Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Clarett is ELIGIBLE for '04 Draft (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter GRIDIRON ASSASSIN
- Start date
EastBayFunk
Footballguy
He was listed as a 4.4 guy coming out of high school, but who wasn't? He's not a total burner, but from what I remember he had decent speed. Somewhere in the 4.5's would be my guess. Of course, he could've matured a bit since 2002 so you just never know what he'll run.
roadkill1292
Footballguy
This one, as predicted by many here several months ago, is over. It is in no one's best interest to fight this decision. It is not in the NFL's best interest to deny employment to talented young players who meet all the qualifications for employment in the league. It is certainly not in the players' best interest.
If the NFL contests this decision as fiercely as it promises, it will be wasting its time and its money. The most lucrative employer in its field better find a really good reason for barring qualified employees and I'm damned if I can think of one right now.
A major corporation seeking a CFO can reasonably require its candidates for consideration to have a certain amount of experience in accounting or finance. A heavy equipment operator or commercial pilot can reasonably be expected to have a certain amount of training for the job as it is a matter of public safety. There are even reasonable grounds for denying someone a driver's license or the right to vote solely on the basis of age.
But the NFL has no grounds whatsoever to deny someone employment solely on the basis of age. The individual teams can certainly refuse employment based on performance level and can even refuse to give someone a chance to try out if the player's resume is inadequate. But age, in and of itself, can not be the sole criteria.
If the NFL contests this decision as fiercely as it promises, it will be wasting its time and its money. The most lucrative employer in its field better find a really good reason for barring qualified employees and I'm damned if I can think of one right now.
A major corporation seeking a CFO can reasonably require its candidates for consideration to have a certain amount of experience in accounting or finance. A heavy equipment operator or commercial pilot can reasonably be expected to have a certain amount of training for the job as it is a matter of public safety. There are even reasonable grounds for denying someone a driver's license or the right to vote solely on the basis of age.
But the NFL has no grounds whatsoever to deny someone employment solely on the basis of age. The individual teams can certainly refuse employment based on performance level and can even refuse to give someone a chance to try out if the player's resume is inadequate. But age, in and of itself, can not be the sole criteria.
Last edited by a moderator:
CletiusMaximus
Footballguy
Defining the "market" is an important part of anti-trust jurisprudence. If I'm Maurice Clarett, I don't think my market includes arena ball, Canada or the Barcelona Dragons.
You could not have less of an understanding of the principles of this case if you think it was based in any way on age.If the "rule" were based solely on age, it would likely have civil rights challenges, not antitrust.
I re-read the case, and it falls apart most dramatically by a poor job by the lawyers of coming up with reasons why the rule is in place. Yet, those very same reasons seem to require some type of PROOF development and are not really matters of law - which may be Clarett's downfall. If the case is sent back to the district court for fact development, Clarett may not win his case before the April draft.
Couch Potato
Footballguy
I know a guy who went to Miami for exactly these reasons, and boy was he looking forward to all those things. After 6 months on the team with none of the 'perks' you are talking about, he finally figured out Miami-Ohio wasn't the Miami he had been hearing about. Such a sad tale.
Holy Schneikes
Footballguy
Clarett has ALREADY won the case. Isn't the burden is now on the NFL to get a stay?If absolutely nothing "official" happens before April (one of the more likely scenarios IMO), Clarett is in.
Yes - Clarett has the case won, for now. The NFL is appealing, and they will receive an expedited appeal that will result in a decision LONG before the NFL draft. They will NOT get a stay of the decision - they will get a for all intents and purposes final resolution of the case by the appellate court's decision. There is a drop-dead date of early April on this puppy and this will be finally resolved by then - or made moot by th eoccurrence of the draft, which Clarett currently has the right to participate in.Like I mentioned in an earlier post, my reading of the case is that the judge didn't want to be in a position of having denied Clarett relief by ruling against his summary judgment motion, so she granted the motion (on fairly shaky legal grounds) and passed the buck up to the appellate court knowing the NFL both had the means and the will to appeal it. She did not even once consider the effect on the industry, or set out the basics of the industry, by removing the rule. it is a very shaky decision that had a TON of appealable issues - exactly how she wanted it. The upper court will resolve the legal issues in greater detail and with more precision than she did and if the case is handed back down to the district court for a trial, Clarett probably misses the April draft anyway.It really is a decision for the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, not a district judge, anyway, as there are tricky issues of law relative to a very unique industry. The REAL decision will be handed down in about a month.
Jason Wood
Zoo York
It's SOOOO pathetic
to hear these guys (Salisbury, Pasquarelli) paint this kid like he's the antichrist. They are so obviously toting the NFL party line, when just two years ago, Clarett was THE talk of ESPN and the sports world. Does anyone else remember the ESPN the Mag article about Clarett? It was the biggest puff piece talking about how scary good this kid is, how he could challenge the NFL rules and was talented enough to play in the league even as a teenager, the interviewer was even joking about a part of the interview when Clarett's phone rang, and it was LeBron James, and the interviewer joked, "I wonder what you guys are talking about." (paraphrased, it's been 1.5 years)Clarett is a talent. Should he be a first rounder? I wouldn't take him over Jackson, K Jones or Perry. But after that, the race is on. This kid has great NFL size, and we don't know how fast he runs, but he's not slow and we'll have that answer once (if) he works out for teams. He was also considered an able blocker and receiver right from the start (I'm sure he needs to hone these areas but he DID start at Ohio State as a true freshmen). Kiper has the kid going in the 2nd safely; so WTF is Salisbury talking about? Does anyone honestly think Clarett is a bigger risk than Willis McGahee! Here's a kid who tore up his knee in two spots a few months before the draft, it was his second major knee injury no less, and a team drafted him in the first round based on potential. C'mon, you don't think if Clarett has a good workout some team won't drop a first or second rounder on him?Cheers
roadkill1292
Footballguy
There simply ARE no reasons for the NFL to have this rule in place, no justifiable ones anyway.Is Clarett unqualified? If so, he will not make a roster. Is he a threat to public safety? Seems to me the only threat is to the league's very comfortable employment structure and that will not be reason enough to deny him his right to try out for any NFL team that will let him.
JohnnyU
Footballguy
You make a good point with the McGahee comparison, but since my wife is a big OSU fan (she is from Columbus and stepson went to school there), I had to watch almost every game OSU played, and Clarett was always going out of the game with some nagging injury. He would go out for 2 or 3 series, then return. He did this all year long. That may be a fluke and in the future he may not have ANY injuries, but I think that would be just one more reason to doubt Clarett.It's SOOOO pathetic
warhawk511
Footballguy
You guys are mocking Salisbury but the fact is that Clarett will get killed if he plays next year. You guys honestly think this guys is gonna run like Jamal or Ahman. I know some rookies occasionally are studs but i think Mortenson made a great point. You wont make up the money you lose by slipping in the draft and I doubt very few people would even spend 5 seconds on spending a first pick on him. just too many factors and too risky. Clinton dropped to the 2nd round, lost a lot of money and now trying to get more money will be a major pain. I wont deny in a few years Clarett might, just maybe become a top 5 RB but there are just so many good backs now in my opinion , Id probably bet someone he doesnt appear in anyones fantasy top 10 drafts the net 3 years. I think its crazy for 17 years old in the future to think they can come in the NFL and survive. Don't they realize how big these guys are. The only winners are the lawyers and the agents who get their fees. The biggest losers will be the kids who wont get the opportunity to take softball and tennis classes for a degree.
Jason Wood
Zoo York
Couple things here:Number one, Clarett isn't 17, he's 20Number two, Clarett isn't small, he's 6'1", and 220-230 lbs.Number three, rookie RBs frequently make an impact, no occasionallyNumber four, even with the baggage, Clarett is a 2nd rounder easilyNumber five, how is Clarett more of a risk than Willis McGahee, who went in the first round?Cheers
What were Clarett's stats for that year he played versus the other rbs he will be lumped with? I may be mistaken but didn't Benson from Tx have very similar stats his freshman year even though he didn't start til week 4-5 ? I don't remember anyone ever saying Benson was ready for the big time.Most believed McGahee was out of the top tier last year til he showed a remarkable recovery in just a mere 3 months. I do not believe any mocks had him high until the last few weeks before the draft. Who here wasn't shocked to see the Bills take him? I never expected it. We won't know how successful this pick was til next season. McGahee showed he was working to get better physically where as Clarret seems to be just showing judgement that seems to be going from bad to worse. Prediction as of now....... 3rd round.
Last edited by a moderator:
coolbeans59
Footballguy
I was shocked to see the Bills take him ..... since the day he declared, I was saying to everyone that would listen on this board (actually the old board) to expect him to go MUCH higher than anyone expected (and when most 'mock drafts' were saying he was a late 3rd, I had him going late first).
Last edited by a moderator:
BassNBrew
Footballguy
This is the end of the high level of play in the NFL as we know it. Teams will be forced to gamble on high school players for fear of missing the next Emmitt or Barry. These prospects will eat up roster space while better, middle of the road veterans will be cast aside. The level of play in the NBA is a joke. It will take a while, but the NFL will follow that model.
jsargos
Footballguy
This isn't going to happen. I think you will see college sophomores and the occasional freshman being drafted, but I don't think high school players will ever be drafted into the NFL. Unless they expand the roster size or taxi squad to accommodate strictly developmental players, every roster spot is too valuable in the NFL. Even if they were drafted, it would be in a late round with the non-guaranteed contracts of the NFL.I do think that the NFL and NCAA will both be hurt with a significant migration of sophomores into the NFL, just not to the extent that we see inthe NBA.
BassNBrew
Footballguy
I disagree. NFL teams will draft prospects. They won't cut them because they realize they'll have to develop them. Where you will see the impact is at special teams and situational players. Guys like He Hate Me (a very solid ST player) and Larry Centers won't be playing in the league so that Ron Powlus can be on the roster. The fact that every roster spot is valuable only emphasizes how quickly play could deterioate.
EastBayFunk
Footballguy
I don't think that's going to happen. NFL rosters don't have many spots for guys who aren't ready to contribute. Basketball teams have to take the risk because on home run can make or break a team. Football teams are much bigger and one player is not going to make a huge difference.
JohnnyU
Footballguy
That is precisely why the NFL can afford to stash players. You said it yourself that "Football teams are much bigger and one player is not going to make a huge difference." That contradicts your earlier statement "I don't think that's going to happen. NFL rosters don't have many spots for guys who aren't ready to contribute." .
roadkill1292
Footballguy
I don't agree with this conclusion, either. The identification and procurement of talent will still be a neverending process, with some teams doing it better than others. Performance on the field will still be the bottom line.
Gamblor
Footballguy
This may have been mentioned, and I may appear clueless as to the ways of the draft, but is there any way NFL teams would collectively agree to just not draft him? If the rule really is in the best interest of the NFL, you'd think the commish could get all the owners together and attempt to agree to leave him till next year?
guderian
Footballguy
The problem is that in the NBA there are five positions, but practically most players can play more than one position--so in effect there really are only about 3 truly different positions at most. On a typical NBA team you will have a core group of 7 or so players that get 90% of the minutes and the other players are truly "stashed away".In the NFL, sure the rosters are larger at 53, but there are 24 positions in the NFL (Including P and K). So, NFL teams really have less room to stash players away (even if you include the practice squad) than NBA teams, which is why the NFL isn't going to waste roster space on a bunch of players that will not contribute.
Last edited by a moderator:
roadkill1292
Footballguy
This is called collusion and just ask baseball owners how expensive it is to get caught doing this.
hxperson
Footballguy
I am far from a legal eggspurt, but wouldn't this kind of activity be considered anti-competitive and result in penalties to all involved parties if there is enough evidence?Another question I have is: What the heck does the NFL say if Dougie Howser decides to enter the draft 3 years after graduating high school?
Real Men of Football
Footballguy
I actually think the team he could end with is Tampa, they could use a game breaker and he has the talent. They probably can get him easily in the 2nd and maybe as late as the 4th. But an I think Tampa is the ideal situation for Clarett, along with maybe Dallas, Oakland, Chicago, New England, Detroit, and maybe even Cleveland the land of the misfit running backs, i.e. ben gay and smokey green.
Last edited by a moderator:
jsargos
Footballguy
The main difference is that basketball relies mainly on fine motor skills, whereas football is primarily gross motor skills. Fine motor skills can be observed before a person is fully developed physically. Strength, mass, and speed have nothing to do with how well a person dribbles or shoots a basketball. Those attributes are vastly more important in football, and it's difficult to project how an 18 year old is going to mature. No matter how impressive a prospect is coming out of HS, scouts will always be able to find a bigger, stronger, and faster player in college.
In The Zone
Footballguy
Well said. Only the top 35 draft picks will get 1 million or more in signing bonus money. After that, there isn't alot of guaranteed $$.
falconeyed
Footballguy
I'm starting to get this kind of "Lawrence Phillips" feeling about Clarett. I know Clarett's not a woman beater or rapist or anything of the sort ... I just get this general "more trouble than it's worth" feeling. Of course, now that I've said that, the kid's a lock for 1800 yards rushing next season.
I think that is the point he is making.
The counterargument is that the judge made a decision she was not supposed to make w/o fact development.
She actually said there was no "arm's length" bargaining - as if the NFL and NFLPA were in collusion on that provision - also a determination that could be oveturned on appeal (I happen to agree that it may not have been arm's length negotiations, but I would like to see a bit more proof of that).
That is correct - but just b/c the rule has a basis of an arbitrary age doesn't make the fact that there is a rule arbitrary. It is one way to make sure 3 years have passed since a kid leaves high school football w/o requiring the kid to be a certain age. There SHOULD be rules for admission into a union - one of them being a certain level of experience/maturity/proven skill - it happens every day in union America that you have to prove certain skills to get certain union benefits.Incidentally, the judge indicated the draft itself, with any type of "eligibility" requirements, was violative of antitrust provisions b/c it is similar to collusion and similar to a denial of the right to enter the market. THat part of the opinion was dicta and not controlling, but it tends to show the extent of the judge's opinion re: restrictiveness into the market place (the crux of Clarett's argument).My final reason for why it will be shot down is that the solution that was fashioned may have been too broad a stroke - and may have stretched beyond what was requested by Clarett (I did not see his motion papers, so maybe he did request relief for other people, too) - a judge is not allowed to do that on summary judgment. She should have granted Clarett the relief he requested and nothing more (ie - the order that the NFL accept for the draft anyone who applies). That, too, is a potentially a reversible issue.I am not on either the NFL's or Clarett's side, but I think this ruling is REALLY shaky. If it is affirmed, the appellate court will come up with a bunch more reasons with "teeth" (which it is entitled to do as long as it doesn't delve into fact finding). I look foward to that opinion as the "real" decision.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Question
