routinely hold out and have the right to (ofcourse without pay) when they like, so its forseeable on both sides. The argument that they do not pay back when they have substandard years doesnt really work. Teams can force you to take a pay cut in derogation of what you agreed to as a penalty for your poor year so long as what they are asking you to give up is something that you probably could not get back on the open market if they cut you.
I suppose if you want to play for the same team but think your ability exceeds your contract than I could see you wanting re-negotiations, but It's still a contract. You are agreeing to do some service and will be paid accordingly. Teams only cut players if 1. They aren't living up to their value or 2. They don't have the money to pay them.

If the the first is true, then I believe that every employer has a right to fire someone who isn't meeting expectations. They get their signing bonus either way. In the latter example, if they are cut for cap reasons a la Samari Rolle, then other teams can bid on for that player's services. I still say no one holds a gun to your head and makes you sign something. If you sign a contract, you should uphold it.

[SoCalBronco]

One thing that has surprised me is when people say TO has no leverage at all. The Eagles have never re-done contracts after one year. That fact, however, is completely irrelevant to the issue of whether TO has leverage or not. I happen to think he has alot more leverage than many of these writers are saying. Without TO, Philadelphia CANNOT go to the Super Bowl under any viable scenario. They have literally nothing at WR. Philadelphia has no passing game whatsoever. Even though he was only their no. 3, FredEx is gone. Pinkston is probably one of the bottom 5 No. 2 WRs in the league. And they have a rookie WR, Reggie Brown. That's pretty much it. Its not like they have a dominant running game either. If he holds out and their offense is struggling as it will, at the end of september if they are around .500, do u think TO will have leverage? Sure. If they are not performing well due to a poor offense, he has instant leverage but we have to wait to see whether it in fact happens. The fact that in the past the Eagles have held the fort well against players is irrelevant. Andy Reid can say whatever he wants, we dont do it that way or whatever. If your 2-3 the first week of October and are averaging 17 points a game, TO can say thats nice, tell me again why i should care whether you have caved in in the past or not? Your sucking, if you dont cave in, your season will be over in a matter of weeks. That is, in fact, leverage. Outside of maybe, sorta LJ Smith, i dont see even one skill position player on the entire eagles offense that scares anyone. Not even one.

[Kaylore]

Without TO, Philadelphia CANNOT go to the Super Bowl under any viable scenario.
...other than last year, and McNabb's ability to get pretty close the years prior.

[SoCalBronco]

I suppose if you want to play for the same team but think your ability exceeds your contract than I could see you wanting re-negotiations, but It's still a contract. You are agreeing to do some service and will be paid accordingly. Teams only cut players if 1. They aren't living up to their value or 2. They don't have the money to pay them.

If the the first is true, then I believe that every employer has a right to fire someone who isn't meeting expectations. They get their signing bonus either way. In the latter example, if they are cut for cap reasons a la Samari Rolle, then other teams can bid on for that player's services. I still say no one holds a gun to your head and makes you sign something. If you sign a contract, you should uphold it.

Again, this argument only has moral force if it applies to both sides. In addition, with regard to option no. 1 that you pointed out, the unfairness of the situation is manifested again. The team has a way to remedy the issue if the guy isnt living up to their value, but if the player is exceeding their value, he has no way to remedy the situation. As i noted, because the team can cut a player at will, they are estopped from making the "you signed it, you honor it" argument.

[SoCalBronco]

...other than last year, and McNabb's ability to get pretty close the years prior.

Last year they did not advance to the Super Bowl without him. Without him, they do not have home field advantage. They did win two games in the playoffs against teams i dont really think are that great and they won them AT HOME where they are markedly better.

[Kaylore]

Last year they did not advance to the Super Bowl without him. Without him, they do not have home field advantage. They did win two games in the playoffs against teams i dont really think are that great and they won them AT HOME where they are markedly better.
I have trouble accepting that TO is the only player in a team that has been to multiple championships in a row that can take them over the top, and that without him their team has nothing.

[SoCalBronco]

I have trouble accepting that TO is the only player in a team that has been to multiple championships in a row that can take them over the top, and that without him their team has nothing.

I agree with you he is not. However, in the particular case of the Eagles, i do not see them winning a super bowl without him. Maybe, due to the general weakness of the NFC they might be able to get there...maybe, but before him, with a better WR corps (it was still crappy) than the have now (without him), they failed to do so with the benefit of two NFC title games at home. But certainly, they would not win it against a powerhouse AFC team. Philadelphia minus TO could not reasonably be said to have a viable chance to beat New England, Pittsburgh or Indianapolis.

[Kaylore]

I agree with you he is not. However, in the particular case of the Eagles, i do not see them winning a super bowl without him. Maybe, due to the general weakness of the NFC they might be able to get there...maybe, but before him, with a better WR corps (it was still crappy) than the have now (without him), they failed to do so with the benefit of two NFC title games at home. But certainly, they would not win it against a powerhouse AFC team. Philadelphia minus TO could not reasonably be said to have a viable chance to beat New England, Pittsburgh or Indianapolis.
Well he is a playmaker, so in that sense he hase leverage, but he isn't making any friends holding out. And Philly isn't the forgiving type, despite its "brotherly love" tagline.

[clarker]

Last year they did not advance to the Super Bowl without him. Without him, they do not have home field advantage. They did win two games in the playoffs against teams i dont really think are that great and they won them AT HOME where they are markedly better.But the year before last they had Home field advantage as they did in 2002. So they could get home field without T.O because they got it without him in 2002 and 2003.

Plus they one two play off games to get to the Super Bowl without him.

So Philly can get to the Super Bowl without T.O.

Now if you took McNabb off that team, there is no way they get to the Super Bowl.

[clarker]

I agree with you he is not. However, in the particular case of the Eagles, i do not see them winning a super bowl without him. Maybe, due to the general weakness of the NFC they might be able to get there...maybe, but before him, with a better WR corps (it was still crappy) than the have now (without him), they failed to do so with the benefit of two NFC title games at home. But certainly, they would not win it against a powerhouse AFC team. Philadelphia minus TO could not reasonably be said to have a viable chance to beat New England, Pittsburgh or Indianapolis.BTW, I love that you can make this argument. I love it when people talk about the powerhouse AFC teams. I'm so glad the 13 year streak of the NFC is over. The team that ended that god awful streak should be thanked by every fan of the AFC. :thumbs:

[SoCalBronco]

But the year before last they had Home field advantage as they did in 2002. So they could get home field without T.O because they got it without him in 2002 and 2003.

They could get homefield based on the opponents in the NFC in 2002 and 2003 without him. I dont know how good NFC teams will be in 2005. Even with homefield they didnt do squat with it till this year.

Plus they one two play off games to get to the Super Bowl without him.

So Philly can get to the Super Bowl without T.O.

Both games were at home against two teams that i dont think were that great. The issue isnt whether they can get there. Its whether they can win it. Since they have gotten there, now expectations are even higher. Anything besides winning it will be a let down.

Now if you took McNabb off that team, there is no way they get to the Super Bowl. I agree. He is the most important piece. He is vital. Still, without TO he cannot win it.

[yavoon]

I hope TO holds out AND the eagles suck. it would provide by far the most entertainment.

[fontaine]

I hope TO holds out AND the eagles suck. it would provide by far the most entertainment.


I doubt it. TO may be greedy but he's not completely stupid. He knows the Eagles went to multiple playoff runs without him. TO isn't the engine of that team. Westbrook, McNabb and that OL is.

Especially in a diluted NFC without multiple powerhouse teams.

[Beantown Bronco]

Fact: the Eagles can, and just did, get to the SB without TO. The NFC is and has been so weak for the past few years that it's just been handed to the Eagles. Before last year, their passing game was a joke and they still got to the NFC Championship game. Why now can it not be done?

Fact: TO did nothing in the grand scheme of things last season other than help the team move up the league regular season offensive rankings. They didn't advance in the playoffs because of him, make it to the SB because of him, and they lost the SB with him in it. They can very easily do the same with him on the bench. No? IMO - he has no leverage.

Fact: players never take a paycut when they underperform. They may tell the media they are taking a cut to look good to the public and claim they are "taking one for the team"; but all they are doing is getting that "cut" money in the form of a signing bonus instead of getting it weekly in their season salary. So, in actuality, anyone who takes such a cut actually gets more money up front than they would have otherwise (although the cap hit to the team gets spread out much further). Teams have NO recourse when a player underperforms other than to cut him, which can hut the team more than anything.

[RhymesayersDU]

I don't see why everybody keeps saying the Eagles can do it without TO. He single handedly kept them in the Super Bowl, and without him, they probably get blown out without even a chance to win.

And with what has happened with free agency this off-season, they have no WR's to speak of.

[Beantown Bronco]

[QUOTE=RhymesayersDU]I don't see why everybody keeps saying the Eagles can do it without TO. He single handedly kept them in the Super Bowl, and without him, they probably get blown out without even a chance to win.
QUOTE]

I don't think anyone is saying they can win the SB without him, necessarily. What I see being argued is that TO's presence did nothing to advance the team further than they would've gone without him. The prior two years without him, they were the #1 seed and lost in the NFC Championship. With him, they earn the same #1 seed but win the NFC Championship WITHOUT his help. Sure he has a good SB stats wise, BUT THEY LOSE. They could've just as easily done all that without him.

Last time I checked, TO had ZERO TDs in the SB, so why would they have been blown out without him again?

[Garcia Bronco]

I tried to read this article, but dick screwed the first sentence.

[RhymesayersDU]

I don't see why everybody keeps saying the Eagles can do it without TO. He single handedly kept them in the Super Bowl, and without him, they probably get blown out without even a chance to win.


I don't think anyone is saying they can win the SB without him, necessarily. What I see being argued is that TO's presence did nothing to advance the team further than they would've gone without him. The prior two years without him, they were the #1 seed and lost in the NFC Championship. With him, they earn the same #1 seed but win the NFC Championship WITHOUT his help. Sure he has a good SB stats wise, BUT THEY LOSE. They could've just as easily done all that without him.

Last time I checked, TO had ZERO TDs in the SB, so why would they have been blown out without him again?

Valid points. But here's my take:

1) Now that they've made it to the SB, anything less than being there (and winning it) this year will be unacceptable. I think we can agree on expectations of the organization and the city, yes? Hence, with that in mind, I don't think they can meet those expectations without Owens, despite what they've done in the past.

2) As for the no touchdown thing, you're right, however, no TDs doesn't mean he didn't carry that team offensively. If I remember correctly, he had 11 catches for 122 yards, which means, he pretty much set them up for all their scoring opportunities. To say that just because he didn't score he didn't do anything to help them is false, IMO. That's like if Jake Plummer threw 5 passes to Rod Smith on a drive, and then we handed off to Tatum Bell for the touchdown. Sure, Rod didn't score, but he single handedly carried the drive, didn't he? Just because TO didn't get an endzone ball doesn't mean he didn't carry that team, IMO.