09-06-2017, 06:11 PM
[quote='BFritz21' pid='421013' dateline='1504721026']
They're both holding each other captive, making it a lose-lose situation.
Holding each other captive?? Do you you even read what you write?? That's how you're trying to justify totally contradicting yourself?
Brown's making them franchise him and not signing the deal, but also not showing up until September, and that's making them look bad, causing drama, and not getting the team to have valuable reps with him, which it's not like they can do much.
Brown didn't 'make' the steelers FT him, that was a foregone conclusion months ago. Like any other player in this situation, the hope was to reach a long term deal before the deadline, but it didn't happen. So the Steelers are now paying him less than what they would be if he would have accepted their offer. The conventional wisdom, even on these boards, is the steelers would only look bad, in this case, if they HAD paid him what he wanted. They didn't, and most would agree, rightly so. What little I've seen on Sports Center, NFL Channel, etc, is that he's back with the team, and now that preseason is over, they're glad to have him back. They know the business. Most veterans would have gladly skipped preseason too if they had the opportunity. You think Edelman and others wish they could have skipped preseason? He'll be starting on Sunday...bank on it. Will he get hurt? Maybe. Just like every other player in the NFL might get hurt.
So yeah, you're wrong about that.
The Steelers are holding him captive by franchise tagging him and not allowing him any other options.
He absolutely does have other options. He has the option to not play for the team at all. Strictly his choice. Keep in mind that the franchise tag is something that was voted on and agreed to by the players at the last CBA.
He could have signed a VERY lucrative deal and been set for life, but he turned it down in favor of the tag. His choice. So no, they are in no way 'holding him captive'. It was his choice.
So you're wrong about that, too
Please explain how my above explanation is wrong.
See bolded responses above.
They're both holding each other captive, making it a lose-lose situation.
Holding each other captive?? Do you you even read what you write?? That's how you're trying to justify totally contradicting yourself?
Brown's making them franchise him and not signing the deal, but also not showing up until September, and that's making them look bad, causing drama, and not getting the team to have valuable reps with him, which it's not like they can do much.
Brown didn't 'make' the steelers FT him, that was a foregone conclusion months ago. Like any other player in this situation, the hope was to reach a long term deal before the deadline, but it didn't happen. So the Steelers are now paying him less than what they would be if he would have accepted their offer. The conventional wisdom, even on these boards, is the steelers would only look bad, in this case, if they HAD paid him what he wanted. They didn't, and most would agree, rightly so. What little I've seen on Sports Center, NFL Channel, etc, is that he's back with the team, and now that preseason is over, they're glad to have him back. They know the business. Most veterans would have gladly skipped preseason too if they had the opportunity. You think Edelman and others wish they could have skipped preseason? He'll be starting on Sunday...bank on it. Will he get hurt? Maybe. Just like every other player in the NFL might get hurt.
So yeah, you're wrong about that.
The Steelers are holding him captive by franchise tagging him and not allowing him any other options.
He absolutely does have other options. He has the option to not play for the team at all. Strictly his choice. Keep in mind that the franchise tag is something that was voted on and agreed to by the players at the last CBA.
He could have signed a VERY lucrative deal and been set for life, but he turned it down in favor of the tag. His choice. So no, they are in no way 'holding him captive'. It was his choice.
So you're wrong about that, too
Please explain how my above explanation is wrong.
See bolded responses above.
