Earl Thomas appears to flip off Seattle side line.

Pretty classless honestly. These guys know what kind of business they are getting themselves into. They know that they might have to sign a franchise tender and play under that and wait on a big contract until another day. They know the rules of the CBA and yet they still act like the rules don't apply to them. I like Earl Thomas, I was even hoping they'd trade Bell for him, but he has to know that there are kids watching these games that look up to him as a role model, whether he wants that title or not.

IowaSteeler927 wrote:

Pretty classless honestly. These guys know what kind of business they are getting themselves into. They know that they might have to sign a franchise tender and play under that and wait on a big contract until another day. They know the rules of the CBA and yet they still act like the rules don't apply to them. I like Earl Thomas, I was even hoping they'd trade Bell for him, but he has to know that there are kids watching these games that look up to him as a role model, whether he wants that title or not.

Pete Carroll another players friendly headcoach losing his team. being a players friendly headcoach works when you'er team is winning not so much when you'er team in on the down side of it's talent.

football is a business and the headcoach in reality is a supervisor of coaches and players so imo a headcoach should not be over friendly with the coaching staff and players, doesn't mean you need to be a dick head, but you got to let everyone know when thing start to go wrong he'll have to get rid of some people it's not personal it business.

What irritates me is how these guys all come into the NFL and agree to the CBA but when a team exercises it's right to place a franchise tag on a star player, some of them act as if they never knew there was a such thing as a franchise tag and then act like total divas to the detriment of their team. That's what pisses me off the most about Bell. I get that he wants the security of a long term contract, what player wouldn't? At the end of the day though it's a business and the team is always going to try to get the deal that is the most friendly for it. Players generally try to do the same as well. I don't blame the Steelers at all for how they handled Bell's contract, he wants way too much money, and the best move for the team was to put the franchise tag on him so they can play the numbers game again next season to see if they can re-sign him, though I don't know if that's in the cards anymore at this point.

These guys know they can get hurt, and it's not like the 14.5 Million they're making on the franchise tag isn't enough for them to retire should they get hurt.

IowaSteeler927 wrote:

What irritates me is how these guys all come into the NFL and agree to the CBA but when a team exercises it's right to place a franchise tag on a star player, some of them act as if they never knew there was a such thing as a franchise tag and then act like total divas to the detriment of their team. That's what pisses me off the most about Bell. I get that he wants the security of a long term contract, what player wouldn't? At the end of the day though it's a business and the team is always going to try to get the deal that is the most friendly for it. Players generally try to do the same as well. I don't blame the Steelers at all for how they handled Bell's contract, he wants way too much money, and the best move for the team was to put the franchise tag on him so they can play the numbers game again next season to see if they can re-sign him, though I don't know if that's in the cards anymore at this point.

These guys know they can get hurt, and it's not like the 14.5 Million they're making on the franchise tag isn't enough for them to retire should they get hurt.

I actually don't agree with you. I think the franchise tag shouldn't exist as it appears to be some sort of modern slavery to me. In which business can an employer force an employee to sign him once his contract is finished? Sounds like communism to me. Imagine that you've signed a contract for 4 years and that you're forced to stay another year (or 2 years in the case of Bell) while you want to do something else in your life. I for sure wouldn't take it. An NFL player is already forced to sign his rookie contract on certain terms in which he already got nothing to say, but ok that's typical for sports to keep the competition healthy. But the franchise tag is unnecessary for that and should be removed imo. There's a reason it doesn't exist in other sports either.

Earl Thomas isn't playing under the franchise tag btw. He just isn't happy with the contract he signed. That's something completely different as that was his own choice. I think players holding out while signed a contract should be suspended and given a fee by the league.

here we go again with the slavery bullshit, in Bell's case a multi million dollar slave I done pissed myself laughing so hard. people been listening to Stephen A. Smith and believe some of this bullshit. I bet most people believe it the owners fault. these slaves are members of a Union? YES? then you can't call these players slaves or even use the word communism.

These players are part of a Union and that Union have lawyers who are just as educated as the NFL lawyers and don't these lawyers get together what every 4 years and negotiate how the rules will apply between players and owners?

this system is far from slavery or communism.