Redskins coaches stand with NFL owners

The Hogster · Post by **The Hogster** » Tue Jun 07, 2011 11:33 am

Redskin in Canada wrote:
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.

Exactly.

1niksder · Post by **1niksder** » Tue Jun 07, 2011 11:47 am

The Hogster wrote:
Redskin in Canada wrote:
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.
Exactly.

The Saints are 100% behind Benson as far as this brief goes, so the Skins staff are not the only ones backing their Owner. 15 teams have said they don't support the wording of the brief, many (most that didn't take pay cuts) have said they support their owner, NONE of them have said they support the ownerS or the ownerS position in this work stoppage.

I just don't see any connection to the little guy on this one.

KazooSkinsFan · Post by **KazooSkinsFan** » Tue Jun 07, 2011 12:26 pm

The Hogster wrote:
Redskin in Canada wrote:
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.
Exactly.

Sure, the coaches couldn't possibly be on the owners side just because they said so. Someone speaking for themselves is as you say "exactly" the same as someone putting words in their mouths.

Had the situation been reversed, the owners filed a brief the coaches were on their side and the coaches put out a statement that they are actually on the players side then you'd still think it was "the same" as well and the coaches word they are on the players side should be rejected as "exactly" the same as the owners saying the coaches are on their side.

Spin, spin. All you have to do is admit you're completely on the players side. Your endless spin you're actually evaluating this instead of only justifying whatever benefits the players is too funny.

jmooney · Post by **jmooney** » Sun Jun 12, 2011 6:34 am

One thing thats always stuck in my mind when I read about this. And its never been addressed.

Alot of coaches are retired players, still represented by the NFLPA. Not represented as a current player but, benefits and things like that. Im not sure that retirees still have a vote, In my union they do. The NFLPA has made it clear one of thier sticking points , early on, was retiree benefits ect.

Some have said there wont be a rift created between coaches and players. For the most part thats probably true. What about the coaches that are represented by the NFLPA that spoke out against this brief.(Del Rio)? Was the NFLPA counting on these particular coaches taking sides?

How will the players respond to those coaches who are going to reap the benefits of this new contract as former players but, "appearered" to either ,side with the owners or take no position.

Just somthing Ive been curious about. I mean, maybe once you become a coach or mgmt. do you waive your benefits as a former player and are no longer a part of the NFLPA? In which case all of the above is a non-issue.

Do any of you guys know?

SkinsJock · Post by **SkinsJock** » Sun Jun 12, 2011 11:20 am

I do think that the new CBA will give the retired players a much better deal than the last - both the NFL and the players have already indicated that this is something that needs to be a part of this new CBA - retired NFL players are considered that no matter what their jobs are

I also think that the players will not be at all affected by this 'brief' or what some coaches did or did not do - end of story - The players just want to get as much as they can while they have the ability

KazooSkinsFan · Post by **KazooSkinsFan** » Sun Jun 12, 2011 2:42 pm

SkinsJock wrote:I also think that the players will not be at all affected by this 'brief' or what some coaches did or did not do - end of story - The players just want to get as much as they can while they have the ability

Yes, we have a winner. Other then a few players who have enough talent to overcome a childish personality, most of them got where they were through years of dedication and hard work and aren't going to be spending their effort nursing petty grudges on issues that didn't matter anyway. And the babies will be babies no matter what they do. The net effect is virtually zero.