News and commentary from around the Web
More Le'Veon Bell and Odell Beckham than you can shake a stick at, plus Nathan Peterman's career quarterback rating, which is barely old enough to buy a beer.
11 comments, Last at 15 Sep 2018, 2:10am
So this sticks a fork in Nathan Peterman's career right?
Please tell me its over. I'm not a Bills fan but this is getting sad.
Note: Site issue says subject can't be longer than 64 characters but the default reply to this is 76 characters.
Mike, it's odd that you refer to Greg Olsen as "oft-injured," since he had not missed a single game from the 2008 season through the 2016 season, and the only injury that has caused him to miss time is a knee injury his rookie year (2007) that caused him to miss two games at the beginning of the season, and this foot injury that first occurred last year. Are you confusing him with someone else?
Reading the BR comments make me die a little inside every time, but I can never look away. =/
Somebody commented on a Deadspin article this summer about how racists will often cheer for exceptionally good black athletes on their home teams by "adopting" them in a disturbingly possessive way. That's all I can think about when I see all the Steelers fans saying things like "Bell should be grateful he was even offered $12M", as if Bell is OBLIGATED to sign his one-year contract offer, or "I'm in the military and I go to work every day so you should too," as if that's relevant somehow.
The frankly disgusting behavior of the Steelers o-line isn't helping things. Where's FireMikeTomlin when you really need him?
re: comments section, tell me about it- reminds me what a relatively insulated bubble these comment section on FO are. Also, the Steelers o-line comments are truly shocking (though maybe helps explain why the NFLPA gets rolled every time the CBA gets renegotiated)
The opinions of fans on what contract a player should accept are obviously irrelevant, and I don't question the racism behind some of them. I would stop short of calling his offensive linemen "disgusting," although their comments are certainly unusual. Given that they are performing roughly the same job as Bell (sacrificing their bodies and physical health to do it, just like he is), and being paid a fraction of what he would make under the franchise tag, it seems like they are probably the only people besides Bell and his agent who should be allowed an opinion.
I really wonder about Bell's relationship to his teammates and their perception of him and his work ethic/dedication, because there has to be something besides the pay disparity that is making the linemen speak out about this. Holdouts happen all the time and teammates usually don't have anything to really say about them.
Yeah, those o-linemen comments really surprised me. If a guy doesn't want to play for the money being offered, then he doesn't want to play. So what? The only thing that would change things, in my view, is if Bell made some sort of verbal promise to his teammates that he violated, but I seriously doubt that happened.
Bell lost an $855,000 game check Sunday and has lost at least a little respect from some of his teammates.
Tanier, you're better than this.
The opportunity cost may or may not be $855,000, but he didn't lose an $855k game check. He has no contract with the Steelers. He didn't lose a game check any more than you lost a $3k biweekly check from the New York Times.
"The opportunity cost may or may not be $855,000, but he didn't lose an $855k game check."
Economically, there's no difference. That's the insight behind opportunity costs. Anyway, Bell has an option, unless and until Pittsburgh withdraws the tender. By electing not to exercise his option last week, he's $855k poorer today (although maybe much richer soon if Pitt caves and offers a long term deal).
He passed on the opportunity to play this week, at a salary of $855k. Their neither equivalent to losing a game check (a penalty of funds already assumed) nor equal to losing $855k, since he also gained the time that would have been spent at his employ and avoided the injury risks commensurate with that time spent.
I wonder if Jeremy Hill would spend $855k to have his ability to walk back.
What's your point?
At the time Hill signed the contract, he obviously viewed his salary as adequate compensation for the injury risk. Otherwise, he wouldn't have signed. Now, he may or may not have changed his mind since then, but either way, it hardly seems relevant to whether he made a wise decision. After all, if you die in a car wreck on the way to your wedding, that doesn't mean getting married was a bad idea.