09-14-2022, 05:07 PM
(09-14-2022, 03:39 PM)tms Wrote: I'm not saying he's not going to play. No need to get defensive about it. I just think there's a heightened risk based on the Bates fiasco. To what extent I don't know, but it'll be interesting to watch. If Mulugheta feels Bates was done wrong by the Bengals' hardball strategy this summer- and last summer, for that matter, when he was in the same position as Tee will be next February- it's not the craziest thing in the world to expect some future implications.
Yes, it is a business for Mike Brown. It's also a business (even more so, I would say) for players, their families and their agents. The NFL system is famously skewed to the owners. To think players and their reps won't protect themselves by using one of the few cards at their disposal (i.e., their availability) is a bit naive.
No one'll sit out the entire season lol, but they will be more vigilant throughout the process and play a little "hardball" of their own, especially if they're the caliber of a Tee Higgins who will surely be offered a monster contract when they hit market and whose "agency brethren" have already been burned by the same owner. As such, they may not see as much of need to put themselves in harm's way in the meantime. Don't blame it on me, either- this is common sense.
What Bates fiasco? He wanted more than the team offered, was tagged, sat out a bit and is playing on the tag. This happens EVERY YEAR. Maybe this is your first year watching the NFL? Agents dont make a player sit out when healthy, this is absurd. And it looks like your take that Tee will be out a few weeks isnt correct.
When teams evaluate a player and their abilities availability is at the top of the list. If a player is sitting out to avoid injury that isnt going to make them more enticing or provide them more money.
