Printable View
Figured this merits a new thread - mods may disagree :noidea:
So much for players listening to Aaron Rodgers :chuckle:
If true this gives the Steelers a chance to move some contract $$ around - they were going to tag Dupree regardless but this may avoid releasing someone they preferred to keep on the roster to get under the cap
Thanks for starting the post! You beat me to it by 2 minutes. :heh:
It was a close vote, but for us fans, it means no strike and 10 more years of football.
- - - Updated - - -
Surprised it was that close
Wonder without the craziness this week if 30 of the yes voters who provided the margin of victory might have been more inclined to roll the dice on trying for a better deal prior to the expiration of the current CBA in 2021 rather than take what they could get now in these uncertain times?
Looks like the guys on their 2nd or 3rd contracts(and probably endorsement deals) wanted to vote no, while the guys still on rookie deals voted for continued paychecks. Interesting how that works. I wonder if this will force some of the older vets into early retirement. Either to not physically wanting more games or just tired of the same old things keep coming back around. For example, would a player like Aaron Rogers just say DONE! and walk away? He's made his money and doesn't seem to want to keep making money for the Shield, at least not in the more games way. I'm curious to watch the ripple effect from this.
Would be interesting the read the cross tabs on approve/disapprove based on factors such as years of service/salary/positionQuote:
Originally Posted by Born2Steel
Not certain how many players simply didn’t vote. Rodgers should have done a better job of turning out the anti-CBA base :chuckle:
Are FAs with no current contract still allowed a vote?
According to a previous post...
1019 voted yes
959 voted no
Add these 2 numbers and subtract from total eligible to vote. New number equals how many did not vote.
Wiki says 2,423 active player and associate members. 1,978 votes. 445 non votes. Roughly 18% did not vote at all?
Thanks for the non-voters number :drink:Quote:
Originally Posted by vader29
Probably mostly sloth, but maybe some of the 20% who did not vote were realistic enough to know they could not reach an informed opinion on whether it was a good or bad deal and would rely on those who did to vote the right way
For those who rely on agents, coaches and/or other players to tell them what to do the number of non-voters is not that surprising
And hopefully Pompeani is being sarcastic if he is wondering if 460 pages of CBA boilerplate is too much reading for some players :chuckle:
I wonder if commish any of the owners actually spent anytime figuring out how a 17th game would work logistically? I am going to guess no.
Also the NFL has had a problem fielding 12 teams that actually belong in the playoffs. Placing a 7th team in the NFL, you're just asking for a bad product. I thought about who might make the playoffs for some preliminary projections, I honestly had trouble coming up with 6 playoff worthy teams from the AFC.
Again, without go into all the nitty gritty, the players are just fundamentally bad at this. They had the NFL in position to actually give out real concessions. Instead they got a slight bump in minimum salaries and it got easier to smoke weed. For an entire extra game - that's it!
No healthcare.
No removal of the franchise tag.
No real increase in the revenue pie (@ least I think...but I've heard so many numbers I can not keep them all straight).
No shortened CBA to see how it goes --- this is a long CBA. Last several have been like 5 years or so.
The NFLPA is got to be about the most ineffective union. And no, I don't want to start a whole discussion on unions and labor relations. I just want to dunk on the NFLPA being bad.
The NFLPA is so bad.....Quote:
Originally Posted by Mojouw
Agree. My first thought was it’s plain and simple...bad decision by the young players...Quote:
Originally Posted by Mojouw
Yay management!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Mojouw
Here are the last 10 would be 7th seeds over the last 5 years and whether they deserved to be in the playoffs
2019
AFC: Steelers- Weak offense and losers of their last 3. Did they belong: No
NFC: Rams- Massive underachievers, key players regressing. Did they belong: No
2018:
AFC: Steelers- A walking media clown circus who engineered one of the decades biggest collapses. Did they belong: No
NFC: Vikings- OC fired after 12 games, regression both offensively and defensively. O-line a disaster. Did they belong: No
2017
AFC: Ravens- 9-7 with a point differential of +92, did lose a must win game at home to the Bungals. Did they belong: Debatable only because of their point differential. I will say though that the Titans with a point differential of -22 and the Bills with a point differential of -57 did not belong and the AFC as a whole wa one of the weakest in NFL history
NFC: Lions- Height of mediocrity and inconsistency. Their season also ended by the Bungals. Did they belong: No
2016
AFC: Broncos- The duo of Trevor Seimeon and Paxton Lynch that lost 3 of 4 to end the year. Did they belong: No
NFC: Bucs- Outscored on the year, turnover prone Jameis Winston. Did they belong: No
2015
AFC: Jets- 10 wins, good point differential, career year from Fitzpatrick, lost a must-win game to the Bills. Did they belong: Meh, I'll say yes, the positives outweigh the face plant at the end of the season to lose to the Bills. Should note that the Texans that year didn't belong as a mere byproduct of a weak division
NFC: Falcons. 8-8, losers of 8 out of their last 11. Did they belong: NO
So out of 10 would be 7th seeds the last 5 years, you debatably have 2 at most that actually belonged in the playoffs (20%), and even then there were playoff teams that truly didn't belong. With an undeserved 7th seed being allowed in the playoffs, you are guaranteeing 2 unworthy opponents, especially given that the NFL has trouble fielding 12 playoff worthy teams on a consistent basis. Another example of choosing money over an actual good product
When does Ricky Williams come back?
Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
:iagree:Quote:
Originally Posted by Born2Steel
One owner and two general mangers I spoke with Sunday were somewhere between frustrated and furious that Wednesday’s 4 p.m. start of the free-agency period hadn’t been delayed. The owner called it “tone deaf” to be proceeding with business as usual with the coronavirus hanging over the world....
To change the starting date of the league year, Goodell and [NFLPA executive director DeMaurice] Smith must agree, because it’s a collectively bargained issue. I’m told Smith “wouldn’t budge” (a source’s words, not mine, and backed by ESPN’s Adam Schefter), because he wanted the signing period to begin
https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...ng/?cid=fmiatw
NFLPA is split between the competing interests of players raking in the big bucks and the worker bees who wonder every season if they are going to be on a roster - no surprise with that dysfunction the NFLPA keeps screwing up. Latest example of that is the top free agents want to cash in now and Smith is not going to get at cross purposes with them by delaying the signing period.