Players wanted fewer practices and other concessions in the CBA so they agreed to give Goodell the power he has. They have no right to complain.

Most of the players were more concerned about OTHER teams or players cheating against them than they were their own team/teammates getting caught.

(04-26-2016, 09:25 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Brady does not want to push this any more.  The conversations he had with the equipment manager pretty much show he was involved.  The more it goes on the worse he looks.

What does Brady have to lose by appealing? Nothing. Goodell's disciplinary decisions have been overturned in arbitration repeatedly. Without looking it up, I'd wager he has a losing record. Brady doesn't look worse appealing, but Goodell can't afford to have another decision overturned.

Added: 2/3rds of the Bengals roster wasn't in the NFL when the last CBA was signed. I think Burfict has a right to complain about his discipline, 2nd longest suspension for on the field behavior when compared to a player like James Harrison.

(04-26-2016, 02:15 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: What does Brady have to lose by appealing?  Nothing. Goodell's disciplinary decisions have been overturned in arbitration repeatedly. Without looking it up, I'd wager he has a losing record. Brady doesn't look worse appealing, but Goodell can't afford to have another decision overturned.

Losing.

Again.

He's gotten to use to everything going his way.  His ego might want to press on, sure that he will win...but he also doesn't want another public loss affecting his image.

(04-26-2016, 09:59 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Players wanted fewer practices and other concessions in the CBA so they agreed to give Goodell the power he has.  They have no right to complain.

Most of the players were more concerned about OTHER teams or players cheating against them than they were their own team/teammates getting caught.

Exactly....  Fred is spot on.   

The union is a joke and has been.   They are the reason why the game is worse off.    Less practices and contact with coaches is a major problem that's led to more injuries.   The concussion protocol is another joke.   Whether you believe in it or not the whole protocol is an over reach.    

(04-26-2016, 05:49 PM)GMDino Wrote: Losing.

Again.

He's gotten to use to everything going his way.  His ego might want to press on, sure that he will win...but he also doesn't want another public loss affecting his image.

Brady lost one appeal by a vote of 2-1.  I don't think losing an appeal will affect his image because most people have their mind made up one way or the other already. 

(04-27-2016, 12:53 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote:   They are the reason why the game is worse off.    Less practices and contact with coaches is a major problem that's led to more injuries.   The concussion protocol is another joke.   Whether you believe in it or not the whole protocol is an over reach.    

1.  The game is not worse off.

2.  There are no more injuries than there ever were.

3.  The concussion protocol is not a joke or over reach.

Other than that i agree with everything you say.

(04-27-2016, 12:53 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Exactly....  Fred is spot on.   

The union is a joke and has been.

Why?  Because the union looks out for the interest of the players?  

Quote:They are the reason why the game is worse off.    Less practices and contact with coaches is a major problem that's led to more injuries.

Do you have any data that indicates there are more injuries?  I doubt it.

Quote:The concussion protocol is another joke.   Whether you believe in it or not the whole protocol is an over reach.    

Again you reveal your ignorance about the entire concussion protocol.  The concussion protocol was developed by neurologist who specialize in concussions and head trauma independently of the NFL.  The NFL has adopted and modified the concussion protocol for their own use.  The NFL is only interested in player safety inasmuch as a $1 billion out of court settlement.  Adopting the concussion protocol is a way for the owners to protect their revenue.  Period.  The owners are perfectly within their rights to protect their revenue.  No overreach.  

The real reason you are upset about the concussion protocol is your perception of concussion protocol abuse by other teams, not the concussion protocol itself.

(04-27-2016, 01:02 PM)fredtoast Wrote: 1.  The game is not worse off.

2.  There are no more injuries than there ever were.

3.  The concussion protocol is not a joke or over reach.

Other than that i agree with everything you say.

1. Then why is there such drama over what a catch is today?  Not being able to describe a fundamental action of play is pretty bad.    

2. http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/08/07/are-new-practice-rules-contributing-to-rash-of-serious-injuries/

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap2000000304194/article/bill-belichick-claims-offseason-limits-cause-more-injuries

3. There is not enough evidence to back up what they do now.   It's a shot in the dark.   They don't even know the long term issues associated yet.    

(04-27-2016, 01:09 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Why?  Because the union looks out for the interest of the players?  


Do you have any data that indicates there are more injuries?  I doubt it.


Again you reveal your ignorance about the entire concussion protocol.  The concussion protocol was developed by neurologist who specialize in concussions and head trauma independently of the NFL.  The NFL has adopted and modified the concussion protocol for their own use.  The NFL is only interested in player safety inasmuch as a $1 billion out of court settlement.  Adopting the concussion protocol is a way for the owners to protect their revenue.  Period.  The owners are perfectly within their rights to protect their revenue.  No overreach.  

The real reason you are upset about the concussion protocol is your perception of concussion protocol abuse by other teams, not the concussion protocol itself.

1. The union doesn't look out for all players.    It looks out for the 1% of players who are constantly in trouble for doing things they aren't supposed to be doing anyway. 

2. How many years has this neurologist been studying the effects on football players?   The court case is a joke as well.  Everyone knows the risks.    To pretend that you didn't after the fact is disingenuous.  

3. The real reason I am upset is because playing professional football is voluntary.   They get high pay because of the risk they take....   If pro football was forced employment then I would support the protocol.   But the players can choose to not play anytime.   

(04-27-2016, 01:22 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: 3. The real reason I am upset is because playing professional football is voluntary.   They get high pay because of the risk they take....   If pro football was forced employment then I would support the protocol.   But the players can choose to not play anytime.   

What a ridiculous argument.

Working in a coal mine is voluntary also.  Does that mean that miners should have to work in deadly dangerous conditions?

People who don't enjoy football without serious injuries have some issues.

(04-27-2016, 01:15 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: 1. Then why is there such drama over what a catch is today?  Not being able to describe a fundamental action of play is pretty bad.    

That is a competition committee issue, not a union issue.

Quote:2. http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/08/07/are-new-practice-rules-contributing-to-rash-of-serious-injuries/

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap2000000304194/article/bill-belichick-claims-offseason-limits-cause-more-injuries

You didn't even read your sources.  

The first sentence of the first paragraph of the first reference reads, "It’s way too early to blame the rash of injuries during 2013 training camp on the new practice rules and limitations implemented in 2011 as part of the new labor deal."  The second sentence states that hasn't stopped "speculation."  

In the second source, a NFL spokesman flat out denied Belichick's speculation, "We carefully monitor player injuries," Signora said. "There is no evidence that the new work rules have had an adverse effect on the injury rate or that injuries have in fact increased."

So good job providing sources which indicate your uninformed opinion is exactly that, uniformed opinion.

Quote:3. There is not enough evidence to back up what they do now.   It's a shot in the dark.   They don't even know the long term issues associated yet.    

At least pretend to educate yourself . . .

http://bjsm.bmj.com/content/47/5/250.full

(04-27-2016, 02:11 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: That is a competition committee issue, not a union issue.




You didn't even read your sources.  

The first sentence of the first paragraph of the first reference reads, "It’s way too early to blame the rash of injuries during 2013 training camp on the new practice rules and limitations implemented in 2011 as part of the new labor deal."  The second sentence states that hasn't stopped "speculation."  




At least pretend to educate yourself . . .

http://bjsm.bmj.com/content/47/5/250.full

1. My initial point was on quality of play.   If they can't be trusted to agree what a catch is then how can we trust them to handle the concussion protocol correctly?  Especially given they have no long term studies.   

2. I posted those not for the obvious NFL covering their own tails.   But to show that Polian and Belichelk who are aware of the quality of play on field and how these rules are hampering them plus leading to increased injury. 

3. Your link doesn't work.   The pro concussion people have all said they still don't have enough info.   The NFL concussion protocol is a knee jerk overreaction.  None of this would be an issue of they weren't going in blind just trying whatever to see what sticks.    

(04-27-2016, 01:53 PM)fredtoast Wrote: What a ridiculous argument.

Working in a coal mine is voluntary also.  Does that mean that miners should have to work in deadly dangerous conditions?

People who don't enjoy football without serious injuries have some issues.

When you accept a job with increased risks you are compensated for those risks.  And like I said the job is voluntary....   

(04-27-2016, 01:53 PM)fredtoast Wrote: What a ridiculous argument.

Working in a coal mine is voluntary also.  Does that mean that miners should have to work in deadly dangerous conditions?

People who don't enjoy football without serious injuries have some issues.

Given the choice of those two occupations, where would you rather work? Weighing all the risks, and factoring in endorsements and the like, whose pay is really out of kilter here? Before answering that, have you ever been in a coal mine or at least seen the miners up close after completing a shift, and I don't mean on television or on or the internet. The only relevant thing about this comparison is that both do indeed work in very dangerous conditions, however; in most cases one has no choice to pursue other avenues of employment to support their families. Also, I'm pretty sure we would all enjoy football just as much without injuries, and I doubt he meant that at all. What a ridiculous comparison.

(04-27-2016, 01:22 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: 1. The union doesn't look out for all players.    It looks out for the 1% of players who are constantly in trouble for doing things they aren't supposed to be doing anyway. 

Player benefits and salary affect 100% of players.

Quote:2. How many years has this neurologist been studying the effects on football players?

Head trauma isn't specific to football players.  Neurologist and neurosurgeons have been studying head trauma as long as there have been neurologists and neurosurgeons to study head trauma.

What's the difference in a concussion between a football player, a boxer, a skier, or a soldier?  None.  It's "disingenuous" to insinuate concussions are specific to football only or only studies involving football players can be used to guide treatment.  The concussion protocol is used across many sports, not just football, not just the NFL.

Quote:The court case is a joke as well.

The owner's voluntarily settled out of court.  Why would they volunteer to give away $1 billion?  It was the owner's choice.  Why are you upset the owner's decided to do something in their own best interest?

Quote:Everyone knows the risks.

A couple of responses ago you wrote, "They don't even know the long term issues associated yet."  So which is it?  Everyone knows the risks?  Or the doctors don't know the risk?

Quote:To pretend that you didn't after the fact is disingenuous.  

The NFL systematically denied a link between concussions and any sequelae, even when their own research indicated otherwise.  They even tried to destroy the careers of medical researchers.

Quote:3. The real reason I am upset is because playing professional football is voluntary.   They get high pay because of the risk they take....   If pro football was forced employment then I would support the protocol.   But the players can choose to not play anytime.   

If that were true, you wouldn't feign outrage about Chris Kemoeatu needing a kidney transplant.  He could have stopped playing at any time.

Right?

I just heard that Garroppolo will not be starting in place of Tom Brady while Brady is suspended for the first 4 games of this season. Another QB named Dom Grady will be starting and has been on the team since Tom Brady was drafted.

EDIT: Damn, I can't get the picture to show up but it's just of Tom Brady in a cheesy mouthbrow(mustache).

OK, it's a bad attempt at a joke.

(04-27-2016, 03:13 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: 1. My initial point was on quality of play.   If they can't be trusted to agree what a catch is then how can we trust them to handle the concussion protocol correctly?  Especially given they have no long term studies.

You blamed it on the union and everything you have cited doesn't have anything to do with the union. Including the officiating and the concussion protocol.  The union doesn't officiate the games.  The union didn't develop, adopt, or enforce the concussion protocol.  

Quote:2. I posted those not for the obvious NFL covering their own tails.   But to show that Polian and Belichelk who are aware of the quality of play on field and how these rules are hampering them plus leading to increased injury. 

And even the NFL itself denies there are increased injuries as a result of what you are complaining about.  To summarize, you complained about something, you cited a source to validate your complaint, your source indicated your complaint was without merit.

Quote:3. Your link doesn't work.   The pro concussion people have all said they still don't have enough info.   The NFL concussion protocol is a knee jerk overreaction.  None of this would be an issue of they weren't going in blind just trying whatever to see what sticks.    

I just checked and the link works fine on my end.  The concussion protocol is the medical standard.  The NFL adopted it because the leading medical experts recommend it.  If you are a private patient with a concussion being treated by a neurologist specializing in concussions he is going to use a concussion protocol to return you to your weekend warrior sport.

(04-26-2016, 09:25 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Brady does not want to push this any more.  The conversations he had with the equipment manager pretty much show he was involved.  The more it goes on the worse he looks.


In my opinion Brady and the Pats are getting punished moire for failing to co-operate with the investigation that for the original offense.  

And when it all said and done the fact is that Goodell has the authority to do what he did.  It is in the CBA that the players agreed to.  The NFLPA gave Goodell the power, so they have no grounds to complain when he uses it.

Not sure of what the conversations were with the equipment manager, but the fact that he destroyed his phone that had those conversations on it (whether they were innocent or not) raises a ton of doubt, especially since he destroyed it shortly before the meeting which he was aware of the date/time of the meeting.

If he's innocent as he claims, he would've had no need to do that with his phone.

So the only path left for Goodell is to punish him for failure to cooperate. Now the fact that he had his pay changed on his contract shows that he had a good idea that the ruling would be overturned back into Goodell's favor.

Goodell was clearly within his rights to punish Brady as he saw fit, per the CBA and the court ruling cited that as the reason to overturn the previous ruling.

(04-27-2016, 04:29 PM)UYou oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: You blamed it on the union and everything you have cited doesn't have anything to do with the union. Including the officiating and the concussion protocol.  The union doesn't officiate the games.  The union didn't develop, adopt, or enforce the concussion protocol.  


And even the NFL itself denies there are increased injuries as a result of what you are complaining about.  To summarize, you complained about something, you cited a source to validate your complaint, your source indicated your complaint was without merit.


I just checked and the link works fine on my end.  The concussion protocol is the medical standard.  The NFL adopted it because the leading medical experts recommend it.  If you are a private patient with a concussion being treated by a neurologist specializing in concussions he is going to use a concussion protocol to return you to your weekend warrior sport.

1. Quality of play has been lessened by what has been agreed upon in that union agreement. 

2. The NFL denies it because they do not want more ambulance chasers taking a bite because the union does little to nothing for retired players and most are broke.   This has nothing to do with any legitimate long term study.    

3. The only adopted it to prevent further ridiculous lawsuits.     That's not a good reason to have it active.    

Once again I don't mind the protocol but the players should be able to opt out of the protocol at their own risk.    I don't see a problem with allowing them a voice in their own medical care.  If there is no ability opt out them it should be abandoned.    

(04-27-2016, 05:53 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: 1. Quality of play has been lessened by what has been agreed upon in that union agreement. 

To support this opinion you cited two issues which don't have anything to do with the union, officiating and injury concerns.

Quote:2. The NFL denies it because they do not want more ambulance chasers taking a bite because the union does little to nothing for retired players and most are broke.   This has nothing to do with any legitimate long term study.    

The NFL denied a link between concussions and sequelae long before any lawsuits.

Quote:3. The only adopted it to prevent further ridiculous lawsuits.     That's not a good reason to have it active.    

Why did neurologist adopt it?

Quote:Once again I don't mind the protocol

Christ, everything you wrote has been that you mind the protocol and now you don't mind the protocol?  LMAO  You're ability to contradict yourself is legendary.  You're consistently inconsistent.  

Quote:but the players should be able to opt out of the protocol at their own risk.    I don't see a problem with allowing them a voice in their own medical care.  If there is no ability opt out them it should be abandoned.    

The player can opt out of the concussion protocol.  If they don't like the protocol they can quit at any time.  Playing football is voluntary.  Remember?