Using context to judge this draft

[Whatever]

(05-04-2022, 03:08 PM)KillerGoose Wrote: 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.

You do realize Tretter had most of the Browns vets boycott in person OTA'S last year and made them do Phase 2 virtually, right?  How would you "deal with it" and not do virtual OTA'S when Tretter tells all the players not to show up?

Am I overplaying his discouragement?


Tretter wrote that less than half of NFL players attended the four-week Phase I “and players on more than half the teams in the league have negotiated new rules for the remaining voluntary workout periods.’'
He said team leaders this offseason got the program shortened to nine weeks, decreased the number of practices, and decreased the intensity by converting practices to walk-throughs and eliminating 11-on-11s.

“These are significant improvements for our membership,’' he said.
Although teams were permitted on-field instruction in the one-week Phase II this week, the Browns opted to remain virtual for the veterans and will take to the field next week in Phase III, which consists of 10 practices over the next three weeks, followed by the minicamp. Tretter told Breer that he and most of his teammates will hold firm and skip the voluntary practices because the leadership council believes “most guys feel good about where they’re training at and what they’re doing.”
The Browns rookies, on the other, participated in the voluntary rookie minicamp despite the NFLPA urging them not to and are sticking around for OTAs.

“Players are now viewing the offseason the way our union intended,’' Tretter wrote. “Each individual player has the right to decide: ‘Is my team’s program a valuable enough experience to me that it’s worth volunteering my off time to participate?’ Considering the CBA-defined offseason, the majority of players answered that question with a resounding “no.”
“The onus then shifts to each individual team to create a new offseason program that will cause a player to answer that question with a “yes.” The league office has shown zero leadership on the subject, so there is no uniformity across the NFL, putting GMs and coaches in a tough spot.

I think you're either downplaying or just not well read on the topic.  This is a guy who's actively pushing players to skip OTA'S and has said that he wants to get them abolished entirely in the next CBA.  And he never really mentioned the pandemic in the article that came from except to say it showed players what the off-season could be 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cleveland.com/browns/2021/05/nflpa-president-jc-tretter-says-most-browns-players-still-plan-to-skip-voluntary-otas-next-week-and-control-their-offseason.html%3foutputType=amp

As far as benefits of virtual OTA's, that's not really the discussion, but those stats are a joke.  17 teams increased their win total...so correspondingly 15 teams decreased in wins.  And what does that even mean when everyone had to do virtual OTA'S?  Scoring went up...hmm...well, limited crowds means no crowd noise to hamper the visiting offense.  Less penalties. .with less crowd noise and no home fans pressuring the refs for calls.  Concussions went down?  Well they kind of should have given that the league expanded defenseless player criteria to cut down on helmet to helmet hits.