Proposed new rules not enacted - problem for Bishop

Printable View

08-23-2012, 12:34 PM
MadScientist

Proposed new rules not enacted - problem for Bishop

The proposed new rules including pushing the trading deadline back 2 weeks and more importantly creating a IR spot that could allow 1 player to return later in the season will not be in effect for this season. The deal fell through because these rules were being tied to a practice rule change that the players would not accept.

The biggest impact is that the Packers can't stash Bishop on the half-season IR if they think there is a chance of him returning mid-season. They will either have to keep him on the 53, but inactive every week, or more likely just put him on IR for the season.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com...rules-changes/
08-23-2012, 12:47 PM
Guiness

Seems like this is like one of those financing bills that get voted down in the senate because there's a rider that would restrict gun ownership in Hazard county.
08-23-2012, 12:55 PM
Tony Oday

Oh did the teams ask for more than 5 padded practices in a year?
08-23-2012, 01:10 PM
hoosier

So much for seeing Desmond Bishop on the field in December. Rat finkles.
08-23-2012, 11:37 PM
gbgary

could be wrong but i think they've got until the 27th to get this done then it goes to the old ir rule.
08-24-2012, 12:11 AM
Lurker64

Quote:

Originally Posted by gbgary

could be wrong but i think they've got until the 27th to get this done then it goes to the old ir rule.

They could actually enact the rule as late as week 6 (the trade deadline too). It's just that it's in the NFLPA's best interest to approve the rule ASAP (before more player jobs are lost) which is what the NFL was banking on when they tried to push through the change to the practice rules.

The next deadline would be in time for the cutdown to 53.
08-24-2012, 08:48 AM
smuggler

There was an obnoxious quote from some union flunkie who basically said "Hey, this is two steps forward and one step back." Thus, the union won't agree.

First of all, isn't that a net gain? Secondly, does the Union really view "progress" as taking away everything from the league? Does it not know that neither part of the equation exists without the other?

Both sides are infuriating, but the league has better PR people.
08-24-2012, 08:52 AM
Harlan Huckleby

Bishop wasn't coming back this year anyway
08-24-2012, 09:23 AM
pbmax

Quote:

Originally Posted by smuggler

There was an obnoxious quote from some union flunkie who basically said "Hey, this is two steps forward and one step back." Thus, the union won't agree.

First of all, isn't that a net gain? Secondly, does the Union really view "progress" as taking away everything from the league? Does it not know that neither part of the equation exists without the other?

Both sides are infuriating, but the league has better PR people.

Its a negotiation. Of course one side views the other gain as their loss. The key is to allow the other side to think its getting a big win when its really getting less than it thinks.

In this case the question is who got greedy? The original story was that the NFLPA wanted a concession for agreeing. But I never heard what that concession was. The only specific is a the League request you mention about practice rules. But was that the original bone of contention or was it a counter offer?
08-24-2012, 09:24 AM
rbaloha1

Bummer.

Maybe DB's career is over. Fortunately the backup depth is performing nicely.
08-24-2012, 12:49 PM
Patler

Quote:

Originally Posted by rbaloha1

Bummer.

Maybe DB's career is over. Fortunately the backup depth is performing nicely.

I have been surprised that this possibility hasn't been mentioned much. As I recall, a torn hamstring is what ended Mark D'Onofrio's career, after he won a starting LB spot as a rookie. Hopefully, things are better now, and/or Bishop's wasn't as severe. I remember when D'Onofrio was injured, it was feared to be potentially catastrophic almost immediately. Long time ago, however.
08-24-2012, 01:08 PM
MadScientist

Quote:

Originally Posted by pbmax

Its a negotiation. Of course one side views the other gain as their loss. The key is to allow the other side to think its getting a big win when its really getting less than it thinks.

In this case the question is who got greedy? The original story was that the NFLPA wanted a concession for agreeing. But I never heard what that concession was. The only specific is a the League request you mention about practice rules. But was that the original bone of contention or was it a counter offer?

The rule change proposals (IR, trades) came from the owners, so I don't see how a practice change could be in a counter offer, since there has been no mention of the players asking for anything specific. Neither of these proposals are all that beneficial to the union, though they might help some players. Adding more padded practices late in the season (which seems to be the what the owners wanted, although no details have been providied) is of course a negative for players. Considering fewer practices and fewer padded practices were about all the players really got out of the last CBA, they are not going to be eager to undo some of those rules.
08-24-2012, 01:17 PM
pbmax

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patler

I have been surprised that this possibility hasn't been mentioned much. As I recall, a torn hamstring is what ended Mark D'Onofrio's career, after he won a starting LB spot as a rookie. Hopefully, things are better now, and/or Bishop's wasn't as severe. I remember when D'Onofrio was injured, it was feared to be potentially catastrophic almost immediately. Long time ago, however.

Some folks tok M3's acknowledgement that Bishop might fit on the amended IR as an indication his prognosis was not as bad as it could have been.

But since they have released zero details or timetable and McCarthy has guilded the lily before on player issues, I would expect that a career ender might not have been ruled out yet. But I expect they already know the prognosis as they mentioned that surgery would reveal the extent of the damage.
08-24-2012, 02:31 PM
Patler

Quote:

Originally Posted by MadScientist

The rule change proposals (IR, trades) came from the owners, so I don't see how a practice change could be in a counter offer, since there has been no mention of the players asking for anything specific. Neither of these proposals are all that beneficial to the union, though they might help some players. Adding more padded practices late in the season (which seems to be the what the owners wanted, although no details have been providied) is of course a negative for players. Considering fewer practices and fewer padded practices were about all the players really got out of the last CBA, they are not going to be eager to undo some of those rules.

If you go back to when the owners voted on the trade deadline and IR changes, the other issue that was voted on, passed and planned to be submitted to the NFLPA for approval was the requirement for thigh pads in 2013. I remember discussion about an added padded practice or two later in the season, but I don't recall it even being voted on by the owners.
08-24-2012, 04:35 PM
Fritz

I did not know anybody remembered Mark D'onofrio. I had high hopes for the Penn State linebacker, but he never made it out of training camp. I believe he was a 2nd or 3rd round pick of Wolf's early in his tenure.
08-24-2012, 07:49 PM
Patler

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fritz

I did not know anybody remembered Mark D'onofrio. I had high hopes for the Penn State linebacker, but he never made it out of training camp. I believe he was a 2nd or 3rd round pick of Wolf's early in his tenure.

I think he was hurt in the first regular season game. I was excited about him. Then, it all came to a crashing end.