Richard Sherman: Players need to be willing to strike

Sherman needs to shut the hell up. I'm getting sick and tired of his antics, and outspoken nature. I didn't mind it for the last few years, but now it seems like he has the need to make headlines every, single, week.

First off his comparison's to NBA players pay is asinine. The NBA only has 15 players on their rosters, only five men on each team are out at any given time. The NFL has 52 men, and 11 players are out on the field at any given time, plus practice squads. Defensive members need a completely different skillset than offensive members. Unlike in the NBA the same five men play defense and offense at any given time. The members of the NBA were collectively paid 3 billion last year, the NFL players by comparison took home 8 billion. Both NBA players, and NFL players make around 50 percent of what the league brings in. The NFL players take home slightly less of the overall revenue, but not by much -- despite this NFL players as a whole took home significantly more money.

NFL players will never make as much as NBA players, simply because their are more mouths to feed in American football. More staff members are needed, more positions need to be filled, and high profile players do not last as long in the NFL as the high profile players of the NBA do.

Despite the facts I laid out Sherman still makes more money than anyone of us will ever see in our lifetimes, just in one year. Sherman, you need to shut your mouth.

The NFL players did get screwed this last contract but you they need to take that up with the union. Striking would work in negotiations. The owners have been making a killing and it hasn't flowed downhill as much as it should. The fact that the owners make so much money and force tax payers to finance the stadiums blows my mind.

I don't know, the amount of $ coming in vs. how much the players get is pretty ridiculous. That being said, the players already make a ridiculous amount. The league does NOT need a strike. :roll:
There's just something incredibly annoying about Millionaires and Billionaires arguing over money. Cry me a river

Spin Doctor":110tj63c said:

Sherman needs to shut the hell up. I'm getting sick and tired of his antics, and outspoken nature. I didn't mind it for the last few years, but now it seems like he has the need to make headlines every, single, week.

Click to expand...

K. I'll be sure to pass that along to him.

Spin Doctor":110tj63c said:

First off his comparison's to NBA players pay is asinine. The NBA only has 15 players on their rosters, only five men on each team are out at any given time. The NFL has 52 men, and 11 players are out on the field at any given time, plus practice squads. Defensive members need a completely different skillset than offensive members. Unlike in the NBA the same five men play defense and offense at any given time. The members of the NBA were collectively paid 3 billion last year, the NFL players by comparison took home 8 billion. Both NBA players, and NFL players make around 50 percent of what the league brings in. The NFL players take home slightly less of the overall revenue, but not by much -- despite this NFL players as a whole took home significantly more money.

Click to expand...

This is such a horrible take on so many different levels. :lol:

First of all the NFL made over $13 billion last year. It made over $12 billion in 2015. The NBA by comparison made $5.2 billion in 2015 and are expected to pull in around $8 billion this past year. MLB came in around $10 billion. The amount of players on each side is irrelevant. 3rd string OT's aren't going to suddenly make Derek Carr money in the same manner that the 14th guy on the Hornets roster isn't going to be paid like James Harden and that some fringe level talent won't be paid like Mike Trout and Clayton Kershaw in MLB. The star players have VERY flimsy guarantees in their contract at BEST .. and the sport they play is infinitely more punishing on the body.

So lets break it down..

NFL players generated nearly 2.5x as much money in 2015 as NBA players.. made nearly 2x as money as NBA players in 2016 (with a new TV deal and a lot more spending money) .. made more money than MLB with 1/10 of the games. And again.. you can't reiterate this enough.. NBA and MLB contracts are fully guaranteed. NFL contracts are anything but that.

So how in the world is that fair for the players when they are playing a sport that can literally lead to your brain being damaged so badly that later in life you're barely able to function.

Spin Doctor":110tj63c said:

NFL players will never make as much as NBA players, simply because their are more mouths to feed in American football. More staff members are needed, more positions need to be filled, and high profile players do not last as long in the NFL as the high profile players of the NBA do.

Click to expand...

1. Staff members have literally NOTHING TO DO WITH HOW MUCH PLAYERS ARE PAID. What the hell kind of point is this? :lol: :lol: :lol:

2. NFL players will absolutely make as much as NBA players - if they have the backbone to call the owners bluff and take a stand - exactly as Sherm is saying. The money they make for the owners is astronomical, and the leagues TV deal is about to be up for renewal.. so the $13B they made in 2016 will likely be closer to $20B in a few years.

But yeah.. Sherm is the bad guy for wanting some more guaranteed money.

As you can see by this article - the NFL is really hurting for money lately:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... 10-percent

Spin Doctor":110tj63c said:

Despite the facts I laid out Sherman still makes more money than anyone of us will ever see in our lifetimes, just in one year. Sherman, you need to shut your mouth.

Click to expand...

You laid out no facts, you're just upset a pro athlete makes a lot more money than you. :lol:

Your activity at your profession (wild guess here) doesn't help generate $13B worth of revenue.. people aren't racing out to buy #99 Spin Doctor jerseys... 80,000 roaring fans are not eagerly anticipating your 8-5 shift. Stop trying to compare your everyday job to a professional athletes career because there is absolutely no comparison.

I said it back in 2011 and still maintain that 2020 the players will go to the mattresses. This CBA was a massive mistake for them.

Here's a good recap early in (2013): https://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2013 ... story.html

The rookie cap is a good thing for teams' ability to get out of rookie bust picks. But the length of the rookie contract is just far too long. Fully expect after a long fight that the rookie deal will be reduced from 4/5 years down to 2.

It's important to recall, that the rookie pay scale was somewhat popular among the veteran players in 2011, because it was sold to them at the time, that with capped rookie pay -- the rank and file veteran players would reap the benefits and contracts previously paid to unproven rookies.

But that didn't happen at all. Instead rank and file veterans became expendable in lieu of cheaper rookies who were significantly cheaper if somewhat less skilled. The theoretical benefits/windfall that was supposed to reallocate salary to veterans never happened.

Instead, it simply created a star dominated/top heavy salary distribution where you have maybe 5-6 star contracts, a dozen vet minimum deals and around 20-25 rookie deal players. With a very small handful of "Tony McDaniel" type contracts that were above the minimum. The league will not be able to slip the same falsehood by the players.

And we have to also recall how the owner's plead their case as paupers in a very down economy. Of course that was complete BS. And because Green Bay is a publicly owned enterprise, their profits are in the public domain. Ownership won't have that at their disposal either.

For the veteran players to get the reward they wanted in 2011, the rookie deals have to be much shorter. At least half their current length. Preventing teams from loading up on rookies to avoid paying mid level veterans. The voting block in the players association is going to be dominated (greater than 80%) with either vet minimum players or rookie deal players who resent the pay scale length. Star players, even if they want to maintain the current salary disposition that favors them, will not have the votes to keep it.

I expect that 2020 may not even see a season. Certainly not a full one.

Spin Doctor":2dniuqlt said:

Sherman needs to shut the hell up. I'm getting sick and tired of his antics, and outspoken nature. I didn't mind it for the last few years, but now it seems like he has the need to make headlines every, single, week.

First off his comparison's to NBA players pay is asinine. The NBA only has 15 players on their rosters, only five men on each team are out at any given time. The NFL has 52 men, and 11 players are out on the field at any given time, plus practice squads. Defensive members need a completely different skillset than offensive members. Unlike in the NBA the same five men play defense and offense at any given time. The members of the NBA were collectively paid 3 billion last year, the NFL players by comparison took home 8 billion. Both NBA players, and NFL players make around 50 percent of what the league brings in. The NFL players take home slightly less of the overall revenue, but not by much -- despite this NFL players as a whole took home significantly more money.

NFL players will never make as much as NBA players, simply because their are more mouths to feed in American football. More staff members are needed, more positions need to be filled, and high profile players do not last as long in the NFL as the high profile players of the NBA do.

Despite the facts I laid out Sherman still makes more money than anyone of us will ever see in our lifetimes, just in one year. Sherman, you need to shut your mouth.

Click to expand...

Maybe he needs to keep quiet but he does have a good point and he's 100% correct.

2 things I'm fairly certain of on this.

1) There is some truth to what Sherman said.

2) Paul Allen is listening carefully, and taking notes.

It's the nature of the sport.

Football is violent, so violent that rosters are 53 men and contracts can't be guaranteed or a rash of injuries means you're done for the year, or multiple years.

So yeah, the players can get guaranteed contracts, but they'll be year to year, and not over 3-5 years with guaranteed bonus money.

Is that really what Richard and other players want? Having to renegotiate every off season. Cause that's not going to go well for most players with how often they get hurt, and how fast their skills deteriorate.

My take is Sherm is laying the groundwork to become the Executive Director of the NFLPA when he hangs up his cleats.

And I agree with Attyla that the players should be striving to reduce the length of rookie contracts... at least one year initially (from 4/5 to 3/4).

The young emerging superstars are significantly hampered by the length of their rookie contracts and it's time for that to change.

Sgt. Largent":2ht0lpbd said:

It's the nature of the sport.

Football is violent, so violent that rosters are 53 men and contracts can't be guaranteed or a rash of injuries means you're done for the year, or multiple years.

Click to expand...

I don't understand this logic. Actually, if I understand what you're saying, then that's just flat out wrong.

All contracts are guaranteed for the season after the cutdown to 53. There are no implications cap wise for injuries incurred during the season. All teams must reserve cap space for IR eventuality.

Sgt. Largent":2ht0lpbd said:

So yeah, the players can get guaranteed contracts, but they'll be year to year, and not over 3-5 years with guaranteed bonus money.

Click to expand...

Patently false.

Current deals are already generally constructed to be in effect 2 year guaranteed deals. And not always even that long (e.g. Jermaine Kearse's deal). The third through fifth year of contracts are typically 'fluff'. And in truth, the bulk of the value tends to reside in these few remaining years.

In practice, any five year deal is merely the value of the two year base salary + guaranteed money. The reason to even go through the charade is two fold. To provide a way to amortize the signing bonus over 5 years instead of two from a cap perspective. And to give teams the ability to get out of their commitments at roughly half the original contract value.

Sgt. Largent":2ht0lpbd said:

Is that really what Richard and other players want? Having to renegotiate every off season. Cause that's not going to go well for most players with how often they get hurt, and how fast their skills deteriorate.

Click to expand...

This is another fallacy. The implication is, that the 5 year deal provides a player with security in the event of injury or production decline. But since there is no real penalty for teams to truncate a 5 year deal to a 2 year deal -- this concept doesn't exist.

That's precisely why guarantees and 'new money' is so vitally important from a player perspective. Because these two concepts really comprise what a player is likely to earn on a deal. The remaining non guaranteed portion is in practice created like a balloon payment that the teams aren't required to honor.

Given the current Seahawks roster, it's hard to have an appreciation for how the NFL in general does it's contracts. Seattle is laden with players in the middle of their second deals (those not on rookie deals anyway). So Seattle is comfortable in keeping players beyond the 2 years -- although if we look at our deals closely, they aren't 5 year deals. But more 3 or 4 year deals. All generally set to expire by age 28-29. Because they're generally still worth their unguaranteed base salaries as they move into years 3+. It's not by accident. Seattle is very stingy about who they pursue in UFA. Generally ages 27+ need not apply here.

Around the league though, that's not always the case. On paper long term commitments are in reality short 2 year deals.

If the NFL guaranteed their contracts, they'd simply abide by the same contract structure we have today in practice.

In actuality, I don't think any NFLPA representative should bang the table for guaranteed contracts. It would be stupid on their part since that's in effect what they already have. And if they exceed that de facto 2 year guarantee length -- then they're already reaping the benefit of a ballooned base salary. So it benefits them either way.

From a player perspective, a couple things are critical:

1. Vastly reduce the length of rookie contracts.

Get players onto their second deals before they statistically decline. Also reduces by half the available pool of below vet minimum players in the league. This forces teams to employ more veteran players. Which was the snake oil promise delivered by the NFL owners in 2011 that Smith swallowed with complete blissful ignorance. The rookie pay scale in it's current length basically denies players a productive 3rd contract. And it vastly reduces the pool of quality talent available on the open market.

2. Increase the ability for players to reach the open market.

Length of deals and ability to extend/franchise players means that fewer quality veterans reach the open market. There is cap money to be spent and every year, we see star contracts being bestowed on decidedly average NFL talent. Those deals get made whether the talent warrants it or not. The cap is the cap. It's not going to budge. Teams don't have to spend 13 million for the likes of Okung or 8 million for the Joeckel's of the NFL if there is better available veteran talent on the market. And if there's better talent on the market, then the Okung's and the Joeckel's aren't making the deals they are enjoying now. They'll be the tier 2+ UFA value contracts.

3. Get to a place where it makes sense for teams to sign vets to their 3rd/4th contract than it is to keep on a cheaper but unproductive rookie.

Ultimately, players need to get to a point where players get to their market value deals sooner. It benefits any kind of player. Whether it's a player whose career spans 5 seasons. Or one that spans 8. They get either one or possibly two market value deals in their careers. It has the effect of adding talent (and better quality talent) to the UFA pool. And also reduces the pool of generically replaceable talent on suppressed rookie contracts (think Kevin Pierre-Louis). Every team is ripe with rookies that won't get a sniff of a second deal with their original clubs. But they are retained because they are so vastly cheaper than a league average veteran.

For the players, it's going to be all about the Rookie cap. I don't see it going away. It does allow for teams to get out from under draft day blunders. But it's current length is ruinous for players of any ilk and of any age. It's easy to demonstrate how the current rookie cap hurts every single player with the unique exception of the highest paid stars and those players disproportionately paid because they were just average enough to not be extended like a star player. It's a stupid system when you're better off being an Okung instead of a Joe Thomas.

Should salaries be determined by how much the business owners make?

IDK.

I DO KNOW THIS.
The people that care for the elderly and disabled 24/7 should make more than they do.

Our teachers in the public school system should make more than they do.

Our law enforcement officers should make more than they do.

The people we call to save our lives/ property should make more than they do.

This will create an argument, I know it will because it has many times here @.Net.

I make 22.50 per hour, and I have to work approx 3300 hours a year to make what I consider a livable wage.

I get it, I chose my path but how much would I be worth if your child stopped breathing?
How much would you pay a firefighter if you wife was still inside while you were on the sidewalk?

How many people do you know that can't afford to take their son to a football game?

I get it, at least I think I do.
But I have a hard time feeling sorry for, or supporting a guy that make more per week than I do per year, I guy that makes more in one year than I will in my lifetime.

I love my Seahawks and I hope every one of them gets all they can get but I think our society in general is messed up.

If you don't agree, take a look at where we spend our money, look at what we place value in.
We think it's ok for an athlete to make 228 million for 4 years.

We also think it's ok, for a teacher to make 40k a year, or a police officer to make 27-60k per year.

Football players on strike, ok.

What if our truck drivers went on a real strike?

What if our grocery workers went on strike?

It's my opinion that people that make under 75k a year is what keeps our country and life style alive.

Oh no,where would we be, what would happen if....

MLB
NFL
NBA
All went on strike and refused to play?

I wish this was the Shack so I could cuss.


Edit: What if our Farmers and Ranchers all demanded 50 million a year, and refused to work if they didn't get it?
One thing is for certain,their families would still eat.
Would yours?

onanygivensunday":3gvczneu said:

My take is Sherm is laying the groundwork to become the Executive Director of the NFLPA when he hangs up his cleats.

And I agree with Attyla that the players should be striving to reduce the length of rookie contracts... at least one year initially (from 4/5 to 3/4).

The young emerging superstars are significantly hampered by the length of their rookie contracts and it's time for that to change.

Click to expand...

Yep; As it stands now, a team can and do use Rookies who are likely in their prime years, use up their peak performances, and health, and then shit can them, by trading them in for another inexpensive replacements Via the Draft, or UDFA's.
Was Rinse, Repeat.
Rookie contracts are too damned long.
LOL, And Besides all this ^^^, Owners would very likely end up passing the cost on to the paying fans anyways.

Serious question.
How many of us work for an establishment where the owners make 10x, 30x 80x more than we do?

How many of us work in a field that generates billions of dollars annually?

How many of us are part of the reason that our chosen field is a success?

I'd say, most of us

No one athlete is the sole reason that their team or owner makes money.

If /when Pro athletes "strike" the only ones that really suffer is the "fans".

Without the "fans", pro athletes are NOTHING.

Insert Shack language here.

I don't understand the vitriol for Sherman in here. What he said was 100% right on the money. The players in the NFL are widely considered the worst compensated of the major sports leagues. That, in a sport that has some of the shortest careers and most severe life threatening repercussions with CTE and brain damage. They are also in the healthiest and most profitable major sports league in the nation. They should be getting a bigger cut of the profits, no doubt, in my opinion.

This argument should have nothing to do with the pay of teachers, or police or anyone else. They are completely separate from one another. It's not as if NFL players demanding more money from the NFL is going to decrease a teachers wage...

This is a free market and the NFL has created a commodity that each one of us consumes in one way or another. It's pretty simple supply and demand. Why should I be mad at the players wanting more of the pot? It's not like the money is changing in any way. So in a sense people getting mad at the players for wanting more money are advocating for giving the Billionaire owners more money instead. Why the heck would you argue for more money for the Billionaire owners rather than wanting to see more of it go to the players that you actually root for (Again it's not like the overall money is changing, it's just being distributed different)?

pmedic920":2linephl said:

If /when Pro athletes "strike" the only ones that really suffer is the "fans".

Without the "fans", pro athletes are NOTHING.

Insert Shack language here.

Click to expand...

Amen Brother.

The players make a shitload of money.

If they had my health issues, but the level of care that they get, they would be quiet as a mouse. If you're rich and famous, everything comes easy.

Must be nice to commute back and forth to Hawaii.

Must be nice to drive Lamborghinis.

Must be nice to ride chartered Jets, then be escorted to giant stadiums by the Police with sirens on.


My problem with Richard's talking lately is this, he's putting himself out in front of the team, but he's doing it under the guise of "representing the players." I find that to be insincere.

How about the players focus on winning games that us fans pay them so handsomely for.

ivotuk":3gfvj6tl said:

How about the players focus on winning games that us fans pay them so handsomely for.

Click to expand...

That is my main issue with this as well. Always has to be drama even to the point of looking 3 years down the road to find it.

Sherman is in the top 10% of his profession in wage, and coming down the backside of his $56 million contract, it is easy for him to say a hungry and broke rookie should be prepared to sit out if need be. That said, there is truth to the fact you often need leverage to make gains. Problem is, there are more hungry rookies looking for work than top 10% ers in the league.

^^^

PMed, Ivotuk... the amount of money these players make should not have a bearing on what they as a group constitutes as fair working conditions. It's their marketplace. Comparing them to the rest of us really makes no sense, as it's us that enable their value.

Sherman's stance here is more in line of the Sherman we know and admire. We may not feel comfortable with the idea of a strike but we should take solace that a Seahawk has taken a public stance on behalf of the league we love.

ivotuk":32r05g55 said:

pmedic920":32r05g55 said:

If /when Pro athletes "strike" the only ones that really suffer is the "fans".

Without the "fans", pro athletes are NOTHING.

Insert Shack language here.

Click to expand...

Amen Brother.

The players make a shitload of money.

If they had my health issues, but the level of care that they get, they would be quiet as a mouse. If you're rich and famous, everything comes easy.

Must be nice to commute back and forth to Hawaii.

Must be nice to drive Lamborghinis.

Must be nice to ride chartered Jets, then be escorted to giant stadiums by the Police with sirens on.


My problem with Richard's talking lately is this, he's putting himself out in front of the team, but he's doing it under the guise of "representing the players." I find that to be insincere.

How about the players focus on winning games that us fans pay them so handsomely for.

Click to expand...

So I'm guessing some of you didn't see the interview and are just reacting to seeing this out in the media. You do realize that Sherman did not bring this up right? Sherman wasn't "putting himself out there in front of the team". This was a question specifically asked to him in an interview at the Espys by Jalen Rose.

[youtube]71Aogvszf-Q[/youtube]