Vikings vs. Cardinals thoughts

A forum for the hard core Minnesota Vikings fan. Discuss upcoming games, opponents, trades, draft or what ever is on the minds of Viking fans!

Moderator: Moderators

CharVike
Hall of Fame Candidate
Posts: 3568
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2019 5:28 pm
x 724

Re: Vikings vs. Cardinals thoughts

Post by CharVike »

StumpHunter wrote: Tue Aug 27, 2019 10:25 am
Purple Martin wrote: Tue Aug 27, 2019 8:30 am

All signs that Zimmer is losing or has already lost the team. Or maybe just a lackluster effort from Zimmer on that particular day, if you want to paint some lipstick on the pig. Either way, Zimmer needs to shoulder more of the blame for these anemic efforts that happen too frequently. What was the highlight of the game offensively? The guy who is in Zimmer's doghouse coming out and winning the game. And will he get rewarded for that by being let out of the doghouse and moving up the depth chart for Thursday's game? Of course not.
You have guys, specifically Rhodes, who are being forced to play in a meaningless game and risk injury, who have no real guarantees on their contracts after this year. Meanwhile some guys like Smith, Theilen and Joseph, sit and watch from the sidelines not risking injury.

If I am a CB as accomplished as Rhodes, I am probably checked out in that game as well.
They played him for a reason. Your getting paid. Play or quite and do your TV stuff FT. Checking out is a bad deal. He checked out of the NFC Champ game also. Appears to be a pattern here. He better check in week 1 and get a couple of interceptions and shut his side down. Do something great. Yes the pre season is meaningless and stupid. Four games is another joke. Play 2. But the owners make money off these games so they are played. If they were losing their shirt they wouldn't do them. I never pay attention to them. They play a quarter season of practice. Even baseball doesn't do that.
J. Kapp 11
Hall of Famer
Posts: 9781
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 12:57 pm
x 1868

Re: Vikings vs. Cardinals thoughts

Post by J. Kapp 11 »

CharVike wrote: Mon Sep 02, 2019 9:30 am
StumpHunter wrote: Tue Aug 27, 2019 10:25 am

You have guys, specifically Rhodes, who are being forced to play in a meaningless game and risk injury, who have no real guarantees on their contracts after this year. Meanwhile some guys like Smith, Theilen and Joseph, sit and watch from the sidelines not risking injury.

If I am a CB as accomplished as Rhodes, I am probably checked out in that game as well.
They played him for a reason. Your getting paid. Play or quite and do your TV stuff FT. Checking out is a bad deal. He checked out of the NFC Champ game also. Appears to be a pattern here. He better check in week 1 and get a couple of interceptions and shut his side down. Do something great. Yes the pre season is meaningless and stupid. Four games is another joke. Play 2. But the owners make money off these games so they are played. If they were losing their shirt they wouldn't do them. I never pay attention to them. They play a quarter season of practice. Even baseball doesn't do that.
Getting paid?

Do you realize how much -- or I should say, how little -- players get for preseason games? It's the same as any other day of training camp, which is $2,000 max for a veteran, per the CBA.

Contrast that with the regular season, where players are paid 1/17th of their salary per week. In the case of Xavier Rhodes, that's about $84,000 per day. Why would Xavier Rhodes want to even suit up for the preseason?

Think about it from the owners' perspective. If Rhodes gets hurt in preseason and goes on IR, the owner is paying $84K per day for a guy who can't play. That's Lamar Miller for the Texans. Out for the season, and Houston is on the hook for $5.5 million ... all because he played in a preseason game where he earned $1,700.

For the thousandth time, that's just another reason why Sean McVay sits ALL of his starters for ALL FOUR preseason games. Mike Zimmer should do the same.

The preseason is a joke. The NFL needs to do something about it.
Image
Go ahead. I dare you.
Underestimate this man.
PurpleMustReign
Starting Wide Receiver
Posts: 19150
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 5:48 pm
Location: Crystal, MN
x 114
Contact:

Re: Vikings vs. Cardinals thoughts

Post by PurpleMustReign »

J. Kapp 11 wrote: Mon Sep 02, 2019 10:27 am
CharVike wrote: Mon Sep 02, 2019 9:30 am
They played him for a reason. Your getting paid. Play or quite and do your TV stuff FT. Checking out is a bad deal. He checked out of the NFC Champ game also. Appears to be a pattern here. He better check in week 1 and get a couple of interceptions and shut his side down. Do something great. Yes the pre season is meaningless and stupid. Four games is another joke. Play 2. But the owners make money off these games so they are played. If they were losing their shirt they wouldn't do them. I never pay attention to them. They play a quarter season of practice. Even baseball doesn't do that.
Getting paid?

Do you realize how much -- or I should say, how little -- players get for preseason games? It's the same as any other day of training camp, which is $2,000 max for a veteran, per the CBA.

Contrast that with the regular season, where players are paid 1/17th of their salary per week. In the case of Xavier Rhodes, that's about $84,000 per day. Why would Xavier Rhodes want to even suit up for the preseason?

Think about it from the owners' perspective. If Rhodes gets hurt in preseason and goes on IR, the owner is paying $84K per day for a guy who can't play. That's Lamar Miller for the Texans. Out for the season, and Houston is on the hook for $5.5 million ... all because he played in a preseason game where he earned $1,700.

For the thousandth time, that's just another reason why Sean McVay sits ALL of his starters for ALL FOUR preseason games. Mike Zimmer should do the same.

The preseason is a joke. The NFL needs to do something about it.
I agree with your last part. I think three games is plenty. I do think there is value to playing the starters though.
The Devil whispered in the Viking's ear, "There's a storm coming." The Viking replied, "I am the storm." ‪#‎SKOL2018
CharVike
Hall of Fame Candidate
Posts: 3568
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2019 5:28 pm
x 724

Re: Vikings vs. Cardinals thoughts

Post by CharVike »

PurpleMustReign wrote: Mon Sep 02, 2019 11:11 am
J. Kapp 11 wrote: Mon Sep 02, 2019 10:27 am
Getting paid?

Do you realize how much -- or I should say, how little -- players get for preseason games? It's the same as any other day of training camp, which is $2,000 max for a veteran, per the CBA.

Contrast that with the regular season, where players are paid 1/17th of their salary per week. In the case of Xavier Rhodes, that's about $84,000 per day. Why would Xavier Rhodes want to even suit up for the preseason?

Think about it from the owners' perspective. If Rhodes gets hurt in preseason and goes on IR, the owner is paying $84K per day for a guy who can't play. That's Lamar Miller for the Texans. Out for the season, and Houston is on the hook for $5.5 million ... all because he played in a preseason game where he earned $1,700.

For the thousandth time, that's just another reason why Sean McVay sits ALL of his starters for ALL FOUR preseason games. Mike Zimmer should do the same.

The preseason is a joke. The NFL needs to do something about it.
I agree with your last part. I think three games is plenty. I do think there is value to playing the starters though.
I didn't realize that. Why did Cousins or any other player take the risk then. Just tell the team I'm not playing. But I was under the impression that a player was paid based on his own personal contract. Can't a player get X amount on X timing for his contract? Our did Cousins, since it's guaranteed, tell them to give him one check for the whole amount.
Pondering Her Percy
Hall of Famer
Posts: 9241
Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2012 3:38 am
Location: Watertown, NY
x 1117

Re: Vikings vs. Cardinals thoughts

Post by Pondering Her Percy »

CharVike wrote: Tue Sep 03, 2019 11:49 am
PurpleMustReign wrote: Mon Sep 02, 2019 11:11 am

I agree with your last part. I think three games is plenty. I do think there is value to playing the starters though.
I didn't realize that. Why did Cousins or any other player take the risk then. Just tell the team I'm not playing. But I was under the impression that a player was paid based on his own personal contract. Can't a player get X amount on X timing for his contract? Our did Cousins, since it's guaranteed, tell them to give him one check for the whole amount.
That’s a good stat Kapp and to address charvike, I think those guys play just to get a little chemistry going and get that “game-feel” back if I had to guess
The saddest thing in life is wasted talent and the choices you make will shape your life forever.
-Chazz Palminteri
J. Kapp 11
Hall of Famer
Posts: 9781
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 12:57 pm
x 1868

Re: Vikings vs. Cardinals thoughts

Post by J. Kapp 11 »

CharVike wrote: Tue Sep 03, 2019 11:49 am
PurpleMustReign wrote: Mon Sep 02, 2019 11:11 am

I agree with your last part. I think three games is plenty. I do think there is value to playing the starters though.
I didn't realize that. Why did Cousins or any other player take the risk then. Just tell the team I'm not playing. But I was under the impression that a player was paid based on his own personal contract. Can't a player get X amount on X timing for his contract? Our did Cousins, since it's guaranteed, tell them to give him one check for the whole amount.
As for taking the risk, I don't think the players can just declare they're not playing, per the CBA. That's why I think what McVay is doing ... simply making it the team's decision to not play the starters ... is the only way to completely remove the risk of injury.

Player pay frequency is also set by the CBA. It's pretty black-and-white ... 1/17th of their salary per week, beginning this week.

As for getting chemistry and game feel, all I can say is that college football doesn't do that. Also, if nobody played preseason games, then nobody would have an advantage. All teams would be in the same boat. The only argument I find valid is the evaluation argument. But honestly, that's about backups, not starters (for the most part).
Image
Go ahead. I dare you.
Underestimate this man.
CharVike
Hall of Fame Candidate
Posts: 3568
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2019 5:28 pm
x 724

Re: Vikings vs. Cardinals thoughts

Post by CharVike »

J. Kapp 11 wrote: Tue Sep 03, 2019 8:19 pm
CharVike wrote: Tue Sep 03, 2019 11:49 am
I didn't realize that. Why did Cousins or any other player take the risk then. Just tell the team I'm not playing. But I was under the impression that a player was paid based on his own personal contract. Can't a player get X amount on X timing for his contract? Our did Cousins, since it's guaranteed, tell them to give him one check for the whole amount.
As for taking the risk, I don't think the players can just declare they're not playing, per the CBA. That's why I think what McVay is doing ... simply making it the team's decision to not play the starters ... is the only way to completely remove the risk of injury.

Player pay frequency is also set by the CBA. It's pretty black-and-white ... 1/17th of their salary per week, beginning this week.

As for getting chemistry and game feel, all I can say is that college football doesn't do that. Also, if nobody played preseason games, then nobody would have an advantage. All teams would be in the same boat. The only argument I find valid is the evaluation argument. But honestly, that's about backups, not starters (for the most part).
Didn't realize the 1/17 stuff. Never really thought about how they were paid until now. But the preseason is worthless. But the owners must be making money off it our they wouldn't do it. I found this and I'm not sure if it's true.

From 1970 through 1977, the NFL season consisted of 14 regular season games and six exhibition games, sometimes but not always three at home and three away (the 1973 Washington Redskins, for instance, played all but one of six preseason games at home), with some played at neutral sites.
Below is why the owners do it.
Currently, every NFL team requires its season ticket holders to purchase tickets at full price for two exhibition games as a requirement to purchase regular-season tickets. Complaints regarding this policy have gone all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, but have failed to change the policy.
PurpleMustReign
Starting Wide Receiver
Posts: 19150
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 5:48 pm
Location: Crystal, MN
x 114
Contact:

Re: Vikings vs. Cardinals thoughts

Post by PurpleMustReign »

CharVike wrote: Thu Sep 05, 2019 4:58 am
J. Kapp 11 wrote: Tue Sep 03, 2019 8:19 pm
As for taking the risk, I don't think the players can just declare they're not playing, per the CBA. That's why I think what McVay is doing ... simply making it the team's decision to not play the starters ... is the only way to completely remove the risk of injury.

Player pay frequency is also set by the CBA. It's pretty black-and-white ... 1/17th of their salary per week, beginning this week.

As for getting chemistry and game feel, all I can say is that college football doesn't do that. Also, if nobody played preseason games, then nobody would have an advantage. All teams would be in the same boat. The only argument I find valid is the evaluation argument. But honestly, that's about backups, not starters (for the most part).
Didn't realize the 1/17 stuff. Never really thought about how they were paid until now. But the preseason is worthless. But the owners must be making money off it our they wouldn't do it. I found this and I'm not sure if it's true.

From 1970 through 1977, the NFL season consisted of 14 regular season games and six exhibition games, sometimes but not always three at home and three away (the 1973 Washington Redskins, for instance, played all but one of six preseason games at home), with some played at neutral sites.
Below is why the owners do it.
Currently, every NFL team requires its season ticket holders to purchase tickets at full price for two exhibition games as a requirement to purchase regular-season tickets. Complaints regarding this policy have gone all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, but have failed to change the policy.
Figures. The owners and the league itself do not care about player safety like they claim. That's why we still have Thursday night football.
The Devil whispered in the Viking's ear, "There's a storm coming." The Viking replied, "I am the storm." ‪#‎SKOL2018
CharVike
Hall of Fame Candidate
Posts: 3568
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2019 5:28 pm
x 724

Re: Vikings vs. Cardinals thoughts

Post by CharVike »

PurpleMustReign wrote: Thu Sep 05, 2019 10:47 am
CharVike wrote: Thu Sep 05, 2019 4:58 am
Didn't realize the 1/17 stuff. Never really thought about how they were paid until now. But the preseason is worthless. But the owners must be making money off it our they wouldn't do it. I found this and I'm not sure if it's true.

From 1970 through 1977, the NFL season consisted of 14 regular season games and six exhibition games, sometimes but not always three at home and three away (the 1973 Washington Redskins, for instance, played all but one of six preseason games at home), with some played at neutral sites.
Below is why the owners do it.
Currently, every NFL team requires its season ticket holders to purchase tickets at full price for two exhibition games as a requirement to purchase regular-season tickets. Complaints regarding this policy have gone all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, but have failed to change the policy.
Figures. The owners and the league itself do not care about player safety like they claim. That's why we still have Thursday night football.
Like everything else it comes down to money. The owners make the initial investment so they want to make money. Why not. Should they try and lose money? I do think they care about players safety. No one wants to see a guy carted off the field. But this is a violent game. The size and speed is making it more dangerous than ever. If a player makes it to late 20s that ancient. Especially when guys are starting at 20 years old which is almost ridiculous. It starts with college, again make money, when guys are allowed to attend and can't even read or write. Like Dexter Manley. How did he even get into college?
PurpleMustReign
Starting Wide Receiver
Posts: 19150
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 5:48 pm
Location: Crystal, MN
x 114
Contact:

Re: Vikings vs. Cardinals thoughts

Post by PurpleMustReign »

CharVike wrote: Fri Sep 06, 2019 8:29 am
PurpleMustReign wrote: Thu Sep 05, 2019 10:47 am
Figures. The owners and the league itself do not care about player safety like they claim. That's why we still have Thursday night football.
Like everything else it comes down to money. The owners make the initial investment so they want to make money. Why not. Should they try and lose money? I do think they care about players safety. No one wants to see a guy carted off the field. But this is a violent game. The size and speed is making it more dangerous than ever. If a player makes it to late 20s that ancient. Especially when guys are starting at 20 years old which is almost ridiculous. It starts with college, again make money, when guys are allowed to attend and can't even read or write. Like Dexter Manley. How did he even get into college?
I get it... I bet it's addressed in the next CBA. That will be a long hold out.
The Devil whispered in the Viking's ear, "There's a storm coming." The Viking replied, "I am the storm." ‪#‎SKOL2018
Post Reply