Mickey

I agree that no one will really know what he can do as a starter until he has had 2-3 years in the league. However, I disagree on his having "tremendous potential". I think he is already an over-achiever who has already performed at the limit of his physical abilities and perhaps even a bit beyond those limits. He has managed to wring every drop of performance he has through hard work, will and determination. I just don't see any untapped reservoir of skills he will be reach after having more experience. I am sure he will get better in time just through experience and figuring out how to get the most out of what he has in the NFL game. At the same time however, I just feel that one of the reasons he was such a good college QB despite being a bit unorthodox is that he gave it all he had, every last bit of talent. He is easy to root for and I wish him the best but to the extent anyone can read the future, color me doubtful.

One could conclude that the leverage generated in litigation on both sides was a factor in the two sides finally reaching an agreement. The players won the case on the lockout insurance and the league was doing well on the injunction. When one side has all the leverage, they don't compromise because they don't have to. Mutual assured destruction is a heckuva motivator.

I have always been confused over the notion that teams with more money can win more consistently given the presence of a salary cap. The cap is the same for everyone, you can't spend over it even if you have it. Spreading signing bonuses out over the life of the contract can result in more actual money being spent in a given year than the cap allows but over time and I guess some teams might not be have that kind of money. But eventually the signing bonus money has to be accounted for and teams that didn't spend big bucks on those would have more cap room than teams that did. The cap is determined based on actual revenues divided by the number of teams so its not as if any teams don't have enough money to spend as much as the cap is.<div><br></div><div> So what is the problem as far as competition is concerned? How does having more money allow a team to spend more on players than others given the salary cap? Do we just need a harder cap? </div>

There are times I want to choke him but the guy is funny. He has a good head on his shoulders, a talent for pointing out the absurd and the chutzpah to tell us about it. I think I read somewhere that the people of Denmark are consistently the happiest in the world. Lately, we seem to be the grouchiest.

Unfortunately, I don't think that people caring only for their own rights and not for those of others is anything unique to today. Every generation has had its share of selfish bast***s. I also would be less dismissive of the times when people have actually cared about the rights of others instead of chalking it up to trendiness. People involved in the Civil Rights movement of the latter '50's and through the '60's were bucking a "trend" of racism and violence that had endured for about a century. I understand that not everyone at Woodstock was there for music and peace, some were there hoping to get laid and probably were not disappointed. I just don't think we should lose sight of the fact that when properly inspired, people can quite genuinely act in the best interests of others. I know there is lots of evidence to refute that but there is just enough on the other side to make me an optimist.

Sorry, I gave you the name of the case which I thought was sufficient as running a search on it pulls up the opinion quite easily enough. But for those of you out there who haven't mastered the use of google, here is a link to the opinion: American Needle The court recognized that with a business like the NFL, there are instances where cooperation is necessary to carry out the business. However, the possibility that a given practice might be needed for league success wasn't a shield against the courts examining that practice to see if in fact it was absolutely necessary to the business. They rejected, by a vote of 9-0, the idea that the league was not an entity comprised of separate businesses and thus cooperation was not collusion between separate businesses. If you take the ruling in this case and then couple it with the White and McNeil cases the Supreme Court decided back in the early '90's and its pretty clear that the league would be crazy to ever let its system of restricting player movement from being ruled on in the Supreme Court. They've lost before and they would lose again. The only reason the owners decided to cut the players in for a piece of the take was because they lost in court and the only way to preserve their system was to essentially bribe the players to give up what they had won in court. Labor Law imposes a whole world of other rules and possibilities and that is what governs things at the moment. But the players could eventually get the dispute out from under the labor law and back in to the courts under anti-trust law if they held out long enough. It is just a matter of time. How much time and how long could the players hang on without any income was always the major battleground in this current dispute. I think there is no way the league would have ever let things go long enough for anti-trust litigation to kick in.

I am afraid you are wrong. The Supreme Court ruling in the American Needle case last year held that the teams do compete against on another and thus are subject to antitrust law,. That argument was shot down last year by the Supreme Court in the American Needle case.

Not so much a "dirty trick" as illegal. At the time the contract was negotiated with the networks, the CBA was still in effect under which, since player compensation was ultimately a percentage of league revenue primarily derived from the TV contracts, the owners had a duty to get the best deal they could get. They did not honor that duty and instead negotiated a lower deal that preserved their income in the event the league had no product for networks to broadcast. Knowing that the owners would impose a lockout to put financial pressure on players in no position to go without income for long, it would have been foolish for the players not to make what preparations they could. Doty's decision on the network deal certainly helped and the article you cite stated that it was a combination of that money and the insurance fund that would have given the players some staying power. They couldn't know the result of the case on the network contract until Doty made it. In the end, it appears that Smith's foresight in pulling together some rainy day money broke an impasse in negotiations so those who rail at him consistently hereabouts might want to remember that. I was rooting for whatever argument seemed to me to be the most likely to get a deal done without interrupting the season. I was worried that the suit was the only leverage the players would have and that they needed the injunction to avoid any immediate loss of salaries and to save the 2011 season. That wasn't working well in the short term so I had hoped that Doty would start moving on the damages hearing in the network case. Apparently, the players had it all covered and the injunction was just the first option. From a sentimental standpoint, its players that make the game, not the suits. I don't pay to see Ralph Wilson. I just hope they finish it next week.

Not so much a "dirty trick" as illegal. At the time the contract was negotiated with the networks, the CBA was still in effect under which, since player compensation was ultimately a percentage of league revenue primarily derived from the TV contracts, the owners had a duty to get the best deal they could get. They did not honor that duty and instead negotiated a lower deal that preserved their income in the event the league had no product for networks to broadcast. Knowing that the owners would impose a lockout to put financial pressure on players in no position to go without income for long, it would have been foolish for the players not to make what preparations they could. Doty's decision on the network deal certainly helped and the article you cite stated that it was a combination of that money and the insurance fund that would have given the players some staying power. They couldn't know the result of the case on the network contract until Doty made it. In the end, it appears that Smith's foresight in pulling together some rainy day money broke an impasse in negotiations so those who rail at him consistently hereabouts might want to remember that. I was rooting for whatever argument seemed to me to be the most likely to get a deal done without interrupting the season. I was worried that the suit was the only leverage the players would have and that they needed the injunction to avoid any immediate loss of salaries and to save the 2011 season. That wasn't working well in the short term so I had hoped that Doty would start moving on the damages hearing in the network case. Apparently, the players had it all covered and the injunction was just the first option. From a sentimental standpoint, its players that make the game, not the suits. I don't pay to see Ralph Wilson. I just hope they finish it next week.

He deserves to be up there, no question. I hope Ralph is with us for another decade but the sober fact is that no one lives forever. I hope Ralph doesn't decide to take that particular grudge quite literally to the grave. That ornery streak of his cost us the services of Bill Polian. I shudder to think how different things might have been for this franchise if Polian never left the Bills. In Marv's book he briefly mentions talking to Ralph on the plane rid home after the SB about reconsidering "what what we talked about" which was Polian's departure. Ralph gave him the Tom Hagen to Tessio line, "...can't do it Sally..."

That is a nice idea that would make for some nice post cards and all but it would be a nightmare to get there. I still want a stadium closer to Syracuse and Rochester built on the quarry in the Batavia area. It should be open at the corners where the rockface of the quarry would be visible so as to utilize that feature as a backdrop. And of course, it should be called the "Rockpile" in honor of their first stadium and because it would literally be built in a rockpile. Imagine the acoustics of a stadium built in side of a quarry. Opposing teams wouldn't be able to hear a thing, not even through the headphone helmets. And that location would have direct rail access so you could take a train right to the game. It would also fit the regional concept as it would be no further from Buffalo than Orchard Park but would be a good hour or so given game day traffic to Syracuse, Rochester, Utica and Albany and all the small towns in and around those areas.

I had the same feeling yesterday. I think their throwbacks are a lot better than these new uniforms.

If the season gets canceled, no games at all, and then they reach a settlement in time to have a draft next year, wouldn't they use the same draft order? If so, we would be third again and the team with the No. 1 pick already took a QB this year so there is no way they would take another one. Hmmmm.......I wonder.

I remember that one, laughed for days everytime I thought of it. I am not sure if it saddens me or makes me proud to have the same sense of humor as you.

The first shot was opting out of the CBA. The players had to decertify by a certain date for the decertification to be of any use this year so that they could try to prevent the lockout from happening this year. They negotiated right up to that deadline which was the expiration of the old CBA. The deadline, in fact, was extended several times to allow more time to negotiate so that the union didn't have to worry about that deadline. Just how long they would have to wait between decertifying and being able to get an injunction was not known then and in fact, still isn't. It is one of the points that was argued last Friday. One theory is that they would have to wait 6 months which is what was set out in the old CBA. By decertifying on March 11th, the potential 6 month deadline would expire on September 11th. Just enough time to rescue most of the season. The longer they waited, the worse off they were in terms of getting an injunction to stop the lockout. On the owner's side, they could negotiate until the start of the season and then start the lockout. They had no deadlines to worry about. And the lockout, though not yet enacted, was going to happen if the owner's didn't get the deal they wanted. They prepared for it well in advance. I think the story remains a simple one. The league has prospered and grown for decades under the CBA. But the owners claim it no longer will, that a new CBA with less $ going to players is an economic necessity so they opted out of the CBA. At the same time, they prepared for a lockout and to make it as painless as possible for themselves. The players asked to see the books so as to determine if the claims of financial trouble for the league were true. The league refused but instead made a series of offers which the players would not accept, in part because they couldn't be sure if there really was financial trouble. The league could negotiate for a very long time without penalty. The players start losing money on opening day. To have any chance at saving themselves from that position, the players had to decertify, and soon. In fact, they probably shouldn't have waited as long as they did. Had they decertified in January, they would be over the 6 month hurdle in just a few weeks and two months before anyone would miss a game check. As for making money, I don't have anything against either side for trying to better their balance sheets. All I want is football. And right now, we have an owner imposed lockout. And that means no football.

The rules don't say you can't hit defenseless players, it just limits the kind of hits that can be delivered: "An illegal hit on a defenseless player is when the initial force of contact by a players head, shoulder, or forearm is to the head or neck area." I think that pretty much takes care of all of your concerns. You can hit a QB in the act of throwing. You can hit a receiver just as he catches the ball. You can hit a runner after his forward progress has been stopped. You can hit a kicker or punter. You can block players who are not looking at you. All you can't do is use your head, shoulder or forearm to deliver a blow to the head or neck. If something sounds too crazy to be true, it usually isn't. Wrong, read the rule, the whole rule: Hits on Defenseless Players NFL rules provide special protection to defenseless players, by prohibiting (a) hits delivered to their head or neck area by an opponent with his helmet (including facemask), forearm, or shoulder, and (b) hits delivered by an opponent with his helmet (including the top/crown and forehead/"hairline" parts) against any part of the defenseless player's body (i.e., "butting, spearing, or ramming" a defenseless player.) Defenseless players are defined as (a) a player in the act of or just after throwing a pass; (b) a receiver catching or attempting to catch a pass; © a runner already in the grasp of a tackler and whose forward progress has been stopped; (d) a kickoff or punt returner attempting to field a kick in the air; and (e) a player on the ground at the end of a play. 1. Use of Helmet and Facemask. An opponent must not use his facemask or other part of his helmet against a player who is in a virtually defenseless posture-for example, (a) by forcibly hitting the defenseless player's head, neck, or face with the helmet or facemask, regardless of whether the defensive player also uses his arms to tackle the defenseless player by encircling or grasping him, or (b) by lowering the head and violently or unnecessarily making forcible contact with the "hairline" or forehead part of the helmet against any part of the defenseless player's body. 2. "Launching" and "Dip and Rip."A defensive player must not "launch" himself (spring forward and upward) into a defenseless player, or otherwise strike him in a way that causes the defensive player's helmet or facemask to forcibly strike the defenseless player's head, neck, or face-even if the initial contact of the defender's helmet or facemask is lower than the defenseless player's neck. (Examples: a defender buries his facemask into a defenseless player's high chest area, but the defender's trajectory as he leaps into the defenseless player causes the defender's helmet to strike the defenseless player violently in the head or face; or a defender, using a face-on posture or with his head slightly lowered, hits a defenseless player in an area below the defenseless player's neck, then the defender's head moves upward, resulting in strong contact by the defender's mask or helmet with the defenseless player's head, neck, or face (one example is the so-called "dip and rip" technique.) These provisions do not prohibit incidental contact by the mask or non-crown parts of the helmet in the course of a conventional tackle on an opponent. Special protection against blows delivered to the head by an opponent is also provided to a receiver who has just completed a catch, a kicker/punter during the kick or during the return, and to the recipient of a "blindside" block. Receiver Catching or Attempting to Catch a Pass 1. Receiver Who Has Completed a Catch. If a receiver has completed a catch and has not had time to protect himself, a defensive player is prohibited from launching (springing forward and upward) into him in a way that causes the defensive player's helmet, facemask, shoulder, or forearm to forcibly strike the receiver's head, neck, or face-even if the initial contact of the defender's helmet, facemask, shoulder, or forearm is lower than the receiver's neck. 2. Kicker/Punter During Kick or Return. During a kick or during a return, it is a foul if the initial force of the contact by a defender's helmet (including facemask), forearm, or shoulder is to the head or neck area of a kicker/punter. 3. "Blindside" Block. It is an illegal "blindside" block if the initial force of the contact by a blocker's helmet (including facemask), forearm, or shoulder is to the head or neck area of an opponent when the blocker is moving toward his own endline and approaches his opponent from behind or from the side.

That agreement started out as a settlement agreement known as the "SSA" reached in an anti-trust suit. It was later converted in to a CBA. The union had decertified, foregoing strikes in favor of anti-trust suits as the law will not allow workers to use both, they have to choose. The strikes achieved little which is why they gave up on them in favor of anti-trust suits. Judge Nelson gives an accurate and reasonably short history of these things in her opinion granting the injunction which is available an the web site for the Eighth Circuit. <div><br></div><div> The league had a choice after those court victories. They could have faced essentially wide open free agency and maybe even the elimination of the draft, or reach a settlement which granted the players a percentage of revenue in exchange for their giving up what they won in court and submitting to the new rules on free agency. I assume the the owner selected whichever path seemed to them to be the least costly. My position that the league believed at the time that a CBA would best control costs is premised solely on that assumption which was an easy one to make. I hardly think that the owner's would have agreed to the SSA/CBA if they thought that the alternative would be more profitable. And they did insist that the union re-certify. The league is not alone in its belief that the anti-trust exemption is more valuable to them even though it comes with a union attached, than the alternative of anti-trust suits rather than strikes. A lockout is a very effective strategy for employers but it can't be used in the absence of a union. Even the recent decisions of the Eighth circuit don't change that, its just a question of how long after decertification must employees wait before going to court and giving anti-trust law a whirl. Being able to use a lockout to force a favorable deal is a such a good card to play that numerous industries have preferred even though it comes with a union.</div>

The players pointed out that the disclosure was limited and, if I recall correctly, were about 3 pages long. My Sprint bill is longer than that.

I don't understand the point you are driving at. No one is saying that the league somehow broke the law in opting out of an agreement that had an opt out clause. So if that is what you are trying to say, I agree. The point however is that both sides had a choice, extend or opt out of the CBA. Extension would have kept the status quo while opting out would provoke a crisis, essentially throwing things back to what they were before the long ago CBA of 1993 or thereabouts which ended the ongoing player-owner dispute that had threatened to or in fact did, interrupt football for years. The league brought this on, they made the choice to opt out. No one is saying they didn't have a right to do so, they did. In so doing however, they brought this situation on. That is my point, that the league and not the players precipitated this situation. I also don't understand what you mean by "NFLPA didn't follow the agreement and started to ask for proof." The league opted out of the CBA, after that, there was no agreement either side was required to follow. The request for proof came during negotiations for a new CBA. The players can point to the past few decades of growth and prosperity for both sides to prove their point, that the old CBA was working just fine and need not be significantly altered in reaching a new CBA. The owners have countered with an argument based on economic necessity, i.e., the current business model is no longer tenable and for that reason, we need a new CBA that substantially differs from the last one. The players came back and essentially said, "well, if that is so, prove it to us and we will be happy to make concessions if indeed, the league is no longer tenable." And the league's response was "trust us on that one." That is an oversimplification because there are lots of other issues that are being debated such as a longer regular season, more money for retired veterans and a rookie cap. I don't know where their negotiations are with regard to those other issues. I think the rookie cap is an idea whose time has come. After going through all of this, I think the owners should stick to that one as they may never get a chance again at implementing a rule that brings some sanity to rookie contracts. When I think that a guy like Ryan Leaf probably made more $ in his brief and inglorious career than a guy like Fred Jackson will make in his entire career, my Sicilian blood boils.

They could have extended it or not, they chose not to so as to get a new deal. With no CBA, the clock goes right back to the White and Mcneil cases circa 1993. I alleged no conspiracy, I simply pointed out that the league hasn't opened the books. Why they don't hardly matters. The fact is that they are using economic necessity as the justification for ditching the old CBA, oh, excuse me, for opting out of the old CBA, yet, they haven't been willing to prove their argument is valid. Why they won't, doesn't really matter. They are the ones claiming that economics are the problem, assuming they know that to be the case, they must have something that they relied on in making that determination. Show that to the players. What are you relying on for your conclusion that they can't open the books, ie, show the evidence upon which they relied when claiming the economics made the old CBA untenable if even one owner objects?

The players didn't fare well with strikes. They did very well in court when they decertified so that they could bring anti-trust suits. The anti-trust exemption is extremely valuable to the league. Player costs would have gone up much higher had the players kept winning those suits and won total free agency. The money going to the players is a set percentage of revenue after costs and thus, it goes up as revenue goes up. You say labor costs doubled but revenue more than doubled right with it. The CBA stops the suits which keeps costs down and lets then perserve the draft and the current free agency system.

Why would a look at the NBA's books tell the players anything about whether or not the NFL's claims that a new deal is mandated by economic conditions? The players aren't looking to turn the NFL in to the NBA. They league said that the old CBA wasn't working and the players just asked for them to prove it. When the league started making offers in negotiations, they told the players that they were good offers given economic realities and the players just asked them to prove it. The league has refused. Thus, the players have no way of knowing if they are getting a good deal or not. I think maybe you are under the erroneous impression that this whole thing started because the players want to get rid of revenue sharing, the draft and the limitations on player movement. This thing started because the league said that they wanted a new deal and dumped the old CBA. The players long ago won a series of cases on free agency, enough so that the league finally cut them in for a piece of the revenues. The players traded their freedom, in the sense of selling their services to the highest bidder, in exchange for a piece of the action. The league now wants to change the size of the players "piece". That is why there is no football right now. The league brought on this crisis, they are the ones looking to change the status quo. They may have perfectly valid reasons for doing so, such as, the economics of the old deal simply not working. If that is true, its simple math, open the books would show that to be true and then the players wouldn't have a leg to stand on. The fact that the league will not do that very simple thing makes me very suspicious that in fact, their claims of economic necessity are false. What NFL teams are losing money??? The last Forbes story I looked at (2010 I think) had only two teams losing money, Detroit and Miami. It was the first time Miami has lost money in the 10 years they graphed out in the story. Detroit had a terrible team and the place is a ghost town. If there is a problem, the league should just prove it, get the players to shoulder their share of the fix and then get back to playing football.

I remember hearing the same thing about Jim Kelly until he was out of the USFL and in a Bills uniform. I am not a big fan of Pryor but I am a big fan of judging players based on their ability to pay football more than whether or not they are nice guys. As long as a guy controls himself enough to avoid missing games due to suspensions, I don't care about his personality. Well said. That post was a cry for help if ever I heard one.

They have not gone to court for damages. The law provides people with an interest in the outcome of a suit the ability, under limited circumstances, to file a brief even though they are not a party to the lawsuit. It is called an amicus curiae brief which means "friend of the court". The small businesses and elected officials listed in the brief sought and obtained permission from the court to file an amicus brief. One of the factors the court is bound to consider in deciding this particular issue is the effect the injunction would have on the public. Neither side has, in my opinion, spent much time at all on that point. The two judges who ruled in favor of a continuing lockout dismissed the point by saying the effect on the public was a wash either way. This amicus brief is the only document I read that was submitted to the court that dealt with that point in any detail, showing that it wasn't a wash. I was also disappointed that the issue wasn't discussed much at all during oral argument. Simply boycotting the NFL is certainly another way to get their attention but right now there isn't much to boycott. And the NFL might interpret fan anger in that regard to be more against the players than the league though I don't know why that would matter.

Lynch is a real talent, no doubt, and I think there is more than a fair chance that he will make us regret trading him away. At the same time though, he simply wasn't getting it done on the field and carried a high risk of being a repeat offender in terms of breaking league rules. That 4 game suspension was bad enough but the next one was going to be worse. The chance that there would be a "next one" with him was just too high.