Dodo Posted February 21, 2020 Share Posted February 21, 2020 23 hours ago, Starless said: Why is the NFLPA so bad at negotiating? When you have the same union representing both Tom Brady and Chimdi Chekwa, the former's interests will always take priority over the vast majority of players 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
43M Posted February 21, 2020 Share Posted February 21, 2020 On 2/19/2020 at 6:54 PM, August4th said: KC would slaughtered the steelers Shut up. Hodges wouldve Flacco'd it up in the postseason. Dont hate on the Duck! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thelonebillsfan Posted February 21, 2020 Share Posted February 21, 2020 4 hours ago, HTTRDynasty said: Jesus Christ man. How can the rank and file guys think this is okay? That's an abysmal deal, not having some kind of plan for a strike is INSANE in a labor dispute. It's malpractice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ET80 Posted February 21, 2020 Share Posted February 21, 2020 I'm sure he's not the only one saying this. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TecmoSuperJoe Posted February 21, 2020 Share Posted February 21, 2020 (edited) 17 minutes ago, ET80 said: I'm sure he's not the only one saying this. Sherman probably feels the same way. BTW, I wonder what owners would think of revisiting the 1993 model where there were 18 weeks of football as the result of teams having two BYE weeks. Yeah it's not an extra game for teams to play, but it is an extra week of TV revenue. Edited February 21, 2020 by PapaShogun 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DigInBoys Posted February 21, 2020 Share Posted February 21, 2020 (edited) I don't know about only 1 team having a first round bye, but I certainly think there is enough talent in the NFL to justify having one more playoff team. Edited February 21, 2020 by DigInBoys Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N4L Posted February 21, 2020 Share Posted February 21, 2020 1 minute ago, DigInBoys said: I don't know about only 1 team having a first round bye, but I certainly think there is enough talent in the NFL to justify having one more playoff team. The problem is that most years there will be bad teams making it. Pittsburgh this year for example had no business being in the playoffs. Other years, there will be a good team that squeezes in and wins a game against a beat up team that fought tooth and nail for the bye week. People will point at that and go "sEe SeVeNtH SeEdS sHoUlD mAkE tHe PlAyOfFs" but in reality the #2 seed will beat the 7 seed 75% of the time Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TecmoSuperJoe Posted February 21, 2020 Share Posted February 21, 2020 (edited) 39 minutes ago, DigInBoys said: I don't know about only 1 team having a first round bye, but I certainly think there is enough talent in the NFL to justify having one more playoff team. Personally I'd rather keep the exclusivity of it, and if that means a 10-7 team or 11-6 team that didn't win their division misses out, then I'm ok with it. I'd rather have that than an 8-9 type team that didn't even win their division get in. Also, the lack of two teams getting a first round BYE might be the thing that irks me the most. I know there will be folks that are of the opinion "you're either first or you're last"/"why is second place being awarded?" However, the tiebreakers that exist for small sample sizes don't warrant just one team getting a huge advantage. For instance if you have two teams that finish 14-3 in the NFC, and only one gets a BYE week due to a better conference record or whatever...that's crackers to me. That kind of tiebreaker doesn't take into account scheduling or strength of opponent which should probably be the first aspect looked at. I feel if there are at least two spots, it kind of makes up for something trivial deciding something huge like just one first round BYE. Edited February 21, 2020 by PapaShogun 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slingin' Sammy Posted February 21, 2020 Share Posted February 21, 2020 7 hours ago, PapaShogun said: Personally I'd rather keep the exclusivity of it, and if that means a 10-7 team or 11-6 team that didn't win their division misses out, then I'm ok with it. I'd rather have that than an 8-9 type team that didn't even win their division get in. Also, the lack of two teams getting a first round BYE might be the thing that irks me the most. I know there will be folks that are of the opinion "you're either first or you're last"/"why is second place being awarded?" However, the tiebreakers that exist for small sample sizes don't warrant just one team getting a huge advantage. For instance if you have two teams that finish 14-3 in the NFC, and only one gets a BYE week due to a better conference record or whatever...that's crackers to me. That kind of tiebreaker doesn't take into account scheduling or strength of opponent which should probably be the first aspect looked at. I feel if there are at least two spots, it kind of makes up for something trivial deciding something huge like just one first round BYE. Its hard to play the "fair" card when arguing against the expanded playoffs. Is it fair that if three division winners finish 13-3, one will have to play on wildcard weekend based on a tiebreaker? Is it fair that for two 12-4 teams in the same division, one will get a bye and possibly HFA, while the other will have to play essentially three straight road games to get to the superbowl, simply based on a tiebreaker? How about a team that goes 9-7 with a brutal schedule missing the playoffs over a 10-6 team that went like 9-1 against teams below .500? I agree with your sentiment, but nothing about the NFL is fair. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TecmoSuperJoe Posted February 21, 2020 Share Posted February 21, 2020 1 hour ago, Slingin' Sammy said: Its hard to play the "fair" card when arguing against the expanded playoffs. Is it fair that if three division winners finish 13-3, one will have to play on wildcard weekend based on a tiebreaker? Is it fair that for two 12-4 teams in the same division, one will get a bye and possibly HFA, while the other will have to play essentially three straight road games to get to the superbowl, simply based on a tiebreaker? How about a team that goes 9-7 with a brutal schedule missing the playoffs over a 10-6 team that went like 9-1 against teams below .500? I agree with your sentiment, but nothing about the NFL is fair. Right...but I think this change makes a situation that's not the most ideal already in terms of fairness worse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheKillerNacho Posted February 21, 2020 Share Posted February 21, 2020 please, no. please don't happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeSean Jackson Posted February 21, 2020 Share Posted February 21, 2020 Sherman always wants controversy, pass this ! You’re getting 48.5 % of rev, plus the owners have to pay your medical bills, pensions, other stuff with there 51.5% also. The more games, the more revenue the league generates so that means more money in your pocket. The people that complain and what Sherman is riding off is that existing contracts would get a max of 250k for the extra game... the 17 weeks wouldn’t go in effect for like 2-3 years and plenty of people will be on new contracts by then, and soon the 250k won’t even matter! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
49erurtaza Posted February 21, 2020 Share Posted February 21, 2020 16 minutes ago, DeSean Jackson said: Sherman always wants controversy, pass this ! You’re getting 48.5 % of rev, plus the owners have to pay your medical bills, pensions, other stuff with there 51.5% also. The more games, the more revenue the league generates so that means more money in your pocket. The people that complain and what Sherman is riding off is that existing contracts would get a max of 250k for the extra game... the 17 weeks wouldn’t go in effect for like 2-3 years and plenty of people will be on new contracts by then, and soon the 250k won’t even matter! The players don't need to rush this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeSean Jackson Posted February 21, 2020 Share Posted February 21, 2020 1 minute ago, 49erurtaza said: The players don't need to rush this. They do, the VP of nfl PA contract is about to expire and will ruin all the negotiations they had till this point if they have to elect a new one. Also, to negotiate the tv contracts which is important , we need to have this deal done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
49erurtaza Posted February 21, 2020 Share Posted February 21, 2020 1 minute ago, DeSean Jackson said: They do, the VP of nfl PA contract is about to expire and will ruin all the negotiations they had till this point if they have to elect a new one. Also, to negotiate the tv contracts which is important , we need to have this deal done. I don't agree, the owners have the need for rush not the players. I expect this not to pass with the players. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.