Redskins coaches stand with NFL owners

CanesSkins26 · Post by **CanesSkins26** » Fri Jun 03, 2011 11:05 pm

SkinsJock wrote:
CanesSkins26 wrote:
SkinsJock wrote:I really doubt that any player will consider this response when he considers playing for this or any of the other franchises whose coaches exposed the stupid brief anyway
If anything, players will take into account how some of the owners (i.e., Jerry Richardson) have acted during this whole thing in the future.
WRONG

I seriously doubt that there are ANY players that will sign for less because of this - we'll see how that goes soon

Who said anything about players signing for less?

The Hogster · Post by **The Hogster** » Sat Jun 04, 2011 10:32 am

The missing point here is that these statements by the "coaches" are essentially statements by the teams.

On the same token, the NFLCA brief was a really a thinly veiled statement by the players association.

Both groups are trying to use the coaches as pawns to further their own cause. At the end of the day, the player coach relationship is what will impact the team & its fans the most. In my view, this all was handled in a way that only adversely effects that player-coach relationship and does nothing to help anything.

The NFLCA should have worded the brief accurately, and the teams could have simply made it known that their coaches aren't represented by the NFLCA instead of taking that opportunity to grandstand. Correcting stupidity with stupidity accomplishes nothing.

1niksder · Post by **1niksder** » Sat Jun 04, 2011 6:30 pm

Though none of the three judges mentioned the “friend of the court” brief filed by the NFL Coaches Association during Friday’s oral argument regarding the question of whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit will lift the lockout, it’s becoming more and more clear that this so-called “friend of the court” finds no friends in 15 of 32 NFL teams.

And counting.

Jim Wyatt of the Tennessean reports that the Titans coaching staff didn’t know about the brief that supposedly was filed on their behalf. Per Wyatt, the Titans coaches also do not endorse the brief.

The other 14 coaching staffs that didn’t know about and don’t endorse the filing are (as previously mentioned at PFT) the Redskins, Saints, Jaguars, Cowboys, Rams, Texans, Chiefs, Bears, Eagles, Jets, Vikings, Bills, and (per NFLLabor.com) the Cardinals and the Seahawks.

NFLCA executive director Larry Kennan (pictured) previously has acknowledged that he “didn’t do a very good job of communicating with the Redskins,” the first coaching staff to speak out against the filing. At the time, Kennan brushed off the possibility of a mutiny.

“If there were a whole bunch of teams [protesting], I’d be concerned. I’m not concerned about one,” Kennan said.

Um, Larry? It’s time to be concerned.

KazooSkinsFan · Post by **KazooSkinsFan** » Sun Jun 05, 2011 4:07 pm

The Hogster wrote:The missing point here is that these statements by the "coaches" are essentially statements by the teams.

On the same token, the NFLCA brief was a really a thinly veiled statement by the players association.

Both groups are trying to use the coaches as pawns to further their own cause. At the end of the day, the player coach relationship is what will impact the team & its fans the most. In my view, this all was handled in a way that only adversely effects that player-coach relationship and does nothing to help anything.

The NFLCA should have worded the brief accurately, and the teams could have simply made it known that their coaches aren't represented by the NFLCA instead of taking that opportunity to grandstand. Correcting stupidity with stupidity accomplishes nothing.

What a stupid, pointless post. No one is a moron as you suppose they all are, which is why both the NFLCA brief and response of the coaches of the so far six teams were both completely irrelevant regarding the negotiations now and their relationship with the players later. The NFLCA, which is a union with union interests reached. The coaches of teams who objected for having been spoken for said so. For gosh sakes, let it go. This is so completely a non-event.

The Hogster · Post by **The Hogster** » Mon Jun 06, 2011 10:11 am

With coaching staffs from 15 teams and counting making known their disagreement with the “friend of the court” brief filed last month by the NFL Coaches Association, the next wave in the development of this story arises from the players’ reaction to the news that their coaches are picking a side other than the players’ side.

“Like they say, you’re either with us or against us,” an unnamed Texans player told Jerome Solomon of the Houston Chronicle, in response to coach Gary Kubiak’s comments regarding the NFLCA brief.

If the owner and the players can continue to make progress toward a settlement without further court action, chances are that the NFLCA issue will fade. Still, in those 15-and-counting locker rooms in which the coaches have picked their employers over their employees, the rebuilding of the bridge between the NFL and the NFLPA* could be followed by some significant fence mending.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20 ... om-issues/

Some of us are missing the reality of this situation. The coaches are put in a position by the Teams to disavow something that really they could care less about. These coaches didn't come up with this after sitting around a bonfire singing We Shall Overcome. The Teams are playing chess. And, those of us who pay attention could think of better ways to handle this thing without putting the coaches in it. It's like asking a 7 year old kid which parent they want to live with while they are standing in front of both parents.

1niksder · Post by **1niksder** » Mon Jun 06, 2011 11:37 am

The Hogster wrote:
With coaching staffs from 15 teams and counting making known their disagreement with the “friend of the court” brief filed last month by the NFL Coaches Association, the next wave in the development of this story arises from the players’ reaction to the news that their coaches are picking a side other than the players’ side.

“Like they say, you’re either with us or against us,” an unnamed Texans player told Jerome Solomon of the Houston Chronicle, in response to coach Gary Kubiak’s comments regarding the NFLCA brief.

If the owner and the players can continue to make progress toward a settlement without further court action, chances are that the NFLCA issue will fade. Still, in those 15-and-counting locker rooms in which the coaches have picked their employers over their employees, the rebuilding of the bridge between the NFL and the NFLPA* could be followed by some significant fence mending.
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20 ... om-issues/

Some of us are missing the reality of this situation. The coaches are put in a position by the Teams to disavow something that really they could care less about. These coaches didn't come up with this after sitting around a bonfire singing We Shall Overcome. The Teams are playing chess. And, those of us who pay attention could think of better ways to handle this thing without putting the coaches in it. It's like asking a 7 year old kid which parent they want to live with while they are standing in front of both parents.

The coaches stayed out of it until the NFLCA chose a side for them.

The coach are actually a part of management when you look at everything.

The Jags were the only team to respond and stay neutral and a un-named Titan has been the only player to comment on the coaches.

It's only a story because there is no other football related "News"

CanesSkins26 · Post by **CanesSkins26** » Mon Jun 06, 2011 1:36 pm

The NFLCA, which is a union with union interests reached.

No, the NFLCA is NOT a union, which is a point being missed by many in this thread. It is a voluntary organization and individual coaches can choose whether or not to join. At not point in their brief or in any statements does the NFLCA claim to represent all coaching staffs or to be speaking on behalf of all NFL coaches.

1niksder · Post by **1niksder** » Mon Jun 06, 2011 1:56 pm

CanesSkins26 wrote:
The NFLCA, which is a union with union interests reached.
No, the NFLCA is NOT a union, which is a point being missed by many in this thread. It is a voluntary organization and individual coaches can choose whether or not to join. At not point in their brief or in any statements does the NFLCA claim to represent all coaching staffs or to be speaking on behalf of all NFL coaches.

The “friend of the court” brief submitted by the NFLCA to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, declares at the outset of its brief that “the National Football League Coaches Association (‘NFLCA’) is a nonunion voluntary association that represents the interests of coaches and assistant coaches currently employed by the thirty-two individual National Football League (‘NFL’) teams, as well as many retired coaches formerly employed by those NFL teams.”

That sounds like they are saying they represent the interests of coaches and assistant coaches of at least 15 of the thirty-two individual National Football League teams, that they don't

CanesSkins26 · Post by **CanesSkins26** » Mon Jun 06, 2011 2:21 pm

1niksder wrote:
CanesSkins26 wrote:
The NFLCA, which is a union with union interests reached.
No, the NFLCA is NOT a union, which is a point being missed by many in this thread. It is a voluntary organization and individual coaches can choose whether or not to join. At not point in their brief or in any statements does the NFLCA claim to represent all coaching staffs or to be speaking on behalf of all NFL coaches.

The “friend of the court” brief submitted by the NFLCA to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, declares at the outset of its brief that “the National Football League Coaches Association (‘NFLCA’) is a nonunion voluntary association that represents the interests of coaches and assistant coaches currently employed by the thirty-two individual National Football League (‘NFL’) teams, as well as many retired coaches formerly employed by those NFL teams.”
That sounds like they are saying they represent the interests of coaches and assistant coaches of at least 15 of the thirty-two individual National Football League teams, that they don't

All that says is that the NFLCA represents the interests of their members that are employed by any of the 32 NFL teams. The brief clearly states that it is a voluntary organization and nowhere does it say that they represent the interests of all coaches. Could they have been clearer? Yes, absolutely. I don't think that any judge read that brief as saying that the NFLCA represents every coach in the NFL.

And a lot of the reaction from the "coaching" staffs on this issue is grandstanding anyway. The Saint front office, I mean "coaching staff", as an example, put out a statement that they were "appalled" by the brief. What's the point of that? None of their coaches are even part of the NFLCA.

1niksder · Post by **1niksder** » Mon Jun 06, 2011 3:03 pm

CanesSkins26 wrote:
The “friend of the court” brief submitted by the NFLCA to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, declares at the outset of its brief that “the National Football League Coaches Association (‘NFLCA’) is a nonunion voluntary association that represents the interests of coaches and assistant coaches currently employed by the thirty-two individual National Football League (‘NFL’) teams, as well as many retired coaches formerly employed by those NFL teams.”
That sounds like they are saying they represent the interests of coaches and assistant coaches of at least 15 of the thirty-two individual National Football League teams, that they don't

All that says is that the NFLCA represents the interests of their members that are employed by any of the 32 NFL teams. The brief clearly states that it is a voluntary organization and nowhere does it say that they represent the interests of all coaches. Could they have been clearer? Yes, absolutely. I don't think that any judge read that brief as saying that the NFLCA represents every coach in the NFL. [/quote]

No it says the interest of coaches and assistant coaches currently employed by the thirty-two individual National Football League THE interests of those currently employed by THE thirty-two individual National Football League teams. It doesn't say they represent the interest of the members of the NFLCA. It a court brief that reads (granted I'm not a attorney) "we represent the "interest of" (this is their only out in this mess) THE (or all of) the coaches and assistants (they didn't says coaches and assistants that hold membership in the NFLCA) that work for THE (all of) the thirty-two individual National Football League teams (they didn't say seventeen NFL teams or less)

CanesSkins26 wrote:And a lot of the reaction from the "coaching" staffs on this issue is grandstanding anyway. The Saint front office, I mean "coaching staff", as an example, put out a statement that they were "appalled" by the brief. What's the point of that? None of their coaches are even part of the NFLCA.

Most of the 15 teams that have come out "grandstanding" have NO members of their staffs on the rolls of the a association that claimed to speak for them.

The Saints are one of many teams with close ties to their owner and the city where they work. (You have Benson and the aftermath of Katrina... the Owner and City will win every time), the Redskins coaches have close ties to the city and the owners checkbook (one of the highest paid staffs in the NFL .... it is hard to go against that when other owners are cutting pay, laying off coaches, and more) appear to have at least 3 of 17 (not including Kurt whose no longer a Skins coach) coaches associated with the NFLCA but the NFLCA only had contact for one of them (again, not including Kurt whose no longer a Skins coach).

The NFLCA worded the brief just the way the de-certified NFLPA wanted it worded.

A little communications with ALL of the assistant coaches from ALL of the 32 teams (members of the NFLCA or not) would have come across as a pretty strong brief, but the judges read the papers too.

The Hogster · Post by **The Hogster** » Mon Jun 06, 2011 3:22 pm

I don't think anyone is arguing whether the NFLCA handled the drafting of the brief in the best way. They did not.

All we are pointing out is that these statements from the "coaches" are not independent coach statements. They are PR statements that are encouraged by the TEAM. With that said, the owners are using the coaches to advance their own cause--without regard for the dynamic it might create between the coaches and players.

The coaches want what anyone else would want, football to continue along with their paychecks.

As of right now, the owners want what the owners want - the lockout to continue until they get a more favorable CBA. At the end of the day tne NFLCA and the Owners will go about their business, while the coaches and players have to work together closely. THAT is what makes this whole thing sloppy and pointless.

The Hogster · Post by **The Hogster** » Mon Jun 06, 2011 3:33 pm

The saga continues...

As one source with extensive coaching contacts explained it to PFT, coaches are choosing to protect their long-term employment prospects by speaking against the NFLCA brief and in favor of the owners. Thus, if any are asked about the NFLCA brief, they will publicly say that they do not support it.

Privately, many coaches are singing a different tune, expressing delight that the NFLCA is working on their behalf via an argument that the players should be allowed to return to team facilities via a lifting of the lockout.

And it’s not just about not having access to the players. Plenty of coaches have seen their pay get reduced, but not their hours. Moreover, if the lockout ends this month via court order or negotiated settlement, the coaches can kiss goodbye their annual down time, given that free agency would likely consume most if not all of the period in which the NFL is otherwise quiet.

Still, don’t count on any coaches saying any of that to the media. Indeed, we expect that some coaches will issue a loud denial of this report.

Right before they retreat to their offices and smile.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20 ... lca-brief/

http://chi.scout.com/2/1076835.html

Quote from the president of the NFLCA.

Kennan said, however, that every coach was notified by e-mail that the brief, which does not mention a coach by name, would be filed.

Kennan diplomatically declined to address the notion that some staffs had perhaps been pressured by owners or other members of high-level management to publicly take issue with the brief. He did acknowledge that is was "strange" that none of the coaches who distanced themselves from the brief contact him directly about it, at least before publicly airing their perceived grievances with the media.

1niksder · Post by **1niksder** » Mon Jun 06, 2011 4:22 pm

The Hogster wrote:The saga continues...

As one source with extensive coaching contacts explained it to PFT, coaches are choosing to protect their long-term employment prospects by speaking against the NFLCA brief and in favor of the owners. Thus, if any are asked about the NFLCA brief, they will publicly say that they do not support it.

Privately, many coaches are singing a different tune, expressing delight that the NFLCA is working on their behalf via an argument that the players should be allowed to return to team facilities via a lifting of the lockout.

And it’s not just about not having access to the players. Plenty of coaches have seen their pay get reduced, but not their hours. Moreover, if the lockout ends this month via court order or negotiated settlement, the coaches can kiss goodbye their annual down time, given that free agency would likely consume most if not all of the period in which the NFL is otherwise quiet.

"One source with extensive coaching contacts "
Someone who has "EXTENSIVE" contacts with coaches, but parents that couldn't come for a name for him said something to PFT

The Hogster wrote:Still, don’t count on any coaches saying any of that to the media. Indeed, we expect that some coaches will issue a loud denial of this report.

Right before they retreat to their offices and smile.

And PFT says upfront that these quotes from a guy that's nameless will be denied by the staffs of at least 15 teams whom names can be found on each teams website.

The Hogster wrote: Quote from the president of the NFLCA.

Kennan said, however, that every coach was notified by e-mail that the brief, which does not mention a coach by name, would be filed.

Yet all 15 teams have stated that NONE of their assistants were notified, they didn't say so and so didn't get the message they said none of their staff was aware of what was happening.

When Kennan made the stupid statement that it was just one team, he also acknowledge that he only attempted to contact a few (not all) Redskins assistants (one nit even a coach anymore). Saying every coach was e-mailed just doesn't hold water

The Hogster wrote:
Kennan diplomatically declined to address the notion that some staffs had perhaps been pressured by owners or other members of high-level management to publicly take issue with the brief. He did acknowledge that is was "strange" that none of the coaches who distanced themselves from the brief contact him directly about it, at least before publicly airing their perceived grievances with the media.

He filed a brief on behave of people that he didn't represent or forewarn them, that said brief would state their support for something or someone that they didn't support, would be crazy to say these people are being pressured to make statements by anyone but him.

The Hogster · Post by **The Hogster** » Mon Jun 06, 2011 5:50 pm

If you believe these statements are made with no team influence then so be it. We will just agree to disagree on that one.

KazooSkinsFan · Post by **KazooSkinsFan** » Mon Jun 06, 2011 8:46 pm

The Hogster wrote:Some of us are missing the reality of this situation. The coaches are put in a position by the Teams to disavow something that really they could care less about

Ding ding ding ding ding

Dead on. The irony. OK, let me point out the obvious. Guess who else gets newspapers and has a clue. The...wait for it....PLAYERS!!!! Which is why they don't give a rip and this will have zero impact on their relationship rather then the cataclysmic meltdown you think they'll have. Yes Virginia, the players aren't clueless and uninformed. What were you saying about someone "missing the reality of this situation?"

KazooSkinsFan · Post by **KazooSkinsFan** » Mon Jun 06, 2011 8:49 pm

The Hogster wrote:All we are pointing out...

That would be the "royal we?"

CanesSkins26 · Post by **CanesSkins26** » Mon Jun 06, 2011 11:08 pm

No it says the interest of coaches and assistant coaches currently employed by the thirty-two individual National Football League THE interests of those currently employed by THE thirty-two individual National Football League teams. It doesn't say they represent the interest of the members of the NFLCA. It a court brief that reads (granted I'm not a attorney) "we represent the "interest of" (this is their only out in this mess) THE (or all of) the coaches and assistants (they didn't says coaches and assistants that hold membership in the NFLCA) that work for THE (all of) the thirty-two individual National Football League teams (they didn't say seventeen NFL teams or less)

Nowhere in the quoted text that you pointed to does it say that the NFLCA represents all NFL coaches. It says, as you pointed out, that it represents coaches that are employed by the thirty-two individual teams; but it doesn't say which ones. A judge wouldn't read a brief from a voluntary organization and assume that it represents the interests of individuals that aren't part of that organization if they aren't specifically named in the brief. Stating that they are a voluntary organization is an acknowledgment by the NFLCA that they only represent certain individuals and not all coaches.

But to the larger point....it is poorly written and should have been much, much clearer. They left too much to interpretation.

1niksder · Post by **1niksder** » Mon Jun 06, 2011 11:18 pm

CanesSkins26 wrote:
No it says the interest of coaches and assistant coaches currently employed by the thirty-two individual National Football League THE interests of those currently employed by THE thirty-two individual National Football League teams. It doesn't say they represent the interest of the members of the NFLCA. It a court brief that reads (granted I'm not a attorney) "we represent the "interest of" (this is their only out in this mess) THE (or all of) the coaches and assistants (they didn't says coaches and assistants that hold membership in the NFLCA) that work for THE (all of) the thirty-two individual National Football League teams (they didn't say seventeen NFL teams or less)
Nowhere in the quoted text that you pointed to does it say that the NFLCA represents all NFL coaches. It says, as you pointed out, that it represents coaches that are employed by the thirty-two individual teams; but it doesn't say which ones. A judge wouldn't read a brief from a voluntary organization and assume that it represents the interests of individuals that aren't part of that organization if they aren't specifically named in the brief. Stating that they are a voluntary organization is an acknowledgment by the NFLCA that they only represent certain individuals and not all coaches.

But to the larger point....it is poorly written and should have been much, much clearer. They left too much to interpretation.

They should have talked to the coaches first.

It's the court system... they had trouble with what the meaning of is, is. no need to debate the meaning of what the means

The Hogster · Post by **The Hogster** » Mon Jun 06, 2011 11:46 pm

All I know is, we need some free agents this offseason. And, right now we've got a 6-10 team with a father-son tandem that publicly had beef with Donovan McNabb, and a reputation of an owner who controls the coaching staff moreso than other teams. Now, we're the "leader" of this Coaches Who Love Owners Parade. Nice.

CanesSkins26 · Post by **CanesSkins26** » Mon Jun 06, 2011 11:46 pm

1niksder wrote:
CanesSkins26 wrote:
No it says the interest of coaches and assistant coaches currently employed by the thirty-two individual National Football League THE interests of those currently employed by THE thirty-two individual National Football League teams. It doesn't say they represent the interest of the members of the NFLCA. It a court brief that reads (granted I'm not a attorney) "we represent the "interest of" (this is their only out in this mess) THE (or all of) the coaches and assistants (they didn't says coaches and assistants that hold membership in the NFLCA) that work for THE (all of) the thirty-two individual National Football League teams (they didn't say seventeen NFL teams or less)
Nowhere in the quoted text that you pointed to does it say that the NFLCA represents all NFL coaches. It says, as you pointed out, that it represents coaches that are employed by the thirty-two individual teams; but it doesn't say which ones. A judge wouldn't read a brief from a voluntary organization and assume that it represents the interests of individuals that aren't part of that organization if they aren't specifically named in the brief. Stating that they are a voluntary organization is an acknowledgment by the NFLCA that they only represent certain individuals and not all coaches.

But to the larger point....it is poorly written and should have been much, much clearer. They left too much to interpretation.
They should have talked to the coaches first.

It's the court system... they had trouble with what the meaning of is, is. no need to debate the meaning of what the means

Haha, touche.

SkinsJock · Post by **SkinsJock** » Tue Jun 07, 2011 8:08 am

The Hogster wrote:All I know is, we need some free agents this offseason. And, right now we've got a 6-10 team with a father-son tandem that publicly had beef with Donovan McNabb, and a reputation of an owner who controls the coaching staff moreso than other teams. Now, we're the "leader" of this Coaches Who Love Owners Parade. Nice.

you're reading way too much into this - it's really a non event with ZERO ramifications going forward

let it die - I'm beggin' ya

The Hogster · Post by **The Hogster** » Tue Jun 07, 2011 8:34 am

SkinsJock wrote:
The Hogster wrote:All I know is, we need some free agents this offseason. And, right now we've got a 6-10 team with a father-son tandem that publicly had beef with Donovan McNabb, and a reputation of an owner who controls the coaching staff moreso than other teams. Now, we're the "leader" of this Coaches Who Love Owners Parade. Nice.
you're reading way too much into this - it's really a non event with ZERO ramifications going forward

let it die - I'm beggin' ya

"Letting it die" usually translates to "please agree with me." Not gonna happen. Thanks though.

If you hadn't noticed, we are in a lockout and these kinds of 'stories' are all we've got.

Countertrey · Post by **Countertrey** » Tue Jun 07, 2011 9:43 am

Hogster... you do realize that you are quoting PFT, right? PFT???? Seriously?
Nameless sources. Rumors. Innuendo. Whatever it takes to fill a slow news day.

Redskin in Canada · Post by **Redskin in Canada** » Tue Jun 07, 2011 10:09 am

Countertrey wrote:Hogster... you do realize that you are quoting PFT, right? PFT???? Seriously?
Nameless sources. Rumors. Innuendo. Whatever it takes to fill a slow news day.

Nobody will remember this episode AFTER an agreement is signed. BUT it will have legs for as long as BOTH sides try UNSUCCESSFULLY to use the poor coaches to their advantage.

Many coaching staff members have distanced themselves from the statement. The skins' staff appear to be the only ones who go the extra step to take sides. Whether the Danny or somebody trying to show its pro-Snyder colours inside was responsible for it is stupid. Almost as stupid as the initiative by the NFLCA.

KazooSkinsFan · Post by **KazooSkinsFan** » Tue Jun 07, 2011 11:15 am

The Hogster wrote:
SkinsJock wrote:
The Hogster wrote:All I know is, we need some free agents this offseason. And, right now we've got a 6-10 team with a father-son tandem that publicly had beef with Donovan McNabb, and a reputation of an owner who controls the coaching staff moreso than other teams. Now, we're the "leader" of this Coaches Who Love Owners Parade. Nice.
you're reading way too much into this - it's really a non event with ZERO ramifications going forward

let it die - I'm beggin' ya
"Letting it die" usually translates to "please agree with me." Not gonna happen. Thanks though. If you hadn't noticed, we are in a lockout and these kinds of 'stories' are all we've got.

You lecture him when the issue you're having is you're just on the players side and won't admit it, so you're blowing a non event into something it isn't