Football is finally here! We have been through our first week of pre-season games, with another round of games on tap for this weekend. Fans have gotten their first looks at their favorite teams. Some teams have new coaches. Some have new star players. Some have some exciting new rookies. One team even has a quarterback who has been in camp all of TWO days and yet is starting tomorrow night!
While the popular opinion is to disregard the pre-season and add extra games to the regular season, I believe that the NFL needs pre-season games to make the regular season a stronger product.
First and foremost, I think rookies need the pre-season to get acclimated to the speed of the NFL. For example, rookie Lions quarterback Matthew Stafford showed enough poise and pocket awareness in Detroit’s first game that there is talk that if he continues to improve the next three games, he may win the Lions quarterback competition (which I highlighted in a previous debate). In addition, how are fantasy football players supposed to evaluate rookies if they do not see them in games?
Second, players are more likely to get injured if they play more games in the regular season. Extra games accumulate over time, and quite possibly shorten the careers of many players. It is easy to say that people get injured in pre-season games, but, they do. Look at the facts. The majority of starters played only a couple of possessions last week. They will play a little more this week, and even more the week after that. But in the fourth game, they will not play much, if at all. Add up all their playing time over the four games and they might play six quarters. That is significantly less than adding extra games to the schedule. The wear and tear will affect the players, maybe in the short term and maybe in the long run. If a team makes a Super Bowl run, the guys on that team are playing significantly more “intense” minutes. That is going to wear on a body. Playing extra games at an intense level definitely increases the injury possibility when compared to playing pre-season games that sometimes are not played at full speed with the best eleven from each side on the field at the same time.
Third, I think teams need the pre-season in order to get acclimated to the styles of the new coaches they are playing for. Yes, I know “football is football,” but there are different styles. Nine teams have new head coaches (eleven counting the Oakland Raiders with head coach and alleged jaw breaker Tom Cable having the interim label removed, and then also Mike Singletary with the San Francisco 49ers). Seven of those (Raheem Morris, Jim Caldwell, Steve Spagnuolo, Rex Ryan, Jim Schwartz, Todd Haley, and Josh McDaniels) are first time head coaches in the NFL. Players need to get used to the coaches, and conversely, the coaches need to get used to the players. This does not even include all the new members on each coaching staff. There is a transition period and the pre-season is a way to ease that transition.
I know that season ticket holders like Bleacher Fan are frustrated that they have to pay full price to see a pre-season game. Like it or not, the NFL pre-season is necessary!
The NFL is very conscious of their image. Several factors lead an analytical person like me to this conclusion. One, the commissioner, Roger Goodell, cut his teeth in the NFL in the public relations part of the business. Two, the league seems to care a great deal about making a public show of punishment for the players who fall outside of their new conduct policy. Three, they enforce community service (hey, it is not always BAD to be image conscious). Four, the players are (well mostly receivers).
It is that general self-awareness the league touts that makes this issue of a rookie pay scale so bizarre. If the league cares so much about their perception, why would they have a backwards system of rewarding unproven players with massive contracts? It defies logic because the players are being rewarded for what they hope are “future truths” or “trust me” contracts. Considering the value of the contracts, that is no small act of faith on the part of the organization. That is why the general manager gets fired so much. They simply cannot afford to be wrong more than once.
As for the debate, good points are made on both sides. Loyal Homer is correct in his fan-driven head-scratching when considering the backwards logic of professional contracts to rookies. But, the basis of Loyal Homer’s argument is that the players who enter the draft are unproven. While it may be true that the players are unproven at the professional level, the gap between high-quality college football and low quality professional football is not that wide. In fact, that is probably why so many college players are not judged on their talents in the collegiate ranks but on their potential in the pros (though that is likely a debate for another day).
Despite the reluctance on the part of fans to accept a holdout and sign a rookie to a huge future truth contract, it is a practice that works for both the players and the teams. As Bleacher Fan points out, the teams do a good job of evaluating talent in general and assume the risk if they misread a player. If a draft pick is a bust that is a responsibility of the organization, not the player. The organization assumes the draft rights and the burden of signing a player. It is well within the realm of reason to let the market dictate the value of a player – proven or not. It is the same principle as free agency, only with inexperience players at the professional level. Instituting a pay scale for rookies is a double standard in the league, and a double standard that penalizes the veterans – something the league is not likely to do.
Though I am awarding the debate win to Bleacher Fan, I feel like there is a compromise here. Bleacher Fan makes a very thorough, researched point about the relative success of player evaluations and contract value for picks inside the top ten of the draft (they cannot all be good picks… the league still has the Bungals in it). As the talent dwindles with each passing pick on draft day, it makes sense for a pay scale to kick in at some point. Does the 20th player selected really need to hold out for a few extra dollars of guaranteed money? No. If a pay scale does ever come to fruition, limiting it to the players who fall outside of the top ten in the draft makes sense. Market forces can play out with the cream of the crop, but with the remaining players, heavily incentive-laden deals under a predetermined structure could make sense for players and organizations alike.
On the surface it sure seems like any rookie hold out situation sucks, especially from the fans perspective (the most important perspective, by the way). But it is a reflection of the American economic principles of fair market value and the guidance of the invisible hand, and it is what is best for talented players and risk-taking teams.
In these tough times, don’t you get tired of hearing about financial issues on the news? Not only is it bad on Wall Street but it is rough in sports, also. Franchises and organizations are cutting back on expenses and eliminating jobs. Attendance is down at sporting events, and revenue is down across the board.
Apparently, NFL rookies do not watch CNN or ESPN!!
Let me go ahead and get this out of the way. I am not in favor of holdouts period. Not by rookies, not by veterans. Just last week, Atlanta Falcons wide receiver Roddy White held out for a week. Fortunately for the Falcons (and really for White) he agreed to a lucrative (and perhaps excessive) contract over the weekend. Veterans have their own reasons for holding out, and though I may not agree with the concept, I guess I can see their point of view.
But, what leg do rookies have to stand on when holding out? What good really comes out of it in the long haul? They miss a lot of training camp, get way behind in learning the playbook, and miss bonding with their new teammates. You know how it takes you awhile to get to know the new guy in the cubicle next to you at work? The same concept applies in football. It takes time for that work chemistry to work. Holding out endangers that whole process. I cannot imagine how a rookie holding out endears himself to his veteran teammates.
A set rookie salary scale will alleviate these problems. The contracts that Matthew Stafford signed this year, and that Matt Ryan signed last year, are just ridiculous. I am not the only one who thought Ryan’s contract was “disheartening.” To eliminate these contracts, the NFL needs to come up with a rookie salary scale, similar to what the NBA does. The league and the players union can negotiate to come up with an appropriate scale based on a variety of factors. The number one pick would have a predetermined salary. Michael Crabtree would have a set salary, so he would not be able to hold out for a better contract. This would be welcomed by most veterans of the league, many of whom believe in earning money before becoming one of the richest guys in a league. When the contract is up after three or four or however many years, then the player is eligible to sign a big extension. If a player is unable to reach an agreement with a team, then they are free to test the open market. The NBA has proven that this system can work. I think it could work in the NFL.
Do you think it is fair for Matthew Stafford to be making more than Albert Haynesworth at this point in Stafford’s career? Maybe Stafford plays incredibly well over the course of the contract and it ends up being a bargain contract. But you cannot say that at this point without him ever having taken a snap. The madness has to stop! Stop it now! Scale it down before it is too late! It is only going to get worse!
San Francisco 49ers first round draft pick, wide receiver Michael Crabtree, is making quite a fuss. Crabtree, drafted tenth overall in the 2009 NFL Draft, is seeking a rookie contract worth more than $23.5M in guaranteed money. When the Oakland Raiders took Maryland wide receiver Darius Heyward-Bey with the seventh overall pick, the 49ers undoubtedly believed they had the leverage they needed to get Crabtree into camp on time. Heyward-Bey would sign the first wide receiver contract, and the Crabtree’s would fall in line behind it.
But, that is not exactly how events are transpiring. Crabtree is apparently expecting a contract value higher than that of the seventh overall pick, given his (and his agent’s) belief that he was the best wide receiver in the draft. Does that logic make sense? Maybe only to an agent… and a cousin. Crabtree’s cousin/advisor, David Wells (no, not that one) has informed anyone within earshot that Crabtree is so put off by the 49ers inability to award him seventh overall-type money that the receiver is willing to sit out the entire 2009 season and re-enter the draft in 2010. Brilliant, right????
Sure, it is the age old problem with rookies and agents. They place their value higher than the league does AND they fail to understand that, on rare occasions, NFL teams draft according to NEED, not to the frustratingly subjective “talent.” But, I digress.
What Crabtree’s situation does put into perspective is the oft-discussed rookie pay scale in the NFL. This type of situation would not arise if rookies in the NFL were each paid according to the position they were drafted. The NFL would control the scale, and it would be increased year by year according to the changes in the salary cap, revenue sharing agreements, so on and so forth.
Crabtree’s situation is not unique, either. Number one overall pick Matthew Stafford is getting $41.7M in guaranteed money from the Detroit Lions. For perspective, that’s $0.7M more than proven, game-changing defensive tackle Albert Haynesworth is getting from the chronically overpaying Washington Redskins. Huge rookie salaries and rookie contract hold outs are as certain as an August gathering in Canton.
The NFL chief punisher/commissioner, Roger Goodell, assured college football players last December that a rookie pay scale would not be instituted until 2011, at the earliest. But, it appears it is an option on the table – at least in New York. Goodell “officially” favors a system that affords rookies all a predetermined contract level plus the opportunity to renegotiate their deal once they have proven themselves. Since team owners are known for their good natured benevolence, it seems certain this approach would work. (I sure hope you readers are picking up on this sarcasm.)
What our fearless debaters will address today is…
Does the NFL need a rookie pay scale?
Loyal Homer will argue in favor of a rookie pay scale regulating all NFL rookie salaries to a set level while Bleacher Fan will argue against the need for a rookie pay scale.
Read Sports Geek’s argument that the New York Giants wide receiver battle is the year’s best training camp battle and Bleacher Fan’s argument that the Browns quarterback situation is the most fascinating battle looming in training camp .
Guys and gals, we hope you have enjoyed this week’s round of debates. We’ve enjoyed bringing them to you. As you can tell by our topics this week, the three of us are very excited about the upcoming football season, both professional and college football. Yes, we all love baseball. We also all support three different teams passionately, which makes for interesting behind the scenes chatter. But, nothing gets our juices flowing like those fall weekends!
Today, we are discussing which training camp battle promises to be the most intriguing. After some deep thought (yes, I go there occasionally), I have decided that the quarterback battle up in Detroit between rookie Matthew Stafford and veteran Daunte Culpepper is the league’s best.
Let’s recap the situation if you are not familiar. Stafford, of course, was the number one pick in this year’s draft. He played his college ball at the University of Georgia. Prior to being drafted, he agreed to a six year deal worth up to $78 million – with $41.7 million being guaranteed. (Whether or not NFL draft picks receive too much money is definitely a debate we will look at in the future.)Scouts are mixed on him, and there’s actually some question as to who will be a better NFL quarterback. Will it be Stafford or New York Jets first round pick Mark Sanchez? Stafford, without a doubt, has a cannon for an arm. It’s something that allowed him to get away with suspect footwork and inconsistent accuracy in college. That’s not going to happen in the NFL. Nonetheless, he is the future of the Detroit Lions organization and quite possibly the present.
Culpepper played for the Lions last year after signing with them mid-season. He suffered a shoulder injury that cut short his season, but he appears ready to go in 2009. Culpepper is a former star quarterback, having made the Pro Bowl three times earlier this decade with the Minnesota Vikings. Unfortunately, injuries derailed his career and he has been floating around the past few years (with a mini-retirement mixed in at the beginning of the 2008 season.) He’s thrown for over 23,000 yards in his career, so there’s no doubting his past credentials. But, he’d be the first one to tell you he is not what he was in his prime with the Vikings.
This also is not really going to be a dirty battle. Both guys appear to get along. Both are saying all the right things in public. Stafford has put in the work over the summer, but then again, so has Culpepper. Let’s face it… a lot of things are up for grabs with the Lions. Coming off a winless season, no one’s job is really safe. With a new coach in Jim Schwartz, everyone is essentially going to starting fresh.
I know this is off the radar a little. The only reason this battle would get any attention is because of Stafford’s status as a number one pick. What Detroit is going to have to decide is do they want to throw Stafford right into the fire and learn on the fly with a bad team (like Indianapolis did with Peyton Manning) or do they want him learning behind an experienced veteran like Culpepper? No matter what, it will be interesting to see how it turns out.
Guys and gals, when we starting talking about pre-season polls, you know college football season is approaching.
Bleacher Fan poses an interesting question for us. Basically, I must get into the mind of a college football pollster and decide what the best mind frame is when constructing a pre-season poll. Should a pollster vote with the end of the season in mind, or should they vote based on how good they think a team will be at the beginning of the season? Without a doubt, the pollster should vote based on the beginning of the season.
Bleacher Fan alluded to this in the intro, but I want to take it a step further. Georgia was the pre-season number one team last year, and with good reason. They returned pre-season Heisman contenders in quarterback Matthew Stafford and running back Knoshown Moreno. Georgia ended the previous season by whipping a hapless Hawaii team 41-10 in the Sugar Bowl. Coming off the season they had in 2007, Georgia deserved to be ranked number one during the pre-season. The consensus was that it would be extremely difficult for Georgia to finish the season as champions. When prognosticators were giving their BCS Championship predictions last July, Georgia was rarely mentioned. Why, you ask? Because the schedule was absolutely daunting! Road trips to South Carolina, Arizona State, LSU, and Auburn added to home games against Alabama, Tennessee, Kentucky, and Georgia Tech. Not to mention the World’s Largest Outdoor Cocktail Party down in Jacksonville against the mighty Florida Gators (politically correct or not, that’s what everyone in the South still calls it). That still leaves out a possible SEC championship game. Looking at that schedule before the season, most folks outside of Athens – and even some of in Athens – agreed that it was going to be extremely difficult to finish number one. But, going into the season, based on how they finished the previous season and who they had returning, Georgia was a very deserving number one in the pre-season.
As Bleacher Fan said, circumstances often come up that change how the best football team is determined, or even how a mid-level team is perceived. Maybe injuries pop up. Maybe the quarterback gets kicked off the team for not “earning” his money at his “job” (see Rhett Bomar). Maybe a star player gets a DUI and his playing status is thrown into question (see Mississippi State running back Anthony Dixon). These things are absolutely impossible to predict. There’s just no way. If a pollster really knows for certain who is going to be number one at the end of the season, please send them to my home. I’d love to have a chat with them. I’ll even give them a dollar to go buy me a lottery ticket. As my father likes to say, “I don’t have to win the lottery but one time, you know!
I also like to know that if my team finishes the previous season well, I’ve got a pretty good chance to see them in the pre-season rankings. It seems like every year Clemson would be ranked in the pre-season thanks to a strong late season push. But, that would be followed by a mediocre start to the next season (sorry, Sports Geek!). At least they had the pre-season polls to look forward to every year.
The bottom line is that pollsters should vote based on the here and now. They can’t read into the future, no matter how smart they think they are. There’s no sense in even trying!
And we're back... Should college coaches look into criminal and juvenile records when recruiting? The verdict says YES! http://bit.ly/dZ5LF311 months ago
Posted by Loyal Homer 
