Official NFL Notes 2015

[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.

[pbmax]

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.

If it were me, I would want the NFLPA to stand up and force the NFL to live up to the letter of the agreement. So that nothing unexpected happens to me if I find out Twix has a natural diuretic in it. That is what I would expect.

I am not sure Aaron Rodgers wants the PED users on his O line to get what's coming to them for being naughty. So the folks who want PEDs gone are outnumbered by users and those that benefit directly.

People view this issue entirely differently in the NFL than they do in baseball. The last time there was outrage about the size of NFL players, it was around Refrigerator Perry's rookie year. Its also interesting to note that not a lot of NFL players are undersized now like they became in baseball. The entire game changed there after testing was announced. Football not so much.

[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.

[smuggler]

PED policy and medical clearance policies are better for the players than the league. It doesn't matter if the PA is too dumb to fucking understand it.

[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.

[pbmax]

Would they be within their rights? Sure.

Would it be supported? I doubt it. In general, players in any sport prefer to police that stuff themselves. And that was true long before Goodell came on the scene and its not limited to football. It would need to be a far more grievous case to turn around that sentiment.

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.

The policy and power to act against Suh and Jones already exist. That, if PFT's read is right, is what makes this odd. There is no need for new precedent. And the League has been busy for years now under Goodell demonstrating how they prefer not to be limited by uniformity and precedent.

[sharpe1027]

Would they be within their rights? Sure.

Would it be supported? I doubt it. In general, players in any sport prefer to police that stuff themselves. And that was true long before Goodell came on the scene and its not limited to football. It would need to be a far more grievous case to turn around that sentiment.



The policy and power to act against Suh and Jones already exist. That, if PFT's read is right, is what makes this odd. There is no need for new precedent. And the League has been busy for years now under Goodell demonstrating how they prefer not to be limited by uniformity and precedent.

You're kind of all over the place. Whether it would be supported doesn't mean it would be counter productive. So, why exactly is seeking a review on a decision like Suh's counter productive if they believe he was guilty of an infraction against one of their other players?

[pbmax]

You're kind of all over the place. Whether it would be supported doesn't mean it would be counter productive. So, why exactly is seeking a review on a decision like Suh's counter productive if they believe he was guilty of an infraction against one of their other players?

Because seeking a review would undermine player support of the PA.

And the League already has tools to do this for in game conduct. You would need a far more egregious case for player sentiment to switch to push for harsher penalties.

[mraynrand]

Because seeking a review would undermine player support of the PA.

And the League already has tools to do this for in game conduct. You would need a far more egregious case for player sentiment to switch to push for harsher penalties.

Not necessarily. How about just a repetitive pattern by the same guy? It's not like there are thirty guys running around taking cheap shots. It's one guy - maybe another guy here and there. So if there is a complaint (and we don't know if there is or isn't, I think), then review it and see if the guy deserves a fine or suspension, even if it goes beyond the 'strict' rules agreed upon - there is some room for discretion. As long as it isn't capricious, and addresses a serious and/or recurring problem, I don't think there will be significant push back or loss of support for PA, because it's a case of protecting other players.

[pbmax]

Not necessarily. How about just a repetitive pattern by the same guy? It's not like there are thirty guys running around taking cheap shots. It's one guy - maybe another guy here and there. So if there is a complaint (and we don't know if there is or isn't, I think), then review it and see if the guy deserves a fine or suspension, even if it goes beyond the 'strict' rules agreed upon - there is some room for discretion. As long as it isn't capricious, and addresses a serious and/or recurring problem, I don't think there will be significant push back or loss of support for PA, because it's a case of protecting other players.

I just don't see the evidence of support for such a move. Other action has gotten loud support (Personal Conduct, PEDs) from player quarters that helped carry the day publicly. This doesn't.

And am I nuts or did the Packer players also downplay what they wanted to have happen to Suh when he stomped on EDS/had his shoes untied by EDS?

But the idea of escalation in the face of repeat offenders is already a feature of the policy. In fact, that is the part of the PFT speculation I agree with. While neither incident is the worst of either player's career (though from some of the things I have read about Jones, he seems to have made a sincere effort to reform that is lacking with Suh), the fact that this is repeat in-game conduct with no suspensions is the surprise.

I just don't think there is an appetite among the players to go after other players. Probably closer to never than occasionally. If the issue blossoms like the others have, then the thinking may change.

[mraynrand]

I just don't see the evidence of support for such a move. Other action has gotten loud support (Personal Conduct, PEDs) from player quarters that helped carry the day publicly. This doesn't.

well, honestly, it's not a big issue. It's maybe one or two guys. So it seems pretty straightforward that if there's a bad actor, it shouldn't be difficult to punish appropriately and more severely than whatever the standard is without 'scaring' people about some change in the power structure.

[sharpe1027]

Because seeking a review would undermine player support of the PA.

And the League already has tools to do this for in game conduct. You would need a far more egregious case for player sentiment to switch to push for harsher penalties.

I think you are looking at this the wrong way. It is not about policy or precedent, it is about their finding that there was no intent in Suh's action. The PA would not be seeking a harsher fine, just a review of the factual finding. The league could do whatever they wanted in terms of following precedent and fines or suspension.

[pbmax]

I think a review for intent is inherently an exercise in futility. And unless grievous enough to demand action to prevent being overrun by public opinion, players aren't going to want the NFLPA to push for more investigations. Perhaps a case could be made to conduct interviews in all cases, to get people on the record.

But I would actually prefer they pursue this:

ProFootballTalk ‏@ProFootballTalk 33m33 minutes ago
Pacman's helmet antics were preceded by a throat punch from Cooper (but Jones still should have been suspended) http://wp.me/p14QSB-9R5Z

I can see a player argument for getting the details right. Not all sources of conflict can be verified, but if you've got film and it wasn't called on the field, there should be a FedEx envelope at that player's locker on Friday.

[Joemailman]

Jameis Winston's first NFL pass was intercepted and returned for a touchdown. The last to have that happen? Brett Favre. So, depending on how you look at it, his career either got off to a terrible start or a great one.

[pbmax]

Read this explanation of Manning/Kubiak struggles with their offense. Tell me the section on Manning being skittish in the pocket doesn't remind you of later period Favre.

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/writer/...to-new-offense

The scouts detailed a template for defending Manning that has become increasingly common and other teams are expected to replicate when possible. Manning is becoming increasingly wary of being hit, they said.

“He hates anticipated pressure and he's playing skittish in the pocket,” as one scout described it.

“He's going to protect himself,” this scout went on to say. “If the pocket is totally clean and he can get his entire body into the throw, he can still throw a fastball when he needs to. If there's pressure, or he perceives there is pressure, then he's going to go down pretty quickly.”

Brett wouldn't go down quick, but he would throw it quick, whether the route and coverage demanded it or not.

[pbmax]

PFT and the agent for Joe Thomas deliver a smackdown on Ian Rapoport. Rap Sheet had reported that the Thomas trade to the Broncos fell apart over guaranteed money demands by Thomas before agreeing to report. His agent (Peter Schaffer) responded on the record that the deal never reached contract language questions as the team's never agreed to compensation. "The word guarantee never came up...."

“I never asked for any re-do of the contract,” Schaffer said. “The Broncos never asked to do anything with the contract. We never asked for guaranteed money. The whole thing is made up.”

Its rare for an agent to put their name on a report like this and it lends credibility. Its hard to read how that Rapoport story is bad for Thomas. He doesn't want to leave Cleveland unless the remaining three years of his deal get guaranteed and he goes to a contender. I tend to believe the agent in this case, even though RapSheet has been spot on about a lot of other reports (esp. Packers).

[pbmax]

Ian Rapoport ‏@RapSheet 5m5 minutes ago
#Browns coach Mike Pettine tipped his hand on making the Johnny Manziel the starter this week, lauding his progress. Now he gets the season

[pbmax]