Washington football community discussions spanning the Redskins to Commanders era. 20+ years of game analysis, player discussions, and fan perspectives.
https://the-hogs.net/messageboard/
Yes, the statement speaking for them was public, that's how they refuted it. Makes perfect sense.The Hogster wrote:Did it have to be a public statement?
Seriously? Was the NFLCA's brief and statement private?Did it have to be a public statement?
Just because the NFLCA's brief was filed in court (public) does not mean that the Redskins had to issue a press release responding to it. BTW - the NFLCA doesn't represent every NFL coach, but not every NFL coach not represented by the NFLCA made such a statement. It meant nothing.Countertrey wrote:The Hogster wrote:Seriously? Was the NFLCA's brief and statement private?Did it have to be a public statement?
The statement was public, it's pretty darned obvious why the rebuttal was. If you're anti-owner that's fine, but be honest and don't make silly arguments. You didn't ask if it had to be public, you asked why it was. Answered. And answered...The Hogster wrote:Just because the NFLCA's brief was filed in court (public) does not mean that the Redskins had to issue a press release responding to it. BTW - the NFLCA doesn't represent every NFL coach, but not every NFL coach not represented by the NFLCA made such a statement. It meant nothing.Countertrey wrote:The Hogster wrote:Seriously? Was the NFLCA's brief and statement private?Did it have to be a public statement?
UPDATE: Make it six. The Texans have spoken out too. Now it just feels like pilingWell, this is just getting embarrassing.
The Cowboys and Rams have joined the growing number of coaching staffs to declare they didn’t know or didn’t approve of the NFL Coaches Association brief filed on their behalf last week in support of the players.
“The Dallas Cowboys’ coaching staff did not approve of the brief filed with the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals by the National Football League Coaches Association. We did not provide [NFLCA head] Larry Kennan with the authority to file such brief on our behalf and do not agree with the brief’s position,” the Cowboys said in a letter written by passing game coordinator/tight ends coach John Garrett. (Thanks to the Dallas Morning News for the statement.)
The Rams, meanwhile, apparently didn’t know about the brief.
“They were surprised by this being filed,” Rams G.M. Billy Devaney told the St. Post-Dispatch on Wednesday. “They assured me that they weren’t informed or consulted about it.”
Five staffs have now said they oppose or didn’t know about the brief filed by the NFLCA: The Redskins, Saints, Jaguars, Cowboys, and Rams.
This is just inappropriate. Don't Ram and Cowboy coaches know it's only appropriate to side with the players in public? Even you're speaking for someone else you don't have permission to speak for? Any siding with the owners is to be done in private, even if you're speaking for yourself. Geez, don't these coaches know anything? I've consulted with my attorney on this, I'm pretty confidence it's right. An attorney would never mislead us in self interest to advance their own agenda. They only serve the public interest with selfless integrity, they are sort of like priests.1niksder wrote:PDATE: Make it six. The Texans have spoken out too. Now it just feels like pilingWell, this is just getting embarrassing.
The Cowboys and Rams have joined the growing number of coaching staffs to declare they didn’t know or didn’t approve of the NFL Coaches Association brief filed on their behalf last week in support of the players
Now we are getting somewhereKazooSkinsFan wrote:This is just inappropriate. Don't Ram and Cowboy coaches know it's only appropriate to side with the players in public? Even you're speaking for someone else you don't have permission to speak for? Any siding with the owners is to be done in private, even if you're speaking for yourself. Geez, don't these coaches know anything? I've consulted with my attorney on this, I'm pretty confidence it's right. An attorney would never mislead us in self interest to advance their own agenda. They only serve the public interest with selfless integrity, they are sort of like priests.1niksder wrote:PDATE: Make it six. The Texans have spoken out too. Now it just feels like pilingWell, this is just getting embarrassing.
The Cowboys and Rams have joined the growing number of coaching staffs to declare they didn’t know or didn’t approve of the NFL Coaches Association brief filed on their behalf last week in support of the players
KazooSkinsFan wrote:This is just inappropriate. Don't Ram and Cowboy coaches know it's only appropriate to side with the players in public? Even you're speaking for someone else you don't have permission to speak for? Any siding with the owners is to be done in private, even if you're speaking for yourself. Geez, don't these coaches know anything? I've consulted with my attorney on this, I'm pretty confidence it's right. An attorney would never mislead us in self interest to advance their own agenda. They only serve the public interest with selfless integrity, they are sort of like priests.
Maybe the NFLCA should have said nothing instead of saying something, then saying they where speaking for people that they weren'tThe Hogster wrote:What does the public statement actually accomplish accept furthering the PR efforts of the Teams? Does it move negotiations forward? Will it make a difference? No. It moves nothing forward, it simply lets the fans, the media, and the players know that these particular coaches are with ownership.
How does our knowledge of that at home in front of a TV help the negotiations? It doesn't. It only serves to deter potential free agents from wanting to sign with a team that has coaches who seemingly might not have their back.
If you think these statements were hatched by the coaches and not the PR staff of the teams, pass me the bottle.
The coaches are in the crossfire. They'll have to piece together a team on short notice, this only pulls them to one side. As a coach, I'd rather stay out of it. Sometimes the best thing to say is nothing. My opinion.
Looks like the Redskins were just the first ones out the gate on this one. It also looks like the FO has nothing to do with this. Someone simply made a mistake and there is no real football news to report, so this is what we get.When the 17 members of Mike Shanahan’s coaching staff in Washington signed a statement disagreeing with the brief filed last week by the NFL Coaches Association in support of the effort to lift the lockout, we expected that many other coaching staffs would follow suit.
Though we expected it to come more quickly, but it’s still coming.
The Chiefs have become the latest to join the list of coaching staffs to say that the NFLCA isn’t speaking for them.
“In talking to all of our guys, there was a great deal of surprise this was filed on their behalf,” Haley told the Kansas City Star. “Nobody was aware that it was going to happen. This was not on behalf of the coaches.”
Other coaching staffs that have expressed disagreement with the NFLCA brief include the Saints, Jaguars, Cowboys, Rams, and Texans.
That’s nearly 25 percent of the coaches that the name “NFL Coaches Association” purports to encompass. And that’s why we should always be skeptical of any group with a name that, on the surface, implies that it speaks for a much broader group of people than it really does.
So for whom does the NFLCA really speak? We’ll have a little more on this one later in the day.
Maybe so. But, the lawyers at the NFLCA don't have players to coach and free agents to pursue.1niksder wrote:Maybe the NFLCA should have said nothing instead of saying something, then saying they where speaking for people that they weren'tThe Hogster wrote:What does the public statement actually accomplish accept furthering the PR efforts of the Teams? Does it move negotiations forward? Will it make a difference? No. It moves nothing forward, it simply lets the fans, the media, and the players know that these particular coaches are with ownership.
How does our knowledge of that at home in front of a TV help the negotiations? It doesn't. It only serves to deter potential free agents from wanting to sign with a team that has coaches who seemingly might not have their back.
If you think these statements were hatched by the coaches and not the PR staff of the teams, pass me the bottle.
The coaches are in the crossfire. They'll have to piece together a team on short notice, this only pulls them to one side. As a coach, I'd rather stay out of it. Sometimes the best thing to say is nothing. My opinion.
They also don't have owners to interview with to become coaches. Nor do the have the right to mis-represent coaches and not be called on it.The Hogster wrote:Maybe so. But, the lawyers at the NFLCA don't have players to coach and free agents to pursue.1niksder wrote:Maybe the NFLCA should have said nothing instead of saying something, then saying they where speaking for people that they weren'tThe Hogster wrote:What does the public statement actually accomplish accept furthering the PR efforts of the Teams? Does it move negotiations forward? Will it make a difference? No. It moves nothing forward, it simply lets the fans, the media, and the players know that these particular coaches are with ownership.
How does our knowledge of that at home in front of a TV help the negotiations? It doesn't. It only serves to deter potential free agents from wanting to sign with a team that has coaches who seemingly might not have their back.
If you think these statements were hatched by the coaches and not the PR staff of the teams, pass me the bottle.
The coaches are in the crossfire. They'll have to piece together a team on short notice, this only pulls them to one side. As a coach, I'd rather stay out of it. Sometimes the best thing to say is nothing. My opinion.
And this is the point I made originally.The Hogster wrote:I don't disagree with your POV, just the way it was handled.
This isn't that complicated and you keep getting the same answer from multiple people. The brief said it was speaking for the coaches and the coaches support the players and the courts should intervene on behalf of the players.The Hogster wrote:What does the public statement actually accomplish accept furthering the PR efforts of the Teams?
It was handled wrong when a brief was filed that was a lie. The coaches of now six teams saying it was a lie was completely appropriate.The Hogster wrote:I agree that the media is running with it. You can't blame them. I'm looking at it from the free agent standpoint. We have no proven offensive leader on this team, and because of the rules, most of the veteran free agents (those with 6 years or more) are at a point in their career where they want to win. Right now, we're on thin ice to attract quality talent especially since we are not handing out lottery-sized contracts anymore. If Im a free agent, do I want to take a reasonable contract with the Redskins, who might not be winning anytime soon, and whose coaches have had several very public schisms with the players? Probably not.
I don't disagree with your POV, just the way it was handled.
As you said the bottom line is that the damage does not appear to be great if there is any at all. But I don't see the issue in supporing management since the coaches are management. I wouldn't have had a problem with it if they'd followed your advice and said just to leave them out of it, but I don't see anything wrong with what they did either. And I think the players get that the coaches are management, which goes full circle to your point that there isn't really any damage.Redskin in Canada wrote:And this is the point I made originally.The Hogster wrote:I don't disagree with your POV, just the way it was handled.
Surely, there were better ways of handling it rather than "standing with our owner".
It is not about calling a lie a LIE in public. It is about how you go about it without taking sides that mattered. It could have been done in an attempt to remain IMPARTIAL.
Gladly, it does not appear as if the damage is great. We will see as the critical time to begin to miss some regular season approaches.
+1SkinsJock 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
man oh man - I hope this stuff gets resolved soon
At some point in the not-too-distant future, it could be easier to list the teams whose coaches haven’t disavowed the “friend of the court” brief filed by the NFL Coaches Association in support of the players’ effort to lift the lockout. At some point, that list could consist of no teams.
The roster of coaching staffs expressing disagreement with the NFLCA brief has grown to 12 teams, with the addition of the Bills and the Vikings.
“Our entire staff had no prior knowledge, nor were we consulted that the amicus brief was being filed on behalf of the coaches,” Bills offensive coordinator Curtis Modkins said, per the Buffalo News. “We support Mr. Wilson. Our focus is on our preparation for the 2011 season.”
Ditto for Vikings coach Leslie Frazier. “We weren’t contacted by the coaches association,” Frazier said, per Tom Pelissero of 1500espn.com. “We’re going to always be supportive of our management. We’ve got great management here in Minnesota. The Wilf family has been terrific for our employees.”
By all appearances, NFLCA executive director Larry Kennan decided it would be easier to seek forgiveness than permission. Based on how things have been going in the wake of the filing, Kennan eventually could be seeking unemployment compensation.
Given the ties between the NFLPA* and the NFLCA, you probably don’t need three guesses.
The “Contact Us” page at the NFLCA website lists Larry Kennan as the group’s executive director. The other staff members listed are all NFLPA* officials, according to the 2009 LM-2 filed by the pre-asterisk NFLPA with the U.S. Department of Labor.
While there’s nothing inherently wrong with the NFLCA being staffed almost exclusively by NFLPA* employees, the “friend of the court” brief submitted by the NFLCA to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit makes no reference to that fairly important connection. Instead, the NFLCA declares at the outset of its brief that “[t]he 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.”
This statement strongly implies (at a minimum) that the NFLCA speaks for every coach employed by every team in the NFL. Clearly, it doesn’t.
The absence of any disclosure that the NFLCA is staffed almost exclusively by employees of the very entity that decertified as a precursor to the very legal claims that the NFLCA is supporting gives the brief zero credibility, at best. At worst, the NFLCA arguably has committed a not-so-subtle fraud on the court.
We’ve got no problem with the NFL coaches having a group that speaks on their behalf on any of the many important issues confronting the league’s coaches. By all appearances, however, that group isn’t the NFL Coaches Association.
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.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
man oh man - I hope this stuff gets resolved soon
I doubt it. INDIVIDUAL players will look at the bottom line:CanesSkins26 wrote: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.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
man oh man - I hope this stuff gets resolved soon
There are 32 owners vs. 1900 players. It is a lot easier for a few to stand firm than the many. Advantage: owners when it comes to a drawn out lockout which is why the players took matters to the courts.I still remain unconvinced that the owners have the upper hand as somo observers claim. The players are more vulnerable to lack of income but the sheer amount of wasted revenue for owners is HUGE.
Whoever has the most patience and discipline shall win, as it is often the case in most adversarial negotiations.
WRONGCanesSkins26 wrote: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.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