2010 NFL Season

[IceCap]

Can someone explain to me how Shanahan still gets paid a salary by the Broncos when he is employed by another NFL team? That makes no sense at all.

He had a contract with the Broncos, and was let go before that contract was up. Employed elsewhere or not, he's still owed the rest of the money promised to him by the Broncos.

[Saintsfan]

Can someone explain to me how Shanahan still gets paid a salary by the Broncos when he is employed by another NFL team? That makes no sense at all.

He had a contract with the Broncos, and was let go before that contract was up. Employed elsewhere or not, he's still owed the rest of the money promised to him by the Broncos.

So that counts for players as well does it? You trade a player away and still have to pay them? I am not saying it isn't right, just that it's a crazy situation. By signing a contract with another NFL team he is surely saying he doesn't want or need the Broncos money? Surely the NFL would have a rule against people drawing a salary from more than one franchise?

[IceCap]

Can someone explain to me how Shanahan still gets paid a salary by the Broncos when he is employed by another NFL team? That makes no sense at all.

He had a contract with the Broncos, and was let go before that contract was up. Employed elsewhere or not, he's still owed the rest of the money promised to him by the Broncos.

So that counts for players as well does it? You trade a player away and still have to pay them?

I'm pretty sure that's the case, yes.

I am not saying it isn't right, just that it's a crazy situation.

In a way, yes it is.

By signing a contract with another NFL team he is surely saying he doesn't want or need the Broncos money?

I'm sure he doesn't need the Broncos' money. That's irrelevant though. He had a contract with the Broncos, and they have to keep up their end of it.

Surely the NFL would have a rule against people drawing a salary from more than one franchise?

They don't.

Yes, it is a crazy situation, but Shanahan is drawing a salary from the Broncos due to being let go before his contract was up. This is a well known and reported on fact.

[TalktoChuck]

So that counts for players as well does it? You trade a player away and still have to pay them?

I'm pretty sure that's the case, yes.

It all depends on the contract. If the player has guaranteed money in the contract he signs and is let go befoe that contract expires then the team still has to pay him that guaranteed money whether or not the player has another job or not. I can't think of any NFL examples off the top of my head, but this happens a lot in the MLB. In fact the Rangers were still paying Alex Rodrigues money last year from his contract even though he hasn't played for them since 2003.

[epper]

Former Broncos TE Nate Jackson nails it on why the entire Derek Anderson episode was ridiculous and overblown.

[Lights Out]

In other news, James Harrison is once again refusing to give up his dirty play. But this quote of his really pissed me off.

"It's starting to look like it's OK to cheat, it's OK to fight, but if you hit somebody too hard, we're going to fine you a whole bunch," Harrison said. "Maybe it's because I play for the Steelers, who knows?"

After the debacle that was Super Bowl XL, every Steelers player, fan, or anyone else related to the organization lost their right to play the "the league hates us" card. That includes you, Harrison. It just turns my stomach whenever anyone on one of the league's golden-boy teams complains about how their team is treated.

[crashcarson15]

In other news, James Harrison is once again refusing to give up his dirty play. But this quote of his really pissed me off.

"It's starting to look like it's OK to cheat, it's OK to fight, but if you hit somebody too hard, we're going to fine you a whole bunch," Harrison said. "Maybe it's because I play for the Steelers, who knows?"

After the debacle that was Super Bowl XL, every Steelers player, fan, or anyone else related to the organization lost their right to play the "the league hates us" card. That includes you, Harrison. It just turns my stomach whenever anyone on one of the league's golden-boy teams complains about how their team is treated.

Yeah really. After the Richard Seymour fine, this is what Antwan Randle El had to say. "It would have been a little more, or if one of our guys did it, there would have been more."

[Cujo]

Ladies and gentlemen, at long last, your 2010 Playoff Generator is here!

[TheOldRoman]

There is a way the Seahawks could lose their next four, beat the Rams and win the division at 6-10.

[trekbkr]

So that counts for players as well does it? You trade a player away and still have to pay them?

I'm pretty sure that's the case, yes.

It all depends on the contract. If the player has guaranteed money in the contract he signs and is let go befoe that contract expires then the team still has to pay him that guaranteed money whether or not the player has another job or not. I can't think of any NFL examples off the top of my head, but this happens a lot in the MLB. In fact the Rangers were still paying Alex Rodrigues money last year from his contract even though he hasn't played for them since 2003.

Not exactly.

Ordinarily when a player is traded, his existing contract is traded in its entirety as well, and the new team becomes responsible for honoring it. When the Rangers tried trading Rodriguez, they couldn't get another team to take on all of his massive contract. They had to agree to continue to pick up part of the tab as part of the trade. They couldn't get rid of his contract entirely, but couldn't afford to keep him and honor it, either, so their best alternative was to send him away and get someone else to at least pay some of it.

NFL head coach contracts are guaranteed, so the money gets paid regardless. By and large, contracts for NFL players and assistant coaches are not guaranteed, so they're voided when the player or coach is let go. If an NFL player is getting guaranteed money, it's usually because he's a superstar and less likely to be cut, and even then the guaranteed money is usually up front, so the team isn't out anything if they decide to let him go at a later date.

[Cujo]

This defending champion Saints will be blacked-out this weekened in Cinci.

I get that the Bengals suck, but still!...

[Cujo]

NBC will not flex for Sunday Night this week -- thus treating America to the Eagles vs. the 3-8 Cowboys.

[Jigga]

NBC will not flex for Sunday Night this week -- thus treating America to the Eagles vs. the 3-8 Cowboys.

Why would they flex? The Cowboys rate well, plus you get 3-plus hours of OMG Michael Vick controversey!!777

What, you think they want to give us two good (but boring) teams facing each other down the stretch? They want eyeballs, plain and simple. And they'll get them. This isn't Cards-Niners from Monday.

[Still MIGHTY]

NBC will not flex for Sunday Night this week -- thus treating America to the Eagles vs. the 3-8 Cowboys.

You mean next week?

We're getting a great game this Sunday night with Steelers/Ravens.

[Punch]

NBC will not flex for Sunday Night this week -- thus treating America to the Eagles vs. the 3-8 Cowboys.

Why would they flex? The Cowboys rate well, plus you get 3-plus hours of OMG Michael Vick controversey!!777

What, you think they want to give us two good (but boring) teams facing each other down the stretch? They want eyeballs, plain and simple. And they'll get them. This isn't Cards-Niners from Monday.

Cardinals + 49ers = Awful Teams, No Excitement

Eagles x Vick Controversy + [Cowboys - (Romo+Phillips)] = Awful Team, Ratings Boost

(Vikings + Favre) + n = 100% Ratings Boost

(Vikings - Favre) + n = No one gives a s**t

[rams80]

NBC will not flex for Sunday Night this week -- thus treating America to the Eagles vs. the 3-8 Cowboys.

Rams-Saints was reportedly the alternative under consideration, which would have provided a strong matchup between two playoff contend-ok the Saints would have raped the Rams' arse all over the field.

/But it still would have been the first Rams prime time game since 2007. And the first one people actually saw since 2006.

[NJTank]

NBC will not flex for Sunday Night this week -- thus treating America to the Eagles vs. the 3-8 Cowboys.

As long as they did not flex the Dolphins Jets game I am happy. Getting home from the Meadowlands after midnight when I have to go to work the next day would have sucked.

[HedleyLamarr]

NBC will not flex for Sunday Night this week -- thus treating America to the Eagles vs. the 3-8 Cowboys.

As long as they did not flex the Dolphins Jets game I am happy. Getting home from the Meadowlands after midnight when I have to go to work the next day would have sucked.

You often post after 1-2am anyway....

[DEAD!]

NBC will not flex for Sunday Night this week -- thus treating America to the Eagles vs. the 3-8 Cowboys.

As long as they did not flex the Dolphins Jets game I am happy. Getting home from the Meadowlands after midnight when I have to go to work the next day would have sucked.

You often post after 1-2am anyway....

Correct... I think...

[TopCat]

Did the NFL only have 31 teams before the Texans came along?