RB Le'Veon Bell, FA - 9.6.21 Workout For Baltimore (10 Viewers)

Deamon said:

Bell on twitter:  "I think it's safe to say, it's time to pass the sticks"

What does that even mean?

Click to expand...

Arodin said:

Some possibilities:

1) He's passing the baton in the relay race that is Steelers' RBs to Conner, and moving on.

2) He's crossing some sort of boundary and coming into the Pittsburgh compound to start playing again.

or

3) He's on something so good that it makes sentences like that seem profound.

Even odds on any of these imo.

Click to expand...

Deamon said:

Bell on twitter:  "I think it's safe to say, it's time to pass the sticks"

What does that even mean?

Click to expand...

Twenty-Four Eighty-Four said:

http://www.rotoworld.com/player/nfl/8390/leveon-bell

Posting on social media Thursday night, Le'Veon Bell tweeted "I think it’s safe to say, it’s time to pass the sticks."

Bell finished the tweet with three "smiling face with sunglasses" emojis. For those of you unfamiliar with Madden or PlayStation 2's "Street Hoops" (see "Chappelle's Show"), "pass the sticks" means "your time is up" in video game parlance. Bell will be reporting before Tuesday afternoon's deadline, and he wants the controller back from James Conner. Conner stayed scorching on Thursday evening, decking the Panthers for another 100-plus yard game. If Bell is active for Week 11 against the Jaguars, he will almost certainly be a package player, taking a backseat to his understudy. The saga will be officially ending soon, likely Monday, though Friday is also a possibility. Nov 8 - 10:39 PM

Source: Le'Veon Bell on Twitter

Click to expand...

Bayhawks said:

The fact that it turns out Bell made the smart decision just underscores that fact.  Bell has weakened some of the power of the NFL teams, with regards to the use of the franchise tag.  If the precedent is established that a player tagged twice can sit out the 2nd franchise tag year & mandate the QB tag rate in the event of a 3rd tag, NFL teams will be less likely to tag players multiple teams, which means they’ll be more likely to work out long term deals (giving players the security if ACTUAL guaranteed money) OR making it easier for players to reach FA.  Bells actions, which the Steelers players #### on, stands to benefit all NFL players in general, and possibly some of those poor teammates, specifically.

Click to expand...

conlilnew said:

Tie stick

Click to expand...

TheDemon said:

It's Thai

Click to expand...

conlilnew said:

Tie stick

Click to expand...

infantsam said:

This just sounds dumb to me.

No matter what happens next year he is down $15 mil and roughly 10% of his earning career.  Sure less since he has not played.

I don't know what kind of promised land he will land in but I am sure interested to see it and how much better it is than being the Steelers RB this year is.

If it is all about the numbers than what was the number and how much more was it than what he was offered?  Was it 15 mill?

It is a business.  Get your money.  Let the NFLPA do it's job and fix the rules and contribute your money but get paid every Sunday.  The over/under on Bell's career earning's has dropped.

The first rule of sales  - you can't make up missed ones.  The second rule - be-back's are useless.

Click to expand...

lsufan said:

As a Conner owner this is about as bad as it gets. Conner seems to be injured. Bell looks like his going to return. The Steelers will likely need Bell ready ASAP. If Conner can't go next week I think Bell will be on track to slide in as viable option when Conner comes back. We may have watched Conner's last game as the go to guy unfortunately. Hate to be a negative Nancy. 

Click to expand...

lsufan said:

As a Conner owner this is about as bad as it gets. Conner seems to be injured. Bell looks like his going to return. The Steelers will likely need Bell ready ASAP. If Conner can't go next week I think Bell will be on track to slide in as viable option when Conner comes back. We may have watched Conner's last game as the go to guy unfortunately. Hate to be a negative Nancy. 

Click to expand...

Steeler said:

Conner has 10 days to recover.  Plus, no way to tell what kind of shape Bell is in at this point.  Plus, Bell might not even show up.  Even if Conner can't go next week, worst case scenario, he has earned the right to be the Steelers starting RB this year, IMO.

Click to expand...

matuski said:

A solid backup/passable starter RB.  

Stats are the silliest argument you can make here against Bell.  Conner can't be Bell.  Teams don't respect Conner.  Conner is the reason AB is slumping  - they can double AB and put an LB on Conner.. they can play 2 deep, etc..  The team is worse without Bell.

Click to expand...

Steeler said:

Conner has 10 days to recover.  Plus, no way to tell what kind of shape Bell is in at this point.  Plus, Bell might not even show up.  Even if Conner can't go next week, worst case scenario, he has earned the right to be the Steelers starting RB this year, IMO.

Click to expand...

infantsam said:

This just sounds dumb to me.

No matter what happens next year he is down $15 mil and roughly 10% of his earning career.  Sure less since he has not played.

I don't know what kind of promised land he will land in but I am sure interested to see it and how much better it is than being the Steelers RB this year is.

If it is all about the numbers than what was the number and how much more was it than what he was offered?  Was it 15 mill?

It is a business.  Get your money.  Let the NFLPA do it's job and fix the rules and contribute your money but get paid every Sunday.  The over/under on Bell's career earning's has dropped.

The first rule of sales  - you can't make up missed ones.  The second rule - be-back's are useless.

Click to expand...

Bayhawks said:

The first rule of fight club is you don't talk about fight club.  The second rule-you don't talk about fight club.  But we ain't talking about fight club or sales, so neither of those things are relevant.

And that being said, I'm not really sure why you posted this as a response to my post.  You quoted my comments about the impact Bell's actions could have on the use of the franchise tag, then proceeded to say "this just sounds dumb to me," and discuss the impact this decision was having on Bell's wallet almost exclusively, with just a throwaway comment at the end about the NFLPA.  Doesn't make sense to say something sounds dumb, then argue a completely different point to back that up.

If you want to discuss Bell's personal financial information, you're likely right-this decision cost him money.  But, we can't be 100% certain about that unless we know what, EXACTLY, Pitt actually offered him.  There are multiple different reports of what they offered, what the real guarantees were, etc.  We would also need to know what deal he eventually gets from another team.  You also have to consider the chance of sustaining an injury if he had played on the franchise tag this year and the impact that would have had on a long-term deal next year (Earl Thomas says hi).  

But, again, that wasn't the point of my post.  The point was that IF the situation plays out the way that report suggests, Bell's actions strengthens the NFLPA, and other NFL players in their future dealings with teams with regards to use of the franchise tags.  Bell establishing the precedent that a player doesn't have to play under a 2nd tag and still advance to the 3rd tag (& QB tag rate) will make the tag a much less valuable tool/weapon for teams to utilize.  Players will know, and teams will know that player will know, that teams will get 1 tag & 1 chance to exclusively work out a long-term deal.  If the team decides to tag a player a 2nd time, they run the risk of the player holding their salary cap hostage (as Bell did with the Steelers), not reporting (saving a year of abuse on their body), and still moving up to either a huge payday the next year or becoming a FA.  The players/NFLPA got a big win here (with the exception of QBs, but their contracts are already so ahead of everyone else's, anyway).

So, if this report is accurate-Bell doesn't report, he graduates to the QB tag rate anyway & is allowed to become a FA because Pitt won't want to play that rate; then he has done something for the NFLPA that they couldn't do themselves during negotiations.  While not getting rid of the franchise tag, he has returned it to what it was (purportedly) supposed to be anyway: a way for teams to be able to keep their franchise players.  He has greatly weakened its' availability as a weapon for teams to control players during the prime of their careers without making long-term commitments to those players.  That was the point of my previous post.

Click to expand...

skillz said:

I thought the Steelers were going to use the two week roster exemption even if Bell reports prior to next game.  Has that plan changed?

Click to expand...

Godsbrother said:

If/when Bell reports the Steelers will use the roster exemption for at least one week to evaluate what kind of shape Bell is in and to acclimate him back on to the team.  

Click to expand...

Bayhawks said:

The first rule of fight club is you don't talk about fight club.  The second rule-you don't talk about fight club.  But we ain't talking about fight club or sales, so neither of those things are relevant.

And that being said, I'm not really sure why you posted this as a response to my post.  You quoted my comments about the impact Bell's actions could have on the use of the franchise tag, then proceeded to say "this just sounds dumb to me," and discuss the impact this decision was having on Bell's wallet almost exclusively, with just a throwaway comment at the end about the NFLPA.  Doesn't make sense to say something sounds dumb, then argue a completely different point to back that up.

If you want to discuss Bell's personal financial information, you're likely right-this decision cost him money.  But, we can't be 100% certain about that unless we know what, EXACTLY, Pitt actually offered him.  There are multiple different reports of what they offered, what the real guarantees were, etc.  We would also need to know what deal he eventually gets from another team.  You also have to consider the chance of sustaining an injury if he had played on the franchise tag this year and the impact that would have had on a long-term deal next year (Earl Thomas says hi).  

But, again, that wasn't the point of my post.  The point was that IF the situation plays out the way that report suggests, Bell's actions strengthens the NFLPA, and other NFL players in their future dealings with teams with regards to use of the franchise tags.  Bell establishing the precedent that a player doesn't have to play under a 2nd tag and still advance to the 3rd tag (& QB tag rate) will make the tag a much less valuable tool/weapon for teams to utilize.  Players will know, and teams will know that player will know, that teams will get 1 tag & 1 chance to exclusively work out a long-term deal.  If the team decides to tag a player a 2nd time, they run the risk of the player holding their salary cap hostage (as Bell did with the Steelers), not reporting (saving a year of abuse on their body), and still moving up to either a huge payday the next year or becoming a FA.  The players/NFLPA got a big win here (with the exception of QBs, but their contracts are already so ahead of everyone else's, anyway).

So, if this report is accurate-Bell doesn't report, he graduates to the QB tag rate anyway & is allowed to become a FA because Pitt won't want to play that rate; then he has done something for the NFLPA that they couldn't do themselves during negotiations.  While not getting rid of the franchise tag, he has returned it to what it was (purportedly) supposed to be anyway: a way for teams to be able to keep their franchise players.  He has greatly weakened its' availability as a weapon for teams to control players during the prime of their careers without making long-term commitments to those players.  That was the point of my previous post.

Click to expand...

Bayhawks said:

That’s on his teammates & the fans.  

The unwritten rule in pro sports is the players realize it’s a business, & you support each other when it comes to the business side.  The other Steelers made assumptions about what Bells plans were, ran their mouths, then looked stupid when the things they said would happen, didn’t happen.  (Pouncey is the prime example of this; he guaranteed Bell’d report, later said he hadn’t heard that from Bell, but stood by the guarantee, then looked like a moron when he didn’t report).  Then some Steelers talked trash about him; ######## move.

The fact that it turns out Bell made the smart decision just underscores that fact.  Bell has weakened some of the power of the NFL teams, with regards to the use of the franchise tag.  If the precedent is established that a player tagged twice can sit out the 2nd franchise tag year & mandate the QB tag rate in the event of a 3rd tag, NFL teams will be less likely to tag players multiple teams, which means they’ll be more likely to work out long term deals (giving players the security if ACTUAL guaranteed money) OR making it easier for players to reach FA.  Bells actions, which the Steelers players #### on, stands to benefit all NFL players in general, and possibly some of those poor teammates, specifically.

Click to expand...

habsfan said:

The only thing I would quibble with is that this benefits anyone beyond the handful of elite players "worthy" of tags. I suppose he may have exploited language in the CBA that doesn't actually enforce what the league obviously intended it to enforce and I suppose that gives the union another bargaining chip in the next contract negotiations (which could be traded for something that actually does help all players). Still, the idea that Bell is some sort of labour hero who's standing up for the downtrodden is kinda bizarre to me. The idea that he sees himself that way or wants to see himself that way (giving up a good chunk of $14MM in the process) is also bizarre...

Let's also not downplay all the deeply engrained unwritten rules of team sports and football in particular, which serve to undermine the decisions an individual player makes taking care of his "business". The backlash Bell has suffered are a direct result of those rules.

Click to expand...

Hankmoody said:

I think I get it now.

Click to expand...

lsufan said:

As a Conner owner this is about as bad as it gets. Conner seems to be injured. Bell looks like he is going to return. The Steelers will likely need Bell ready ASAP. If Conner can't go next week I think Bell will be on track to slide in as viable option when Conner comes back. We may have watched Conner's last game as the go to guy unfortunately. Hate to be a negative Nancy. 

Click to expand...

Godsbrother said:

I think the only people who think Bell made a good decision is Bell and Bayhawks.  Even his agent thinks his client is a dunce for not taking the Steelers offer last year, let alone this year.

Click to expand...

Deamon said:

Bell on twitter:  "I think it's safe to say, it's time to pass the sticks"

What does that even mean?

Click to expand...

Bayhawks said:

Bell has said that he wants to redefine the market for RBs.  He clearly views this as more than just "getting his."  Whether you, I , or anyone else thinks this is a good idea or not is up for debate, but what's not up for debate is that he's very specifically stated that what he's doing is about something bigger than just how much money he gets paid.

As for the comment about his agent, this is not true.  It was reported to have happened, but later refuted by his agent.  The same sources that leaked information making the Steelers' offers to Bell look better than they actually were likely leaked this false report, as well.

If Bell's goal for this whole thing were to: 1-get a long-term contract with big guaranteed contract, 2-avoid serious injury before he could get that contract, and 3-change the market/change the CBA, he is close to having made the smart decision (if the report is true about the NFL conceding that a 3rd tag would be a 3rd tag, even if he never played under the 2nd tag). 

He would have met all 3 of his goals.  You and I can agree that the goals were bad or stupid, but if those were his goals, and his actions allowed him to achieve all 3 goals, how can it be argued that the decision wasn't smart?

Click to expand...

Steelers4Life said:

So, Bell decided to forfeit at least a huge chunk of $14.5M in large part to make things better for the RB market as a whole? How selfless  of him lol. Guys have always had this option, they were just never stupid enough to exercise it.... until now.

So next offseason, will a 27 year old RB with a lot of mileage, several knees injuries, and two drug suspensions redefine the RB market after watching his backup (for the second time) put up similar or better numbers during his absence? Will he get more fully guaranteed money in year one ($22M) than a much younger RB got last offseason? C'mon man, no one with any sense would believe that.

Was his agent supposed to come out and say, "Yes, I think Le'Veon should have accepted the offer."?  Of course not. That's like actually believing the Steelers would've offered him less in guaranteed money in year one on a long term deal than the actual franchise tag was worth to him. People who wanted to believe the Steelers were stupid believed it, and the Steelers don't argue that stuff in the media. But the Steelers aren't a stupid organization, and when the news came out that the Steelers' offer was actually a front-loaded contract with around $20M in year one, well, that ran contrary to the narrative even though it makes far more sense for everyone involved. Bell didn't want "Gurley money" because he wants to set the market himself.    

In the past year, Bell gave teams ammunition to question whether or not his production is based on his talent or his situation, he gave up millions of dollars he can never make back just to do it, his reputation has taken a hit, and any chance that his next contract sets a new market for RB's went out the window when Gurley signed his last year. Players don't talk about other players' contracts, and it speaks VOLUMES that the Steelers players had so much to say in this case. Gurley is the market, and Bell will have to fall in line.

Click to expand...

Bayhawks said:

Bell has said that he wants to redefine the market for RBs.  He clearly views this as more than just "getting his."  Whether you, I , or anyone else thinks this is a good idea or not is up for debate, but what's not up for debate is that he's very specifically stated that what he's doing is about something bigger than just how much money he gets paid.

As for the comment about his agent, this is not true.  It was reported to have happened, but later refuted by his agent.  The same sources that leaked information making the Steelers' offers to Bell look better than they actually were likely leaked this false report, as well.

If Bell's goal for this whole thing were to: 1-get a long-term contract with big guaranteed contract, 2-avoid serious injury before he could get that contract, and 3-change the market/change the CBA, he is close to having made the smart decision (if the report is true about the NFL conceding that a 3rd tag would be a 3rd tag, even if he never played under the 2nd tag). 

He would have met all 3 of his goals.  You and I can agree that the goals were bad or stupid, but if those were his goals, and his actions allowed him to achieve all 3 goals, how can it be argued that the decision wasn't smart?

Click to expand...

Bayhawks said:

Bell has said that he wants to redefine the market for RBs.  He clearly views this as more than just "getting his."  Whether you, I , or anyone else thinks this is a good idea or not is up for debate, but what's not up for debate is that he's very specifically stated that what he's doing is about something bigger than just how much money he gets paid.

As for the comment about his agent, this is not true.  It was reported to have happened, but later refuted by his agent.  The same sources that leaked information making the Steelers' offers to Bell look better than they actually were likely leaked this false report, as well.

If Bell's goal for this whole thing were to: 1-get a long-term contract with big guaranteed contract, 2-avoid serious injury before he could get that contract, and 3-change the market/change the CBA, he is close to having made the smart decision (if the report is true about the NFL conceding that a 3rd tag would be a 3rd tag, even if he never played under the 2nd tag). 

He would have met all 3 of his goals.  You and I can agree that the goals were bad or stupid, but if those were his goals, and his actions allowed him to achieve all 3 goals, how can it be argued that the decision wasn't smart?

Click to expand...

Bayhawks said:

Bell has said that he wants to redefine the market for RBs.  He clearly views this as more than just "getting his."

Click to expand...

Bojang0301 said:

He may have done the greatest damage to RB contracts than any other moment in the last 25 years. 

Click to expand...

Steelers4Life said:

But the Steelers aren't a stupid organization, and when the news came out that the Steelers' offer was actually a front-loaded contract with around $20M in year one, well, that ran contrary to the narrative even though it makes far more sense for everyone involved. Bell didn't want "Gurley money" because he wants to set the market himself.    

Click to expand...

Deamon said:

Bell on twitter:  "I think it's safe to say, it's time to pass the sticks"

What does that even mean?

Click to expand...

Bayhawks said:

The unwritten rule in pro sports is the players realize it’s a business, & you support each other when it comes to the business side.

Click to expand...

Bayhawks said:

He would have met all 3 of his goals.  You and I can agree that the goals were bad or stupid, but if those were his goals, and his actions allowed him to achieve all 3 goals, how can it be argued that the decision wasn't smart?

Click to expand...

Steelers4Life said:

So, Bell decided to forfeit at least a huge chunk of $14.5M in large part to make things better for the RB market as a whole? How selfless  of him lol. Guys have always had this option, they were just never stupid enough to exercise it.... until now.

So next offseason, will a 27 year old RB with a lot of mileage, several knees injuries, and two drug suspensions redefine the RB market after watching his backup (for the second time) put up similar or better numbers during his absence? Will he get more fully guaranteed money in year one ($22M) than a much younger RB got last offseason? C'mon man, no one with any sense would believe that.

Was his agent supposed to come out and say, "Yes, I think Le'Veon should have accepted the offer."?  Of course not. That's like actually believing the Steelers would've offered him less in guaranteed money in year one on a long term deal than the actual franchise tag was worth to him. People who wanted to believe the Steelers were stupid believed it, and the Steelers don't argue that stuff in the media. But the Steelers aren't a stupid organization, and when the news came out that the Steelers' offer was actually a front-loaded contract with around $20M in year one, well, that ran contrary to the narrative even though it makes far more sense for everyone involved. Bell didn't want "Gurley money" because he wants to set the market himself.    

In the past year, Bell gave teams ammunition to question whether or not his production is based on his talent or his situation, he gave up millions of dollars he can never make back just to do it, his reputation has taken a hit, and any chance that his next contract sets a new market for RB's went out the window when Gurley signed his last year. Players don't talk about other players' contracts, and it speaks VOLUMES that the Steelers players had so much to say in this case. Gurley is the market, and Bell will have to fall in line.

Click to expand...

Godsbrother said:

I guess first you have to believe Bell.  If you want to take him at his word then that is fine.

Bell comments over the past year have been all over the place and I don't believe anything he says.  I also don't think that Bell cares about anyone but himself:  his teammates, fans and other NFL RBs don't mean a whole lot to him.    I don't have a problem with that -- he should do what is best for him.  He can ask for as much as he wants and if he gets it good for him.  But I don't believe for one minute that he truly wants to redefine the market for RBs except in terms of him getting mo money.

Click to expand...

bryhamm said:

What's also not up for debate is that he said 2018 was going to be exactly like 2017.

So, you are using certain things he said to try and make your point, but ignoring others things he has said.  

Click to expand...

Bayhawks said:

When did he say this?

Click to expand...

Doug B said:

He can't do that by himself. Teams, quasi-collectively, have to agree with top RBs that they are worth more money than they are getting now.

And the "hold out an entire year" strategy will not be copied very often. Few players care to hold out an entire year from their game checks. Some will, yes. But missing game checks was always a big factor in the players' knuckling under during recent CBA negotiations.

On top of that, elite (or close enough) RB production seems to be regarded as the easiest production to procure and rep[lace -- can a top RB demand higher pay in an environment where DeAngelo Williams (or whoever) can be signed and do 90% of the job for 20% of the money? Or where you give a youngster on your roster a shot and he runs with it? Where do RBs get their collective leverage?

Click to expand...

Bayhawks said:

He said he wants to bring value back to the RB position-by impacting the use of the franchise tag, he has.

Click to expand...

bryhamm said:

Earlier this year.  Thinking it was around the time the 7/14 deadline passed (or whatever the specific date was for them to sign a LT deal).

Click to expand...

Bayhawks said:

Now, RBs will have the leverage of sitting out and holding a large chunk of the team's cap hostage (while they sit out, the team has to keep the cap room available in case they sign).  What teams are going to be willing to eat $10M, $12M, $14M of dead cap by franchising a player who won't play for them?

Click to expand...

bryhamm said:

Looks like it was back in March.  Link.

"I'm not going to sit out. I'm going to be in the facility Week 1," Bell said on Instagram Wednesday. "It's going to be a rerun of last year. I'm not going to camp. I'm not doing nothing else extra, OTAs, none of that. 

Click to expand...