Master Index of Archived Threads


NFL Off-Season 2012

Frayed Knot Mar 13 2012 10:37 AM

I believe in the thread where we were discussing the then ongoing NFL lockout I talked about how I thought the just-ended 'un-capped' season seemed phony to me, that few if any teams seemed interested in spending despite the fact that they now supposedly had no specific limits. But now it turns out that the Redskins - and to a lesser extent the Cowboys, Saints & Raiders - are being cited for exceeding a salary limit which didn't exist. The league hasn't announced it officially yet, but numerous reports which surfaced yesterday indicate that those clubs will have their future salary cap limits reduced (and that money added to the caps for other teams) as punishment for spending extra in 2010 for the purposes of reducing their burden during this past season. IOW, even though 2010 had no salary cap, clubs were NOT allowed to spend extra in that year as a way to reduce their totals in future years which would have a cap even though the existence of a cap in such seasons had yet to be negotiated and was still purely theoretical at that point! So two questions come to mind: - How is this not virtually the definition of collusion and a breach of the basic agreement between the league and its players? - What is the stance of the player's association going to be here?

Edgy MD Mar 13 2012 10:41 AM Re: NFL Off-Season 2012

Baseball, gentlemen!

Ceetar Mar 13 2012 10:45 AM Re: NFL Off-Season 2012

Frayed Knot wrote: So two questions come to mind: - How is this not virtually the definition of collusion and a breach of the basic agreement between the league and its players? - What is the stance of the player's association going to be here? This seems really really stupid to me. If the teams couldn't in fact spend more than the cap in the uncapped year, then why write the uncapped year into the CBA anyway? And why'd they do a half-assed job of it and leave off these specific unwritten rules? This seems arbitrary and unfair to me. But hey, if it's gonna penalize the Cowboys and Redskins.. Edgy DC wrote: Baseball, gentlemen! left groins!

TransMonk Mar 13 2012 11:04 AM Re: NFL Off-Season 2012

Well, I'm a Skins fan...and the ruling is bullshit. It is the definition of collusion and I doubt the NFLPA will care much because the players are still going to get paid. My beef is with the fact that other teams did the same thing and didn't get penalized. The contracts of Matt Schaub (Texans), Tyson Jackson (Chiefs), Julius Peppers (Bears), Michael Crabtree (49ers), Jabri Evans (Saints), Greg Jennings, Ryan Pickett (Packers), Kyle Vanden Bosch (Lions), and Jason Peters (Eagles) were all front loaded with bonuses in the un-capped year of 2010 to avoid future cap hits. Whay are these teams not facing the same penalty (on the rule that didn't exist)? To annouce this penalty on the eve of free agency is just asinine. I'm pretty steamed.

TransMonk Mar 13 2012 11:07 AM Re: NFL Off-Season 2012

Ceetar wrote: But hey, if it's gonna penalize the Cowboys and Redskins... I believe the Giants' Mara was the head of the owners committee that was whining about the NFL needing to take action on these (non) rule breakings. The Skins had the cap room to weather this blow (although they were counting on that room to fill out their team now that they've traded away a major amount of draft picks), this is most likely going to hurt the Cowboys more by putting them over the cap.

Frayed Knot Mar 13 2012 11:20 AM Re: NFL Off-Season 2012

Edgy DC wrote: Baseball, gentlemen! Does this apply to the 'Maryland Deathfest' thread too?

Frayed Knot Mar 13 2012 11:37 AM Re: NFL Off-Season 2012

Ceetar wrote: If the teams couldn't in fact spend more than the cap in the uncapped year, then why write the uncapped year into the CBA anyway? And why'd they do a half-assed job of it and leave off these specific unwritten rules? Well my contention is because they never had any intention of having a true uncapped year in the first place. Originally it was something they agreed to as a bone tossed to the players in exchange for some concession on their part whenever the last CBA was negotiated. But if they ever did have a truly uncapped year where the teams were free to spend up to their own limits then the players might find out that many of them are being grossly underpaid compared to their true free-market value. So what the NFL apparently did was to send a memo to the teams saying that even though the rules said you could spend there would be penalties for actually doing so if such spending wound up reducing future spending, an action which not only seems to negate whatever intention the up-capped year had in the first place but also pre-supposes the idea that a hard salary cap is the natural order of things (came down on a stone tablet perhaps) so one was pre-ordained for 2012 and beyond even though the bargaining on that CBA was still years in the future. I have no dog in this fight as far as which teams are affected and to what degree. I'm just continually amazed at what the NFL can and does get away with and at the total timidity of the player's union which seems to cave at the drop of a hat and at the reluctance of the media who cover the sport to ever question whether everything the league wants is automatically good.

Edgy MD Mar 13 2012 11:48 AM Re: NFL Off-Season 2012

Frayed Knot wrote: Edgy DC wrote: Baseball, gentlemen! Does this apply to the 'Maryland Deathfest' thread too? No, of course not.

Vic Sage Mar 13 2012 12:40 PM Re: NFL Off-Season 2012

I have no dog in this fight as far as which teams are affected and to what degree. I'm just continually amazed at what the NFL can and does get away with and at the total timidity of the player's union which seems to cave at the drop of a hat and at the reluctance of the media who cover the sport to ever question whether everything the league wants is automatically good. this, this, so this.

Ceetar Mar 13 2012 12:42 PM Re: NFL Off-Season 2012

Vic Sage wrote: I have no dog in this fight as far as which teams are affected and to what degree. I'm just continually amazed at what the NFL can and does get away with and at the total timidity of the player's union which seems to cave at the drop of a hat and at the reluctance of the media who cover the sport to ever question whether everything the league wants is automatically good. this, this, so this. They're reluctant to criticize and then use that lack of criticism as a talking point about how popular the NFL is.

Frayed Knot Mar 13 2012 02:58 PM Re: NFL Off-Season 2012

Ceetar wrote: They're reluctant to criticize and then use that lack of criticism as a talking point about how popular the NFL is. Yes, although I think mainly they're reluctant to criticize for fear of being frozen out by the football insiders who'll keep any nay-sayers from playing in their reindeer games or enjoying any of the inner-sanctum perks. Each of the networks has such a huge stake in remaining in the good graces of the NFL that they aren't about to rock that boat. The pre Super Bowl week '60 Minutes' piece was a classic example. Goodell couldn't have bought a better image polishing had he hired the most expensive pr firm on the planet. In between talking about how popular and strong the league was, and about Goodell's masterful handling of the previous summer's lockout, Steve Kroft paused only slightly to acknowledge the potential hurdles in the on-going concussion problems (past & present & future) while neglecting to mention how, until about 18 months earlier, the NFL was so forcefully and completely denying that there was even the slightest connection between the sport and concussions that 1980s-era tobacco executives looked honest and forthcoming in comparison. Such an omission takes on all kinds of irony when you remember that it was '60 Minutes' who, in the past, prided themselves on being perhaps the biggest player in exposing the lies and willful cover-ups of the cigarette moguls. Oh how they've slid. The only thing surprising about the whole piece to me was that it came in a year where the SB was NOT a CBS production.

Frayed Knot Mar 14 2012 01:35 PM Re: NFL Off-Season 2012

I have no dog in this fight as far as which teams are affected and to what degree. I'm just continually amazed at what the NFL can and does get away with and at the total timidity of the player's union which seems to cave at the drop of a hat and at the reluctance of the media who cover the sport to ever question whether everything the league wants is automatically good. this, this, so this. Stories today say: The league acknowledges that the Redskins & Cowboys "technically did not violate salary cap rules" ... however did "ignore what other clubs considered to be an understanding on limiting expenditures on players in 2010 [the un-capped year]". There also was apparently pressure on the league from other teams to dole out even harsher penalties (like forfeited draft choices) and that many are considering this reduced cap stuff to be lenient. IOW, they're not only publicly admitting large-scale collusion but the clubs that took part in said collusion pressured the league into harshly punishing the few that did not. The player's union, meanwhile, believes the cited clubs did nothing wrong but "reluctantly agreed to the penalties because the league would have lowered the salary cap for all 32 teams if it did not". Unbelievable!

Edgy MD Mar 14 2012 02:11 PM Re: NFL Off-Season 2012

I take back any objections to this thread, as it's not really about football, but about rights and humanity. You go, thread. Any talk about where Peyton's place is going to be next, you lose me.

Ceetar Mar 14 2012 02:16 PM Re: NFL Off-Season 2012

Edgy DC wrote: I take back any objections to this thread, as it's not really about football, but about rights and humanity. You go, thread. Any talk about where Peyton's place is going to be next, you lose me. I dunno, think he could get a couple of outs out of the pen?

Frayed Knot Mar 14 2012 05:24 PM Re: NFL Off-Season 2012

Edgy DC wrote: I take back any objections to this thread, as it's not really about football, but about rights and humanity. You go, thread. Any talk about where Peyton's place is going to be next, you lose me. So does this mean I can use my judgement on non-baseball posts in the non-baseball forum rather than submitting my proposals to the supreme soviet for approval first?

Ceetar Mar 14 2012 05:49 PM Re: NFL Off-Season 2012

Frayed Knot wrote: Edgy DC wrote: I take back any objections to this thread, as it's not really about football, but about rights and humanity. You go, thread. Any talk about where Peyton's place is going to be next, you lose me. So does this mean I can use my judgement on non-baseball posts in the non-baseball forum rather than submitting my proposals to the supreme soviet for approval first? I could do with more non-music posts.

Edgy MD Mar 14 2012 08:28 PM Re: NFL Off-Season 2012

Frayed Knot wrote: Edgy DC wrote: I take back any objections to this thread, as it's not really about football, but about rights and humanity. You go, thread. Any talk about where Peyton's place is going to be next, you lose me. So does this mean I can use my judgement on non-baseball posts in the non-baseball forum rather than submitting my proposals to the supreme soviet for approval first? Come on.

Frayed Knot Mar 15 2012 11:40 AM Re: NFL Off-Season 2012

Well considering that you first admonished the very existence of this thread; then, apparently upon reading it for the first time, withdrew the objection based on your approval of the content, I was thinking that maybe there was a list of preferred topics for the non-baseball forum [NFL = bad; death metal = good ??] that perhaps needs better publicizing.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Mar 15 2012 11:42 AM Re: NFL Off-Season 2012

ME-OWWWWW!

Edgy MD Mar 15 2012 11:48 AM Re: NFL Off-Season 2012

Frayed Knot wrote: Well considering that you first admonished the very existence of this thread; then, apparently upon reading it for the first time, withdrew the objection based on your approval of the content, I was thinking that maybe there was a list of preferred topics for the non-baseball forum [NFL = bad; death metal = good ??] that perhaps needs better publicizing. Or maybe, you could lighten up and realize I was lightly making a 50-year old reference about sportswriters eschewing off-season football discussion during the baseball season. All sorts of things get posted here, as it's the All Sorts of Things subforum and that's good and great and funny and delightful and engaging and stupid and ignorable and after a decade I think we all know that. Supreme Soviet. Good Lord.

Vic Sage Mar 15 2012 12:18 PM Re: NFL Off-Season 2012 Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Mar 15 2012 12:19 PM

sic `em, Knot! but as for this: The player's union, meanwhile, believes the cited clubs did nothing wrong but "reluctantly agreed to the penalties because the league would have lowered the salary cap for all 32 teams if it did not". The union should de-certify and start over with new leadership... which would invariably sell them down the river, too, so why bother, i guess? But if they go along with collusion, then what's the point of their continued existence (except as an excuse for owners to avoid anti-trust laws). They cave in on every critical issue (from safety, pensions/insurance to free agency, salary caps, etc) and then spin it as a victory. With the shortest playing careers, the lowest average compensation, the worst long-term health issues arising out of their careers of any organized sports union, they might as well be a "company" or "house" union, controlled by the owners. It seems to me that football players are uniquely subservient to authority among athletes, trained in a nearly military fashion to obey authority, and so are ready to concede to management at every opportunity (and to cross their own strike line), to their own ongoing detriment. I'd feel bad for them if it wasn't their own freakin' fault.

Ceetar Mar 15 2012 12:19 PM Re: NFL Off-Season 2012

personally, I barely tolerate in-season football talk during baseball's offseason.

Edgy MD Mar 15 2012 12:30 PM Re: NFL Off-Season 2012

Vic Sage wrote: sic `em, Knot! Thanks, man.

Frayed Knot Mar 15 2012 02:27 PM Re: NFL Off-Season 2012

Vic Sage wrote: but as for this: The player's union, meanwhile, believes the cited clubs did nothing wrong but "reluctantly agreed to the penalties because the league would have lowered the salary cap for all 32 teams if it did not". The union should de-certify and start over with new leadership... which would invariably sell them down the river, too, so why bother, i guess? But if they go along with collusion, then what's the point of their continued existence (except as an excuse for owners to avoid anti-trust laws). They cave in on every critical issue (from safety, pensions/insurance to free agency, salary caps, etc) and then spin it as a victory. With the shortest playing careers, the lowest average compensation, the worst long-term health issues arising out of their careers of any organized sports union, they might as well be a "company" or "house" union, controlled by the owners. It seems to me that football players are uniquely subservient to authority among athletes, trained in a nearly military fashion to obey authority, and so are ready to concede to management at every opportunity (and to cross their own strike line), to their own ongoing detriment. I'd feel bad for them if it wasn't their own freakin' fault. Plus, even if you are going to agree to a salary cap, you figure there would be some sort of mutually agreed-upon mechanism where the cap is strictly determined by a formula relating to (a hopefully honest) accounting of current revenues. But that above statement implies that the agreement is such where the league can unilaterally lower the cap across the board as a kind of punishment based on the actions of a few clubs which not only weren't against he rules (even the league acknowledges that) but occurred before the current agreement was even in place. IOW, we need your blessing to take this action which will effectively shrink the FA market a bit and therefore slightly depress your wages -- but if you don't agree we're going to take other actions which will cut your wages even more and for that we don't need your permission at all! Oh yeah, and, while we're at it, let's just continue to pretend that that whole "un-capped year" thing wasn't just a fiction all along.

metirish Mar 16 2012 04:55 PM Re: NFL Off-Season 2012

Denver Post reporting that the Broncos have tabled a five year $90 million deal for Manning. So much for Tebow eh?

Frayed Knot Mar 21 2012 03:20 PM Re: NFL Off-Season 2012

Meanwhile - as the Jets attempt to get around to actually reading Tebow's contract - the league has dropped the hammer on the NO Saints for "bounty-gate". - half-year suspension for the GM - a full year w/o pay for head coach Sean Payton (reportedly about $7.5 mil .... ooooh that's gotta hurt) - and an indefinite suspension for the defensive coach who supposedly was at the center of this whole thing. Apparently Goodell at least as upset over his view that the participants each lied and misled the commish about the specifics and/or their knowledge of the scheme.

metirish Mar 21 2012 04:01 PM Re: NFL Off-Season 2012

I never heard of "bounty-gate" until today,and I am probably naive here but the coaches and GM involved here should never be allowed to be part of the NFL again,I have no idea if this is common practice in the game but the idea that players would be enticed with money to injure opposition players in such a violent game is kind of sickening. Perhaps one of those players Peyton wanted injured ends up playing for him the following year, how does he look at that player? I don't know how "football people" can have any respect this lot with this carryon.

SteveJRogers Mar 21 2012 04:54 PM Re: NFL Off-Season 2012

metirish wrote: I never heard of "bounty-gate" until today,and I am probably naive here but the coaches and GM involved here should never be allowed to be part of the NFL again,I have no idea if this is common practice in the game but the idea that players would be enticed with money to injure opposition players in such a violent game is kind of sickening. Perhaps one of those players Peyton wanted injured ends up playing for him the following year, how does he look at that player? I don't know how "football people" can have any respect this lot with this carryon. Listening to Pros like the ESPN Crew talk about how this stuff was no biggie and happened all the time. It's also considerd somewhat common knowledge that Buddy Ryan's Eagles had bounties on members of the Dallas Cowboys.

Frayed Knot Mar 21 2012 05:00 PM Re: NFL Off-Season 2012

metirish wrote: I have no idea if this is common practice in the game but the idea that players would be enticed with money to injure opposition players in such a violent game is kind of sickening. Perhaps one of those players Peyton wanted injured ends up playing for him the following year, how does he look at that player? I don't know how "football people" can have any respect this lot with this carryon. I don't think anyone doubts that this sort of thing is common over virtually the entire history of the NFL whether it was specifically for cash payments or something less formal. What's driving this fuss over particular case and the suspensions coming from it are: - the NFL found, or was clued into, a specific paper/oral trail that led to coaches, named targets, and cash promises - that the league knows its QBs are a large part of their meal ticket and also the most likely targets of something like this and therefore have a large incentive to protect them - and mainly that there are already law-suits in the works from both recently and long-ago retired players over workman's comp type issues. If it ever were to get out that the league both knew about such a rogue program and chose not to do anything about it they'd have to cut oversized checks just to fit the extra zeros they'd have to put on there.

Ceetar Mar 21 2012 06:35 PM Re: NFL Off-Season 2012

the biggest issue is that they were told to stop. It's a murky line between rewarding sacks and rewarding injuring QBs. (Was there actually bonuses for appearances on the injury list?) But the real issue is the "respect my authority!" of the NFL being snubbed.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Mar 21 2012 09:34 PM Re: NFL Off-Season 2012

What Saints apologists fail to grasp is that there is a WORLD of difference between "everybody does it" and getting caught doing it, in a we-could-prove-this-in-court-if-we-had-to way. Similarly, hit-him-hard-and-let's-see-what-happens is one thing; make sure you nail him when he's looking the other way (as with Favre and Warner) if there's a turnover is quite another.

Frayed Knot Apr 26 2012 07:17 AM Re: NFL Off-Season 2012

Not that I have any intention of watching the NFL draft (it amazed me when I first found out that people actually arranged their schedules to do just that) but the amount of coverage ESPN gives this thing never ceases to astound me, especially the part before the thing even takes place. - Their coverage officially kicks off (ignoring the fact that half of each SportsCenter for the last week or more has essentially been draft coverage) at 3PM with 'SportsCenter Special', an hour-long preview of the upcoming draft - that's followed by an hour of 'NFL Live' which will consist of ... a draft preview - then at 5PM they follow with another 'SportsCenter Special' to preview the draft. So what'll be different about this one? Why it'll be longer of course, 2-1/2 hours worth of speculation to be precise. - at 7:30 'SportsCenter Special' gives way to ... 'SportsCenter Special'. The wrinkle here appears to be that this one is broadcast from the site and therefore presumably involves a different group of talking heads talking about the same stuff. - and finally at 8PM they actually get around to drafting players ... but not many players since the process of doing just the 1st round somehow manages to take 3-1/2 hours (assuming it doesn't run long). This marathon occurs even though they reduced the time-per-pick window a few years back and even though the first two picks are already decided and should take no time at all. Then they'll do the whole thing again tomorrow with a similar schedule ... and then again on Saturday

metirish Apr 26 2012 07:22 AM Re: NFL Off-Season 2012

Hilarious roundup...... will not be watching even one minute of this crap...

TransMonk Apr 26 2012 07:28 AM Re: NFL Off-Season 2012

There's very little drama about this draft since everyone has known who the first two picks are going to be for weeks now. I never watch the draft...it is the opposite of entertainment, but I will spend a good deal of time on Sunday getting the lowdown on all of the picks in all of the rounds.

Frayed Knot Apr 26 2012 08:17 AM Re: NFL Off-Season 2012

TransMonk wrote: I never watch the draft...it is the opposite of entertainment, but I will spend a good deal of time on Sunday getting the lowdown on all of the picks in all of the rounds. That's the thing; obviously the results of the draft are important to the teams and to fans. It's just this endless hours of speculation (hundreds of hours by the time things get going) before anything actually happens leading up to the watching-paint-dry pace of the "action" itself that I just don't get. Then there's the whole contradiction from the guys who hype this thing to death before turning around and voicing unanimous consensus that the players they've so drooled over as future stars and attractions need to be restricted as to when they can be eligible, have their pay capped to a fraction of what it would be if done on an open market, and locked into contracts that keep them away from FA-gency until after the length of the average career has expired ... but that's a whole separate discussion. "Opposite of entertainment"; that's the perfect description.

Mets – Willets Point Apr 26 2012 09:50 AM Re: NFL Off-Season 2012

Will the ESPN guys be using touchscreens to move around the names of potential draftees, because that is so exciting? Also, I hope there will be a at least 3 or 4 guys shouting while a clock ticks off the time to the next topic.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Apr 26 2012 09:55 AM Re: NFL Off-Season 2012

I wouldn't go so far as to say "opposite of entertainment;" considering all the money at play, quirks of this particular market, and that some teams seem consistently better or worse than others, the interest in teams' decision-making seems pretty justifiable. The problem with all the coverage-- and that of the WWL in particular-- is that it seems to get nowhere near the actual decision-making, or anything/anyone close to it, favoring hours snd hours of noisy speculation instead. (Fucking shocker.)

Vic Sage Apr 26 2012 02:53 PM Re: NFL Off-Season 2012

for people who love and follow college football, i can understand being interested and, yes, even entertained by the NFL draft. There is suspense -- a clock is ticking, and teams in turn reveal the mystery of which great college football stars go where. Of course, if you don't know and care about these players (and the further you go in the draft, the less likely even a college fan will know all the players), then its just about whether your team strikes it richl based on what all the "experts" have been opining for the last month about guys you don't know from a hole in the wall. And the crapshoot of players developing into stars (even 1st rounders) is such that the reaction fans generally have to the draft is totally disproportionate to both an accurate understanding of any players' actual value and the overall impact of the draft in and of itself. But the league has been extraordinarily successful in designing it as a TV event -- the panel of experts, the graphics, the ticking clock, the waiting athletes anxious to hear their names called surrounded by friends and family, the fortunes of athletes and teams riding on the next pick, and always the possibility of a blockbuster trade that could be announced by the commissioner at any moment -- they've really turned nothing into something. Not for everybody, sure, but then again neither are sports in general, or football in particular.

Ceetar Apr 27 2012 07:50 AM Re: NFL Off-Season 2012

I get that there may be some appeal to watching/enjoying the draft. I know I'm in the minority in enjoying speculation, I hate MLB trade discussions too before they're basically official. But I think it's absolutely pathetic with how much actual live sports, including tons of game-7 playoff action) went on yesterday, and the day before, that ESPN would exclusively give so much time to what's basically less than 2% of a roster discussion for a sport 5 months from the first game.

TransMonk Apr 27 2012 08:04 AM Re: NFL Off-Season 2012

I'm sure there are many sports fans that agree with you, but ESPN can't hear those objections over the sound of cash registers ringing. I've stopped going to any ESPN outlet for sports info. They have been out of touch with sports for a long time.

Ceetar Apr 27 2012 08:06 AM Re: NFL Off-Season 2012

TransMonk wrote: I'm sure there are many sports fans that agree with you, but ESPN can't hear those objections over the sound of cash registers ringing. I've stopped going to any ESPN outlet for sports info. They have been out of touch with sports for a long time. I only am 'exposed' these days via radio during my short commute to and from work. Oh, and I guess through Mark Simon who does a great job but he's a Mets fan so obviously he gets a pass.

Frayed Knot Apr 27 2012 08:09 AM Re: NFL Off-Season 2012

But I think it's absolutely pathetic with how much actual live sports, including tons of game-7 playoff action) went on yesterday, and the day before, that ESPN would exclusively give so much time to what's basically less than 2% of a roster discussion for a sport 5 months from the first game. Just remember the credo: Almost everything that is on ESPN is about what else is on ESPN

Ceetar Apr 27 2012 08:24 AM Re: NFL Off-Season 2012

But I think it's absolutely pathetic with how much actual live sports, including tons of game-7 playoff action) went on yesterday, and the day before, that ESPN would exclusively give so much time to what's basically less than 2% of a roster discussion for a sport 5 months from the first game. Just remember the credo: Almost everything that is on ESPN is about what else is on ESPN Perfect. I just wish more people ascribed to that instead of running with ESPN fabricated stories to the point that you can't figure out if it was a real story or not.

Frayed Knot Apr 30 2012 07:42 AM Re: NFL Off-Season 2012

Phil Mushnick: "It’s hard to concentrate on ESPN’s NFL Draft coverage when you keep waiting for Chris Berman to reach into his extra large jacket and pull out a seltzer bottle."

Frayed Knot May 28 2012 09:50 AM Re: NFL Off-Season 2012

Back for a minute to the topic which kicked off this thread -- the NFL Player's Assoc has now decided that in their opinion the league WAS enforcing a formal cap during the supposedly un-capped season of 2010 and have filed suit against the league for acting in collusion. That the union is doing this now just a few weeks after signing off on the league's punishment of the teams who violated the non-cap is because they "didn't suspect" collusion at the time. But, even though this seems on the surface to be the virtual definition of collusion, the union's problem in trying to win this case (over and above their constant incompetence and stupidity that is) is going to be that in signing last summer's agreement they essentially signed away any claims they might have regarding collusion by promising not to contest any disagreements from the previous agreement, disagreements that were (in language from the pact) “known and unknown, whether pending or not,”. So basically they're claiming that they got screwed on the old deal, agreed to similar things in the new deal, agreed in the new deal that they couldn't claim damages from being screwed in the old deal, and still have nine more years of this before they can even think of asking for changes.

MFS62 May 28 2012 05:44 PM Re: NFL Off-Season 2012

Frayed Knot wrote: So basically they're claiming that they got screwed on the old deal, agreed to similar things in the new deal, agreed in the new deal that they couldn't claim damages from being screwed in the old deal, and still have nine more years of this before they can even think of asking for changes. That makes it sound like they took too many hts to the head while waiting for rules about concussion protection, too. Later

The Second Spitter Jun 01 2012 01:52 AM Re: NFL Off-Season 2012

Wow, it's a long time since I heard a triple negative used in a sentence. I signed it two years ago. I'm not unhappy about nothing. Is he saying he's: - happy about nothing? - unhappy about something? Am I missing any other permutations.....

Frayed Knot Jun 14 2012 09:45 PM Re: NFL Off-Season 2012

There's so much about the NFL I don't understand, but a new one just jumped out at me this week. OK, teams have been having these OTAs (off-season training activities I think) over the last week or two. Apparently they're optional but of course football coaches have only slightly more power than a captain of a ship at sea and so they basically tell everyone that they have no chance os winning a job if they don't show up to them so that optional thing is really just a bunch of bullshit. Yeah, maybe Drew Brees can get away with it but he's one of the few. Then those are being followed by mini-camps. These are not optional and player participation in them is written into the CBA and it was a reduction in the number and/or length of these that the players 'won' in the last negotiations. All that stuff I understand. What I just learned that has me baffled is that the recently drafted rookies are participating in these --both the "voluntary" one and the required one-- even though many of them have yet to sign a contract!! I mean, what happens if one of these guys gets hurt? -- like if Andrew Luck runs into some bad luck, or if 'RG 3' rips up 3 ligaments in one of these? I mean I know there's no contact in these things (or is there?) but do the players actually think that the team --the only one they're allowed to negotiate with-- is going to offer them the same package that their agents are in the process of negotiating if a blown knee ligament suddenly enters the picture? And I certainly don't understand why an agent would allow a client to show up or how an employer can force not-yet employees to do something. But, like I said, there are so many things I just don't understand.

TransMonk Jun 15 2012 08:29 AM Re: NFL Off-Season 2012

Rookies can sign anytime after they are drafted. It seems to me it would be in their best interest to sign before these OTAs and minicamps, but I'm guessing their agents are trying to work out a better deal (even though the new rookie pay scale gives them very little wiggle room). I don't know for certain, but I'd imagine there is some sort of insurance for both the player and the team. The Redskins gave up 3 #1 draft picks for RGIII...they are going to sign him eventually, even if his arm falls off. But you are right, it could effect the bottom line for the player.

Nymr83 Jun 15 2012 10:20 AM Re: NFL Off-Season 2012

Are unsigned guys showing up to read the playbooks and watch practice or are they participating? I wouldn't participate until my agent worked the deal out. But then again if you are a 5/6/7 round pick you are trying to win a job, this isn't MLB where you are going to at least be on a minor league roster for a few years, some of the guys just drafted won't even see a training camp ever again.

TransMonk Jun 15 2012 10:52 AM Re: NFL Off-Season 2012

I know that RGIII is participating, but that it is non-contact. He is definitely moving his feet around and throwing deep balls, though. And he has not signed his contract...but again, with the price they have already paid for him, I'm sure the team is treating him with delicate gloves.

Frayed Knot Jun 15 2012 02:56 PM Re: NFL Off-Season 2012

TransMonk wrote: Rookies can sign anytime after they are drafted. It seems to me it would be in their best interest to sign before these OTAs and minicamps, but I'm guessing their agents are trying to work out a better deal (even though the new rookie pay scale gives them very little wiggle room). I don't know for certain, but I'd imagine there is some sort of insurance for both the player and the team. The Redskins gave up 3 #1 draft picks for RGIII...they are going to sign him eventually, even if his arm falls off. But you are right, it could effect the bottom line for the player. Of course this is not just about the Andrew Lucks and Robert Griffins of the world - I just used those two as examples and because they were the only rookies I could name. Sure those guys will still get deals done even if they manage to step wrong during some passing drill causing their knee to make some odd crunching sound as it folds unnaturally under them. Others though, it seems to me, wouldn't and I certainly can't see the NFL taking care of them anyway just because they're nice guys. Bottom line is, if you're going to hold your draft in April and then require those just-drafted souls to essentially start work, even if only intermittently, by June, then the sensible thing to do is to get them signed by some point during May. This system of 'employment limbo' just seems crazy for all involved but especially so on the players' side who already have few enough rights and power even after they have something on paper.

TransMonk Jun 15 2012 03:32 PM Re: NFL Off-Season 2012

Here is a list showing that half of the 2012 first round picks have signed. I don't have a link, but I am guessing the further the draftee is down the list, they more likely that they have already signed as well. http://www.nfl.com/draft/story/09000d5d ... ound-picks Also, I am almost 100% sure that those who have not signed have done so under their own decision making and not the power of the league or the teams.

Frayed Knot Jun 15 2012 04:36 PM Re: NFL Off-Season 2012

Well my point here wasn't to blame the failure of not having all players signed on the side of mgmt. By definition, any decision about whether or not to sign is a mutual one. I'm just saying that this seemingly accepted and unquestioned system of having mandatory activities that treat both players under contract and those that aren't as if there's no difference between the two seems, at best, goofy, and, at worst, crazy.

TransMonk Jun 16 2012 09:30 AM Re: NFL Off-Season 2012

I understand what you're saying and somewhat agree. The risk seems unbelievably high for players not signed. Here is an article from Friday, and while it is not specifically about the subject of unsigned rookies having to attend mandatory minicamps, it does state that the practices are strictly non-contact and that the NFL will dock teams practices if they find that there is any contact that they deem "illegal". http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nfl-shutd ... --nfl.html

The Second Spitter Jul 27 2012 09:19 AM Re: NFL Off-Season 2012

Need a kick/punt returner? Ben Barba is your man. He's a freak. (Note: offensive kicks are "live balls" in rugby league) [youtube:2kg2ehkd]rElWKCbMhSM[/youtube:2kg2ehkd] Sorry for the Off-topic-ish post, but I'm really gay for Barba at the moment.