| 0 |
Subject: NFL lockout news
Posted by: Perm Dude
- [5510572522] Tue, Apr 26, 2011, 10:18
This has been brewing for awhile. But a judge recently lifted the lockout the owners had in place, and Scot Fujita, among others is calling for players to show up and start working.
A good tactical, and PR move, by the players. |
| 1 | Frick
ID: 5310541617
Tue, Apr 26, 2011, 15:18
|
I saw a report on Twitter that players for the Bills and Seahawks were turned away from the facility. D'Brickshaw Ferguson was planning on showing up, mainly to keep open the option to sue for his work-out bonus ($750k).
The strategy that players have taken saddens me. The old CBA was the driving force behind the success of the NFL. What the players (or the NFLPA and the agents) are fighting for is pure open market for players. No draft, no compensation limits. Removal of those restrictions will result in a a top heavy league that makes baseball look equal. Small market teams will be come feeder teams for a few select markets. That will be great for the very top players, but will also result in the majority of players taking a pay cut.
It will also mean no drug policies, except what the teams put in their individual contracts. If a team wants to provide steroids and HGH directly to players, nothing to prevent it. Health benefits will be based on individual contracts and season and career ending injury guarantees will be negotiated at the individual level, and likely won't exist for players except for the elites.
Overall, if a free market comes to exist in the NFL, I'll lose interest. I root for a small market team, and I have no desire to root for a team that has no realistic chance of success. At least ESPN will be happy since the Patriots, Cowboys, Redskins and NY teams will always be good.
|
| 2 | Seattle Zen
ID: 10732616
Tue, Apr 26, 2011, 17:16
|
I'm not sure where you are getting your information, Frick, I don't think the NFLPA has any of that in mind.
|
| 3 | Frick
ID: 52182321
Tue, Apr 26, 2011, 19:49
|
While the union isn't stating it explicitly (mostly), their actions don't agree. From
From ProFootballTalk
Plenty of players, agents, and media members have scoffed at NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell’s brand-new op-ed item appearing in the Wall Street Journal, which explains the end result of the legal strategy that the players hatched on March 11 with the filing of the Tom Brady antitrust lawsuit.
Goodell sets forth some of the same things we’ve been saying of late — that ultimate player victory in the Brady antitrust lawsuit will result in an NFL with no labor deal, no limits on free agency, no rules that apply across the 32 teams, and no draft. As to the “no draft” concept, Goodell even quotes agent Brian Ayrault’s recent tweets directed to PFT regarding Ayrault’s belief that there should be no draft.
In addition to no draft, Goodell explains that, under the players’ vision of the NFL as crafted by lawyer Jeffrey Kessler, the league would be lacking various devices that have protected players for years. There would be no minimum team payroll (i.e., salary floor). There would be no minimum player salary. There would be no standard compensation for players who suffer serious injuries while practicing or playing. The would be no league-wide benefit plans. There would be no limits on free agency, with franchise “perpetually out of the playoffs” serving “essentially as farm teams for the elites.” (It reminds me of my once-beloved Pirates. If they had anyone in the past decade or so that an elite team actually wanted.)
Also, each team would be permitted to determine its rules for training camp and offseason workouts, with no limits on duration or intensity of practices. And without a league-wide program of drug testing, teams would be left to their own devices. Some teams may choose not to test for marijuana. Others may choose not to test for steroids. (The end result likely would be a decision by Congress to impose Olympic-style testing on the sport, something neither the league nor the players want.)
Those who disagree with Goodell (Mike Freeman of CBSSports.com has characterized the op-ed as “scare tactics”) believe that Kessler’s legal positions are aimed merely at securing more leverage. The players will have plenty of leverage if the lockout ultimately is lifted on appeal, and then Kessler can position the players for even more by arguing that any rules imposed by the teams for 2011 constitute a violation of the antitrust laws.
There’s no reason to believe that Kessler and the players won’t make that argument, especially since the players realize that more leverage can eventually be parlayed into a Collective Bargaining Agreement with better terms for the players. Though we’ve heard privately from NFLPA* sources that the Brady antitrust litigation won’t be attacking the draft, no one has come out and said publicly that the draft won’t be attacked. (We gave NFLPA* executive director DeMaurice Smith a chance to do just that last month, and he didn’t.)
Besides, the attack can come from college players entering the league. If there isn’t a labor agreement in place between the owners and the reconstituted union to make the NFL immune from employee-launched antitrust attacks, Andrew Luck or anyone else can argue that they should (as Ayrault believes) to “be able to choose who they work for.”
Thus, unless and until one of the 10 named plaintiffs or one of their lawyers says “we’re not and we never will attack the draft” and unless and until a new CBA is in place, preventing the clients of Ayrault and other like-minded agents from doing essentially what Maurice Clarett did in 2004 (one of the few big cases in the past decade that the NFL actually won), the draft is in jeopardy.
We hope that, in the end, cooler heads prevail. But cooler heads have yet to make an appearance in two-plus years of negotiation and legal wrangling. There’s no reason, even after the ruling to lift the lockout, to believe that the league will buckle or that Kessler and company will stop pushing for the ultimate leverage for a labor deal that would make even Marvin Miller say, “Wow, that’s a damn good labor deal.” And then, if Kessler and company obtain an order from the highest court in the land that any rules implemented by the NFL violate the draft and if Kessler and company make pie-in-the-sky demands including, for example, partial ownership of the teams by the players, the NFL may decide that it’s better to roll the dice in a rules-free NFL.
If it ultimately happens both sides will share the blame. But as long as Kessler is pushing for no draft — and as long as no CBA is in place to stop future rookies from doing the same — everyone who follows football needs to recognize the possibility that, in the future, there will be no draft.
Maybe by then the Pirates will be competitive, and I can go work for Calcaterra.
ProFootballTalk does plenty of mudslinging, but Florio generally has a pretty good handle and analysis of the legal wrangling.
|
| 4 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Tue, Apr 26, 2011, 19:52
|
NFL Lockout for Dummies
Take this with a grain of salt. For example, it says "many players understand how the increased funding of the owners would lead to an increased annual revenue thanks to new and improved stadiums."
That's literally LOL funny. The owners don't pay for a stadium, the taxpayers do.
Some more details on the offers batted around.
Nowhere have I read that the players are requesting no draft and/or an open market system.
|
| 5 | KrazyKoalaBears
ID: 12353217
Tue, Apr 26, 2011, 20:12
|
Frick, I heard DeMaurice Smith speak at U.Va. and never heard anything like that.
What I did hear included...
Wanting the owners to explain why the players should take a pay cut when NFL revenues increased in a down economy. You would think the owners would be happy with where things stand and want to just keep rolling in the dough (something the NFLPA is okay with; remember, this is a lockout, not a strike).
Wanting the owners to explain why players shouldn't be given more money for working 2 extra games (if the 18 game schedule is implemented). If your boss tells you to do 12% more work, are you going to be okay with doing it for free... or, even worse, working more and taking a pay cut while company revenues have increased the past 2 years?
Wanting the owners to provide better post-retirement health benefits. Right now, a player receives 5 years of post-retirement health care after 3 years of service. The average player lasts 3.5 years. One guy in the audience has 19 screws in his body as a result of his NFL days and has not received a single day of post-retirement health care because he didn't last long enough. Oh, and 3.5 years is 56 games. Translated to an 18-game season, that's an average career of 3.1 years, meaning even fewer players receiving post-retirement health care. I'm sure the owners know this.
Not wanting any part of a service-based pay scale. Again, the owners know the average player only lasts about 3.5 years, so a strict, service-based pay scale clearly works in their favor with no solid reasoning as to why it should be implemented. With an 18-game season, it's even worse.
But, here's the most important thing I heard. The players are okay with extending the current CBA. I heard it from DeMaurice Smith himself. The players are perfectly happy splitting revenue 50/50 with the owners and continuing under the agreement that has seen the NFL flourish during a terrible economy. What other industry do you know of that increases revenue during a recession and then wants to make extreme changes to the way things are working? It doesn't make sense... except that the owners are being that greedy.
But, let's go with the idea that the owners are (somehow) losing money. Of course, it begs the question why they're even in the business to begin with, but no matter. The NFLPA actually agreed to reduce salary caps across the board in exchange for the ability to own a stake in the team. Class B stock (IIRC) is all they were asking for. The same stock that celebrities, such as Beyonce, already own in some teams. Remember the tech bubble and all the techies taking low salaries in exchange for company stock? Same thing. The players were willing to take less money in exchange for a stake in the team that the owners claim isn't worth owning. Seems like a no-brainer for the owners. But, the owners declined. Why would they decline giving out shares in something they (supposedly) are losing money on in exchange for money? Unless they're not actually losing money.
At the end of the day, when you look at the facts, the players are the ones wanting to play and just continue with everybody making money. Again, this is a lockout, not a strike. The owners are the ones that want change and are the ones locking out the players, who are just trying to show up to work under the agreement that seems to have been working so well.
But, the players have also been willing to listen to and work with the owners. They've agreed to work with some of the changes the owners want, but they want something in exchange. But, instead of give-and-take, the owners want all-or-nothing in an industry that has completely defied the economy it lives within. It just doesn't make sense.
|
| 6 | KrazyKoalaBears
ID: 12353217
Tue, Apr 26, 2011, 20:16
|
RE: 3
Goodell's view of what the players want? That may be the most skewed view of the players' position in this entire issue. If you can think of a person who would have a more skewed view, I'd love to know who it is.
And I'll go ahead and tell you that none of that was brought up during a 1-1/2 hour talk by DeMaurice Smith. Of course, he could have been hiding his true intentions to completely undermine the system that's been working perfectly fine for everybody involved, but that would seem contrary to the statement that the NFLPA was okay with moving forward with the current CBA, no?
|
| 7 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Tue, Apr 26, 2011, 20:18
|
The players asked for an independent audit of the books of all NFL teams to determine if what the owners are saying is true (i.e., the losses by so many teams). The owners flat out rejected the idea of an audit of all teams. They countered with a limited audit of a few teams that they (they owners) selected.
If they aren't hiding anything, they sure look bad. They locked out the players, claimed they were too poor, then refused to open the books to prove it.
|
| 8 | Frick
ID: 52182321
Tue, Apr 26, 2011, 23:09
|
Here is just one example of the lack of commitment from the NFLPA.
Again, from PFT
During a visit with ESPN Radio’s Mike & Mike in the Morning that was delayed by a conference call with players, NFLPA* executive director DeMaurice Smith addressed Commissioner Roger Goodell’s contention that the players are attacking the draft.
Calling Goodell’s op-ed in the Wall Street Journal “bizarre,” Smith engaged in some lawyerly semantics, suggesting that the players want a draft but not saying what needed to be said to ensure that the draft will continue beyond 2011.
“If he truly believes that the draft is something that we’re attacking, then I don’t know what’s gonna happen on Thursday, but the last time I checked my calender, the draft is scheduled to move forward,” Smith quipped.
Smith didn’t nearly go far enough. Of course the draft will occur in 2011. The expired labor deal expressly contemplated that the draft will occur in 2011. The question isn’t whether the draft will happen now, the question is whether it will happen later.
As we pointed out earlier today, the only way the draft will be safe beyond 2011 is if: (1) the players say unequivocally that they are not attacking the draft; and (2) the two sides work out a labor deal that prevents Andrew Luck or any members of the 2012 draft class from filing an antitrust lawsuit of their own attacking the draft.
Smith has said nothing that would satisfy either of those two critical conditions.
This could all very well be part of the negotiating tactics of the union, and I don't blame them for trying to create leverage. But, they and the owners need to be very aware and careful that a huge reason for their growth has been teams can turn around quickly and every team has a reasonable chance to compete.
|
| 9 | Seattle Zen
Leader
ID: 055343019
Tue, Apr 26, 2011, 23:39
|
Frick, whatever this Florio guy has written in the past that made you think he has a "pretty good handle" on the legal wrangling, you need to throw that out because that piece right there is embarrassing. KKB is right, is he seriously buying the logic that Goodell is casting as the player's view? He is either easily duped or an owners' flunky.
I had not read any of Goodell's WSJ piece because it wasn't well covered in the press and now I see why, what a joke! Seriously, Goodell and the owners are in over their heads. In the court of public opinion, you don't have the totalitarian power to fine players/media/judges who criticize you. Now you know what it is like to be the Detroit Lions, Goodell.
|
| 10 | Frick
ID: 5310541617
Wed, Apr 27, 2011, 08:45
|
I didn't say that the ultimate goal of the NFLPA was to kill the draft, but their actions currently are allowing that to be a definite outcome. Florio was a lawyer, before starting the PFT website and posting rumors, news, and opinion articles. I wouldn't call him a supporter of either side, as he will take shots at both.
I wouldn't take anything either side at face value, that is part of how the process works. But looking at the potential outcomes of their legal manipulations does shed some light on what both sides are working towards. I find it interesting that a group of 70 players are trying to get a place at the mediation table, and that Kevin Mawae stated they have a seat through their player reps. If they don't like their player reps, they can vote for new ones next time. That would be a bit difficult since the NFLPA no longer exists, due to decertification. Or was Mawae admitting that the decertification was a sham?
The owners offered their profit records to the players, but the players turned the offer down. I don't blame the players, with out more detailed information, the profit records could easily be a scam. There are many teams that are family owned and family members have paying jobs that don't correspond to their work or abilities. I also don't blame the owners for wanting their private financial records to become public record, which would likely happen if they opened the books up completely. A simple solution would be to have an independent audit firm review the profit statements, confirm the reveneues and disclaim any potential bogus expenses. But, the players scored a PR winfall by stating the league would not provide financial data.
The players have also done a great job of manipulating which laws they want to fight over. By dissolving the NFLPA they have moved the fight from labor law, into anti-trust law, which gives them a far more leverage.
Again, I'm not on the owner's side. I'm also not on the NFLPA's side, I want to see the NFL continue as a league where every team has a chance. If you root for the Red Sox or Yankees or a few other teams in baseball, you probably think the current system is great. I would argue that it isn't for the majority of the teams that can't compete on an annual basis. Sure small market teams might get lucky and have a few years of success, but what small market team has a long-term winning record? The same goes in the NBA. The Celtics, Lakers and a few other teams have huge advantages over the small market teams. I don't feel that is healthy for the league over the long term. The old NFL model was great and I hope the owners and players don't get greedy and break it.
|
| 11 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Wed, Apr 27, 2011, 09:10
|
A simple solution would be to have an independent audit firm review the profit statements
This is exactly what the players asked for. And the owners refused. This does, of course, make the owners look bad.
The players have done a very good job of using the law. They I'm not sure how this is "manipulating" but the law is the law. It is probably important to note that the players are and have not been on strike themselves: They were locked out of their workplace by the owners. Everything else is in response to that.
|
| 12 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Wed, Apr 27, 2011, 09:16
|
In case it isn't clear, I have much more sympathy for the players than the owners. When you lockout the other side, you aren't willing to bargain in good faith, IMO. Compound that with refusing to disclose the financial information to an independent auditing team to back up their own economic assertions (which are the only real issues in this case) and you get little sympathy from me.
If the owners aren't being slimy, they are acting so at the very time that it makes them look bad and hurts their cause. So: Stupid or slimy--take your pick.
|
| 13 | KrazyKoalaBears
ID: 517068
Wed, Apr 27, 2011, 09:22
|
RE: 8
Sorry, but that piece is beyond garbage. Using what someone has not said as evidence of what they believe would be like me saying that you hate black people because you haven't explicitly stated that you don't and since the majority of the NFLPA is black, it's clearly influencing your stance on this subject.
And, while we're at it, we should also talk about you not explicitly stating that you support all the vendors and minimum wage personnel who will be out of work as a result of this lockout. I'm just having a hard time understanding why you hate lower and middle class America so much with your lack of explicit support of my critical conditions that I'm just now writing about and have never actually explicitly asked you for your opinion about. I just derived the info from some other person's writing.
Okay, back to a reality where what people say is what actually matters...
Florio is clearly not paying attention to what's going on. Why is he (conveniently?) ignoring what the NFLPA has said in favor of what he wants them to say. A simple look at the facts shows the real story...
Fact or Fiction? The current CBA includes a draft.
It's Fact. So, if the NFLPA wants to "attack the draft" and get rid of it and the CBA includes the draft (all of which Florio stated in his piece), please explain to me...
- Why is the NFLPA is fine with the current CBA?
- Why is the NFLPA willing to extend the current CBA?
Both of those come from public statements made multiple times by the NFLPA.
Maybe Mike Florio wasn't actually listening to what the NFLPA has said. Maybe he decided that researching his article was too tough or too time-consuming. Maybe he just can't grasp the very basic fact that extending the current CBA would also extend the draft. Or, maybe he's just decided that reporting the facts are what everyone else is writing about, so he needs a new (concocted) angle to everything.
I don't know his reasoning, but I do know that his "writing" portrays him as someone who doesn't have a clue and makes me think the website should change its name to "Pro Football Conspiracy Theories."
The best thing about the internet is that everyone has a voice. The worst thing about the internet is that everyone has a voice... even Mike Florio.
|
| 14 | Frick
ID: 5310541617
Wed, Apr 27, 2011, 10:06
|
As I stated above, the NFLPA's actions don't match their public statements. I apologize for only post 2 of Florio's blurbs instead of the probably 100 that he has written on the subject. He could be on the leagues side, but he has written equally scathing articles about the league. If you want, I'll find one and post it for you.
Public statements to intent, while great for PR work, don't mean a thing at the end of the day. The legal actions taken by both sides are what matter. The league and the players are attacking that in the current stand-off. Again, it could be legal posturing by the NFLPA to gain leverage at the negotiating table and that is part of the process. But, be aware that blind support of one side or the other could lead them to push the issue. Would you be in favor of an NFL that didn't have a draft? College players would be able to pick the team they wanted to play for, and/or offered them the most money with no salary cap?
The NFLPA has stated they want an extension of the CBA, by decertifying and filing the Brady lawsuit, their actions don't match their words. I'll repeat the for the nth time. It very well could be legal maneuvering, but the direction it could lead to scares me.
|
| 15 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Wed, Apr 27, 2011, 10:17
|
They decertified about 15 minutes (literally) after the owners rejected the offer of the CBA extension.
|
| 16 | Seattle Zen
Leader
ID: 055343019
Wed, Apr 27, 2011, 10:39
|
Oh, it pains me to learn that Florio is a Vikings fan.
|
| 17 | KrazyKoalaBears
ID: 517068
Wed, Apr 27, 2011, 10:55
|
Frick, if you want to take the NFLPA's actions alone, without a timeline and no consideration for preceding events that matter, then you're being just like Florio and are just making it all up on the fly. In that regard, this whole mess is Tom Brady's fault because he sued the NFL. How DARE he sue his employer that's paying him millions of dollars?!... except a lot of things that matter led up to that point, not the least of which was the NFL locking out the players and rejecting the players' offer to continue with the status quo.
And it's not like the decision to decertify was an easy one. You should go research what the NFLPA has given up as a result of decertification. It'll probably surprise you and make you realize it was more than just "legal posturing."
But, at the end of it all, if you want to believe in Florio's conspiracy theory about the draft, go for it. Just don't be surprised when it continues to happen for many, many years.
I would argue that [the current system] isn't [great] for the majority of the teams that can't compete on an annual basis. Sure small market teams might get lucky and have a few years of success, but what small market team has a long-term winning record?
You can argue it all you want, but you're still just making stuff up. Let's have a look at the stats (reality!).
Taking a long-term look at NFL teams, one would expect a league that is competitively balanced to have a good number of teams with an average win percentage near .500 (or 8 wins). Taking stats from ESPN (2002-2010), we can see that the following teams are within 1 win of an 8-8 average record (in descending order of average wins): NYG (8.77), DAL, DEN, ATL, NOR, TEN, CHI, SEA, MIN, CAR, NYJ (8.00), JAX, TAM, KAN, MIA (7.11).
That's almost half the league with an average record between 9-7 and 7-9. If we increase that to being within 2 wins, we include: SDG (9.77), GNB, BAL (9.11), CIN (6.89), WAS, BUF, ARI, SFO, HOU, STL (6.00).
That's a total of 25 teams (over 78% of the league) that have an average record between 10-6 and 6-10 over the last 9 seasons. And, the rest of the teams can be named not for the market they play in, but for very specific reasons.
What teams have the most inept management in the NFL? You probably named some combination of CLE (5.78), OAK (5.33), and DET (4.11). And with that, you'd find the 3 teams at the bottom of the list (after STL).
What year was Tom Brady drafted? The answer is 2000. Is it any surprise that NWE (12.22) tops the list? Similarly, I don't think I need to state the reason IND (12.11) is #2.
That leaves us with 2 more teams. Both have had great coaches, great QBs (and other personnel), and are from Pennsylvania: PIT (10.33) and PHI (10.11).
And if we graph it all out, it looks like an S that's been rotated 90-degrees counter-clockwise. A big spike for NWE and IND, then a looooooooong smoothing of the rest of the teams until we dropoff for CLE, OAK, and DET. Is there a league more competitive than that?
|
| 18 | Frick
ID: 5310541617
Wed, Apr 27, 2011, 11:25
|
I don't think that the draft is likely to go away, but I think it is a possibility at the moment. I also think that there are enough powerful people (mainly agents) hoping it goes away that it scares me. No draft could result in a huge windfall for a few college players each year and their respective agents. It would likely result in much lower overall compensation for the majority of players. Do you think the guys who were 4+ round and later picks are going to get the same type of contract offers without a draft?
My comment about parity was directed at MLB and to some extent the NBA. The NFL has grown as much as it has IMO due to parity. If you root for a team like CLE, OAK, or STL you know that with just a bit of luck your team can be int he play-off hunt. With some great luck you can be in the play-off hunt for the next decade (a la Indy and NE.) I don't think the same is true of the NBA and definitely not MLB.
Why do you think Florio is a Viking's fan? I've always gotten the impression he was a Steeler's fan.
While the NFLPA decertified 15 minutes after the rejected offer, the votes to decertify has been going on for months, allowing them to decertify quickly.
My point is this. I don't think either side is completely free of blame. And both sides need to know that they need the fans. To only criticize or blame one side in this dispute leads to the other side perceiving they are winning the PR war and have more leverage for their position.
I would love to see a new agreement that was similar to the old one. I would like even more if there were caps on the highest salaries, higher floors for the lowest salaries.
|
| 19 | Frick
ID: 5310541617
Wed, Apr 27, 2011, 11:45
|
Is a draft an anti-trust violation? IMO yes. Restricted free agency is absolutely an anti-trust violation.
The NFLPA filed an opposition to the leagues request for a stay on the lifting of the lockout. In it they include a request the league to immediately implement a system which does not violate anti-trust laws. The 2011 draft will occur because it explicitly agreed to in the last CBA. Future drafts are looking a bit less likely based on the NFLPA's most recent filing.
|
| 20 | Seattle Zen
ID: 10732616
Wed, Apr 27, 2011, 12:06
|
Why do you think Florio is a Viking's fan?
Read the link in KKB's post 13.
|
| 21 | Frick
ID: 5310541617
Wed, Apr 27, 2011, 13:19
|
So, other than SBNation saying he is a Viking fan, what other proof was there.
I'm pretty sure that I disclaimed at the very beginning that Florio posted rumors (he is the guy who reported Terry Bradshaw was dead after all) and was into mudslinging.
He is also an attorney who does, IMO, a decent job separating and stating the difference in facts and his opinions when it comes to legal matters.
|
| 22 | KrazyKoalaBears
ID: 517068
Wed, Apr 27, 2011, 13:50
|
While the NFLPA decertified 15 minutes after the rejected offer, the votes to decertify has been going on for months, allowing them to decertify quickly.
The owners had been threatening for months to lock out the players unless the NFLPA blindly accepted a laundry list of demands. It would have been completely irresponsible and ignorant of the NFLPA to not plan ahead. Again, this started with the NFL, not the NFLPA.
You seem to get caught up in the NFLPA's response to issues without looking at what the NFL did to cause those responses. It's a very clear timeline of events that consistently starts with the NFL wanting things their way with zero reasoning.
My point is this. I don't think either side is completely free of blame.
Other than the conspiracy theory posited by PFT, what do you blame the players for? What have they ACTUALLY asked for that is unreasonable? I'd love to know. No gossip. No rumors. Actual requests only.
I would love to see a new agreement that was similar to the old one. I would like even more if there were caps on the highest salaries, higher floors for the lowest salaries.
It's pretty funny that you mention who is winning the PR battle and don't realize that the very thing you want is exactly what the players want... but then you place blame on the players with completely unfounded conspiracy theories (that are PR for the NFL).
If you read about the real issues (go somewhere other than PFT), you will realize that you're on the players' side because you're actually asking for more than the players were when the NFL locked them out. They just wanted to play under the old CBA (or a version of the old CBA that included reasonable give-and-take on both sides).
|
| 23 | KrazyKoalaBears
ID: 517068
Wed, Apr 27, 2011, 13:54
|
A simple Google search for "florio vikings fan" reveals that "Mike Florio, 44, an erstwhile Vikings fan living in Steelers country, began his blog in 2001 as a sideline to his law practice."
So, if he's willing to completely throw truth out the window to smear a rival player, what would stop him from throwing truth out the window any other time?
|
| 24 | Frick
ID: 5310541617
Wed, Apr 27, 2011, 14:36
|
I apologize for not knowing he was a Viking fan, he has bashed on teams repeatedly, and I was under the impression from some of his comments and his West Virginia residency that he was a Steelers fan.
|
| 25 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Wed, Apr 27, 2011, 14:51
|
As a Browns fan, I should note that anyone who lives in "Steeler's country" is almost certainly operating under such a constant, low-level form of anxiety as to produce writing full of muddy thinking.
|
| 27 | Seattle Zen
Leader
ID: 055343019
Thu, Apr 28, 2011, 23:44
|
Anyone by chance know where to find a list of the entire NFL combine workout tests? I'm particularly interested in the bench press reps. Not just the top 10 results, I mean for everyone, kickers, QBs, on up.
What have my Vikings done? I sure hope Nick Fairly turns out to be a chump, I don't want to see him blow up at Detroit. That pass up could bite us like the time we passed on Warren Sapp.
|
| 28 | KrazyKoalaBears
ID: 517068
Fri, Apr 29, 2011, 09:46
|
I sure hope Nick Fairly turns out to be a chump, I don't want to see him blow up at Detroit.
I watched all the Auburn games this year and can tell you that Fairley clearly had the lightbulb go on this year. He's a very quiet kind of guy off the field, but I think he's going to make a lot of teams upset they passed him up because of that and the rumor that he took a lot of plays off. Anybody who leads the SEC in sacks (by 1.5) and is second in yards lost isn't taking many, if any, plays off.
Personally, I'd take the guy who made the plays at 1:01, 1:20, and 5:26 against one of the fastest teams in the country any day of the week.
Plus, in DET, he'll have plenty of time to make plays on defense. ;)
|
| 29 | Seattle Zen
ID: 10732616
Fri, Apr 29, 2011, 13:05
|
There is a shocker, KKB chiming in to defend a Auburn Tiger. :)
The light bulb that has lit up may very well be behind a sign that says: "Albert Haynesworth 2.0".
Could be...
|
| 30 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Sat, Apr 30, 2011, 00:47
|
Lockout back on.
A victory for the owners--they can prevent their own players from working out under supervision. Yay!
|
| 31 | potts316
ID: 263441121
Wed, Oct 12, 2011, 00:14
|
Plus, in DET, he'll have plenty of time to make plays on defense. ;)
What was this even supposed to mean?
|
| 32 | potts316
ID: 263441121
Mon, May 28, 2012, 22:48
|
Nick Fairley is a very quiet kind of guy off the field? Wow. Arrested in April. And again in May.
|
| 33 | KrazyKoalaBears
ID: 41450296
Tue, May 29, 2012, 07:50
|
He certainly WAS a quiet guy off the field before the NFL. Now he's just being a dumbass. If he doesn't have another light bulb go on for his off-field activities, it won't matter what he can do on the field.
|
| Rate this thread: | If you wish, you may rate this thread on scale of 1-5. Ratings should indicate how valuable or interesting you believe this thread would be to other users of this forum. A '5' means that this thread is a 'must read'. A '1' means that this is a complete waste of time. If you have previously rated this thread, rating it again will delete your previous rating. If you do not want to rate this thread, but want to see how others have rated it, then click the button without entering a rating, or else click here. |
|
|
|
Post a reply to this message: NFL lockout news
|
|