*CONFIRMED post #238, pg 16* Tank Johnson Would Be Available to Us In Week 9

Sarge;1638617 said:
Now don't go lettin' facts and NFL policy spoil things for Fuzzy. :lmao2:
This is what happens when you don't read an entire thread (or even the thread title) and decide to piggyback.

Learn from it, kids.
 
dallasfaniac;1638618 said:
Can we get a second opinion from Ms. Hunter on this? :D
I can't call her back this soon. She'll get the wrong idea.
 
Sarge;1638617 said:
Now don't go lettin' facts and NFL policy spoil things for Fuzzy. :lmao2:

superpunk;1638623 said:
This is what happens when you don't read an entire thread (or even the thread title) and decide to piggyback.

Learn from it, kids.
princess_bride1.jpg


YOU FELL VICTIM TO ONE OF THE CLASSIC BLUNDERS!
 
theogt;1638323 said:
If he retired, he wouldn't have actually been a member of the NFLPA by any of the listed ways.

That issue doesn't really exist as has been explained before.


Totally wrong! Retired players are still represented by the NFLPA! Why do you think all the injured vets are trying to get more money from that hack of a player union rep?
 
5Stars;1638649 said:
Totally wrong! Retired players are still represented by the NFLPA! Why do you think all the injured vets are trying to get more money from that hack of a player union rep?

But they arent held to the CBA. that is the bottomline in all of this. If you are released and are seeking employment then you are still privy to the CBA.

Additionally former players cannot vote on NFLPA representation. they are receiving benefits from the NFLPA pension/retirement fund but thats about it.
 
peplaw06;1638463 said:
I cant catch up with this thread... not enough time... But an interesting debate nonetheless. Initially I thought it was that he had to be under contract, but then I got to thinking... These long suspensions oftentimes lead to a team cutting a guy because he's dead weight, and they don't want to pay him if he can't be of use.

Take Vick for instance. Let's say he gets cut by the Falcons in the offseason. He's in prison and serving his "indefinite suspension." After he gets out, Goodell sets his suspension at an additional year.

If a team wants to give him a shot, do they have to sign him immediately and pay him, though he would be dead weight for a year before he can play?? Like the issue is with Tank, why would you want to sign a guy and pay him if he can't play for you? So it leads you to a scenario where a long suspension is essentially a life-long ban for these guys if they had to be under contract to serve their suspension.

I don't think that's very fair... just my $.02.


Not really a lifelong ban, come on!

If a player that is TOTALLY out of this world as a player gets a suspension for 8 games, some team will see the he is a PLAYER and live with the 8 game suspension, because when he does come back the team will have a GREAT player!
 
One of the best threads/debates I have ever seen on this board. I have to be honest though, I was rooting for Tank's suspension to have started cause I think he will make a great addition to this team once the suspension is served, but if we make a move, we should wait a bit.

I thought all parties when the dust settled were respectful and that's why I love and basically live on this board.

Good Job Hos of going out of your way to get the true answers.
 
Big Dakota;1638619 said:
It's the baggage that conserns me more than his ability to play in the 3-4. They said Sapp couldn't do it in Oak, but he played well when they were in the 3-4.

Now thats a guy I wouldn't mind seeing in a Cowboy uniform. I know he's in the later part of his career, but for the right price....
 
dallasfaniac;1638567 said:
Well, with that all behind us, when is he drunk driving, err I mean flying down?


:laugh1: :laugh1: :laugh1:
 

Staff online

Forum statistics

Threads
465,925
Messages
13,905,712
Members
23,793
Latest member
Roger33
Back
Top