The NFL 2011 Offseason/Strike/Lockout Thread

[molson]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

As such, I think you can be upset at both sides

I am indeed rooting for every current player's career to be irrevocably ruined, also for the NFL and all of is franchises to implode financially. That would be the most entertaining outcome. And it almost seems like we're getting a little closer to that every day.

Edit: Didn't Jim prophesize this in FOF1, though I think quite a few decades later?

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by molson

Agreed - if I read your tone incorrectly I apologize, but from this thread, I at least think I'm picking up a general "greedy owners trying to screw those poor, sad players" vibe. I could be misreading that.

But on the other hand - as far as who "picked a fight" - aren't we talking about moral/right/wrong there? What's the legal signficance of the owners doing something they had every right to do? That action is clearly being spun against them as some type of bad behavior. As is "asking for millions back" - as if they're stealing it.

No, we're not talking about a moral right/wrong here. No, we're not talking about the greedy owners trying to screw the poor players. We're talking about factual statements. In this case, the owners picked a fight they thought they had the upper hand in. That's neither bad nor good, it's just a fact.

But what they've been is very stupid. Their TV-lockout insurance was a clear violation of their contract with the NFLPA and now they're going to have to pay for it - that's stupid. Their refusal to negotiate in good faith was stupid (not having someone in the negotiations who can make decisions until two weeks before the deadline is not negotiating in good faith). Their inability to look at this from an anti-trust standpoint rather than a labor one was/is stupid. Their demands for a giveback half of a billion dollars without ever justifying it was stupid. I think Goddell's self-serving piece in the WSJ was stupid. Frankly, I think the owners have been absolute idiots throughout this whole thing. Talk about overplaying a weak hand...yeesh, Sun Tzu would have a field day with this group.

Did you see the video recently where a little skinny runt was being a bully and smacked a bigger kid in the mouth? And then the bigger kid picked up the bully and body slammed him? That's what this reminds me of right now. The NFL has been a bit of a bully throughout this whole thing and they just got body slammed. Now maybe if that's what it takes to get them to negotiate honestly, then good, because I just want my friggin' football back.

Of course, if owner's aim is to break the union and go forth as 32 individual entities and all that entails (no draft, no RFA, no franchise players), then they're smart as hell because it's the players who will get blamed for that. I don't believe that would be in their best interests and I don't think that's their goal. But I could be wrong, in which case the owners are geniuses.

[SirFozzie]

Players: Lockout is over, NFL must open for business - The Huddle: Football News from the NFL - USATODAY.com

Wow, apparently teams are still trying to keep players from working out, etcetera.. time for fines and or citations for contempt of court?

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

Players: Lockout is over, NFL must open for business - The Huddle: Football News from the NFL - USATODAY.com

Wow, apparently teams are still trying to keep players from working out, etcetera.. time for fines and or citations for contempt of court?

I think the NFL doesn't really know what to do and are frozen with inaction a bit. I'm getting that "deer in headlights" feeling. They're 7 hours away from one of the biggest sporting events of the year - the NFL draft - which may not even be legal right now. They're continuing to lock players out in violation of a federal judge's order. They're getting perilously close to racking up significant collusion damages that will be trebled in an anti-trust case. Can you imagine just the damages for Nnamdi Asomugha if the owners refuse to negotiate with him or his agent due to the "lockout"?

As I said before, they've put themselves in a bad place. If the 8th circuit court doesn't bail them out quicky, they're going from frying pan to the fire. I hope that behind the scenes, they're scrambling to arrange some very immediate CBA negotiations. But I'm not at all confident in that. These owners aren't used to not getting their way and if their listening to their attorneys (who have lost the last 3 major court cases for the NFL), they may try to wait all of this out and possibly dig too deep of a hole for themselves.

The danger isn't that the players win so much that the NFL has to really treat them as independent contractors bidding their services among various teams. Most of the players know that the existing CBA is a good deal for them as well. The danger is that someone or a small group will rack up enough in potential trebled damages that makes it impossible to get a deal done.

For example, the draft has been part of the CBA and ruled legal due to the agreement between the owners and the union. But at this sage, with no union and no CBA, the draft probably is an illegal restraint of trade and an anti-trust violation. If the draft is held tonight and a month from now the existing players agree to a CBA that has major caps on draftees' salaries, what happens if all 32 1st rounders decide to sue because at the time of the draft they weren't subject to the CBA and want to be treated as independent contractors? Imagine the damage done to the league at that point...and the damages could be astronomical. Sam Bradford got a $78m contract last year...imagine Cam Newton suing because his contract was unfairly limited due to "collusion". That's potentially $225 million in damages on just one player! You'd have fans leaving the sport in droves because the entire draft was a sham. That may be irreparable damage to the league both financially and from the fans.

[SirFozzie]

NFL lockout ruling may be just hours away - ESPN

Decision may be "hours away"

[molson]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

NFL lockout ruling may be just hours away - ESPN

Decision may be "hours away"

They sure do this stuff fast. I'm not sure why it takes judges where I am months to rule on simple motions. I mean, I'm not the NFL or anything, but geez.

[SirFozzie]

Hell, it's not even this fast in multi-billion dollar cases (SCO v Linux? Of course, that was one side deliberately stretching it out as a far as possible to spread FUD).

Right now? I think it's 55/45 that the lockout will be put back in place. The tipping factor is how fast they're moving.

But.. and this is a huge old fashioned Sir Mixalot "Baby Got Back" But:

If this one goes against the owners, it's over for them.

[molson]

And with all the wins and leverage, the players won't accept the "status quo" anymore, and the owners will be too proud to have opted-out for a worse deal.

[SirFozzie]

You may be right, (I tend to think that the players would sign something around the 2006 CBA, but I think the owners pride would get in the way)

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

NFL lockout ruling may be just hours away - ESPN

Decision may be "hours away"

This is the NFL's Hail Mary. If it's incomplete, this game may very well be over.

[SirFozzie]

Not quite a hail mary, more like a 4th and 17, the NFL can't WIN the dispute here, but they can lose it here.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by molson

And with all the wins and leverage, the players won't accept the "status quo" anymore, and the owners will be too proud to have opted-out for a worse deal.

I'm more optimistic than you are. The wins don't gain the players all that much, they just prevent them from losing. There's only so many dollars to go around and they know that a truly independent contractor status isn't necessarily the best thing for them. Think about it - only two baseball teams have payrolls higher than the $151m cap on $6.6B in MLB revenues. The average is half that number. Total salaries in the NFL are higher, as compared to overall revenues, than in baseball by almost 1/3rd.

As such, the players know there's a very real risk that going independent will actually reduce their overall compensation. Some teams (like Cincy) may very well choose to field cheap teams (say, $60m in salaries) that would create a net compensation loss for the players. Not to mention that it may very well impact league balance and interest, lowering the total revenues (which would lower salaries even more). Neither the players nor the owners want to risk that IMO. Consider that the thermonuclear option - it ain't good for anyone. Everyone knows this. No one gains from this.

I think that there would be a "save face" deal, where the owners would agree to a deal with a compensation figure of $148m/team in 2011. $27m would be benefits, so the cap would be $121, which is still $6m less than in 2009. The deal would contain no artificial revenue restrictions on the growth of that number, which was one of the provisions that really pissed off the players. So the players would get most of what they want, but everyone ends up with a workable deal.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

Judge Doty agreed that the league had not done everything it was legally obligated to do as part of the collective bargaining agreement and set a hearing for May 12 for the damages the league will have to pay.

And yet this did not become a question until the owners opted out of the contract. Why didn't the players fight this back then?

[SirFozzie]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

And yet this did not become a question until the owners opted out of the contract. Why didn't the players fight this back then?

As far as I know, the players DID protest, and it made its way through the normal system, through the Special Master, and then to Judge Doty.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

As far as I know, the players DID protest, and it made its way through the normal system, through the Special Master, and then to Judge Doty.

Then the press folks have been doing a horrible job on this, because the first I heard of it was after this past season, not back during the last TV negotiations.

As for resolutions, I still want to see the owners agree to the players' financial demands in return for the 18 game regular season (with an expanded roster, the salary cap does away with the need for a 46-man limit and would help with injury issues) and a rookie wage scale, at least for the first round.

[SirFozzie]

Couple updates from ESPN's Adam Schefter:

The players have sent a formal demand to the owners to start the league year or they will file for contempt of court.

The NFL has sent a memo to NFL clubs going out now on how to operate, and plans to announce timing for commencement of 2011 League Year, free agent signings and other player transactions tomorrow.



(my analsyis: They're hoping that the 8th court re-instates the lockout today, but realize that if the court does not re-instate the lockout today, they HAVE to open and start the league year, and will do so tommorrow)

[SirFozzie]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

Then the press folks have been doing a horrible job on this, because the first I heard of it was after this past season, not back during the last TV negotiations.

As for resolutions, I still want to see the owners agree to the players' financial demands in return for the 18 game regular season (with an expanded roster, the salary cap does away with the need for a 46-man limit and would help with injury issues) and a rookie wage scale, at least for the first round.

actually, folks were calling it lockout insurance back in March of 2009:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/200...ngs/index.html

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

actually, folks were calling it lockout insurance back in March of 2009:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/200...ngs/index.html

Ah, okay, just me not paying attention. I withdraw the objection then. I still hate the whole frigging' mess.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

And yet this did not become a question until the owners opted out of the contract. Why didn't the players fight this back then?

Because until the lockout, it wasn't a big thing. If I remember correctly, the players put up a bit of a fuss, but not all that much. The NFL accepted slightly less money for the rights to get paid $4B in TV contracts in the event that there was a lockout. This was, as Doty ruled, negotiated in bad faith against the NFLPA since the NFL didn't maximize the revenues.

But the big win for the players in this case was preventing the NFL from getting their hands on the $4B during the lockout. That's what the players really wanted to prevent. Remember, the $4B wasn't free money. $3.5B of that had to be repaid to the networks, just under very favorable conditions to the owners. It was, essentially, a long-term no interest loan to keep operating capital up in the case of a lockout. Now that the judge ruled that clause wasn't in the best interest of all parties (including the players) to maximize revenues, the owners can't get their hands on it.

[SirFozzie]

Assuming the lockout is not reimposed, NFL agrees to open up at 8 AM tommorrow:

The NFL told its 32 teams Thursday that, pending a ruling on its request that a "temporary stay" of the lower court's ruling lifting the lockout be granted, it should open their facilities to players at 8 a.m. ET on Friday.

Players will be allowed to meet with coaches and teams may distribute playbooks to players and begin OTA and minicamp practices, subject to rules from the last collective bargaining agreement. The NFL said on Friday it would advise its teams on rules for player transactions including the start of the "league year" when those moves can begin to take place.

NFL: Players can work out with teams Friday - ESPN

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

Assuming the lockout is not reimposed, NFL agrees to open up at 8 AM tommorrow:

The NFL told its 32 teams Thursday that, pending a ruling on its request that a "temporary stay" of the lower court's ruling lifting the lockout be granted, it should open their facilities to players at 8 a.m. ET on Friday.

Players will be allowed to meet with coaches and teams may distribute playbooks to players and begin OTA and minicamp practices, subject to rules from the last collective bargaining agreement. The NFL said on Friday it would advise its teams on rules for player transactions including the start of the "league year" when those moves can begin to take place.

NFL: Players can work out with teams Friday - ESPN

That's a dangerous tactic. I think that's an indication that they're planning on getting back to the bargaining table fast if the temporary stay isn't granted.

[SirFozzie]

I have to disagree with you, Blackadar, it's not really dangerous, they had to have SOME rules in place, if the players complain, they can say "it was good enough for them then, so we decided not to go any further in restrictions.." and I think they would get at least some sympathy..

but yeah, should the owners lose out in the stay, they have to get to the table quickly, they will have lost all leverage.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

That's a dangerous tactic. I think that's an indication that they're planning on getting back to the bargaining table fast if the temporary stay isn't granted.

There's no winning there. If they used terms more owner-friendly than the last CBA - that would be "unfair" (and possibly illegal), and if they used terms more player-friendly than the last CBA - then that's would be taken as a concession of some type by the players, and that would be our new starting point for negotiations. (i.e., more "you're trying to take this away from us" suff")

Edit: Beaten to it. Also, I bet a lot fewer players are going to show up for workouts and "consultations with coaches" now that they know they won't be locked out.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

I have to disagree with you, Blackadar, it's not really dangerous, they had to have SOME rules in place, if the players complain, they can say "it was good enough for them then, so we decided not to go any further in restrictions.." and I think they would get at least some sympathy..

but yeah, should the owners lose out in the stay, they have to get to the table quickly, they will have lost all leverage.

I think it's less dangerous than not doing anything, mind you. At least they're making an effort to comply with the ruling. It should be...interesting.

So, let's all hope the temporary stay isn't granted. If so, we have football again tomorrow! And the draft tonight. Sweet!

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

Because until the lockout, it wasn't a big thing.

I'll accept the bit above that this was argued back then, but if this was really not negotiating in good faith for the players (i.e. was costing them revenue over the last few seasons), I would have expected a much larger stink and suit THEN, not NOW. The fact they waited until they were facing a lockout reduced their argument in my opinion.

Not legally of course, just part of the PR battle they are losing with me.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

I'll accept the bit above that this was argued back then, but if this was really not negotiating in good faith for the players (i.e. was costing them revenue over the last few seasons), I would have expected a much larger stink and suit THEN, not NOW. The fact they waited until they were facing a lockout reduced their argument in my opinion.

Not legally of course, just part of the PR battle they are losing with me.

I really think they lost the PR battle with you when you heard the word "union". That just seems to be a bit of a blind spot with you based on what I've gathered in this discussion. You're definitely not the only one that reacts that way to unions. But I truly don't think you look at this objectively. That's not intended to be mean, gstelmack, that's just my own personal observations.

---

By raising holy hell a couple of years ago, the NFLPA may have damaged their relationship with the NFL. They may have been trying to play nice for all we know and let this slide. If there wasn't a lockout, then it wasn't all that significant in the grand scheme of things. That's the "giving the NFLPA the benefit of the doubt" explanation.

The "cold blooded killer" explanation is probably more likely. In my view, this was another smart move by the NFLPA. By really raising a stink at the time and pursuing legal action, the NFLPA might have gotten the contract adjusted. But then the NFL may have found a way around the problem and still guaranteed themselves $4B in TV revenue during the lockout. By waiting, they were able to hurt the owners in the pocketbook when it really counted. It's smart negotiating tactics, especially with an opponent that may very well be stronger. Hit 'em where it hurts, when it hurts.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

I really think they lost the PR battle with you when you heard the word "union". That just seems to be a bit of a blind spot with you based on what I've gathered in this discussion. You're definitely not the only one that reacts that way to unions. But I truly don't think you look at this objectively. That's not intended to be mean, gstelmack, that's just my own personal observations.

---

By raising holy hell a couple of years ago, the NFLPA may have damaged their relationship with the NFL. They may have been trying to play nice for all we know and let this slide. If there wasn't a lockout, then it wasn't all that significant in the grand scheme of things. That's the "giving the NFLPA the benefit of the doubt" explanation.

The "cold blooded killer" explanation is probably more likely. In my view, this was another smart move by the NFLPA. By really raising a stink at the time and pursuing legal action, the NFLPA might have gotten the contract adjusted. But then the NFL may have found a way around the problem and still guaranteed themselves $4B in TV revenue during the lockout. By waiting, they were able to hurt the owners in the pocketbook when it really counted. It's smart negotiating tactics, especially with an opponent that may very well be stronger. Hit 'em where it hurts, when it hurts.

"". This. Gstelmack's arguement seems to be against players making money. The owners opted out, the owners imposed the lockout, the owners have had their ass handed to them in court, and yet somehow its the players fault - because it offends people's sensibilities that players should be able to get rich of their labors.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

I really think they lost the PR battle with you when you heard the word "union". That just seems to be a bit of a blind spot with you based on what I've gathered in this discussion. You're definitely not the only one that reacts that way to unions. But I truly don't think you look at this objectively. That's not intended to be mean, gstelmack, that's just my own personal observations.

Sort of. I do have a very different view of the relationship between employer and employee than many here do. I'm a firm believer in "I was looking for a job when I found this one", and if you don't like how the employer treats people, leave. Too many people are just happy for a job, and while they grumble and complain let the employer run roughshod all over them. And as a result many employers do, figuring there are enough other folks out there "happy for a job" to replace the troublemakers like me Employers would treat their employees better if they needed to to keep them. Just look at the benefits packages in the 90s and early 2000s vs now, when competition was high for employees, vs now when it's lower and how things have been cut back.

And yes, union rules designed to protect the employment of their members have bit me in the ass before, from having to wait to find an "electrician" to get something plugged in, to having to shut the door to the room so I could run some network cable to avoid the 3-week delay of getting approval from the branch director to get some union guys in to do a worse job than I could since they knew nothing about networking.

But there are things I hate about the owners. For example, I think they've priced average fans right out of the stadium, or at least banished them to the upper decks, in favor of lifeless corporate attendees. But the players' attitude of "you owe me a living" is driving me bonkers. I've mentioned elsewhere, for example, that they complain about injuries, but refuse to take steps they could already to reduce their risk (concussion-reducing helmets, wearing all available pads, etc). If they don't like how the NFL is compensating them, go do something else! You get paid to PLAY A FREAKIN' GAME, enjoy it! And you've got a college education, right? Right?

So yes, they are fighting an uphill battle with me, and hypocritical tactics, even if they make legal sense, just don't help one bit. Fight the owners over how they treat long-term injuries, I'm with you. But the players also love the high ticket prices, because it puts money in their pockets, and opens more seats for their comp tickets for friends and families to come to the games.

Honestly, as time goes on, the NFL is falling into MLB oblivion with me. I love the idea of the NFL, to the point of getting back into FOF as much as it frustrates me. But between kids and the age-inappropriate commercials during daytime NFL games, switching to Time Warner from DirecTV about the time the NFL network started broadcasting games, and now dropping cable altogether so I can only watch broadcast games, I'm finding I just don't miss watching the games like I thought I would. I catch a few Patriots and Panthers (and the occasional Bucs) games per year, ravenously devour news online, and pine for my days as a kid where I could just enjoy the sport without hearing whining billionaires argue with their multi-millionaire employees (aside from the 1 or 2 year min-salary guys) over who gets the extra billion in the pot.

So yeah, some of my frustration is that the NFLPA represents everything that is wrong with unions today IMNSHO, the current dispute represents everything that is wrong with our civil legal system today, and the dispute as a whole everything that is wrong with the NFL today. A perfect storm, and the players are involved in all 3 legs of it, the owners in only one. And this is shaping up like the last big MLB dispute that MLB is only just now getting over. Sigh.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

"". This. Gstelmack's arguement seems to be against players making money. The owners opted out, the owners imposed the lockout, the owners have had their ass handed to them in court, and yet somehow its the players fault - because it offends people's sensibilities that players should be able to get rich of their labors.

I'm fine with players getting rich. Heck, even the "insulting" offer from the owners had the players staying rich. I'm not fine with these stupid legal maneuvers. Decertify the union but still collectively bargain, argue anti-trust when you want the monopoly, bah!

If the owners wanted to pay the players $100K / season, I'd be laughing at them. They aren't, though, and even their last offer has them making more money than they did in 2006 when they last negotiated this stuff. To whine about evil owners over that is absurd.

[molson]

I hope everyone gotll the reps in the weight room they wanted to this morning:

Report: Owners get stay of injunction, lockout back on | ProFootballTalk

Although NFL players were being welcomed back to team facilities this morning because of Judge Susan Nelson’s injunction to end the lockout, that is changing this afternoon.

ESPN is reporting that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has granted a temporary stay of the injunction and reinstated the lockout, meaning players will now be told to hit the road, and doors to team facilities are being locked this afternoon.

Michael Silver of Yahoo reported this afternoon that NFL players were bracing for a ruling from the Court of Appeals that would give the owners an “administrative” stay, meaning the lockout would be back on at least through the weekend.

Then, as soon as Monday, the Eighth Circuit will hear the players’ argument against a stay. At that point, the lockout could remain on, or the players could be let back in, depending on the Eighth Circuit’s ruling. And either way, it would just be temporary until the appeals court makes a decision on the owners’ appeal of Judge Nelson’s ruling.

So just hours after players were let back into team facilities this morning, they’ll now be told that they’re no longer welcome this afternoon. And we’ll all wait until Monday to see what the appeals court does next.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by molson

I hope everyone gotll the reps in the weight room they wanted to this morning:

Report: Owners get stay of injunction, lockout back on | ProFootballTalk

Although NFL players were being welcomed back to team facilities this morning because of Judge Susan Nelson’s injunction to end the lockout, that is changing this afternoon.

ESPN is reporting that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has granted a temporary stay of the injunction and reinstated the lockout, meaning players will now be told to hit the road, and doors to team facilities are being locked this afternoon.

Michael Silver of Yahoo reported this afternoon that NFL players were bracing for a ruling from the Court of Appeals that would give the owners an “administrative” stay, meaning the lockout would be back on at least through the weekend.

Then, as soon as Monday, the Eighth Circuit will hear the players’ argument against a stay. At that point, the lockout could remain on, or the players could be let back in, depending on the Eighth Circuit’s ruling. And either way, it would just be temporary until the appeals court makes a decision on the owners’ appeal of Judge Nelson’s ruling.

So just hours after players were let back into team facilities this morning, they’ll now be told that they’re no longer welcome this afternoon. And we’ll all wait until Monday to see what the appeals court does next.

Wrong answer.

Temporary stay expected, ESPN retracts report that stay was granted | ProFootballTalk

Though if it is granted before this evening, the NY fans will boo Goodell off the fucking stage tonight.

[SirFozzie]

It was granted, 2-1 with apparently a lengthy dissent.

To continue my previous analogy, the owners converted on 4th down, but they still have a while to go to get near what they want.

(My (possibly biased) analysis: The fact that it was 2-1 to grant a temporary stay from the enjoining of the lockout means that the owners should be worried.

[Young Drachma]

Interception Machine for sale

[Apathetic Lurker]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

Interception Machine for sale

too funny...But as a Bill's fan I like Henne right wheres he's at...

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

Interception Machine for sale

[albionmoonlight]

~30 or so Saints players met on their own to workout as a team.

Wondering if those of you who follow other teams have seen the same thing?

With how competitive the league is, it would shock me if most teams were not doing some version of player-organized workouts.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

Interception Machine for sale

Hate to spoil on their parade and all, but while Henne threw a lot of INT's,his rate is actually lower than Eli Manning or David Garrard. It's in the ballpark with Brees, Cutler, Palmer and Hasselback.

Not that I want Henne as my starting QB, just saying. . .

[fantom1979]

... but it is considerably higher than franchise quarterbacks Jason Campbell, Kerry Collins, Alex Smith, Shaun Hill, and Jimmy Clausen.

[Izulde]

Hilarious and depressing at once.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by fantom1979

... but it is considerably higher than franchise quarterbacks Jason Campbell, Kerry Collins, Alex Smith, Shaun Hill, and Jimmy Clausen.

Yeah, well...those guys can't complete a throw to either team.

[Galaxy]

Are players allowed to play in the CFL?

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

Are players allowed to play in the CFL?

Sure, just as Ochocinco was free to tryout for MLS. I'm not sure why they would want to though. The money wouldn't be good enough to cover the risk of injury.

[gstelmack]

I missed TMQ's take on this last week, and agree with most of the points in here, especially how getting the lawyers involved on both sides has been horrible for this: http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2...k&sportCat=nfl

[Bearcat729]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

~30 or so Saints players met on their own to workout as a team.

Wondering if those of you who follow other teams have seen the same thing?

With how competitive the league is, it would shock me if most teams were not doing some version of player-organized workouts.

I've read somewhere that Colt McCoy has been getting the Browns offense together in Austin to work out

[molson]

I thought players hated off-season workouts?

[DaddyTorgo]

wake me up if there's a season

*yawn*

[Radii]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

wake me up if there's a season

*yawn*

At this point I assume any time DT hasn't gone out of his way to post about his dis-interest in a topic ("I haven't watched any of the playoffs" "I haven't bothered watching any of the tournament.") that he is intently following along. What do you think of the killing on AMC? You haven't made an appearance there to actively shit on the discussion and inform us of how little you care for it, so it seems to me you must be enjoying it quite a bit!

Seriously, i just don't get it. Those that are interested in the legal proceedings are discussing it. What do you accomplish by going out of your way to post that you don't care.

[RedKingGold]

Originally Posted by Radii

What do you accomplish by going out of your way to post that you don't care.

LOOK AT ME!

LOOK AT ME!

LOOK AT ME!

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by Bearcat729

I've read somewhere that Colt McCoy has been getting the Browns offense together in Austin to work out

That's the kind of leader you would kill to have if he did that.

[stevew]

The Browns play the Steelers and Ravens twice plus the Cardinals in the final 5 weeks of the season