Official NFL Notes 2015

[mraynrand]

I've been wondering that also. If I was an NFL player and they were suspending guys for using steroids and HGH, I wouldn't want the NFLPA to defend those guys. They are taking away my money by using illegal substances to improve their performance. That hurts my production verses other players and lowers my value.

or forcing you to take risks to stay competitive. But having the NFLPA go against players might be seen to weaken the NFLPA, and to weaken player rights. It's a fine line to walk.

[sharpe1027]

or forcing you to take risks to stay competitive. But having the NFLPA go against players might be seen to weaken the NFLPA, and to weaken player rights. It's a fine line to walk.

I think they are firmly on one side of the line: Oppose the NFL front office in favor of individuals, even if it might be short-sighted and detrimental to players as a whole.

[pbmax]

I think they are firmly on one side of the line: Oppose the NFL front office in favor of individuals, even if it might be short-sighted and detrimental to players as a whole.

I don't think that's been the case for quite some time. All the recent cases have been about the Player Conduct Policy, which in retrospect, was constructed and approved in a short-sighted and ill conceived manner, even if all agreed on the overall purpose.

Last time the NFLPA was involved in a PED case that challenged the ruling was Star Caps I think. All the other stuff is procedural. And if I am not mistaken (not a good bet this week) the NFLPA was very reluctant on this, the players themselves initiated the suit with David Cornwall I think.

Outside of those, the other obvious one is BountyGate. And it was an ex-commissioner who pulled the rug out from Roger on that one, it wasn't the Courts. Though the NFLPA wanted neutral arbitration on that one. Not exactly short sighted there either.

If you want to see where the NFLPA's loyalties lie, watch them march with the League on the concussion settlement, because their future was on the line too. Several of the lawsuits named both the NFL and NFLPA jointly as defendants.

[sharpe1027]

I don't think that's been the case for quite some time. All the recent cases have been about the Player Conduct Policy, which in retrospect, was constructed and approved in a short-sighted and ill conceived manner, even if all agreed on the overall purpose.

Last time the NFLPA was involved in a PED case that challenged the ruling was Star Caps I think. All the other stuff is procedural. And if I am not mistaken (not a good bet this week) the NFLPA was very reluctant on this, the players themselves initiated the suit with David Cornwall I think.

Outside of those, the other obvious one is BountyGate. And it was an ex-commissioner who pulled the rug out from Roger on that one, it wasn't the Courts. Though the NFLPA wanted neutral arbitration on that one. Not exactly short sighted there either.

If you want to see where the NFLPA's loyalties lie, watch them march with the League on the concussion settlement, because their future was on the line too. Several of the lawsuits named both the NFL and NFLPA jointly as defendants.

I think you missed the mark with this one. They have always picked their battles, and perhaps you are correct that they are more selective now. That really wasn't the point.

When was the last time they did anything close to pushing for an increased suspension for a player, or some other positive action that that would be in the benefit of the players as a whole, but to the detriment of an individual?

[pbmax]

I think you missed the mark with this one. They have always picked their battles, and perhaps you are correct that they are more selective now. That really wasn't the point.

When was the last time they did anything close to pushing for an increased suspension for a player, or some other positive action that that would be in the benefit of the players as a whole, but to the detriment of an individual?

1. Agreed to Personal Conduct Policy - done outside the CBA negotiations
2. Agreed to PED Policy
3. Agreed with medical clearance rules for players with head injuries

Asking the PA to stand up for an individual player to get increased sanctions is counter productive, both logically and as a negotiation tactic. The PA work best when the rules are uniformly applied, at worst, players are uniformly miserable. Singling out an individual would also haunt the PA because a new precedent wold be set without negotiation.

Do you think the game is actually more dangerous because Suh wasn't suspended? Same with Pacman? Each has been suspended and fined. Only Pacman has shown signs of changing.

[sharpe1027]

1. Agreed to Personal Conduct Policy - done outside the CBA negotiations
2. Agreed to PED Policy
3. Agreed with medical clearance rules for players with head injuries

Asking the PA to stand up for an individual player to get increased sanctions is counter productive, both logically and as a negotiation tactic. The PA work best when the rules are uniformly applied, at worst, players are uniformly miserable. Singling out an individual would also haunt the PA because a new precedent wold be set without negotiation.

Do you think the game is actually more dangerous because Suh wasn't suspended? Same with Pacman? Each has been suspended and fined. Only Pacman has shown signs of changing.

Do you think Morris and other players would be within their rights to want to get that kind of bush league stuff out of the game? Is that really counter productive to ask for a second review if the players, other than Suh, felt the head office got it wrong?

Maybe this isn't the best case for it, but the concept shouldn't be too hard to grasp. What if Morris had his career ended by a concussion fr the hit? Who would the players associatiin back in a lawsuit? What if the intent was much easier to see? What if the next guy Suh takes a cheap shot on gets seriously hurt and sues the NFL for allowing it to continue without sufficient punishment? At what point does it stop being counter productive?

[mraynrand]

Asking the PA to stand up for an individual player to get increased sanctions is counter productive, both logically and as a negotiation tactic. The PA work best when the rules are uniformly applied, at worst, players are uniformly miserable. Singling out an individual would also haunt the PA because a new precedent wold be set without negotiation.

This is gobbledy gook. It's not hard at all to see how all your so-called counter-productive, equally miserable, and un-negotiated 'new precedents' could be uniformly applied to the punishment of obvious and repeated thuggish behavior.