• Please be aware we've switched the forums to their own URL. (again) You'll find the new website address to be www.steelernationforum.com Thanks
  • Please clear your private messages. Your inbox is close to being full.

Players Opting Out of Bowl Games

Because Winston was a teammate of McGahee.

Sent from my HTC6535LVW using Steeler Nation mobile app

Your argument is the author randomly picked one of Winston's ex-teammates? He obviously wrote about McGahee because he was injured in a bowl game. Why make that point?

1. You think people are unaware that players have been injured in bowl games, so you are just letting them know it's possible to be injured.
2. You want readers to think that McCaffrey is justified in skipping the game by pointing out another top player who was injured in a bowl.

The author also left out that McGahee's bowl was the national championship and that he still ended up drafted in round 1. Leaving out those key facts proves the author is pushing an agenda.
 
Maybe that's why you aren't a GM. An actual GM has come out and said McCaffrey's decision won't effect his draft status. McCaffrey's own teammates have expressed their support for him. Literally everyone that matters has expressed support for his decision except for pissed off fans who think the college stars owe something to these colleges in a meaningless bowl game.

You should read the part i bolded in red more carefully.

For the record, i do not think this will hurt his draft stock all that much. It only takes 1 team to pick him like it only took 1 team to draft Jamarcus Russell first overall.

I can guarantee you that there are many teams who will put this as a negative.

This has nothing to do with being pissed off. I don't give a **** about McCaffrey or Stanford football. I happen to favor players with heart. Guys who are competitive and love playing football. If you want a team full of Mike Wallace mercenary types, then good for you.
 
Your argument is the author randomly picked one of Winston's ex-teammates? He obviously wrote about McGahee because he was injured in a bowl game. Why make that point?

1. You think people are unaware that players have been injured in bowl games, so you are just letting them know it's possible to be injured.
2. You want readers to think that McCaffrey is justified in skipping the game by pointing out another top player who was injured in a bowl.

The author also left out that McGahee's bowl was the national championship and that he still ended up drafted in round 1. Leaving out those key facts proves the author is pushing an agenda.

Its really not my argument just saw the article and posted it here.
 
That's the problem Fiji, the NCAA is the governing body for all Collegiate athletics. Not just Football. My first job was in athletics in the University of Maryland system. To receive any NCAA funding or scholarships, you must have as many women's teams as you have men's teams. That's why people throw out the term 'Field Hockey', since it's a Women's only sport (for the most part) in this country. It balances out the Men's only sport of Football. (Though Field Hockey usually balances out Ice Hockey, and Cheerleading balances out Football).

There is no choice in the system while the NCAA is in charge of scholarships, discipline, and eligibility. They hold the cards. Rock the boat, and your school gets sanctions. It's the way Goodell wants to run the NFL. He wishes he had the power the NCAA has.

Totally agree that NCAA is the problem, they are operating a communal system and players are being faulted (by some) for being capitalistic. I know I would not jeopardize my future earnings as a capitalist to support a communistic system so there is no way I could fault these players for it. These sitting players will not have their draft stock take a hit for making a smart decision. Maybe a couple GMs would like to see them play but I think the majority will not frown upon future NFL players making a smart decision for their future.
 
You should read the part i bolded in red more carefully.

For the record, i do not think this will hurt his draft stock all that much. It only takes 1 team to pick him like it only took 1 team to draft Jamarcus Russell first overall.

I can guarantee you that there are many teams who will put this as a negative.

This has nothing to do with being pissed off. I don't give a **** about McCaffrey or Stanford football. I happen to favor players with heart. Guys who are competitive and love playing football. If you want a team full of Mike Wallace mercenary types, then good for you.

I think you're missing the point of the article. You can't just pick out one little thing the author used to summarize and ignore everything else about the article. The article addresses your concern. It clearly states as long as there aren't character red flags (off field issues, teammate issues, coaching issues, etc) that each player will be addressed on a case by case basis by NFL teams. Just because someone wants to sit out to prevent injury does not automatically make them a horrible teammate and person, you have to look at the overall situation.

Which is exactly what an NFL GM just said in the article...

“It’s not like, ‘He sat out, so he’s just a bad guy,'” the GM said. “It’s basically just one more part of the picture – and it might just be a really small part.”

"As one NFC general manager put it succinctly: Either it’s a continuation of something they’ve already seen about a player’s character, or it’s an outlier driven by circumstance."

If someone like Johnny Manziel sat out his bowl game, I would absolutely agree with you he acts selfishly on and off the field and has a character issue and should be dropped down on draft boards. Not SOLELY because he sat out a bowl game, you have to take his entire situation into account.

As far as I know, McCaffrey doesn't have a selfish attitude, all his teammates seem to be behind him, and now even an NFL GM and talent evaluator say he'll be fine for the draft. Do you need a notarized letter from the guy saying he won't act like a dick in the NFL?

And if Fournette is simply banged up (he had a "slight" ankle sprain a month ago), wouldn't a month off between the end of the season and bowl game be enough for him to heal and be healthy for his game? If both McCaffrey and Fournette are healthy enough to play at the time of their games, why do you absolve one but not the other for making the exact same decision?
 
Bottom line is if I'm a GM or coach, I want the type of player who needs to be told he can't play. There's a small chance McCaffery would get injured, a remote chance it would be serious, and an even more remote chance it would seriously impact his earning potential. I don't question his ability, but I do question his heart. That's a major negative for an NFL RB, remember Barry Foster?
 
Bottom line is if I'm a GM or coach, I want the type of player who needs to be told he can't play. There's a small chance McCaffery would get injured, a remote chance it would be serious, and an even more remote chance it would seriously impact his earning potential. I don't question his ability, but I do question his heart. That's a major negative for an NFL RB, remember Barry Foster?

For an NFL player in a non preseason game, I agree with you 100%.

For a meaningless college bowl game for a 1st round talent, that's where we apparently disagree.

I think the difference is you're looking at it more from the perspective of a GM (even though an actual GM has said it's not an issue) while I'm looking at it more from the perspective of the player. I don't completely disagree with you on the premise that it causes a GM to at least look twice at the player in question. My whole point was I think questioning a player's character or heart shouldn't solely be based on skipping a meaningless bowl game.

Like the GM said, it could just be a very small circumstantial piece. Or maybe the player really is selfish in more ways than one (bad report from coaches, fights with teammates, off field issues), in that case, he's falling down my board like you mentioned and maybe completely off it if someone like that decides to skip a bowl game too. All signs point to the former for both McCaffrey and Fournette.
 
Last edited:
I think you're missing the point of the article. You can't just pick out one little thing the author used to summarize and ignore everything else about the article.

Agreed.

Which is exactly what an NFL GM just said in the article...

“It’s not like, ‘He sat out, so he’s just a bad guy,'” the GM said. “It’s basically just one more part of the picture – and it might just be a really small part.”

How do you read that to mean his sitting out means nothing to a GM??

What the GM actually said is that his sitting out is "one more part of the picture" - i.e., it matters.

Isn't that basically the opposite of what you are claiming?
 
For a meaningless college bowl game for a 1st round talent ...

Aren't all college bowl games "meaningless" as far as the NFL is concerned?

And sitting out is okay so long as you are a "1st round talent"? But not 2nd round, I guess?

So how about a lower round 1st round pick sitting out the playoffs? No good, right?

How about an early 2nd-rounder sitting out the Sun Bowl? Ehhh, well ... not so sure.

How about a 3rd rounder sitting out the Rose Bowl? No go, right?

Why? Still millions of dollars at stake, and the Bowl game does not matter.

See how difficult this becomes? Any time an analysis has more gray areas and maybes then definites, it becomes untenable.
 
Agreed.

How do you read that to mean his sitting out means nothing to a GM??

What the GM actually said is that his sitting out is "one more part of the picture" - i.e., it matters.

Isn't that basically the opposite of what you are claiming?

Nowhere have I claimed it doesn't matter. I am claiming it's not as big of a deal as some of you are making it out to be. If you read my post you would have seen I am claiming exactly what the GM said in the quote you posted...

"If someone like Johnny Manziel sat out his bowl game, I would absolutely agree with you he acts selfishly on and off the field and has a character issue and should be dropped down on draft boards. Not SOLELY because he sat out a bowl game, you have to take his entire situation into account."

i.e., it matters but not to the extent of completely black balling a player just for skipping a bowl game.

If a player gets bad reports from coaches, he drops on my board. If a player gets arrested, he drops way down on my board. If a player fights constantly with teammates, he drops on my board. If a player takes plays off, he drops on my board. Way down on the list of negative attributes of a college player is skipping a non playoff bowl game to prepare for the draft. If a player has multiple of these red flags, he's probably off my board entirely. Never have I said skipping the game doesn't or shouldn't matter, but to make that the sole deciding factor for completely removing them from a draft board or questioning their entire character is what I'm saying is wrong.

I can understand from the player's perspective why they would make that decision and I think it's unfair for fans not in that position to automatically assume that player will be a bad future teammate when if you take out that one decision to skip a bowl game, everything else points to the contrary for these players.

Aren't all college bowl games "meaningless" as far as the NFL is concerned?

If a guy has nothing left to prove, yes it's meaningless. But there aren't many of those players out there which is why bowl games still mean something to most players, just not all.

And sitting out is okay so long as you are a "1st round talent"? But not 2nd round, I guess?

So how about a lower round 1st round pick sitting out the playoffs? No good, right?

How about an early 2nd-rounder sitting out the Sun Bowl? Ehhh, well ... not so sure.

How about a 3rd rounder sitting out the Rose Bowl? No go, right?

Why? Still millions of dollars at stake, and the Bowl game does not matter.

See how difficult this becomes? Any time an analysis has more gray areas and maybes then definites, it becomes untenable.

It's actually not that difficult to understand and it's not as gray as you think.

If Fournette plays and has a great game in the bowl game, does that change the fact he would've been the 1st RB off the board if he played or not? If McCaffrey plays and has a great game, can he do enough to overtake Fournette as the #1 RB? Doubtful, Fournette was already the #1 RB and there's nothing McCaffrey can do about it any longer aside from maybe the combine. Neither player can change their draft spot substantially enough to take the risk of playing in their bowl games. There's also a chance of having a bad game and falling a few spots, not the end of the world either. Get injured and fall out of the 1st round entirely, now we're talking losing many millions because of that 1 game and for what, the potential to maybe move up a couple draft spots? Again, minimal reward. That's why according to the GM interviewed, each circumstance needs to be evaluated independently and by taking everything into consideration.

A 2nd rounder has a shot at a big game and maybe sneaking into the 1st round. They get a better salary and go to a good team picking at the end of the 1st. On the other hand a 2nd round prospect gets injured and falls to the 4th. Ok so they went from potentially making $5.5m to now making $4m, not a huge loss and had they played the game of their life, there was still that potential to earn $9m or $10m by getting up into the 1st round.

The further down the draft board you go, the more the extra game means to those players because it's one more game to catch a team's eye and move up draft boards. The reward is there for the risk they're taking in playing in the game.
 
Last edited:
Of course then there's the Stanford fans paying to travel and buying tickets to the bowl game. And the full ride scholarship. But those things don't matter. Like I said, build a minor league and be done with bullshit like this.
 
Nowhere have I claimed it doesn't matter. I am claiming it's not as big of a deal as some of you are making it out to be. If you read my post you would have seen I am claiming exactly what the GM said in the quote you posted...

"If someone like Johnny Manziel sat out his bowl game, I would absolutely agree with you he acts selfishly on and off the field and has a character issue and should be dropped down on draft boards. Not SOLELY because he sat out a bowl game, you have to take his entire situation into account."

i.e., it matters but not to the extent of completely black balling a player just for skipping a bowl game.

If a player gets bad reports from coaches, he drops on my board. If a player gets arrested, he drops way down on my board. If a player fights constantly with teammates, he drops on my board. If a player takes plays off, he drops on my board. Way down on the list of negative attributes of a college player is skipping a non playoff bowl game to prepare for the draft. If a player has multiple of these red flags, he's probably off my board entirely. Never have I said skipping the game doesn't or shouldn't matter, but to make that the sole deciding factor for completely removing them from a draft board or questioning their entire character is what I'm saying is wrong.

I can understand from the player's perspective why they would make that decision and I think it's unfair for fans not in that position to automatically assume that player will be a bad future teammate when if you take out that one decision to skip a bowl game, everything else points to the contrary for these players.



If a guy has nothing left to prove, yes it's meaningless. But there aren't many of those players out there which is why bowl games still mean something to most players, just not all.



It's actually not that difficult to understand and it's not as gray as you think.

If Fournette plays and has a great game in the bowl game, does that change the fact he would've been the 1st RB off the board if he played or not? If McCaffrey plays and has a great game, can he do enough to overtake Fournette as the #1 RB? Doubtful, Fournette was already the #1 RB and there's nothing McCaffrey can do about it any longer aside from maybe the combine. Neither player can change their draft spot substantially enough to take the risk of playing in their bowl games. There's also a chance of having a bad game and falling a few spots, not the end of the world either. Get injured and fall out of the 1st round entirely, now we're talking losing many millions because of that 1 game and for what, the potential to maybe move up a couple draft spots? Again, minimal reward. That's why according to the GM interviewed, each circumstance needs to be evaluated independently and by taking everything into consideration.

A 2nd rounder has a shot at a big game and maybe sneaking into the 1st round. They get a better salary and go to a good team picking at the end of the 1st. On the other hand a 2nd round prospect gets injured and falls to the 4th. Ok so they went from potentially making $5.5m to now making $4m, not a huge loss and had they played the game of their life, there was still that potential to earn $9m or $10m by getting up into the 1st round.

The further down the draft board you go, the more the extra game means to those players because it's one more game to catch a team's eye and move up draft boards. The reward is there for the risk they're taking in playing in the game.


You would hold it against a second rounder sitting out but not a potential first rounder?

you are the one missing the point. It's not about missing a game. It is about a player deeming a game unimportant and refusing to play. What is to say he won't do that 100 times in the NFL? Maybe not refusing to play but just phoning in a performance if the team has a losing record. That happens all the time.

I want the guy who will play just as hard week 16 of a losing season, not the guy who only shows up for what he consideres a big game.
 
Maybe that's why you aren't a GM. An actual GM has come out and said McCaffrey's decision won't effect his draft status. McCaffrey's own teammates have expressed their support for him. Literally everyone that matters has expressed support for his decision except for pissed off fans who think the college stars owe something to these colleges in a meaningless bowl game.

Who gives a **** what this "actual GM" might have to say? What team is he with? The 1-13 49ers? How about the unnamed "NFC North personnel evaluator"? Does he work for the Bears, who are 3-11 and have made the playoffs but once in ten years? If "everyone that matters" is in agreement on the issue, why would these guys have to remain anonymous?

No, nobody on this board is a GM. However, truthfully, provided with the right resources and my own dedication, I wouldn't doubt that I could learn to do a better job than whoever the **** is currently generally managing the Cleveland Browns. And I wouldn't hesitate to hire intelligent guys who know football (like tape or TMC) to assist me in the process.
 
You would hold it against a second rounder sitting out but not a potential first rounder?

you are the one missing the point. It's not about missing a game. It is about a player deeming a game unimportant and refusing to play. What is to say he won't do that 100 times in the NFL? Maybe not refusing to play but just phoning in a performance if the team has a losing record. That happens all the time.

I want the guy who will play just as hard week 16 of a losing season, not the guy who only shows up for what he consideres a big game.

No I wouldn't hold it against every 2nd rounder nor would I excuse every 1st rounder. IT'S A CASE BY CASE BASIS.

It's clear we won't be able to come to an agreement so lets just agree to disagree on this one and move on. I'm done explaining the same thing 10 different ways.
 
Who gives a **** what this "actual GM" might have to say? What team is he with? The 1-13 49ers? How about the unnamed "NFC North personnel evaluator"? Does he work for the Bears, who are 3-11 and have made the playoffs but once in ten years? If "everyone that matters" is in agreement on the issue, why would these guys have to remain anonymous?

No, nobody on this board is a GM. However, truthfully, provided with the right resources and my own dedication, I wouldn't doubt that I could learn to do a better job than whoever the **** is currently generally managing the Cleveland Browns. And I wouldn't hesitate to hire intelligent guys who know football (like tape or TMC) to assist me in the process.

Congratulations on thinking you can do a better job at GM. That still doesn't mean the GM interviewed isn't the one directly involved in the McCaffrey and Fournette situation. Pretty sure those two guys don't give a crap what any of us think. All they care about is what actual NFL GMs think.
 
Nowhere have I claimed it doesn't matter. I am claiming it's not as big of a deal as some of you are making it out to be. If you read my post you would have seen I am claiming exactly what the GM said in the quote you posted...

"If someone like Johnny Manziel sat out his bowl game, I would absolutely agree with you he acts selfishly on and off the field and has a character issue and should be dropped down on draft boards. Not SOLELY because he sat out a bowl game, you have to take his entire situation into account."

i.e., it matters but not to the extent of completely black balling a player just for skipping a bowl game.

If a player gets bad reports from coaches, he drops on my board. If a player gets arrested, he drops way down on my board. If a player fights constantly with teammates, he drops on my board. If a player takes plays off, he drops on my board. Way down on the list of negative attributes of a college player is skipping a non playoff bowl game to prepare for the draft. If a player has multiple of these red flags, he's probably off my board entirely. Never have I said skipping the game doesn't or shouldn't matter, but to make that the sole deciding factor for completely removing them from a draft board or questioning their entire character is what I'm saying is wrong.

I can understand from the player's perspective why they would make that decision and I think it's unfair for fans not in that position to automatically assume that player will be a bad future teammate when if you take out that one decision to skip a bowl game, everything else points to the contrary for these players.



If a guy has nothing left to prove, yes it's meaningless. But there aren't many of those players out there which is why bowl games still mean something to most players, just not all.



It's actually not that difficult to understand and it's not as gray as you think.

If Fournette plays and has a great game in the bowl game, does that change the fact he would've been the 1st RB off the board if he played or not? If McCaffrey plays and has a great game, can he do enough to overtake Fournette as the #1 RB? Doubtful, Fournette was already the #1 RB and there's nothing McCaffrey can do about it any longer aside from maybe the combine. Neither player can change their draft spot substantially enough to take the risk of playing in their bowl games. There's also a chance of having a bad game and falling a few spots, not the end of the world either. Get injured and fall out of the 1st round entirely, now we're talking losing many millions because of that 1 game and for what, the potential to maybe move up a couple draft spots? Again, minimal reward. That's why according to the GM interviewed, each circumstance needs to be evaluated independently and by taking everything into consideration.

A 2nd rounder has a shot at a big game and maybe sneaking into the 1st round. They get a better salary and go to a good team picking at the end of the 1st. On the other hand a 2nd round prospect gets injured and falls to the 4th. Ok so they went from potentially making $5.5m to now making $4m, not a huge loss and had they played the game of their life, there was still that potential to earn $9m or $10m by getting up into the 1st round.

The further down the draft board you go, the more the extra game means to those players because it's one more game to catch a team's eye and move up draft boards. The reward is there for the risk they're taking in playing in the game.

But if enough GM's or even just the ones looking for a running back have concerns about their commitment to football and they drop on their boards maybe just playing is enough to either insure their draft status or maybe leapfrog the other for not playing. I personally would drop both an entire round because of character concerns
 
Congratulations on thinking you can do a better job at GM. That still doesn't mean the GM interviewed isn't the one directly involved in the McCaffrey and Fournette situation. Pretty sure those two guys don't give a crap what any of us think. All they care about is what actual NFL GMs think.

Thanks, but you forgot to answer my question: If "everyone that matters" is in agreement, why would they mind their names being attached to their opinions?

You can't possibly know how every GM thinks, or how all of them feel about this issue, based on a few anonymous quotes.
 
Most of the bowls are a showcase. Some have the opportunity to rise and by not playing as with not working out at the combine some will drop. I guess these guys were more concerned with dropping off all boards with a serious injury.
Looking at Tar Heels in the NFL there were like 15 or 20 with most notable being Julius Peppers, Geo Bernard, and the TE from the Lions Ebron . if McCaffery put up 150 yards and two TDS is that going to move his NFL stock. Probably not. CFL maybe.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Last edited:
Sporting News December 31, 2016

Michigan tight end Jake Butt, who suffered a right knee injury in the Wolverines’ loss to Florida State in the Orange Bowl, reportedly had taken out an insurance policy that would pay if an injury affected his NFL Draft status.

ESPN's Darren Rovell reported Friday night that Butt purchased $2 million in loss of value insurance he would collect if he falls below the second round in the 2017 draft — which isn’t out of the question if teams are scared off by a recovery period that typically takes 12 months

http://www.sportingnews.com/ncaa-fo...-state-orange-bowl/1nxehi4dsgvtn1thggoihghcz6
-----------------

Good deal for him, if true. I think we should still take him, later
 
Top