Every NFL offseason there comes a period of time where the NBA is rolling through free agency, handing out massive contracts to some questionable players. Things like "Brook Lopez is making the same amount as Drew Brees" happen and NFL players get all kinds of miffed about it.

It's hard to blame the players, because NBA contracts, like those in baseball, are fully guaranteed. NFL contracts? Not so much.

Seahawks cornerback Richard Sherman, who is unafraid to speak up on social issues, believes players need to "be willing to strike" if they want to get the kind of contracts that NBA players get in free agency.

"Oh, 100 percent," Sherman said on ESPN before the ESPY's. "If we want as the NFL, as a union, to get anything done, players have to be willing to strike. That's the thing that guys need to 100 percent realize.

"You're going to have to miss games, you're going to have to lose some money if you're willing to make the point, because that's how MLB and NBA got it done. They missed games, they struck, they flexed every bit of power they had, and it was awesome. It worked out for them."

Sherman isn't necessarily wrong. It will very likely require a strike for NFL players to get bigger contracts. But there are some built-in problems here that can't necessarily just be addressed at an interview on the ESPYs red carpet.

For starters, it is substantially harder for the entire NFL players union to organize a strike than it is for other sports. There are 53-man rosters to start the season and there is a middle class of veteran players who might be less than enthused about missing a bunch of paychecks in order to help out the greater good. Put another way: it is much easier for a guy who has a huge contract to suggest missing paychecks. Everyone has to be willing to miss out on that money and convincing everyone to do that would be difficult.

Secondly, there is the matter of how contracts would be adjusted if they were fully guaranteed. NFL players assume they would immediately receive the same contracts they have now, albeit with fully guaranteed money across the board. That's not the case at all. NFL teams will not give players five-year contracts that are fully guaranteed. The injury risk is too great and the slope is too slippery in terms of skill level dropping off in the NFL.

NBA teams are constantly fighting the issues that come with massive contracts that turned out to be a disaster. Look at the Hornets this offseason, being willing to take on Dwight Howard in exchange for Miles Plumlee, who inexplicably was given a four-year, $50 million contract by Charlotte previously. The Howard trade was good for the Hornets but only because they dumped that disaster of a Plumlee deal.

As it is in the NFL right now, teams can get out of these deals and move on from players who drop off in terms of skill level. The teams in the league aren't simply going to keep handing out the same contracts just because they're fully guaranteed, not with a hard salary cap. There is a larger point here about the NFL liking parity and the problems that massive contracts could cause as well.

In short, yes, NFL players probably need to be willing to miss games if they want to get better contracts. But it is going to be really difficult for that to happen in the first place, and the result might not be quite as exciting as the players hope it would be.