Stalking Rodgers

[AlexGreen#20]

24 minutes ago, turf toe said:

where is the lie, he simply gave his opinion, which by the way comes after years of experience on both surfaces, obviously if your bigger, heavier, the result of the lack of forgiveness from turf will have a more severe affect on the bigger players body, Green, you know yourself this makes sense, why are you so heavily invested defending turf? 👎

You're ******* with me right?

Where he says on 9/12 that a whole bunch of dudes, including Aaron Jones, prefer playing on turf. 

And then 2 days later plays dumber than . .   well, you . . . in acting like the very idea of players preferring turf is such an insane concept that only somebody smoking hallucinogenics would consider the idea. 

+++

I have no attachment to turf. I prefer grass. Were I the king of the world, the NFL would only ever play on grass fields. 

But:

My attachment here is to justice, fairness, honesty, and people negotiating legal contracts in good faith. 

The players had an opportunity to make this change happened. They didn't care enough to push for it. They were greedy and wanted the cold hard cash.

Now that the check has landed, they've got buyer's remorse and are trying to bully the league into providing them something that wasn't in the contract. 

They're acting like a bunch of ridiculous Karen's who just bought a Mercedes with standard 4 seasons tires on it, and now are trying to get free winter tires by bitching to the press that the dealership tried to kill her kids by not giving her free winter tires. 

Edited September 15, 2023 by AlexGreen#20

[Packerraymond]

7 minutes ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

You're ******* with me right?

Where he says on 9/12 that a whole bunch of dudes, including Aaron Jones, prefer playing on turf. 

And then 2 days later plays dumber than . .   well, you . . . in acting like the very idea of players preferring turf is such an insane concept that only somebody smoking hallucinogenics would consider the idea. 

+++

I have no attachment to turf. I prefer grass. Were I the king of the world, the NFL would only ever play on grass fields. 

But:

My attachment here is to justice, fairness, honesty, and people negotiating legal contracts in good faith. 

The players had an opportunity to make this change happened. They didn't care enough to push for it. They were greedy and wanted the cold hard cash.

Now that the check has landed, they've got buyer's remorse and are trying to bully the league into providing them something that wasn't in the contract. 

They're acting like a bunch of ridiculous Karen's who just bought a Mercedes with standard 4 seasons tires on it, and now are trying to get free winter tires by bitching to the press that the dealership tried to kill her kids by not giving her free winter tires. 

The players who actually play did not want that CBA, come on...

I loved the owners tactics because it guaranteed me 10 more years of interruption free football, but the bottom 50% of the rosters got that CBA deal done, not the guys out there playing all the snaps. 

[AlexGreen#20]

10 minutes ago, Packerraymond said:

The players who actually play did not want that CBA, come on...

I loved the owners tactics because it guaranteed me 10 more years of interruption free football, but the bottom 50% of the rosters got that CBA deal done, not the guys out there playing all the snaps. 

So because the union sucks, the NFL owners have to give the union freebies???

Absolutely ridiculous. 

[incognito_man]

15 minutes ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

So because the union sucks, the NFL owners have to give the union freebies???

Absolutely ridiculous. 

The problem you're missing is that you are framing this as something that benefits just the players. That stance is just wrong (using the available injury data). Such a weird stance to take. This isn't a legitimate NFLPA vs owners negotiation topic assuming, again, the injury numbers are correct. It's just an obvious good business decision. 

It's not a "freebie" anymore than a construction company providing hard hats to their employees. It's just an obvious move. There's no reason to be antagonized by players speaking to this truth.

[Packerraymond]

23 minutes ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

So because the union sucks, the NFL owners have to give the union freebies???

Absolutely ridiculous. 

How is it any different than building a new parking lot for your players, upgrading the meeting/weight rooms, etc...??

Teams invest in their players all the time. I don't necessarily think the NFL office needs to mandate it, the players can get it for themselves.

 

[Leader]

3 minutes ago, incognito_man said:

The problem you're missing is that you are framing this as something that benefits just the players. That stance is just wrong (using the available injury data). Such a weird stance to take. This isn't a legitimate NFLPA vs owners negotiation topic assuming, again, the injury numbers are correct. It's just an obvious good business decision.

That's the point....it's not an obvious good business decision.

IF - the NFL Owner's also pulling in revenue from other stadium activities (concerts/tractor pulls/wrestlemania, etc) ..having a multi-purpose surface makes them the most money.

For you to be able to say otherwise, you'd need to quantify injury differentials (grass vs turf) and their attendant "costs" - to a dollar sign - and offset that cost against the revenue that having a multi-purpose surface allows.

[Packerraymond]

3 minutes ago, Leader said:

That's the point....it's not an obvious good business decision.

IF - the NFL Owner's also pulling in revenue from other stadium activities (concerts/tractor pulls/wrestlemania, etc) ..having a multi-purpose surface makes them the most money.

For you to be able to say otherwise, you'd need to quantify injury differentials (grass vs turf) and their attendant "costs" - to a dollar sign - and offset that cost against the revenue that having a multi-purpose surface allows.

You can do all of that on a grass field. The baseball stadium in Milwaukee has all of these events in it. 

[Leader]

1 minute ago, Packerraymond said:

You can do all of that on a grass field. The baseball stadium in Milwaukee has all of these events in it. 

Then what costs are we talking about? Maintenance of the grass?

[Packerraymond]

1 minute ago, Leader said:

Then what costs are we talking about? Maintenance of the grass?

Initial costs to switch over and then upkeep and maintenance. Dome stadiums would probably need some sort of lighting and irrigation system in place. 

[Leader]

Just now, Packerraymond said:

Initial costs to switch over and then upkeep and maintenance. Dome stadiums would probably need some sort of lighting and irrigation system in place. 

Well....there has to be some reason owners/stadiums opt for the multi-purpose surfaces other than "We simply dont want to do it"

i've been thinking it's an overall revenue matter....but if you're saying that's "technically" a non-factor.......

[AlexGreen#20]

15 minutes ago, incognito_man said:

The problem you're missing is that you are framing this as something that benefits just the players. That stance is just wrong (using the available injury data). Such a weird stance to take. This isn't a legitimate NFLPA vs owners negotiation topic assuming, again, the injury numbers are correct. It's just an obvious good business decision. 

It's not a "freebie" anymore than a construction company providing hard hats to their employees. It's just an obvious move. There's no reason to be antagonized by players speaking to this truth.

It absolutely is an NFLPA vs Ownership negotiation.

The NFLPA wants something and are arguing through the press that the NFL Owners should give it to them. 

The owners don't want to give it to them. 

The players now need to CONVINCE the owners that it is in the owners' best interest to provide them this benefit. 

That has not been the player's tactics. They've instead tried to guilt and bully the owners. 

If the owners fold on this issue, it opens the gate for more such issues in the future. 

[AlexGreen#20]

9 minutes ago, Packerraymond said:

You can do all of that on a grass field. The baseball stadium in Milwaukee has all of these events in it. 

Now look at Soldier Field in December, mid field is painted over dirt and the players ***** about that too. 

Baseball isn't football. Baseball doesn't tear up a field anywhere near what football does. 

[VonKarman]

Owners who already have a grass field probably prefer the rest of the owners to have a good-quality grass field since it doesn't cost them money and it's better for the health of their players.

[incognito_man]

10 minutes ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

owners don't want to give it to them. 

I don't agree with this for reasons I've stated.

I think plenty of owners want this as well.

And for this reason, I think it would be really bad faith negotiating on the part of the owners to extract...something else from it.

Edited September 15, 2023 by incognito_man

[Packerraymond]

6 minutes ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

Now look at Soldier Field in December, mid field is painted over dirt and the players ***** about that too. 

Baseball isn't football. Baseball doesn't tear up a field anywhere near what football does. 

Yeah the Bears field sucks, still have to invest in quality and the Bears do not.