Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Everything Gridiron

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • I just cant help but feel that the NFL just runs on sleazy business practices. This is probably the richest sports league in the world and some of their historical outreach to "share the wealth" more equitably with the players playing a brutally physical game (and hence short lived careers) is head shaking.

    The worst example is how they tried to bamboozle the retired/injured players mostly suffering from dementia and head related injuries from a decent settlement. That a judge had to vacate an agreed to judgement is telling in the case where the lawyers for the players were going to make off like bandits in their fees for agreeing to some very questionable clauses in the settlement.

    If there is a sport which should treat their injured players with much more workplace decorum it is the NFL.

    Comment


    • It's probably no different than show business. That's pretty cut throat as well but yeah, in comparison to the NBA, the NFL does not have much there protecting the players financially. Then again, one could question whether the NFL is able to produce a much more successful business because it is not weighed down with deadbeat contracts on each team.

      I like the fact that NFL players have to earn their money through production, it's the way society works best. What I don't like is when GM's try to twist contracts to screw players over and save a few bucks instead of being honest and honoring the spirit of the contract.

      Comment


      • Apollo wrote: View Post
        It's probably no different than show business. That's pretty cut throat as well but yeah, in comparison to the NBA, the NFL does not have much there protecting the players financially. Then again, one could question whether the NFL is able to produce a much more successful business because it is not weighed down with deadbeat contracts on each team.

        I like the fact that NFL players have to earn their money through production, it's the way society works best. What I don't like is when GM's try to twist contracts to screw players over and save a few bucks instead of being honest and honoring the spirit of the contract.
        I as well am inclined towards "pay for production". However what I notice in many many circumstances is that because of the adversarial nature inherent in the system both sides (ownership/mgmt and worker groups) constantly jockey for the upper hand. This of course, depending on the power dynamic at any given time within these groups, leads to the type of injustices we have been discussing. And of course as always, the major issue is money. As I see it, unbiased arbitration (difficult) is probably the only reasonable answer.

        Getting back to the injury issue, I saw this article this morning which is eerily coincidental to my previous note in many ways.
        We actually have a 24 yr old LB giving up the game/retiring...


        http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...e-nfl/?hpid=z1

        Comment


        • Apollo wrote: View Post
          Anyway, I'm just hearing about this T Rich fiasco. Somehow this one got past me.

          So let me get this straight. The guy misses a meeting or practice and the team flight due to an emergency involving his PREGNANT girlfriend. They chose to suspend him two games for that, release him and argue they don't need to pay my him $3M for his final year on his guaranteed rookie contract?

          That is ridiculous. Yeah he's a disappointing player, yeah the Colts were stupid and got hosed by the Browns in the deal (seriously? That's like getting duped by a toddler) but it's time for them to man the hell up. Pay the man and let him walk.

          If you put Andrew Luck in that same situation there would be a press conference about how thankful they are that his girlfriend was OK. This was all clearly the Colts taking advantage of a series of unfortunate events to save $3M. I think they lose the grievance and walk away looking like insensitive assholes.

          Sent from my Note 3 using Tapatalk
          yeah, it's weird this isn't bigger news. indy's higher-ups are notoriously retarded. their GM is one of the worst in the league and their owner is basically an older charlie sheen who happens to own a football team.
          @sweatpantsjer

          Comment


          • Bendit wrote: View Post
            I as well am inclined towards "pay for production". However what I notice in many many circumstances is that because of the adversarial nature inherent in the system both sides (ownership/mgmt and worker groups) constantly jockey for the upper hand. This of course, depending on the power dynamic at any given time within these groups, leads to the type of injustices we have been discussing. And of course as always, the major issue is money. As I see it, unbiased arbitration (difficult) is probably the only reasonable answer.

            Getting back to the injury issue, I saw this article this morning which is eerily coincidental to my previous note in many ways.
            We actually have a 24 yr old LB giving up the game/retiring...


            http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...e-nfl/?hpid=z1
            Yeah, I read that this morning as well. He choosing to retire because he's had two concussions confirmed already. I think he's rare in terms of opting to pass on the money but I think concussions are common. Really if you've played any contact sports you have a good chance of taking a good shot to the head at some point. I've been hit really hard playing hockey and had a concussion and they're not fun... If I understand correctly, the danger is not one or two concussions, the danger is in repeated trama like that to the head over a period of time. He's probably making the wise choice if he plans on living a long, healthy life but I don't think it's going to suddenly become a popular choice.

            It was also a swift kick to the 49ers groin. Now they're down two starting LBs in only a couple weeks.

            ceez wrote: View Post
            yeah, it's weird this isn't bigger news. indy's higher-ups are notoriously retarded. their GM is one of the worst in the league and their owner is basically an older charlie sheen who happens to own a football team.
            And the owner is a junky trying to recover. He's also a guy who notoriously called out Peyton Manning for only winning one Super Bowl for him. Please...

            Comment


            • man i forgot about that. what a joke.

              it's pretty insane when you think about how good the colts could be if the GM had a clue to what he was doing. Grigson is terrible.
              @sweatpantsjer

              Comment


              • Dumb & Dumber Tree

                In other T-Rich news, he's signed a two year deal with the Raiders. Surprises, surprise, of all the teams in the league its the Raiders signing the guy everyone else knows is a bust.

                In other news(rumors), the Browns are offering the 19th overall pick for Sam Bradford. If I'm the Eagles I take the damn pick. Like taking candy from a baby. It would essentially be turning Nick Foles into a mid-first round pick. Who seriously thought that would even be possible?

                Comment


                • is he a bust though? that's the question. he was absolutely dominant throughout college and that was even when he was the only weapon on offense. the browns are the browns and the colts o-line is terrible PLUS we talked earlier about how he was treated. would you play hard for them?

                  i'm not saying he isn't a bust, but considering we got him for dirt cheap i don't mind the pickup at all. we need a short yardage back and if that's all he ever is then fine.
                  @sweatpantsjer

                  Comment


                  • re: bradford/browns is they traded him now they wouldn't have to give the rams their second round pick either.
                    @sweatpantsjer

                    Comment


                    • ceez wrote: View Post
                      is he a bust though? that's the question. he was absolutely dominant throughout college and that was even when he was the only weapon on offense. the browns are the browns and the colts o-line is terrible PLUS we talked earlier about how he was treated. would you play hard for them?

                      i'm not saying he isn't a bust, but considering we got him for dirt cheap i don't mind the pickup at all. we need a short yardage back and if that's all he ever is then fine.
                      It's not a question of talent, it's a question of health.

                      For example, who would have traded for Bo Jackson in 1991? Arguably the most gifted athlete of all-time didn't matter anymore with a busted body.

                      If Bradford has another major season ending injury that might be it for him. I know last season was totally devastating for him after all the hard work he put in to come back. He's the Greg Oden of the NFL(you know, minus the domestic violence).

                      Comment


                      • wait, are you saying richardson is a health concern?
                        @sweatpantsjer

                        Comment


                        • Cowboys get Greg Hardy with a 1 year deal. Finally some pressure on opposing QB's...

                          http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com...-with-cowboys/

                          Comment


                          • ceez wrote: View Post
                            wait, are you saying richardson is a health concern?
                            No, I'm saying Bradford is a huge health concern.

                            Comment


                            • Mack North wrote: View Post
                              Cowboys get Greg Hardy with a 1 year deal. Finally some pressure on opposing QB's...

                              http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com...-with-cowboys/
                              Read this just now:
                              The NFL has undertaken its own investigation to answer a simple question: What happened? Despite the potentially lucrative deal with the Cowboys, if Hardy did what he was convicted of last summer -- assaulting and threatening to kill a woman -- then he has violated the NFL's code of conduct policy, both the old one and the new one.

                              The NFL has run into trouble recently in the discipline meted out to Rice and running back Adrian Peterson. Rice won his appeal because his penalty was changed from two games to an indefinite suspension. Peterson won his appeal because he was disciplined under the new policy for alleged child abuse that occurred when the old, more lenient policy was in effect.

                              If the NFL is going to get the Hardy suspension right, it needs to stick with whatever the initial suspension is. But even under the old policy, that number could have been six games, which was what Ben Roethlisberger first received after sexual assault allegations in Georgia.

                              Teams had known Hardy could face additional discipline. It may be why the Tampa Bay Buccaneers dropped out of the Hardy sweepstakes earlier on Thursday. "At the end of the day, we didn't feel good about it," Bucs general manager Jason Licht said to the Tampa Bay Times.

                              But Hardy got a second chance before he was even disciplined for his first infraction. Cowboys owner Jerry Jones took a different tack in his statement after the Hardy signing.

                              "Obviously a great deal of our study was dedicated to the issue of domestic violence, and the recent events that associated Greg with that issue," Jones said in the statement. "We know that Greg's status remains under review by the National Football League. Our organization understands the very serious nature of domestic violence in our society and in our league. We know that Greg has a firm understanding of those issues as well."

                              But the contract tells a different story. Whether Jones admits it or not, he's hedging his bet with Hardy.

                              Keep in mind that team owners watched as the Panthers paid Hardy roughly $13 million not to play as he sat on the commissioner's exempt list in 2014. So Hardy's new contract insulated the Cowboys from that risk by only paying him for games played. If Hardy encountered future legal trouble, the Cowboys wouldn't have to pay as he potentially returned to the exempt list.

                              The bigger message is that talent still trumps character in the NFL, no matter how many PowerPoint tutorials on domestic violence that players have to sit through. There's a new message, but it's an old calculus.

                              So all that's left, really, is the suspension.
                              http://espn.go.com/espnw/news-commen...laying-cowboys

                              Comment


                              • Owners to discuss 23 rules proposals

                                The committee Wednesday outlined 23 proposed changes to rules and procedures, which will be discussed and voted on at next week's meetings. Nineteen of the proposed rules changes were submitted by teams, with the other four proposed by the competition committee.
                                a rule change that would allow teams to try for a "bonus" point after a successful 2-point conversion
                                I find this one really interesting but I'm not sold. Personally, I wish the kick after the TD were eliminated and replaced with a mandatory two point conversion. The free kick is boring and almost always made; it's not adding anything to the game.
                                The committee is presenting a proposal by the Detroit Lions that would permit the instant replay system to correct an officiating error. That would include such controversial calls as pass interference.
                                I think the pass interference challenge is a great idea because I witnessed a bunch of bullshit calls go against the Packers and for the Packers last season. Pass interference calls can be huge game changing events. More on challenges:

                                The New England Patriots proposed everything except scoring plays or turnovers can be challenged.
                                Washington suggested increasing a coach's challenges from two to three, regardless of whether he is successful on an early challenge.
                                Here is one of the best ideas:
                                Also to be discussed in Phoenix is a proposal by the Patriots to place fixed cameras on all boundary lines. That would guarantee coverage of the goal lines, end lines and sidelines, regardless of where network cameras are positioned.
                                So you have fixed cameras hanging in the endzone, sort of like the net cam in the NHL. One of the issues with challenges around the endzone right now is that the camera angles can be deceiving or not offer enough to overrule a call which may be wrong.

                                Anyway, the list can be found here in the article: http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/12...ings-next-week

                                Most of these, maybe all, will be rejected like always.

                                Then the playoffs discussion:

                                In addition to these proposals, the owners are expected to discuss expanded playoffs and the "catch-or-no-catch" rule, though specifics on those rules will not be publicly released until the owners receive them Monday. Owners will also consider four bylaws changes and one resolution at the meetings.
                                I think the playoffs is fine. Don't mess with the playoffs...

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X