News: ESPN: Sources: Player reps divided over 17-game slate

stasheroo said:

Here's what I read:

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.c...mendation-of-board-of-player-representatives/

So even if everyone ahead of them voted against it, the full body of players will be voting on it anyway. And if they approve it by even the smallest majority vote, it will be agreed upon.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but teams are playing 20 games in total now (not counting the Hall of Fame Game). 16 regular season games and 4 preseason games. There's 20 games already. I'm suggesting those same 20 games be adjusted to 18 games that count and 2 preseason games.

Click to expand...

The thing is most of the players who will be voting barely play in the preseason. Even the 2nd and 3rd stringers may play at most 1.5 quarters of football per game. So even for them trading 1 for 1 is not a good trade.

CouchCoach said:

The coaches do not need preseason games to make decisions on players, they have never needed them. They were not set up for that purpose, they were devised to make additional money for the owners. They were exhibition games.

Bubble players do not make the team in meaningless no game plan games against backups or other bubble players. They make it by going up against known talent on the practice field in a controlled situation.

I think if you asked these coaches if they'd like to dump these preseason games and move to controlled scrimmages, you'd get unanimous approval. They don;t like risking players and their own coaching careers on meaningless games. Every HC on the sideline during a preseason game isn't watching his starters play, he watching after the play to make sure they're not on the ground. And fewer and fewer of them are seeing the field before it gets real for good reason.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure what drugs you're but let me give you some history lesson. At one time they used to have 6 preseason games and when they went to having just 4 EVERY head coach voiced their complete disagreement with doing that. They ALL said they need the live game action to evaluate their teams even though back then they had contact in every practice during training camp. Back then they could only bring 60 players to camp and they still felt they needed all 6 preseason games to properly evaluate their teams. Back then 1 team actually had 7 preseason games because a week before the actual preseason started the NFL champs would play the college all stars. That ended when the all stars beat the packers and Lombardi then put an end to that game.

Just because you came up this lame idea DOES NOT make your opinion that the coaches would prefer scrimmages over actual live games real and facts. Why is it that coaches when asked about players when camp is just getting started say we'll know more after our first game meaning preseason game. Why, because they want to see them in live action games. Please tell us all know just what coaches lost their job because of the outcome of a preseason game. Just more of your foolishness. Yes sometimes their are starting RB or WR who don't play that 3 preseason game but usually it's because they are either recovering from some injury from the season before and they don't want to risk another injury or they got nicked in camp and for the same reason.
..
.

CouchCoach said:

The owners have no intention of further negotiation? I read that not all were on board with this offer.

The only thing I assume is that the players will ratify the offer and will hope for another but will accept this one because they have little leverage. The owners can withstand work stoppage and a lot of those players cannot.

Lost in all of the money and working conditions are the fans that support the game either with their money or their time or both. Lost is the reasoning behind this 17th game, it is purely about the money because they're just replacing a preseason game that the TV nets can't make any money on and turns out to be a bonus for sponsors and the most profitable games for the owners.

When they agree to this, and that's when not if, I do see the agents' angle on future contracts to cover that 17 game either at the full game check equivalent or there will be 16 game contracts. There is no way a star player, making a minimum of 625K a game (10M annually) is going to play for 250K. Right now, the agents for the Cowboys star players that are up are deciding on the 17 game factor in their new deal. Prescott's agent has already figured out the 17 factor on what he was willing to take for 16 games. Anyone think these 30M QB's are going to take 250K to play in that 17th game?

Click to expand...

This is just more of your blabbering. It's funny, not ha ha funny, that so many fans said the same thing you did about how the owners could withstand a stoppage and the players couldn't and had no leverage so they won't push the issue. But guess what there was a work stoppage and all those that were just so 10,000% sure that there wouldn't be a work stoppage were 10,000% wrong. Yes the NFL has said they won't negotiate any further on this but then again they said that the last time there was a work stoppage too. Now I don't know where this is going to go but I do know that it's far from a done deal. BTW that 250K for that 17th game example was what it would have worked out for a player playing a vet minimum contract not 250K for every player.
.

Alexander said:

A question.

Since it is an odd number, how is it determined who gets a home or away game?

It almost has to be a neutral site.

Click to expand...

Alternate every year.

gjkoeppen said:

This is just more of your blabbering. It's funny, not ha ha funny, that so many fans said the same thing you did about how the owners could withstand a stoppage and the players couldn't and had no leverage so they won't push the issue. But guess what there was a work stoppage and all those that were just so 10,000% sure that there wouldn't be a work stoppage were 10,000% wrong. Yes the NFL has said they won't negotiate any further on this but then again they said that the last time there was a work stoppage too. Now I don't know where this is going to go but I do know that it's far from a done deal. BTW that 250K for that 17th game example was what it would have worked out for a player playing a vet minimum contract not 250K for every player.
.

Click to expand...

C'mon Coach, if your gonna continue to blabber, we want it Ha Ha funny. I'm not angry....but I'm disappointed.

gjkoeppen said:

This is just more of your blabbering. It's funny, not ha ha funny, that so many fans said the same thing you did about how the owners could withstand a stoppage and the players couldn't and had no leverage so they won't push the issue. But guess what there was a work stoppage and all those that were just so 10,000% sure that there wouldn't be a work stoppage were 10,000% wrong. Yes the NFL has said they won't negotiate any further on this but then again they said that the last time there was a work stoppage too. Now I don't know where this is going to go but I do know that it's far from a done deal. BTW that 250K for that 17th game example was what it would have worked out for a player playing a vet minimum contract not 250K for every player.
.

Click to expand...

That's not the vet minimum, that is the vet maximum, players getting the vet minimum would not get 250K but players making over 4M a year would not get a full regular 16 game season game check. While I was blabbering I did manage to read and comprehend how they were going to try and make that 17th game work financially because they do not want to replace a preseason game with a reduced salary expense with one at full price. And that's the minimum the players want and deserve.

This present CBA doesn't expire until after this season, they have plenty of time but right now the pressure is on the NFL because they want to have this done to negotiate the TV contracts.

shabazz said:

C'mon Coach, if your gonna continue to blabber, we want it Ha Ha funny. I'm not angry....but I'm disappointed.

Click to expand...

Sorry shabazz, I will try to do better in the future.

CouchCoach said:

The coaches do not need preseason games to make decisions on players, they have never needed them. They were not set up for that purpose, they were devised to make additional money for the owners. They were exhibition games.

Bubble players do not make the team in meaningless no game plan games against backups or other bubble players. They make it by going up against known talent on the practice field in a controlled situation.

I think if you asked these coaches if they'd like to dump these preseason games and move to controlled scrimmages, you'd get unanimous approval. They don;t like risking players and their own coaching careers on meaningless games. Every HC on the sideline during a preseason game isn't watching his starters play, he watching after the play to make sure they're not on the ground. And fewer and fewer of them are seeing the field before it gets real for good reason.

Click to expand...

CouchCoach said:

Sorry shabazz, I will try to do better in the future.

Click to expand...

Nothing worse than dealing with some blowhard that thinks he knows football when everything he says shows he doesn't.

Dunce cap is talking about how coaches "need" preseason games, yeah, that's why they're sitting more and more of their players, right?

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id...ur-preseason-games-why-shortening-makes-sense

Fact is that they don't want them either. Everyone other than that idiot realizes that.

And any coach that needs a preseason game to evaluate the players on his roster doesn't deserve to keep his job.

CouchCoach said:

That's not the vet minimum, that is the vet maximum, players getting the vet minimum would not get 250K but players making over 4M a year would not get a full regular 16 game season game check. While I was blabbering I did manage to read and comprehend how they were going to try and make that 17th game work financially because they do not want to replace a preseason game with a reduced salary expense with one at full price. And that's the minimum the players want and deserve.

This present CBA doesn't expire until after this season, they have plenty of time but right now the pressure is on the NFL because they want to have this done to negotiate the TV contracts.

Click to expand...

Where as the NFL wants to have the new CBA in place before the TV contracts expire, BUT the TV contracts aren't up until 2022. Try so new made up logic on this.
.

Star players don't want it. Role players do.

Owners driving a wedge in the union. Perhaps unintentionally, because the union actually benefits the owners more than players at this point.

Oh the horror, the work load, it's unbearable.

blueblood70 said:

I prefer 18 even numbers as well.

I dont know the ins and out but fully expanded rosters active on game day ie 53...no inactives & still have a PS and somehow get the byes correct maybe no more playing games on 3 days rest and having them have you travel the game before and play the late game!!!

they need to get this correct before they approve..

Click to expand...

I saw a piece 5 days ago that indicated that the new cba would expand the roster to 55. An extra o-lineman would be available on game day if the regular backup o-linemen get hurt, like the 3rd emergency QB rule.

Good, draw it out so Dallas can use the transition and franchise tags this year.

J817 said:

The NFL owners are heartless. The longtime health of these players is no concern for them. The 17 game proposal is proof of that. So If I’m the players I ask for something extraordinary in return. Like hey, let’s get rid of the salary cap and implement a luxury tax system similar to what the NBA or MLB have. Or hey, let’s make all NFL salary’s fully guaranteed. No more incentive contracts. But NFLPA is weak compared to the other league’s players unions so I doubt we will see demands like this.

Click to expand...

IMO- Adding a 17th game is not good for anything but the owners pockets and maybe some fans who just want more football. I’m for better safety for the players and also better quality of football.

Adding another game to the already taxed bodies of the NFL players is not in the best interest of the game. And adding two more playoff teams is also watering down the game IMO.

At some point, the NFL owners are going to have to realize that sometimes making more money is not in the best interest of the future of the game. More money does not always mean a better product. The future of the league IMO is probably going to hinge on a safer game. I don’t see how adding another game helps that.

How do they split the home and away games in this scenario?

Two bye weeks (make them more evenly spaced), players can only suit for 16 games (strategy on when to play each person), and 3 preseason games.

J817 said:

The NFL owners are heartless. The longtime health of these players is no concern for them. The 17 game proposal is proof of that. So If I’m the players I ask for something extraordinary in return. Like hey, let’s get rid of the salary cap and implement a luxury tax system similar to what the NBA or MLB have. Or hey, let’s make all NFL salary’s fully guaranteed. No more incentive contracts. But NFLPA is weak compared to the other league’s players unions so I doubt we will see demands like this.

Click to expand...

Is somebody forcing anyone to play football for pay? Last i checked it was voluntary and quite the cash cow for anyone good enough to do something as existentially meaningless as play football.

It is in your long term best interest to take an afternoon nap. That doesn't obligate the folks who sign your paycheck to implement siestas.

It is not the job of the owners to care for players. It is only their job to inform players of the risks of the job as they are known. It is up to the individual players to mitigate those risks by choosing to play or not. There is no moral or legal mandate incumbent upon team owners beyond that which they agree to b/c football is a voluntary activity. Whatever the owners do for players beyond paying them is charity.

atlantacowboy said:

Is somebody forcing anyone to play football for pay? Last i checked it was voluntary and quite the cash cow for anyone good enough to do something as existentially meaningless as play football.

It is in your long term best interest to take an afternoon nap. That doesn't obligate the folks who sign your paycheck to implement siestas.

It is not the job of the owners to care for players. It is only their job to inform players of the risks of the job as they are known. It is up to the individual players to mitigate those risks by choosing to play or not. There is no moral or legal mandate incumbent upon team owners beyond that which they agree to b/c football is a voluntary activity. Whatever the owners do for players beyond paying them is charity.

Click to expand...

I see your point here. NFL players do not have the natural right of “safety” because it’s voluntary. No one is forcing them to play football and all that. So I guess everyone who voluntarily joined the army after the draft was abolished should not expect benefits after service because hey it’s voluntary. It was their choice join. No one forced them to. But let’s not compare playing football to the military and all that. Let’s compare it to the average American who shouldn’t expect workers rights to be to be practiced at their jobs. So what Susan is being sexually harassed by her co-workers. It’s voluntary for her work at that company.

There are thousand (maybe millions) of meaningless jobs out there in America if you think about it. I won’t name them all because I’m quite sure many posters on this board have dedicated their lives performing them everyday. Just because a person chose to work in entertainment doesn’t mean they shouldn’t expect their company to put their well being into consideration while making decisions.

Oh boy, the dad caps and sunglasses are out