PDA

View Full Version : Bird rule in the NFL?



Jsteve01
01-29-2014, 08:15 PM
There arent many areas that I typically find the NBA to be superior to the NFL, but anticipating watching champ leave for capreasons really makes we wish for some sort if cap exception for legend type veteran players. It really sucks to think we may have to see a guy like champ in a different uni next year. It would be a fantastic move to give a bone to fans who on a yearly basis have to watch legends leave their favorite team. Champ would obviously need to restructure regardless but I want him to play his last downs in the orange and blue.

Dzone
01-29-2014, 08:46 PM
True. Not sure what this has to do with birds, but the chinese new year is the year of the Horse

reimx007
01-29-2014, 09:04 PM
Everything is sepculation now. Yes he could go to a different team, but he may also retire or take a massive pay cut to move to slot or even be a dime back. I feel like at this stage in his career, after he's played through multiple contracts, that itd be more worth it to stay in denver then be paid a bit more somewhere else. Thats what im hoping for at least.

Jsteve01
01-29-2014, 09:05 PM
True words perhaps it should be recoined the Champ rule for the NFL.

Jsteve01
01-29-2014, 09:11 PM
Everything is sepculation now. Yes he could go to a different team, but he may also retire or take a massive pay cut to move to slot or even be a dime back. I feel like at this stage in his career, after he's played through multiple contracts, that itd be more worth it to stay in denver then be paid a bit more somewhere else. Thats what im hoping for at least. My whole premise is that it shouldn't ever be an issue with a guy like Champ or Atwater. The team they've played with and that team's fanbase shouldn't be punished because they've put together a fantastic roster and have multiple positions to pay. A player must have three plus years with a team (unless of course he's PFM)

DenBronx
01-29-2014, 09:28 PM
If we win then I would like to see Champ just retire. Obviously he isnt done yet even if we win but that was my selfish idea. I just want to see him go out on top, a real champ.

But there has got to be a way to keep him around, there just has to. I really hope both sides can agree to new terms. If not then he probably will have seen his last down in Denver. Someone will pick him up though, maybe the Pats or GB. He would go to a contender not sure where but a contender.

Joel
01-30-2014, 09:43 AM
The NFL already created the "Elway Rule" (i.e. franchise tag) at Mr. Bowlens behest (as noted in the thread on Tagliabue praising him.) We don't need another "legend" rule on top of that. It would be far too arbitrary, and undermine the caps whole premise, since longtime fan favorites with elite performance are the very people who can demand the biggest contracts.

Regardless, Champ's far more likely to retire than play elsewhere, IMHO, and (again IMHO) most likely to just renegotiate a far smaller contract and stay with the team he loves, at CB or FS.

Jsteve01
01-30-2014, 09:50 AM
The franchise tag is for a different type of player Joel. I'm talking about some way to retain your aging veterans and have it make sense for the vet and the team they played with. Old guys aren't going to get huge deals but they often get cut due to the success a team has had and the need to continue building for the future. It's a disservice to the fans to see a guy they've rooted for playing for another team at the end of his career.

ForgettingBrandonMarshall
01-30-2014, 10:08 AM
I can't comment on this Bird rule. I'm not an expert in bird law.

Ravage!!!
01-30-2014, 10:41 AM
To me, since Champ wasn't drafted here, and didn't start his career here, I don't see Champ in the same category that I would see other players that fit this description. But I get the jist of it, but when is it ok to designate a guy the "bird" for a lack of better word? At a certain age? Can he only play one more year? Can I designate Manning the "bird" since he's at the end of his career and is an acquisition like Champ is, so we don't have to count his 20 mill against the cap?

weazel
01-30-2014, 11:34 AM
The NBA also has a "drafted player" rule, which lets teams match offers to players they drafted and a certain percentage doesn't count. I like that rule more, it puts more importance on the draft.

Joel
01-30-2014, 12:23 PM
The franchise tag is for a different type of player Joel. I'm talking about some way to retain your aging veterans and have it make sense for the vet and the team they played with. Old guys aren't going to get huge deals but they often get cut due to the success a team has had and the need to continue building for the future. It's a disservice to the fans to see a guy they've rooted for playing for another team at the end of his career.
Well, if we're not talking about guys getting huge deals, but getting cut so teams can rebuild, the only way to fix that is a roster exemption; a cap exemption can't help if it's not about money.


To me, since Champ wasn't drafted here, and didn't start his career here, I don't see Champ in the same category that I would see other players that fit this description. But I get the jist of it, but when is it ok to designate a guy the "bird" for a lack of better word? At a certain age? Can he only play one more year? Can I designate Manning the "bird" since he's at the end of his career and is an acquisition like Champ is, so we don't have to count his 20 mill against the cap?
This is what I meant about it being arbitrary: Whatever number we choose for age, salary, length of service with current team, etc. it's still essentially just plucking numbers from thin air. We're not talking about the desperate need to keep Kubiak or Keith Burns on the roster when they we were too old to play (and not just because both became Broncos coaches.)

We're talking about aging legends—but who defines that, and how? Sure, guys like Bird, Magic, Kareem, Jordan; they all qualify: Did Karl Malone? Clyde Drexler?

What about Scottie Pippen? If a team has MULTIPLE aging legends, do we letit keep ALL of them to be fair to their fans? What about fans of all the teams their HoF roster dominates?

Speaking of fairness, do we let the Cavs force LeBron James to stay? It's all well to be fair to the fans of legends, aging or otherwise, but the reality is the draft itself is unfair to legends THEMSELVES, and all other players: Pro sports is pretty much unique in US labor law for letting companies prevent employees leaving for a competitor. That's why the players fought so long and hard for free agency; most players aren't good enough at EVERY sport to demand the Colts trade the #1 overall pick to a DECENT team.


The NBA also has a "drafted player" rule, which lets teams match offers to players they drafted and a certain percentage doesn't count. I like that rule more, it puts more importance on the draft.
The NFL already has a version of THAT rule, too, in restricted free agency. The idea of exempting a certain amount of a teams offer is interesting, but does undermine the caps purpose and further imbalance a situtation already tilted in favor of the current team.

weazel
01-30-2014, 12:35 PM
The NFL already has a version of THAT rule, too, in restricted free agency. The idea of exempting a certain amount of a teams offer is interesting, but does undermine the caps purpose and further imbalance a situtation already tilted in favor of the current team.

no, restricted FA is different. This rule affects UFA. Most leagues have RFA

Joel
01-30-2014, 12:50 PM
no, restricted FA is different. This rule affects UFA. Most leagues have RFA
Well, it's not really unrestricted if the player must accept matching offers from the current team; I don't see any real difference between that and RFA.

We're still talking about modifying existing rules rather than adding new ones either way. And we won't go back to anything like the days of teams owning players from draft day till retirement.

weazel
01-31-2014, 02:28 PM
Well, it's not really unrestricted if the player must accept matching offers from the current team; I don't see any real difference between that and RFA.

We're still talking about modifying existing rules rather than adding new ones either way. And we won't go back to anything like the days of teams owning players from draft day till retirement.

I think you're missing the point Joel... he is unrestricted. I said it lets the original team match an offer but a certain % doesnt count against the number. The player can sign with whoever he wants though

CoachChaz
01-31-2014, 03:56 PM
If you're looking for something that says a player with this "tag" can play for whatever he wants, but only cost 5 mil (or whatever the number would be) against the cap, I could get behind it. But I think you'd have to have certain numbers for certain positions and have something where the player has to have at least 10 years with that team.

Joel
01-31-2014, 05:39 PM
I think you're missing the point Joel... he is unrestricted. I said it lets the original team match an offer but a certain % doesnt count against the number. The player can sign with whoever he wants though
Then it's not a matching offer (in the sports sense) just a new bid. Giving the old team a cap discount still undermines the caps goal though, even if it avoids making players indentured servants.