Saturday, April 23, 2011

NFL Lockout puts pressure on veteran free agents

Clearly the absence of free agency has dampened the buzz around the NFL Draft. Most teams, the Ravens included, use free agency to address needs and the draft to create depth and find future starters by picking the best player available.

However without free agency it will be interesting to see how much need influences war room draft boards around the league.

Equally interesting will be how teams eventually treat free agents. If the lockout extends beyond the time normally set aside for voluntary and/or mandatory OTA’s and into training camp or beyond, there will be few free agent signings because players won’t have the requisite time to grow comfortable within the system of an acquiring team. This will cost veterans a lot of money and it could become a big influencer to DeMaurice Smith’s cooperative spirit.

The limited time will also impact the effectiveness of rookies in the 2011 season. The position of wide receiver, always a challenging leap for even the best collegiate players, will become even more challenging. The invaluable time in the classroom and on the practice field developing a rapport with the quarterback is lost – the pre-snap reads that require both QB and WR to be in synch will lack connectivity.

Even for a veteran, dialing in with your QB is a tall task without the proper prep time.

Just ask Joe Flacco and TJ Houshmandzadeh.


Eric said...

To all the people that jave wrote in favor of the player i ask you this. If you owned a business and your employees wanted 65% of your revenues how would you react? Yes the owners make revenue off of naming rights and part of the conssesions but that isnt that much over the coures of their naming rights contract 400 million over 20+ years isnt equall to their expenses. They did that to offset the cba. But in reality we are in economic decline. Who knows if it will get better or worse. The fact still remains. The players want 65% of the tv revenues. Thats not realistic. You say the players have to put food on the table for their families. That isnt evem a real argument. The player make millions ecen the lowest on the team makes abt 700k a year. Are you honestly saying they cant provide for their families with what thw owners want? Players can not be compared to the common man in a union living pay check to pay check. Yes the aying carrer of the average player is about 3 years but didnt they get a “free” education? Is it the owners fault if they didnt do well on school? Should they have to support them? Lets be real about this. The only people who will ne affected bu this are the agents. They wont make as much. The players will still get
theirs. The average player will still make enough that they will live a comfortable life and if they are smart will invest for the future. I feel no sympaty for these coddled athelets. They are paid milliom and feel they are above te common
man. You cant even get the stars of the teams
to sign an autograph for a kid. I personally think
its unrealistic to expect the owners ( who by the
way finance the league with the revenues they
receive) to give 65% of the pue to the players.
Who stands to lose the most if they nfl
collapses? Although that isnt realistic but what
if. For some owners this is their lively hood. This
is their only source of income. So i ask again
which one of you apologists will give 65% of your momey to your employess.