Honestly, it's amazing how much has happened in the Antonio Brown helmet saga ̵
The Raiders expected Brown to be fully training on Sunday. He had taken part in the tour of the team on Saturday and had traveled with the team to their preseason match on Thursday to even secure the passes of Derek Carr in the warm-up. It was a helmet, and it was assumed that Brown had finally found a version of his preferred model that was less than 10 years old and was therefore not excluded from complying with safety standards agreed by the NFL and NFLPA. Anyway, Jon Gruden guessed it. At least Jon Gruden wanted you to stop asking. "I'm not talking about it anymore," Gruden said on Thursday. "It was a legal, certified helmet, you know? Someone approved it or he did not wear it.
Well, about that
"You all know that AB is not here today, so here is the conclusion He's upset about the subject of helmets, we've supported that, and we appreciate that, but by that time we've exhausted all the possibilities of relief, so in our view, it's time he turned everything on or off .
"So we hope he's back soon. We have 89 people who break the tails. We are very excited about where this franchise is going. And we hope A.B. will be a big part of it, from week 1 against Denver. End of the story. No questions. I just wanted you to know where we are. "
So, what happened? It seems that Brown's public call for helmets was successful. He found several versions that had been made within the last decade, even though only one of the models was NOCSAE certified. According to Pro Football Talk, however, this nine-year-old helmet failed testing. So Brown was again without a legal helmet and again refuses to practice in a new model. So much drama, so little progress.
Brown is frustrated with the League and for good reason: the NFL had banned or tested its favored model only this summer when it released an issue of it, meaning that everyone Other NFL players with a helmet older than a decade, including Aaron Rodgers and Tom Brady, had a year to think about new models that they liked. And the Raiders are frustrated with Brown – hence Mayock's comments. The fact that it was given as an explanation and not in response to the reporters' questions and that it was broadcast through the team's official channels is a good indication that the Raiders are nearing a break point.
But what can they do? actually act against it? They could cut Brown, but they would still have to pay him, even after he's probably landed with another team. They have one option if they want to get back the $ 30 million guaranteed money Brown gave them in March as part of a contract renewal deal: they could send Brown the dreaded "five-day letter." and formally request him to report to the camp. If he does not show up after five days, he can be included in the reserve / left-hander list used for players leaving the team without permission during the camp. That would not make him eligible to play for the entire season, but it would also mean that the Raiders would not have to pay his warranties. It's the nuclear option, but both Brown and Oakland burn fast through everyone else.