All Pro OT Trent Williams "Silverback",

Trent just wants guaranteed money. Once BA gets done and they allocate for Purdy, Paraag will move stuff around to get it done.

I dont think they are worried about Trent not being in shape or ready to go on day 1. These are basically veteran days and giving reps to younger guys.

Originally posted by linkboy:

Originally posted by glorydayz:
You are forgetting that there is always another team that will pay these guys. This is exactly what the league wants out of free agency.

The league got tired of seeing the Steelers, Cowboys, and Niners win Super Bowls.

It wasn't so much the Steelers, it was us, the Giants and Washington in the 80s, and Dallas joining the fun in the 90s.

The Bears in 85 and Packers in 96 were the only NFC teams that weren't San Francisco, Dallas, New York and Washington to win a Super Bowl during that run where the NFC won 13 consecutive Super Bowls.

Yes, cowboys & steelers dominated the 70's.

Originally posted by CatchMaster80:

Originally posted by Rathof44:

Originally posted by glorydayz:

Originally posted by CatchMaster80:
Why don't they just sign one year deals so they can be the highest paid each year. This is BS. Every contract is going to be surpassed by the next player to sign. This is an ego thing more than the actual amount they're being paid. Maybe they need to start paying higher bonuses at the end of the year based on games played, performance ratings ,etc. instead of this constant renegotiating. The players probably won't want that since they would actually need to perform to earn their money.

You are forgetting that there is always another team that will pay these guys. This is exactly what the league wants out of free agency.

The league got tired of seeing the Steelers, Cowboys, and Niners win Super Bowls.

Then enter the Patriots, a team led by Brady that cared about winning Super Bowls, and not players being obsessed with being the highest paid at the position. The longer that Brady is gone, the more respect I have for that dude and his desire to just win.

You can't expect most players to do what Brady did since they aren't married to a super model making twice as much as he did. The Pats also had the luxury of playing in the weakest division in the NFL for most of those years so they had an automatic first round bye. Belichick is probably the greatest defensive coach in my lifetime and he built his teams around that. They never had a lot of high profile players on offense and that's where most of the high paid guys are. They relied on defense to keep the score close and give good field position to the offense.

I'm not going to lament any NFL player's salary. It's not even about financial freedom, it's all about ego. Brady didn't care, let the rings do the talking. Brady would have fine regardless of his wife's salary. Moss, Gronk, Hernandez, Welker, Edelman were pretty good offensive players, but i see your point.

Originally posted by Rathof44:

Originally posted by CatchMaster80:

Originally posted by Rathof44:

Originally posted by glorydayz:

Originally posted by CatchMaster80:
Why don't they just sign one year deals so they can be the highest paid each year. This is BS. Every contract is going to be surpassed by the next player to sign. This is an ego thing more than the actual amount they're being paid. Maybe they need to start paying higher bonuses at the end of the year based on games played, performance ratings ,etc. instead of this constant renegotiating. The players probably won't want that since they would actually need to perform to earn their money.

You are forgetting that there is always another team that will pay these guys. This is exactly what the league wants out of free agency.

The league got tired of seeing the Steelers, Cowboys, and Niners win Super Bowls.

Then enter the Patriots, a team led by Brady that cared about winning Super Bowls, and not players being obsessed with being the highest paid at the position. The longer that Brady is gone, the more respect I have for that dude and his desire to just win.

You can't expect most players to do what Brady did since they aren't married to a super model making twice as much as he did. The Pats also had the luxury of playing in the weakest division in the NFL for most of those years so they had an automatic first round bye. Belichick is probably the greatest defensive coach in my lifetime and he built his teams around that. They never had a lot of high profile players on offense and that's where most of the high paid guys are. They relied on defense to keep the score close and give good field position to the offense.

I'm not going to lament any NFL player's salary. It's not even about financial freedom, it's all about ego. Brady didn't care, let the rings do the talking. Brady would have fine regardless of his wife's salary. Moss, Gronk, Hernandez, Welker, Edelman were pretty good offensive players, but i see your point.

Moss was a legit superstar but they never won a SB with him. Ironically he never played on a winning SB team even though he had tons of talent. Gronk was a great TE but he was hurt a lot. He only started every game twice in his 11 year career. Welker and Edelman were nice players but not superstars. The main thing is Brady never had a loaded offense like the 49ers. Belichick believed in spending the money on the O line and the defense.

Originally posted by glorydayz:
Yes, cowboys & steelers dominated the 70's.

The 70s were still more varied in teams that won the Super Bowl compared to the 80s and early 90s.

KC won one, the Colts won one, Miami won two, Oakland won one, Dallas won two and Pittsburgh won four.

From the 1981 season to the 1991 season, the same four teams won the majority of the Super Bowls (SF in 81, 84, 88, 89, Washington in 82, 87, 91 and New York in 86 and 91). Oakland winning in 80, 82 and Chicago in 85 were the only times Washington, SF or the Giants didn't win a Super Bowl in the decade.

So yes, while Pittsburgh and Dallas dominated the 70s (moreso Pittsburgh), the 70s still weren't as bad as the 80s were in regards to different teams winning a Super Bowl.

Those three teams winning in the 80s was the reason why Plan-B free agency came to be and ultimately led to full free agency and the implementation of the salary cap.

Has Trent decided to retire yet?

We could pair him with B.A for Pickens. LOL

Originally posted by linkboy:
The 70s were still more varied in teams that won the Super Bowl compared to the 80s and early 90s.

KC won one, the Colts won one, Miami won two, Oakland won one, Dallas won two and Pittsburgh won four.

From the 1981 season to the 1991 season, the same four teams won the majority of the Super Bowls (SF in 81, 84, 88, 89, Washington in 82, 87, 91 and New York in 86 and 91). Oakland winning in 80, 82 and Chicago in 85 were the only times Washington, SF or the Giants didn't win a Super Bowl in the decade.

So yes, while Pittsburgh and Dallas dominated the 70s (moreso Pittsburgh), the 70s still weren't as bad as the 80s were in regards to different teams winning a Super Bowl.

Those three teams winning in the 80s was the reason why Plan-B free agency came to be and ultimately led to full free agency and the implementation of the salary cap.

By including the Chiefs in the list of 70s winners you are skewing the numbers and having 11 seasons in that decade.

70s: 5 teams (Steelers 4, Dolphins 2, Cowboys 2, Colts 1, Raiders 1)
80s: 5 teams (49ers 4, Redskins 2, Raiders 2, Giants 1, Bears 1)

Sure would be nice to get some good news on this front

Originally posted by lamontb:
Sure would be nice to get some good news on this front

can't wait for the trade rumor tweets

I think he is going to be gone too.

Originally posted by glorydayz:
I think he is going to be gone too.

Why?

Originally posted by Hoovtrain:

Originally posted by glorydayz:
I think he is going to be gone too.

Why?

Too much $ for the York's.

Originally posted by glorydayz:
I think he is going to be gone too.

Are you out of your mind?

Originally posted by glorydayz:

Originally posted by Hoovtrain:

Originally posted by glorydayz:
I think he is going to be gone too.

Why?

Too much $ for the York's.

So they pony up the $ for all their other stars but not for arguably their best player who protects purdy blind side?

Originally posted by Hoovtrain:

Originally posted by glorydayz:

Originally posted by Hoovtrain:

Originally posted by glorydayz:
I think he is going to be gone too.

Why?

Too much $ for the York's.

So they pony up the $ for all their other stars but not for arguably their best player who protects purdy blind side?

or their #1 WR, yea I don't think it will happen.

If so, why hasn't it been done already? CMC was done pretty quickly, right?