Breaking Down the Full Impact of the CBA on This Offseason's Players

After the NFL lockout was lifted, the new collective bargaining agreement didn't have a profound effect on the 2011 season in comparison to the 2012 season.

A major reason is because of the limited time before last season began and everything that's unfolded this offseason. One area that's rather interesting is the non-football-related injuries. According to ABC 7 New York, players like Terrell Suggs and Jason Peters may lose some dough for their offseason injuries:

"

The applicable wording in the CBA, Article 20, Section 3 provision states: 'A player who is placed on a Nonfootball injury or Illness list ("N-F/I") is not entitled to any compensation under his contract while on such list...'

Both players have claimed they were injured during off-site training sessions, but league and union sources agree that any injury sustained that does not occur at the team's facility or under its direction is considered a 'Nonfootball injury.'

"

That's not the only affected area of the new CBA either. So, in addition to non-football-related injuries (which we'll tackle later), let's check out some other areas where the CBA affects the offseason.

Complete view of the NFL collective bargaining agreement.

Holdouts

With several holdouts currently happening from the franchise tag, time is of the essence in the new CBA.

July 16 is the deadline to get a long-term deal in place, otherwise those hit with the tag cannot negotiate again until the regular season concludes. So, those tagged and their respective teams have less than two months to find mutual ground.

The bright side of this is that the deadline is before the start of any training camp. This way if a long-term were to get done, then the franchised player need not worry about missing out on the preseason. If a deal falls through, however, the tagged player will likely be in this exact position again before the next season.

It's an interesting situation because once the regular season ends, everything just starts over. And if a player didn't agree before to a long-term deal, then the probability of him moving teams increases.

Rookie Contracts

Instead of getting all confused with the new CBA terminology about rookie contracts, just look at the difference between Sam Bradford's and Cam Newton's. Bradford was the No. 1 overall pick in 2010 and was given a six-year deal worth almost $80 million, while Newton got just four years at just over $22 million.

Now, obviously this will vary from rookie-to-rookie, but that's two consecutive No. 1 selections at the quarterback position. The difference in these contracts is mainly due to a percentage change in the total rookie compensation pool.

In the new CBA, that percentage change will adjust in accordance with the salary cap. Therefore, the number won't be exactly the same each year, but you can count on rookies entering the NFL post-lockout (2011 draft included) having much smaller contracts.

This is a smart move though, because forking over what the St. Louis Rams offered Bradford is a hefty investment for any team on a rookie. The kid must prove he can play in the league at a consistently high level for at least a few years before getting that more attractive offer.

"Nonfootball Injuries"

As mentioned in the introduction, non-football-related injuries play a specific role in the new CBA. What we see here is a risk by a player in training outside of the organization's facilities.

It's quite simple—why should a franchise be responsible for a player's injury that didn't occur on its grounds? It shouldn't, but then the whole loyalty factor comes into play between the team and the player.

In the above-cited article by ABC 7 New York, we see an interesting leverage situation that could potentially take place regarding compensation:

"

Technically, as the CBA states, the teams are not obligated to pay any salary due Peters and Suggs, but sources say both are such vital players and in otherwise good standing with their respective organizations that it appears unlikely the teams would take such drastic action. The (Philadelphia) Eagles and (Baltimore) Ravens also want Peters and Suggs motivated to rehab diligently from their injuries.

"

Terrell Suggs was named the NFL's 2011 Defensive Player of the Year, so the Ravens clearly need him to get healthy as soon as possible. However, what if Baltimore were to refuse his compensation because of the non-football injury?

That would certainly create some tension between the team and Suggs, especially since he's arguably their best and most complete player.

Regardless of what happens between Suggs and Baltimore, as well as Peters and Philadelphia, it would be surprising to see players put themselves at risk in future offseasons.

John Rozum on Twitter.