Concede Thursdays

[Sgt. Largent]

Twisted you act like the players had no control over playing on Thursdays.

The owners wanted to play a full 16 games on Thursday, so they negotiated it into the last CBA............and you know what? The players agreed to it, cause it meant splitting another 500M with the owners.

So cry me a river players, you certainly aren't complaining about the extra money in all your contracts due to the increased TNF revenue.

IMO this whole woe is me by the players, and we have a couple on our team that act like they're indentured servants or something.............is getting REALLY old.

You don't like it? Then next CBA bargain for it. But they won't tell you that part, they just want to get up on their soapboxes.

:34853_doh:

And what if they try to bargain for it and fail? Are they not allowed to complain about it because it was a small part of an overall contract that when push came to shove didn't get play? Are they not able to lament their failures until the next CBA? You have a very binary view of how sausage gets made and how people come to agreements that while are mutually beneficial leave room for improvement from both counterparties.

There is a very pernicious cognitive lapse going on where mutually beneficial imperfect things are suddently thought of as immutable ideals to strive for. This is not like a 30 year mortgage or a 10 year car note, it's a dynamic process that leaves a lot to be desired by both sides but ultimately yields football the majority of the time.

Right, concessions on both sides. In 2011 the players wanted alleviations in the personal conduct policy that Goodell and the owners were lording over them with an iron fist..............so the owners decided to dangle out more money and to lighten up on personal conduct in exchange for a full slate of TNF.

So let's not pretend the players were helpless, they got what they wanted as well, and now they're crying about it.

Next CBA is in 2020, so we'll see again if they players are willing to make less or concede on other issues to get rid of TNF. My guess is................nah. But they sure as hell won't stop acting the victim.

 

[mrt144]

Twisted you act like the players had no control over playing on Thursdays.

The owners wanted to play a full 16 games on Thursday, so they negotiated it into the last CBA............and you know what? The players agreed to it, cause it meant splitting another 500M with the owners.

So cry me a river players, you certainly aren't complaining about the extra money in all your contracts due to the increased TNF revenue.

IMO this whole woe is me by the players, and we have a couple on our team that act like they're indentured servants or something.............is getting REALLY old.

You don't like it? Then next CBA bargain for it. But they won't tell you that part, they just want to get up on their soapboxes.

:34853_doh:

And what if they try to bargain for it and fail? Are they not allowed to complain about it because it was a small part of an overall contract that when push came to shove didn't get play? Are they not able to lament their failures until the next CBA? You have a very binary view of how sausage gets made and how people come to agreements that while are mutually beneficial leave room for improvement from both counterparties.

There is a very pernicious cognitive lapse going on where mutually beneficial imperfect things are suddently thought of as immutable ideals to strive for. This is not like a 30 year mortgage or a 10 year car note, it's a dynamic process that leaves a lot to be desired by both sides but ultimately yields football the majority of the time.

Right, concessions on both sides. In 2011 the players wanted alleviations in the personal conduct policy that Goodell and the owners were lording over them with an iron fist..............so the owners decided to dangle out more money and to lighten up on personal conduct in exchange for a full slate of TNF.

So let's not pretend the players were helpless, they got what they wanted as well, and now they're crying about it.

Next CBA is in 2020, so we'll see again if they players are willing to make less or concede on other issues to get rid of TNF. My guess is................nah. But they sure as hell won't stop acting the victim.

Oh, so this is what this is about, not anything football related or with an understanding that labor contracts are imperfect somewhat dynamic documents where both sides take their greivances about the imperfectness to the consumers of the product. Got it.

The way I see it, they agreed to something, they didnt like it when it was put into practice over the course of 7 seasons, they're telling us they didn't like it and they might take measures to ensure that it isn't part of the 2020 CBA. Why invoke some speculative argument about 'playing the victim'?

 

[Sgt. Largent]

Oh, so this is what this is about, not anything football related or with an understanding that labor contracts are imperfect somewhat dynamic documents where both sides take their greivances about the imperfectness to the consumers of the product. Got it.

The way I see it, they agreed to something, they didnt like it when it was put into practice over the course of 7 seasons, they're telling us they didn't like it and they might take measures to ensure that it isn't part of the 2020 CBA. Why invoke some speculative argument about 'playing the victim'?

I'd buy it if this is how guys like Baldwin, Sherman and other NFL players explained it. How hard is that?

"Listen, we agreed to this in 2011, we wanted some other concessions and more money for our players.........but now that we've been playing on Thursday Nights, we don't like the injuries and quick turnaround, it's hard for us."

But that's not how they act, they act like they had no part in TNF, and they're some oppressed employees at the mercy of the evil owners.

My only point is OWN IT, don't play the victim. That's all, is that too much to ask out of the players?

 

[Seahawkfan80]

It must be the Color Rush uniforms that are causing the increased injuries. That seems to be the only major change that has happened in the last couple years. That must have a bearing on the safety of the players. So Ban the Color Rush uniforms will fix it. :sarcasm_off: :twisted:

:stirthepot: :irishdrinkers: :irishdrinkers:

 

[kidhawk]

It must be the Color Rush uniforms that are causing the increased injuries. That seems to be the only major change that has happened in the last couple years. That must have a bearing on the safety of the players. So Ban the Color Rush uniforms will fix it. :sarcasm_off: :twisted:

:stirthepot: :irishdrinkers: :irishdrinkers:

Those bright green uniforms are probably blinding the players out there causing them to not be able to see what they are doing. :lol:

 

[mrt144]

Oh, so this is what this is about, not anything football related or with an understanding that labor contracts are imperfect somewhat dynamic documents where both sides take their greivances about the imperfectness to the consumers of the product. Got it.

The way I see it, they agreed to something, they didnt like it when it was put into practice over the course of 7 seasons, they're telling us they didn't like it and they might take measures to ensure that it isn't part of the 2020 CBA. Why invoke some speculative argument about 'playing the victim'?

I'd buy it if this is how guys like Baldwin, Sherman and other NFL players explained it. How hard is that?

"Listen, we agreed to this in 2011, we wanted some other concessions and more money for our players.........but now that we've been playing on Thursday Nights, we don't like the injuries and quick turnaround, it's hard for us."

But that's not how they act, they act like they had no part in TNF, and they're some oppressed employees at the mercy of the evil owners.

My only point is OWN IT, don't play the victim. That's all, is that too much to ask out of the players?

Consider for a moment that it's more than likely that many if not most players who agreed to that 2011 CBA are currently not in the league any longer. Again, this is a dynamic process with new members to the NFLPA inhabiting a contract they didn't agree to and yet play under.

And the reason I can plainly articulate these things in a palatable way that players don't is because it doesn't personally affect me in any tangible way.

 

[hawk45]

Actually this year the data says the injury rate is higher.

Is it a statistical blip or a trend?

And since the data is being interpreted by parties w a specific benefit if the data shows a certain outcome...how valid are the findings?

Regardless the larger issue is the chance at severe injury.

Also resting starters can have benefits in the next game that mitigates the impact of the single loss.

You are trading one loss for increased chance of having key players for other games.

There are additional factors here:

Was there travel?
Was the game before particularly grueling or overtime?

But I would suggest it might be worth it.

And I don't agree the players agreed to it. The CBA is extremely one-sided due to the specifics of the circumstance. Players have less leverage.

Re: data interpretation, to make the argument there has to be more than a suggestion that interpretation A might be skewed. There has to be evidence that it IS skewed. Particularly since we aren't talking about something that takes an advanced degree to interpret. We have incidence of injury before TNF and incidence of injury after TNF. Also, the NFL's interpretation of this very, very easy correlation is in front of the entire world to debunk.

There are NFL teams who don't rest starters even with playoff seeding locked up so that they won't mess with their momentum. The idea that coaches whose year-to-year job status can swing upon a single win getting them into the playoffs would rest players before locking up the playoffs seems very dubious to me when the data doesn't even support it making a difference.

 

[IndyHawk]

Oh, so this is what this is about, not anything football related or with an understanding that labor contracts are imperfect somewhat dynamic documents where both sides take their greivances about the imperfectness to the consumers of the product. Got it.

The way I see it, they agreed to something, they didnt like it when it was put into practice over the course of 7 seasons, they're telling us they didn't like it and they might take measures to ensure that it isn't part of the 2020 CBA. Why invoke some speculative argument about 'playing the victim'?

I'd buy it if this is how guys like Baldwin, Sherman and other NFL players explained it. How hard is that?

"Listen, we agreed to this in 2011, we wanted some other concessions and more money for our players.........but now that we've been playing on Thursday Nights, we don't like the injuries and quick turnaround, it's hard for us."

But that's not how they act, they act like they had no part in TNF, and they're some oppressed employees at the mercy of the evil owners.

My only point is OWN IT, don't play the victim. That's all, is that too much to ask out of the players?

Consider for a moment that it's more than likely that many if not most players who agreed to that 2011 CBA are currently not in the league any longer. Again, this is a dynamic process with new members to the NFLPA inhabiting a contract they didn't agree to and yet play under.

And the reason I can plainly articulate these things in a palatable way that players don't is because it doesn't personally affect me in any tangible way.

So now the softer players are playing under conditions set forth before them ..

Cry me a river :177692: They can seek changes in the next contract..
Like 2 quarters instead of 4..Flags instead of tackle and whatever other nonsense.

 

[hawk45]

And the reason I can plainly articulate these things in a palatable way that players don't is because it doesn't personally affect me in any tangible way.

I think Occam's razor dictates that the reason players can't articulate these things in a palatable way is that they haven't thought it through themselves, aren't articulate enough in general, or aren't being fair-minded in acknowledging that they do set priorities for their side during negotiations and so most definitely had a hand in deciding that they would sacrifice this particular goal rather than get less money.

So as Sarge said, assuming the mantle of victim on this particular issue is going to rub the wrong way.

I understand that some current players may not have been around during the last negotiation, but I don't realistically think the players will ever die on the TNF hill because it's always going to be a trade-off for money.

 

[RolandDeschain]

I bet they despise the longer rest period after those TNF games... :roll:

 

[Sox-n-Hawks]

I bet they despise the longer rest period after those TNF games... :roll:

Right?

And I'm SURE the NFL doesn't like the money. That's why they just signed a 5 year deal with Fox for Thursday night games.

http://money.cnn.com/2018/01/31/media/nfl-thursday-night-football/index.html