BBTV

While I'm a detractor of road pinstripes in general, I can at least understand the desire for consistency if the home uniform features them. Road pinstripes when the home is solid makes no sense.

they should at least have given that stupid helmet a matte finish to separate it from the normal helmet, which looks black anyway, and have it blend better with the flat uniforms. Regardless, they look like ass. Just like Dak.

it might look decent under the collar as opposed to putting a wordmark there.

Let's get this added to the CCSLC lexicon.

So is Craig Kimbrel considered cooked at this point? Either way, this was kinda funny. Hope he gets it even when pitching for the Phillies.

I totally agree with this, I just don't think it impacts jersey sales one bit. Trust me - I'm pissed that the Eagles are choosing to wear solid black for their nationally-televised game tomorrow. I don't get wearing your worst look (or at least least-used look) for your biggest games. Nobody in the middle of Iowa that wouldn't otherwise purchase an Eagles jersey is going to watch the game and decide to order a black jersey.

"Only" $150M of that is guaranteed. It was reported that Jackson turned down 6-years with $133M guaranteed, and the guarantee is the absolute only part of the contract that matters. The rest is just for cap purposes or so the agent can brag about getting the biggest deal, even though the player will never see all of it. IDK. I can see Jackson feeling like he should get a similar deal, and as an outsider, it seems like his draft position is hindering him in this case since he had a similar (if not better) resume to Allen at the time (I think... not sure.) But still, a $133M is a big guarantee, and not too far out of line with what Allen - who most people would probably take if given the choice today - got. It's at least within a window that could have been negotiated down... if he had an agent. EDIT: The "total" value of the deal Jackson turned down was also $250M, so the "only" difference is the $17M guarantee. I'm not weeping for him. https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/34566275/sources-believe-lamar-jackson-turned-baltimore-ravens-contract-offer-worth-250-million

I liked the teal over black look, but I didn't love the striping on the pants. I get that they went for consistency, but it doesn't work when the middle is the same color as the pants - it looks like two separate stripes rather than one wide one. They'd look better if they went back to that era but had pants similar to the Eagles or Vikings.

Here's another good one that explains the years and options part of it. https://thesportsrush.com/nfl-news-nfl-rookie-contracts-how-do-rookie-contracts-work-in-the-nfl-after-justin-fields-signs-his-new-rookie-contract-with-the-chicago-bears/ Basically, all rookie contracts - regardless of round - are 4 year deals. After year 3, teams can exercise an option for a 5th year on their 1st-round picks. But that decision has to be made after year 3, otherwise they become FAs after year 4. Typically, it's around that time when a team knows whether or not they're going to give a guy a lucrative deal. A team will pick up the option to protect itself, then negotiate and sign the player to a long-lucrative deal before that 5th year kicks in, because then it's in the player's interest to test free agency and the team loses control (and franchising guys typically just pisses them off.)

I just found this article from Leigh Steinberg about rookie contracts. It's pretty interesting, and indicates that there is negotiating that can take place and it's not as simple as a slotting system. https://touchdownwire.usatoday.com/2020/06/01/leigh-steinberg-explaining-the-nfl-system-of-rookie-contracts/ "Incentives are largely nonexistent in rookie contracts today, because the reward counts immediately against the cap — even if the bonus threshold is never achieved and paid. The total cap number of all drafted rookies must add up to the salary cap number for rookies overall. Creativity and structural advantages can still come into rookie cap negotiations in a variety of ways. Payment of the signing bonus is one area of negotiability. Teams want to spread payments out over several years to retain use of cash. Owners also prefer to make bonus payments at times when revenue comes to them. Players would rather have the fastest payout. My business partner, Chris Cabott, has been aggressive in trying to create timely payouts for clients. The tax rate in the state where a player resides may be lower than the one where he plays his home games. California has a maximum state tax rate of 13.3% while states such as Texas, Washington, Florida and Nevada have no state income tax. Bonuses paid in the current year to a resident of a state without income tax do not have state tax taken from them. Bonus money paid in the following years would be taxed if the team plays in a state with income tax." I can't imagine why anyone wouldn't want a reputable agent to represent them. Even if the player has a law degree, do they really want to be having those discussions with team management while also trying to prepare for games during the season? And if they employ people to help out with that, isn't that similar to having an agent?

the eagles will overpay for a solid backup. They fully believe that you need two starting QBs. But Minshew wants to start and will take less just for the opportunity. He’s no franchise guy - more of a Fitzpatrick “keep the seat warm while the next guy develops” guy. But you can make a lot of money and have a great career as that guy. He’ll be a starter somewhere, probably on a very low contract with some incentives. He’s a low-risk guy for a team that simply needs a body and isn’t going to splurge on the wrong person just for the hell of it.

nobody that cares enough about the team to only watch them when they’re wearing black is going to order any Jaguars jersey, regardless of color.

If the Jets just need a competent body to lead them for a couple of seasons while they search for a true franchise QB, Minshew is a FA and they could probably get him pretty cheaply since he just wants to play and isn’t going to cash in or cost anywhere near what an average starter would make.

I've watched him play. He's fine. Not special.

Trevor Lawrence will never win anything significant in the NFL. I'm a million % sure about that.

This Zack Wilson guy does absolutely nothing well. There's literally not one single thing that he can do well at the NFL level, even handing off. Calling the rest of the roster "super-bowl caliber" is a stretch, but what a disaster to have spent the #2 pick on that guy. If they haven't already, they should start figuring out where to find a true franchise QB, and not make too many incremental moves until they find that guy.

no surprise that a person of his intellect would have such a stupid idea. All any team needs is a Robert Edwards situation in the middle of the season. Also, what are they gonna do - a league-wide bye week? LOL, the networks would piss all over that idea.

Those will never look right to me with the twill numbers. They looked thinner than the pressed/screened numbers. Definitely had a thinner stroke. Fortunately they only wore for one season. I hope next season's throwback more faithfully emulates the non-twill version of the jersey... and gets the font right (meaning, diagonal corners of the 6s and 9s, diagonal arm on the 5, and diagonal corner of the 4. The retail throwbacks that RBK put out (and maybe Nike does now) miss some or all of those details.

Owners are the ones taking the "risk" (lololol) and I have no problem with them profiting, but I do have a problem with the inequities between their profits and what goes back to the people making it happen (players). Office staff (marketing directors, sales agents, etc.) get salaries in line with the market, which is fine. While there's certainly standouts, they're more/less replaceable. Good GMs are rewarded handsomely, but even they are only good when the players they acquire perform to expectations. Is some jabroni that came off the bench for the Suns for 3 seasons as responsible for the billions-of-dollars increase in the franchise's value as someone like LeBron - who never even played for the team? Probably not. But in this instance, I don't have any good way of quantifying who was worth what. So my hare-brained plan (probably better suited for the "fix things that may or may not be broken" thread), is - when a franchise is sold, some percentage of the true profit gets distributed to every player that played for the franchise during that ownership's tenure, based on the amount of time they were with the team during that period. Like a royalty check. I don't have the time to do the math and see what they actually equates to in this case, but it's a start to a conversation.

I don't think they did that nearly as much as people think they did. They famously did it in the '80 NFCCG, and definitely a few times since, but not that often. To say it's the "spirit" of the rivalry is simply not true. According to GUD, here's all the Eagles WAH games. There's certainly some against the Cowboys, but if you look at seasons in which they didn't wear WAH against a lot of teams (probably early season games), they didn't target the Cowboys for a WAH game that often - and the "famous" times that I recall (for example, 1995) they were huge underdogs and needed all the nonsensical lucky charms they could get. So again, "spirit of the rivalry" is not true, and is driven by one very famous game, and no more than a handful. What blew my mind when doing this exhaustive research (lol) is that I have no memory of them being a WAH-only team in '88 and '89, which are seasons I am old enough to remember (but I guess I wasn't paying as much attention back then.) "Eagles: 1967 vs Saints; 1971 every home game; 1973 every home game; 1980 NFC CG vs Cowboys; 1982 vs (Commanders); 1983 vs (Commanders), Cardinals, Bears and Cowboys; 1984 vs Vikings and 49ers; 1985 (new unis) & 1986 every home game; 1987 vs Saints, Bears and Cowboys; 1988 every home game; 1989 every home game except vs Raiders (including NFC WCG vs Rams); 1990 vs Cardinals and Colts; 1991 vs Cardinals and Steelers; 1992 vs Saints, Brocnos and Cowboys; 1993 vs Cardinals, (Commanders), Bears and Cowboys; 1994 vs Bears, Packers (throwbacks) and (Commanders); 1995 every home game (including NFC WCG vs Lions); 1996 (new unis) vs Lions, Cowboys (green pants) and Dolphins; 1997 vs Packers, (Commanders) and Cardinals; 1998 vs Seahawks, Chiefs and (Commanders); 1999 vs Cardinals, Buccaneers and Cowboys (all green pants); 2001 vs Rams (white pants) and Cowboys (green pants); 2003 vs Buccaneers, Patriots (both in white pants) and (Commanders) (green pants); 2004 vs Giants and Panthers; 2005 vs 49ers; 2006 vs Giants and Cowboys; 2007 vs (Commanders) and Cowboys; 2008 vs Rams, Steelers, and (Commanders); 2009 vs Saints, Chiefs and Buccaneers (all in green pants); 2010 vs (Commanders) and Falcons (both green pants); 2012 vs Ravens (green pants); 2013 vs Chargers (green pants); 2014 vs Jaguars, (Commanders), Rams (all in white pants); 2015 vs Cowboys (white pants)."

It's weak. It's admitting that you need some extra luck in order to win the game.

This shocks me, considering how often they used to open the season with a few WAH games seemingly every year. Guess it was a coaches decision, since they wore WAH during the Andy Reid and Chip Kelly years, but not since. I wouldn't think the coaches have any say in these things, but maybe they do.

At the end of the day, the players are the ones most responsible for these dramatic increases in franchise values. No stadiums get built without players to play in them, nobody pays for parking without players to watch, no TV network buys rights without players to broadcast, etc. Maybe the salary cap shouldn't be based solely on "revenue", but should also somehow include the value that the players are adding to these teams. When you think about how much the owners profit when they sell the team, that increase is ultimately made off of the sweat of the players, who are not getting any cut of it. I have no idea how to actually cut them in, but it seems like they're not getting all that they deserve.

“Dak is ass” lol.

I sit corrected. My quick googling showed that only the guy nobody's heard of had received the honor. https://bleacherreport.com/articles/1350103-pittsburgh-steelers-7-infamous-uniform-numbers-that-should-be-retired#:~:text=The Pittsburgh Steelers don't,according to Pro Football Reference.