Using context to judge this draft

[KillerGoose]

(05-04-2022, 10:08 AM)Whatever Wrote: If he's a good C, good locker room guy, and having the NFLPA president on your team is so valuable, why is he still unemployed?

My initial argument is that he is not a presence you want around your team.  A player of high influence who actively discourages players from taking part in programs designed to help improve your team is not a presence you want around your team, at least if you are worried about winning games.  

From the Bengals' perspective, more specifically, you just won the AFC with 100% participation in OTA's.  Why would you want to move backwards and try to "make it work" with virtual OTA's because of one guy?  Or, look at the Ravens.  They needed a C and didn't go after Tretter.  Of course, Harbaugh is notorious for running more padded practices than the CBA allows.  That's not happening with the NFLPA President there.

I can't answer that. The league may not have the same opinion as I do of him. He may be waiting until later into the summer. I genuinely don't know. You're also failing to understand what I posted. I am not saying I'd make it work by caving to virtual OTAs. How does that make any sense? I would make it work with having to "deal" with a guy like him. OTAs wouldn't be virtual if the pandemic was in the rear view mirror. 

You're also just massively overplaying his "discouragement" in order to try to defend your position. He suggested boycotting OTAs once, during a pandemic. He came to this conclusion by looking at injury data and using survey data from players around the league. He even stated that it was specifically for this year. Now, he has advocated for an OTA free off-season in the past, but has not actively discouraged anyone from attending outside of the pandemic last season. You seem convinced that OTAs are a crucial part of team success, but the data from 2020, where in-person OTAs did not happen, suggest otherwise. There may be little to no correlation to in-person OTAs and team success. 

• In 2020, without in-person OTAs or pre-season games, 53% (17) teams across the league improved on their win percentage compared to 2019. 
• Offensive scoring increased by 9%.
• Penalties decreased by 20%
• Compared to the previous five seasons, concussion occurrences decreased by 19% 
• Compared to previous five seasons, ACL tears increased by about 25%
• Compared to previous five seasons, MCL tears increased by roughly 7%
  

So, soft tissues injuries went up, concussion occurrences dropped dramatically along with penalties, offenses performed better and over half of the league improved on their win total. Does this definitively mean that OTAs, or even pre-season, are inhibiting a better NFL? No, not necessarily. We'd need more data, but there is at least something here to challenge the notion that OTAs definitively have an impact on winning. Overall, I don't care about Tretter's position on OTAs. I see his angle and I think it is reasonable, especially as the president of the NFLPA. I think he'd be a fine presence in the locker room. You don't. That's okay, too.