- Messages
- 98,118
- Reaction score
- 101,416
Good point. I agree. From what I read, the players didn't bring ti to the table.The player health insurance is still only good for 5 years after a player retires. That needs to be extended.
Good point. I agree. From what I read, the players didn't bring ti to the table.The player health insurance is still only good for 5 years after a player retires. That needs to be extended.
In this case, that's good. The top end guys shouldn't get to decide for everybody, just like California, New York, and Texas don't get to make decisions for the rest of the country.Owners will ALWAYS win because the majority of the league is made up of the guys 20-52nd guys in rosters who can’t afford for a work stoppage.
And it will almost definitely mean the end here for Cooper and Byron.For what it matters, nothing much, my impression is that Stephen believes that ratification will be a huge step toward finishing off the deal with Dak. Reading between the lines, essentially, it seems talks came to a halt because it seemed a bad idea for both sides, given how its approval or not would impact the overall landscape. I won't be surprised if, once approved, it is announced within a day or two that Dak has signed.
I honestly don't know anything about the deal. I don't pay enough attention to the NFL to care. All I care about now is Cowboys news. More games is absolutely a HUGE DEAL. My biggest thing I would want as a player rep is lifetime health insurance for players that have played for over 2 years in the NFL. These players sacrifice their brain to entertain fans. They deserve to be taken care of. Maybe that is in the deal? I don't know and I honestly don't care I don't watch enough to really care.really? so what is bad about this deal? I dont even want to hear about the extra game being so dangerous. Teams that go to the playoffs play that 17th game every year. Canadian league, dont they play 18 games? I dont see how this is a bad deal for the players.... if you think it is and union leadership has sold players out, tell me how?
And that shouldn't be up to you or anyone who pretends they care.NFL only EVER cared about not getting sued, so all the rule changes were and are about eliminating negligence lawsuits. Possibly they care about the PR of former players who are wrecked mentally like Bill Bates and they want to appear that they are doing what's right there. As technology gets better we will probably be better able to determine individual risk of long term issues from repeated head trauma, but all the studies out there right now are crap.
Players are gladiators and frankly the frontal lobe isn't even fully developed until one is 25. You don't see many guys with the perspective to say it isn't worth it.
I honestly don't know anything about the deal. I don't pay enough attention to the NFL to care. All I care about now is Cowboys news. More games is absolutely a HUGE DEAL. My biggest thing I would want as a player rep is lifetime health insurance for players that have played for over 2 years in the NFL. These players sacrifice their brain to entertain fans. They deserve to be taken care of. Maybe that is in the deal? I don't know and I honestly don't care I don't watch enough to really care.
I do know I heard a former NFL player on my local radio station who was complaining about how the union doesn't care about past players. He had to pay for his knee to be rebuilt the same knee he blew up in the NFL. Years later it needed more attention. NFL doesn't cover it. What Bill Bates is going through right now should be covered. Bates destroyed himself to entertain us. It's sad to see.
As far as it being clear that the union doesn't care about it members and only cares about money. They clearly know NFL players use PEDs, they know PEDs make guys bigger and faster than a human should be while head protection (skull) will never ever ever change. These players are getting so big and fast that they have lost good technique and use the head far too often. Union and the owners don't care because it makes the product better to watch and players recover from injury faster. The money has become more important than player safety.
Once the union adopts REAL drug testing then I'll believe they care about it's members. And yes I do believe Pot should be allowed for these players ignore positive Marijuana tests. Test for other drugs including PEDs.
older players would do the exact same thing. They sued because they knew they were gonna win because they were lied to about studies the NFL had done. The league new the risks far more than the players and hid it from them. Players know today, so they arent going to win any lawsuit about health issues .
Like me going skiing, breaking my leg and then suing the resort....... not gonna happen. You can sue for anything, doesnt mean you will win.
You do deserve lifetime healthcare if in the military. You deserve better. The government is a joke.Owners do not care about players, honestly neither do I. I dont want to see any of them hurt, and I certainly do not want Bill Bates in the condition he is in.... but all players currently know the risks. They do not need to play, they are not being forced to play.... they want to play. They are paid VERY WELL for the risks they take. In addition, rules are in place to ensure player safety, im not sure what more you want owners to do. The game is dangerous, and you can not make rules that take away the risks... if you do, you no longer have football. And yes, players are bigger and faster, just like in EVERY SPORT. Fury Vs Wilder had 2 figters.... one 6'7" 215 lbs, vs the other 6'9" 270 lbs.
Tennis players are 6'9", NBA players are bigger, stronger , faster. It isnt all PEDs, and if players take them, thats on them. The UNION DAMN SURE cant adopt drug testing... that comes from the league. The union IS THE PLAYERS.
2 years for lifetime health?????? , well damn, I did 4 years in the military, how bout giving us lifetime health before football players get it.
And it will almost definitely mean the end here for Cooper and Byron.
And that shouldn't be up to you or anyone who pretends they care.
These guys can make their own decisions, and the league is enforcing things to help prevent these injuries. They'll always be unavoidable until they figure out how to cushion the brain inside the skull. There is no helmet or rule that can possibly do that.
Far more players leave the NFL with their mental capacity intact than those who don't. And LOTS of people get dementia in this world who never played a down of football in their lives.
Roger Staubach had multiple concussions, then he built a billion-dollar real estate development firm. He's still sharp as a tack. A lot of this is just DNA, not to mention diet related. And don't forget the abuse of steroids and other performance enhancing drugs, not to mention heavy use of narcotics for both recreation and pain relief.
There are tons of concussions in soccer, boxing, UFC, car racing, etc. Are we going to wrap ourselves in bubble wrap and play video games all day?
The main problem with these "studies" is that they are so agenda-laden, we'll never get an honest data collection.
Sounds like they are trying to take the 'collective' out of the collective bargaining agreement
That last bit shows a decided lack of understanding of how peer review works. If someone is fudging data then there are thousands of scientists and their institutions to call it out. The method also requires repeatability so institutions like the NFL can repeat the experiment.
Just some of the bullet points:
Expanded roster (more jobs)
Expanded practice squad (more jobs)
Increase in revenue share to 48.5% (est of $5 BILLION over the contract and the highest percentage in US sports)
Fewer padded practices
More days off during camp
Increase in minimum salary
Increase in salary floor
More playoff bonus money
Some of you really think NFL players not at the top of the salary structure are going to vote against those things? It passes.
The new CBA deal under consideration eliminates one of the tag options.Did I miss something? I confess I'm not paying very good attention, but I thought as long as we sign one or the other, we still should be able to franchise one or the other... ??? So, theoretically, you sign Dak, and then, worse-case, franchise Amari. No?
If you got an honorable discharge then you have it through the VA. I retired and have it through Tricare.Owners do not care about players, honestly neither do I. I dont want to see any of them hurt, and I certainly do not want Bill Bates in the condition he is in.... but all players currently know the risks. They do not need to play, they are not being forced to play.... they want to play. They are paid VERY WELL for the risks they take. In addition, rules are in place to ensure player safety, im not sure what more you want owners to do. The game is dangerous, and you can not make rules that take away the risks... if you do, you no longer have football. And yes, players are bigger and faster, just like in EVERY SPORT. Fury Vs Wilder had 2 figters.... one 6'7" 215 lbs, vs the other 6'9" 270 lbs.
Tennis players are 6'9", NBA players are bigger, stronger , faster. It isnt all PEDs, and if players take them, thats on them. The UNION DAMN SURE cant adopt drug testing... that comes from the league. The union IS THE PLAYERS.
2 years for lifetime health?????? , well damn, I did 4 years in the military, how bout giving us lifetime health before football players get it.
The new CBA deal under consideration eliminates one of the tag options.
Yes, that's correct, and that's probably what they want to do.Right.
So, just sayin, as long as you sign Dak straight-up, you still have a tag you can use on Amari if necessary.
I don't want to jinx anything, but I feel like that's exactly what is likely: the Dak deal will get done, and Amari will get tagged.