Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 196 of 227 FirstFirst ... 96146186194195196197198206 ... LastLast
Results 2,926 to 2,940 of 3395
  1. #2926
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    4,400
    Quote Originally Posted by BoKnowsRaiders View Post
    And we have to show interest to either make Denverís offer crazy high to impact their future or to prevent him from going there.

    Mahomes, Rodgers and Herbert in the same division puts us in a very difficult spot.
    The problem is,do they take carr and 2 or 3 picks? What happens to love?
    2019 NFL MOCK DRAFT!!!
    Pick #4 Josh allen edge rusher kentucky
    Pick #24 deandre baker cornerback georgia
    Pick #27 noah fant tight end iowa
    Pick #35 mack wilson ilb alabama





    Tony "el cucuy" ferguson

  2. #2927
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Raider Nation
    Posts
    16,232
    Quote Originally Posted by TrueFan420 View Post
    If this was a normal job sure but itís not so treating it under those rules isnt advisable.
    I disagree.

    "...prone to stoogery.".

  3. #2928
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Corona, Ca
    Posts
    19,040
    Quote Originally Posted by Wolfe-Raider View Post
    Employees do not dictate who their bosses are, sure they can whine about overhead, but if you don't like who your leadership/employers are, leave. Simple as that really. He has enough assets to retire more than comfortably. They have a nice gig. You can play for a few years, retire with more money than the average person, and rest on your laurels for the rest of your life. Yes it is a business, but it is also a game. Players are...players, they play, they are entertainers, they are not owners or executives who are the true businessmen. Sure, the players make a lot of money and their decisions concerning their career affect their present, future, and those around them, but in the end THEY are being paid to play a game. To work for the owners, to entertain the masses, so that the owners and the NFL can make money doing their business.
    If you made your company millions of dollars a year and your mere presence was the difference between them making millions of more dollars or not, do you think youíd be treated the same?


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  4. #2929
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    1,486
    This situation is not like the NBA, where guys whine their way out of situations and force themselves on super teams. Rodgers is arguably a top 5 QB of all time, playing at an elite level, and Green Bay has badly squandered their chances at another ring with their recent moves. If they were so certain of Loveís ability as to trade up in the first round to get him then prove it. Hand him the reins and trade Rodgers, the guy you planned on replacing all along.

    Iím a working man myself, I get the need to make comparisons but itís just not even close to the same. We are not elite all time great quarterbacks, of which there are only a handful in the whole world.

  5. #2930
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    463
    Quote Originally Posted by Wolfe-Raider View Post
    Employees do not dictate who their bosses are, sure they can whine about overhead, but if you don't like who your leadership/employers are, leave. Simple as that really. He has enough assets to retire more than comfortably. They have a nice gig. You can play for a few years, retire with more money than the average person, and rest on your laurels for the rest of your life. Yes it is a business, but it is also a game. Players are...players, they play, they are entertainers, they are not owners or executives who are the true businessmen. Sure, the players make a lot of money and their decisions concerning their career affect their present, future, and those around them, but in the end THEY are being paid to play a game. To work for the owners, to entertain the masses, so that the owners and the NFL can make money doing their business.
    Not necessarily wrong in principle, but you can't ignore the fact that particularly valued employees have a tremendous amount of power. There are only a handful of people who can play QB at his level. That gives him leverage.

    And in the sense of employee and boss, you could look at it from the angle that his employer is the NFL. That's the company he works for. In a sense, he's not asking for a new employer so much as a switch to a different branch. There are lots of valuable employees for companies of all sorts, who essentially get their pick of jobs among the many offices of a major corporation, whether it's for personal reasons (city, family etc.) or business ones (salary, conflicts with the management, additional business opportunities, etc). Sometimes they're accommodated, sometimes they're not, and either the employee sucks it up, or they quit. He could also go work for a lesser company (a different league, for instance, for a lower salary) if that's his choice.

    Besides which, I have very little sympathy for teams who, let's be honest, treat most players as disposable. If you were talking about a backup TE or something, do you think any team is going to ever say, "well, he's been with us a long time, and a really great guy who the fans love, so we'll keep him around instead of giving the job to a cheaper UDFA even if it's costing us an extra $1m a year."

    There's no loyalty from teams to players, so it's always been odd to me that anyone would demand or expect undying loyalty in reverse. It could be the nicest dude who's given a team years of great play and delivered tons of wonderful performances, championships, and money ... yet the minute he starts to slip what you'll hear is "dude's done, get him outta here!" from the fans, and the team is absolutely going to be working to replace him.

    I don't expect the guy fighting and hoping for the last roster spot to be devoted to a single franchise, so why would I expect the same from a star QB? None of us fans really give a **** about any of these guys beyond what they can do for our team on the field, and anyone saying otherwise is kidding themselves.

  6. #2931
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Bay Area, CA
    Posts
    13,774
    Quote Originally Posted by Wolfe-Raider View Post
    Employees do not dictate who their bosses are...
    Yes and no. It varies.

    There are some industries where employees have the ability to influence hiring at the executive level. I worked at a firm where I chose the partners that I wanted to work with and participated in the interview process. At least on one occasion I was told that my specific input on potentially objectionable qualities of a candidate played a role in the firm picking someone else for the position.

    As this relates to sports, we see players weigh in on who their head coaches should be all of the time. Some players are even given GM-like privileges in helping pick rosters. In organizations like the NBA, players also have some say on who is granted ownership of a franchise.

    I get that for most folks picking your boss begins and ends with you deciding if you want to take the job or not. But fortunately not every business operates like it's still the Stone Age.

  7. #2932
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Bay Area, CA
    Posts
    13,774
    Quote Originally Posted by mmbt View Post
    There's no loyalty from teams to players, so it's always been odd to me that anyone would demand or expect undying loyalty in reverse. It could be the nicest dude who's given a team years of great play and delivered tons of wonderful performances, championships, and money ... yet the minute he starts to slip what you'll hear is "dude's done, get him outta here!" from the fans, and the team is absolutely going to be working to replace him.

    I don't expect the guy fighting and hoping for the last roster spot to be devoted to a single franchise, so why would I expect the same from a star QB? None of us fans really give a **** about any of these guys beyond what they can do for our team on the field, and anyone saying otherwise is kidding themselves.
    Totally agree.

    What sucks is that teams can easily cut players and leave them curbside like yesterday's garbage and hire their replacement, but players don't have a similarly easy and convenient escape mechanism to leave a team and seek employment elsewhere in the league. That always bothered me about the NFL.

  8. #2933
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    7,576
    Quote Originally Posted by raiderizer View Post
    The problem is,do they take carr and 2 or 3 picks? What happens to love?
    They already said that love is still not close to ready, though they like his development. I thought that was an odd combination- if heís not close, how could they like it?

    I think theyíd be happy to run with Carr and let love sit another year. Then maybe trade carr the following year if love is ready.

  9. #2934
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Raider Nation
    Posts
    16,232
    Quote Originally Posted by KobeOwnSU View Post
    If you made your company millions of dollars a year and your mere presence was the difference between them making millions of more dollars or not, do you think youíd be treated the same?


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    I get what your saying, but just how much would they lose in the long run? Millions? In a multi-billion business? Peanuts. They have a precedent set already with Brett Favre. San Francisco let Montana go to start Steve Young...it's business. They will recover. That employee shouldn't be able to say "Fire that guy, I don't like him, otherwise I am leaving." He's being played to play a kid's game for generational money, he should finish his contract and bail if bailing is what he really wants.

    "...prone to stoogery.".

  10. #2935
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Raider Nation
    Posts
    16,232
    Quote Originally Posted by mmbt View Post
    Not necessarily wrong in principle, but you can't ignore the fact that particularly valued employees have a tremendous amount of power. There are only a handful of people who can play QB at his level. That gives him leverage.

    And in the sense of employee and boss, you could look at it from the angle that his employer is the NFL. That's the company he works for. In a sense, he's not asking for a new employer so much as a switch to a different branch. There are lots of valuable employees for companies of all sorts, who essentially get their pick of jobs among the many offices of a major corporation, whether it's for personal reasons (city, family etc.) or business ones (salary, conflicts with the management, additional business opportunities, etc). Sometimes they're accommodated, sometimes they're not, and either the employee sucks it up, or they quit. He could also go work for a lesser company (a different league, for instance, for a lower salary) if that's his choice.

    Besides which, I have very little sympathy for teams who, let's be honest, treat most players as disposable. If you were talking about a backup TE or something, do you think any team is going to ever say, "well, he's been with us a long time, and a really great guy who the fans love, so we'll keep him around instead of giving the job to a cheaper UDFA even if it's costing us an extra $1m a year."

    There's no loyalty from teams to players, so it's always been odd to me that anyone would demand or expect undying loyalty in reverse. It could be the nicest dude who's given a team years of great play and delivered tons of wonderful performances, championships, and money ... yet the minute he starts to slip what you'll hear is "dude's done, get him outta here!" from the fans, and the team is absolutely going to be working to replace him.

    I don't expect the guy fighting and hoping for the last roster spot to be devoted to a single franchise, so why would I expect the same from a star QB? None of us fans really give a **** about any of these guys beyond what they can do for our team on the field, and anyone saying otherwise is kidding themselves.
    Good points and I agree with most of them. We have all seen the highlighted statement happen in the NFL. It does happen. Not for long, but it does. I just think it is messed up to call for another man's head or else. I do believe in retaining your own and rewarding great play with a bigger and longer contract and I think Rogers deserves just that. Just not at the expense of another man's job that isn't even a player. I mean, how bad is he? Brought in a QB to train-up once Rogers decides to leave? That's just good business and Rogers is not in danger of being unseated by Love.

    "...prone to stoogery.".

  11. #2936
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    1,544
    Quote Originally Posted by Wolfe-Raider View Post
    I get what your saying, but just how much would they lose in the long run? Millions? In a multi-billion business? Peanuts. They have a precedent set already with Brett Favre. San Francisco let Montana go to start Steve Young...it's business. They will recover. That employee shouldn't be able to say "Fire that guy, I don't like him, otherwise I am leaving." He's being played to play a kid's game for generational money, he should finish his contract and bail if bailing is what he really wants.
    Stork, is that you?

    I agree but times are changing. Owners may still be the bosses of their players, but coaches certainly arenít, in the way that they used to be. That stopped when superstar players started making multiple times as much as their coach.

    Owner is the boss in the sense that he can squat on his rights and never let him play again, if he thought that was somehow in his best interest.

    Also, about the other point, I feel like most fans have been loyal to players or teams, so they feel like those players should be loyal back to them (the team, sure, but only by extension, itís really loyal back to the fans).

    Just a crazy situation as the world revolves around us. I own a business (franchise, small to be sure, one tropical smoothie cafe to be exact) in a seasonal neighborhood. In times past when everyone wanted a job, it was easy to hold employees to a very high standard. Today, with everyone hiring, itís difficult not to treat them a little differently, because a bunch of other jobs are waiting for them, half of them that probably could afford to pay them more.

    Itís kinda a capitalist market at work. Supply and demand. And also the old adage that you can get by with as much drama as your talent/value dictates. There is no supply of Aaron Rodgers. Huge demand.

    I think Mahomes and Brady could get away with this behavior, but I donít think we are going to start seeing third string cornerbacks demanding a GM change. If thereís any silver lining.

    My personal opinion is that all-time great players have had this kind of pull for a long time, we just never heard every detail like we do with all the media leaks and social media.

  12. #2937
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Central California
    Posts
    8,502
    Quote Originally Posted by TrueFan420 View Post
    The game bro... it hasnít been about the game in ages. This is a business first and foremost. You should have zero issues with the players making it about business when the teams are all business. If you donít like that, I get it but thatís the reality.
    Iíve known for quite some time that love for the game is over. My point was, and is, that workers donít dictate to management how things are run. He gets paid, he performs, and if he doesnít like his boss he can go out the door and kick rocks and see if thereís someone else willing to pay for his services. To make demands under the premise that you wonít return unless your demands are met is infantile unless youíre willing to shoulder the responsibilities of that business, including the monetary ones.

    I believe that is how business works and if Rogers is that unhappy he should just leave. I donít want to hear his BS.

    We have released and or traded unhappy individuals in the past...
    The Second protects the First, always has and always will...

  13. #2938
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Raider Nation
    Posts
    16,232
    Quote Originally Posted by RaiderLakersA's View Post
    Yes and no. It varies.

    There are some industries where employees have the ability to influence hiring at the executive level. I worked at a firm where I chose the partners that I wanted to work with and participated in the interview process. At least on one occasion I was told that my specific input on potentially objectionable qualities of a candidate played a role in the firm picking someone else for the position.

    As this relates to sports, we see players weigh in on who their head coaches should be all of the time. Some players are even given GM-like privileges in helping pick rosters. In organizations like the NBA, players also have some say on who is granted ownership of a franchise.

    I get that for most folks picking your boss begins and ends with you deciding if you want to take the job or not. But fortunately not every business operates like it's still the Stone Age.
    Stone Age? What are you implying? I understand referent power is a good thing and I sure hope the new guys in our organization wield it with righteous conviction for positive change. Power can also be corrupted and abused. I think a private discourse with leadership would have lead to mutual understanding of any grievances which would allow for a resolution that is both amicable and mutually beneficial. Social media and drama, IMO, are the worst ways to get these things aired and remedied. Not with something like this. Keep it in the clubhouse. Now the Pack looks bad, Rogers looks bad...it is not good, both are/were well respected with massive credentials. Bad business. It will blow over this year, I think he will play in GB, but after that...who knows.

    "...prone to stoogery.".

  14. #2939
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Raider Nation
    Posts
    16,232
    Quote Originally Posted by LJ4ptplay View Post
    Stork, is that you?

    I agree but times are changing. Owners may still be the bosses of their players, but coaches certainly arenít, in the way that they used to be. That stopped when superstar players started making multiple times as much as their coach.

    Owner is the boss in the sense that he can squat on his rights and never let him play again, if he thought that was somehow in his best interest.

    Also, about the other point, I feel like most fans have been loyal to players or teams, so they feel like those players should be loyal back to them (the team, sure, but only by extension, itís really loyal back to the fans).

    Just a crazy situation as the world revolves around us. I own a business (franchise, small to be sure, one tropical smoothie cafe to be exact) in a seasonal neighborhood. In times past when everyone wanted a job, it was easy to hold employees to a very high standard. Today, with everyone hiring, itís difficult not to treat them a little differently, because a bunch of other jobs are waiting for them, half of them that probably could afford to pay them more.

    Itís kinda a capitalist market at work. Supply and demand. And also the old adage that you can get by with as much drama as your talent/value dictates. There is no supply of Aaron Rodgers. Huge demand.

    I think Mahomes and Brady could get away with this behavior, but I donít think we are going to start seeing third string cornerbacks demanding a GM change. If thereís any silver lining.

    My personal opinion is that all-time great players have had this kind of pull for a long time, we just never heard every detail like we do with all the media leaks and social media.
    LOL Nope, not the Mad Stork, but I have noticed, the older I get, the more set in my ways I have become.

    I can't argue with you too much, rather I would agree, I do believe that Star Performers should be rewarded, listened to, kept happy to a degree. To a degree, when they start calling for other's heads, making unreasonable demands and down talking the organization, leadership should take pause. Look at Hudson, best center in the league IMO, he was unhappy...we let him go...if Carr started acting like Rogers, he'd be gone. Loyalty is a two way street. I know none of them are a "Rodgers" per se, but they are some of OUR best and also fit a supply vs. demand issue IMO.

    As for the highlighted quote, maybe, I am not sure, but I think it is something else and social media is the preferred medium to use.

    "...prone to stoogery.".

  15. #2940
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    1,544
    Quote Originally Posted by corralski View Post
    Iíve known for quite some time that love for the game is over. My point was, and is, that workers donít dictate to management how things are run. He gets paid, he performs, and if he doesnít like his boss he can go out the door and kick rocks and see if thereís someone else willing to pay for his services. To make demands under the premise that you wonít return unless your demands are met is infantile unless youíre willing to shoulder the responsibilities of that business, including the monetary ones.

    I believe that is how business works and if Rogers is that unhappy he should just leave. I donít want to hear his BS.

    We have released and or traded unhappy individuals in the past...
    But heís under contract, he canít just leave because Green Bay ďownsĒ him. I know he signed the contract, and thatís a whole other debate, but I think nothing would make him happier than just leaving.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •