5 Teams that players least want even for twice the money

[Chief Roundup]

http://wallstcheatsheet.com/sports/5...tml/?a=viewall

Considering the competing factors that affect any sort of decision about where professional athletes would prefer to play throughout their given sport, the first measurables usually lean toward things like state tax, the local weather, and the local advantages of being famous in a given area — all those play into the ‘big market advantage’ that free agents are often said to be weighing their options against. While the NFL is spared a lot of that discussion, since player movement is so stunted, especially among stars, it doesn’t mean that those sorts of considerations don’t hold some weight.

It is also true, though, that players typically don’t want to play for bad teams, and some of these teams, compiled from information from ESPN’s annual NFL poll, are certainly bad teams. Some of them, though, are not, and don’t seem like the fill-in answers to the statement, “The only way I’d play for ____ is if they doubled my salary.” That said, anonymity makes for free and easy responses, and the eighty-two players that answered incognito (although not Richie, we assume) let fly on which teams wouldn’t be able to woo them assuming equal salaries.

Of course, it’s important to keep in mind that this constitutes a small spectrum, or a representative sample, if you buy the findings, of the NFL populous, and that the respondents constitute roughly a team and a half’s worth of players. That’s something that should be noted. On the other hand, we’re not totally shocked.
5. Green Bay Packers — 6 Percent

Even after figuring that the cold weather and general nothingness that is Wisconsin has got to play into these votes, the Packers have got to be one of the more surprising teams on this list, since they haven’t had a losing season since 2008, although they just barely missed .500 in 2013, finishing with eight wins, seven losses, and a tie. They’ve also got the best fans in the NFL, so it’s not as if the Cheeseheads aren’t coming out and showing their love. Maybe the players who voted for Green Bay are lactose intolerant, or maybe they’ve been forced out on Lambeau in the middle of December and realized that they’d never want to do it more often than they absolutely have to.
4. Jacksonville Jaguars — 9 Percent

Surprisingly low ranking for the Jaguars, who haven’t been able to put together a winning season since George Bush was president — George W. Bush, that is. That’s just kind of a bummer, since they’ve got a swimming pool in their stadium now. Which begs the question: How awesome would it be if any overtime that happened at a Jacksonville home game had to happen in the pool? Come on, that would be awesome. You would watch. We would watch.

The Jags position on this list does illustrate one of the conundrums with being a bad team, even in a league that has such an emphasis on parity and has seen team after team turn it all around. How do you bring in the missing piece if the missing piece is convinced that your team kind of sucks and doesn’t want to play there? Let’s keep this question in mind.

3. Cleveland Browns — 16 Percent

We’d bet that Brian Hoyer was one of the guys who answered this question, right before he watched Johnny Manziel do something else that was hilarious and fun and another paragraph in the prelude to The Rise and Fall of Johnny Football, coming to a bookstore near you by the end of Week 7. Cleveland is kind of like Jacksonville without the swimming pool, but don’t take our word for it, take the word of someone who actually plays for them, “We are so dysfunctional. These billionaires need to pick somebody and stay with them. These aren’t girlfriends… you can’t dump them if they (fail to please you) one time.” The second tweet is here.

The ‘these’ our intrepid, and frustrated, player is referring to is a coach, as those quotes were obtained right after the Browns fired Rob Chudzinski. The Browns go through coaches, well, like professional athletes go through girlfriends, apparently.
2. Buffalo Bills — 19 Percent

Take the icy permafrost of Lambeau, take away the winning, and add in an impending fear of moving to Toronto, which is actually a really cool city, and you have the Buffalo Bills. Take away the winning might be a kind way to put it, actually, since the Bills have only been able to put together one positive season in the last thirteen years. It seems safe to conclude that when you’re most famous for losing consecutive Super Bowls, players might not have the most faith in your organization’s ability to be awesome.

1. Oakland Raiders — 23 Percent

Skeletor is not having a good time. His team could leave for Los Angeles or San Antonio, they haven’t won since 2002, and they’re from the same school of thought as the Browns when it comes to coaching continuity. These are not happy days for the denizens of the Black Hole. When ESPN first reported the results of the poll, Oakland fullback Marcell Reese was not on board.

“Whoever said it, they’re telling a lie. They didn’t think about it. They thought about the one team that has the biggest stigma of negativity around them,” Reese said. “And it’s not really a negative thing because we don’t do bad things. We’re not the team that’s having the most arrests in the NFL, or the DUIs or the drug cases or throwing the big parties. But we just have that stigma around us.”

Another player, who plays for another team and was speaking anonymously, told ESPN that the assessment was correct, because “It’s true. They’ve got a bunch of players who got double their salary.” Zing.

How about them Raiders!

[Chief Roundup]

I have to say I am somewhat surprised by the Packers and the Raiders. Those two franchises have such a history with the game.
I am guessing that the younger players don't care about that.

[TribalElder]

Raiders are in 1st for once

[Deberg_1990]

6. Chiefs


Because Chiefs

[Willie Lanier]

Meh, it's a flawed poll

[Chief Roundup]

Originally Posted by Willie Lanier

Meh, it's a flawed poll

Why is that?

[PizzaDoughz]

Originally Posted by Chief Roundup

Why is that?

Small sample size?

[Willie Lanier]

Originally Posted by Chief Roundup

Why is that?

Those ESPN polls to NFL players usually get a pretty bad response rate, and are manipulated into a story... But it's still nice to see the raiders as the worst destination

[GloucesterChief]

I guess NFL players on average have pretty bad or no financial planners. You would think they would want to avoid high tax states like New Jersey, Illinois, California, Maryland, and Massachusetts.

Texas and Washington would be my top 2 due to no income tax.

[ChiliConCarnage]

Originally Posted by GloucesterChief

I guess NFL players on average have pretty bad or no financial planners. You would think they would want to avoid high tax states like New Jersey, Illinois, California, Maryland, and Massachusetts.

Texas and Washington would be my top 2 due to no income tax.

Pro sports players get hit with a specific tax so they have to file in every city/state they play in for that year. It's still probably beneficial to live in a non-tax state for other income.

[BigMeatballDave]

Originally Posted by GloucesterChief

Texas and Washington would be my top 2 due to no income tax.

Florida, too.

[notorious]

5. Green Bay - Probably not the best place to live if you are a black athlete wanting to have some fun

4. Jacksonville - Lower tier Florida city that's poorly run. Could become a top 5 destination for players if they move to L.A.

3. Cleveland - No explanation needed

2. Buffalo - See Cleveland

1. Oakland - Terribly ran, could turn around stigma with the right coach

[Bob Dole]

The folks on here who are already screaming for Reid and Dorsey's heads, should probably take note of the "coaching continuity" portions of the article.

You don't build a winning organization by firing your leaders every 2-3 years.

[Reerun_KC]

Originally Posted by Bob Dole

The folks on here who are already screaming for Reid and Dorsey's heads, should probably take note of the "coaching continuity" portions of the article.

You don't build a winning organization by firing your leaders every 2-3 years.

The select few that want to win championships are in the minority.

[Valiant]

Originally Posted by Bob Dole

The folks on here who are already screaming for Reid and Dorsey's heads, should probably take note of the "coaching continuity" portions of the article.

You don't build a winning organization by firing your leaders every 2-3 years.

Get a elite QB is the main reason why they are not fired every 2-3 years..