I LOVE Mark Murphy!

[pbmax]

It's very simple. Just because a guy plays in the league for 3-4 years, or even 10 or 12 years, the league isn't responsible for his complete care and feeding the rest of his life. Medical/health is a separate issue for evaluation; but Murphy is correct that by doing too much for them you can stifle their ambitions for a post playing career. The NFL has made strides in encouraging their second careers and has off-season programs for training. Perhaps they should do more of that.

Then why did the League offer the entire ball of wax? Increased pensions and health care. The players were not going to strike because of any benefits issues, or money to return to college. This was not a player motivated issue. It is also wrong to look at this as a League only expense. Players will be shunting some of what would be salary to pension plans and still contributing to the health coverage. Its not a freebie for either side.

The owners were happy to pay for the increased benefits to recover salary dollars now. I suspect they also were eager to do this to insulate themselves against lawsuits by players with problems associated with head injuries or other chronic conditions. The increased benefits will reduce the pool of possible complaints and help defend against those who might still file.

But what I don't understand is the abject swallowing of the line that players are less motivated in their post playing careers because of increased money or benefits. Everyone seems to accept this as fact. I would love to see some numbers because I suspect this is the assumption of old people passing judgement on young people.

[Noodle]

I guess me and pbmax should just get a room, because I agree with every dang thing he says.

But what really worries me is that this suggests that Murp is kind of clueless and utterly tone deaf. Why in the world bring up an issue that, due to the offer by the owners, wasn't even on the table? How was this supposed to move the ball forward? Why create something new to fight about when you've already got plenty to discuss? This is just dumb negotiating and is not the kind of reasoned position (we want everyone to walk away satisfied or this is a failure) that Kraft, whose wife was dying, contributed to negotiations.

And while I agree with others that the players have been kind of thin-skinned, have you actually read the crap that Jones and Richardson spewed. Condescending as hell. As were Murph's comments.

I expect more from the Head Packer. I certainly believe Harlan would never have said something as unproductive and boneheaded as this.

[Scott Campbell]

Months ago I said that players were being ridiculously over-sensitive to remarks by Richardson and Jones, and I would say the same thing about Murphy's comments.

I think they just manufactured a little artificial outrage for the sake of negotiations.

[pbmax]

I think they just manufactured a little artificial outrage for the sake of negotiations.

Perhaps. But Jones and Richardson both got called out publicly and stayed in the room, with Jason Witten (not exactly a disinterested party as its his owner) crediting him with moving the talks toward a successful conclusion.

Murphy was never called out publicly and then firmly banished according all available public reports. Just from the tone, it sounds like Murphy committed the greater sin and received the greater punishment.

However, the owners could have viewed him as counterproductive (they were dangling better retirement benefits in their offer as inducement to an agreement while he was dismissing them as counterproductive). Or he was simply expendable. The Steelers and Chiefs seemed to take the Packers seat at the table.

[Patler]

What did Murphy really say? That it is good for a 35 year old ex-player to have incentives to work and if you give them too much they do not have those incentives. His mention of health coverage was casual, at worst. He mentioned other aspects of their retirement packages as well. He said nothing different than what Bill Gates said about his own kids and the wealth he will/won't pass on to them.

I still think players expected him to be on their side, and they view him as a "turncoat".

Concern about what Murphy said is a big to-do about nothing, in my opinion.

[pbmax]

What did Murphy really say? That it is good for a 35 year old ex-player to have incentives to work and if you give them too much they do not have those incentives. His mention of health coverage was casual, at worst. He mentioned other aspects of their retirement packages as well. He said nothing different than what Bill Gates said about his own kids and the wealth he will/won't pass on to them.

I still think players expected him to be on their side, and they view him as a "turncoat".

Concern about what Murphy said is a big to-do about nothing, in my opinion.

Possibly seen as a turncoat, but the oldest active, retired player that I have seen involved in the NFLPA to date in Cornelius Bennett, who was drafted 3 years after Murphy retired.

He was speaking directly to the status of negotiations with players, which terms were wise and what might not be possible. As a member of the NFL Management Council (or whatever the name of the owner body responsible for labor negotiation is called now), his voice counted.

In terms of a priority list, the non-contextual and non-factual contention that better retirement benefits would hurt players couldn't have been higher than 90th on his list of things that were necessary to accomplish to successfully conclude negotiations.

In fact, the more I consider this, I think the owners probably were none too pleased that he was bad mouthing one of the carrots they were dangling.

[Noodle]

Patler, mayber you're right. But consider this. These negotiations were the first opportunity we've had a chance to see the Murph in action. Because of his past experience as a player during a strike, he was in a unique position to serve as a bridge owner, a guy who might be able to work with both sides to get something done. And as the head of the league's premier small-market team, it was potentially crucial for him to play a significant role.

And what did he do with this opportunity? He shat fiercely upon himself. He trots out a flatly ridiculous comparison between Lombardi era guys and today's players (without, as pbmax notes, any facts to suggest one cohort has done better post-NFL than the other). And he then says that giving guys 5 years of post-NFL health insurance is somehow going to disincent them from getting a job. Putting aside the logical and factual absurdity of this observation, his side had already made the 5-year offer and length of health insurance wasn't even an issue in negotiations. Epic. Fail.

I want my Head Packer to be savvy. I don't need him to grandstand or get in the press, but I want him to be respected. And most of all I want him to be a leader in all things NFL, because the interests of the Pack can't be represented if he's not in the discussion mix. During the biggest negotiations the league will have for the next (I hope) 10 years, the Head Packer was asked to leave the room. If he were a player, he'd be cut.

[Smidgeon]

What did Murphy really say? That it is good for a 35 year old ex-player to have incentives to work and if you give them too much they do not have those incentives. His mention of health coverage was casual, at worst. He mentioned other aspects of their retirement packages as well. He said nothing different than what Bill Gates said about his own kids and the wealth he will/won't pass on to them.

I still think players expected him to be on their side, and they view him as a "turncoat".

Concern about what Murphy said is a big to-do about nothing, in my opinion.

This is my opinion as well. It sounded to me like he was just trying to see the issue from another angle and hadn't completely fleshed out the idea. Maybe he should have kept the idea to himself, maybe not. It didn't sound like he was trying to cram it down anyone's throat.

But it does make me surprised to hear that he was "banned" from then on...

[Smidgeon]

Possibly seen as a turncoat, but the oldest active, retired player that I have seen involved in the NFLPA to date in Cornelius Bennett, who was drafted 3 years after Murphy retired.

He was speaking directly to the status of negotiations with players, which terms were wise and what might not be possible. As a member of the NFL Management Council (or whatever the name of the owner body responsible for labor negotiation is called now), his voice counted.

In terms of a priority list, the non-contextual and non-factual contention that better retirement benefits would hurt players couldn't have been higher than 90th on his list of things that were necessary to accomplish to successfully conclude negotiations.

In fact, the more I consider this, I think the owners probably were none too pleased that he was bad mouthing one of the carrots they were dangling.

This also makes sense to me.

[Patler]

PB; you seem to be making a lot of assumptions about what he said in the context of what else was said, how he said it, etc. (When addressing the players, not the media.) I see it more as possibly a rhetorical, to think about how common goals might be accomplished differently, that's all.

Through out this negotiation, the players have been offended by any action or words that didn't amount to kissing their collective backside. I said before that the owners would gladly identify a sacrificial lamb to "throw out". I thought it would be Richardson. THE players identified Murphy, perhaps because he knew them the best, so they wanted him out.

[MadtownPacker]

These MFers are getting payed way too much to cry about Murphy spitting a little reality about the situation. Fuck em if they dont like it.

[smuggler]

It wasn't the players who were upset, aparently, Madtown.

[pbmax]

PB; you seem to be making a lot of assumptions about what he said in the context of what else was said, how he said it, etc. (When addressing the players, not the media.) I see it more as possibly a rhetorical, to think about how common goals might be accomplished differently, that's all.

Through out this negotiation, the players have been offended by any action or words that didn't amount to kissing their collective backside. I said before that the owners would gladly identify a sacrificial lamb to "throw out". I thought it would be Richardson. THE players identified Murphy, perhaps because he knew them the best, so they wanted him out.

Murphy's comments smacked of the paternalism that was prevalent throughout the history of the baseball players union. "We know what is better for you". I do not think Murphy is the reincarnation of Charles Comiskey or Charley Finley, but as a former player he should have known better. He would not have appreciated such comments as a player. Its a business negotiation with both sides having a vested stake in the results. Bad mouthing additional benefits because of the deleterious nature of those benefits to the players and their second career is a non starter. Its about as out of bounds as a logic for a negotiating position can be.

If the owner's planned this beforehand, then kudos to them. If their reaction eventually made it possible to more calmly negotiate with the players side, then Murphy was sacrificed for a good cause. I have my doubts however, that the owner's bad mouthing their own proposal was a pre-planned gambit.

As for the players reacting to anything that didn't kiss their backside, I don't agree. Its hard to separate out the PR campaign from the actual emotions in the room, but there are 1900 players who can leak any number of stories to the press and only 32 owners plus league staff on the other side. We have no idea how many heated things were said inside the room. More unintentional info was bound to flow from the players side if for no other reason than the numbers involved. And the owner's are all businessmen who have been in negotiations like this most of their adult life. This is another level of experience for most players. And we never lacked for the League's carefully coordinated press attack on the player's lawyer. Leaked emotion versus spin? Neither is very enlightening.

[pbmax]

PB; you seem to be making a lot of assumptions about what he said in the context of what else was said, how he said it, etc. (When addressing the players, not the media.) I see it more as possibly a rhetorical, to think about how common goals might be accomplished differently, that's all.

I am intrigued though, what goal was Murphy trying to explore possible solutions to?

[Scott Campbell]

We have no idea how many heated things were said inside the room.

I have the under/over at 14 trillion. Or is that the national debt? I forget.

Anyway, I still can't get too worked up over this. If it becomes a pattern, then maybe we can lynch him.