The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

Can/Will the NFL use replacement players as they did in '87? If this last thru the summer, I would like to see this happen. It will help get an agreement DONE.

Replacement players could be used, however, I cannot imagine that would be the owners' first choice. Season ticket renewals and purchases will suffer even more than they have already. They stand to lose $4 Billion in TV revenue and an additional $600 to $750 Million in NFL Sunday Ticket revenues for DirecTV if the season does not play out on schedule. I would think it would be a last resort.

Replacement players can't be used because its the NFL closing the doors as opposed to the players not playing by their choice. (as in the previous times we had replacement players)

I only know this because some NFL guy was on Mike/Mike one morning and he explained it.

langleyparkjoe wrote:Replacement players can't be used because its the NFL closing the doors as opposed to the players not playing by their choice. (as in the previous times we had replacement players)

I only know this because some NFL guy was on Mike/Mike one morning and he explained it.

I don't think that's entirely accurate since the players union de-unionized before the CBA expired. The lockout occurred after the CBA expired. The players walked away first. Again, I don't think replacement players would be the first option but there is nothing guaranteeing players jobs right now. It should be interesting to see how the legal proceedings go. The first case could determine whether or not the sides go back to the bargaining table.

TCIYM wrote:

langleyparkjoe wrote:Replacement players can't be used because its the NFL closing the doors as opposed to the players not playing by their choice. (as in the previous times we had replacement players)

I only know this because some NFL guy was on Mike/Mike one morning and he explained it.

I don't think that's entirely accurate since the players union de-unionized before the CBA expired. The lockout occurred after the CBA expired. The players walked away first. Again, I don't think replacement players would be the first option but there is nothing guaranteeing players jobs right now. It should be interesting to see how the legal proceedings go. The first case could determine whether or not the sides go back to the bargaining table.

I rather expect that the league's expressed intent to invoke a lock out in the event an agreement could not be reached would make it vulnerable to a valid argument of "bad faith" should they attempt to roll with replacement players. With the exception of free agents, players continue to have valid contracts, and have not provided any reason to believe that they would not be available for play. They DID NOT walk away.

Countertrey wrote:

TCIYM wrote:

langleyparkjoe wrote:Replacement players can't be used because its the NFL closing the doors as opposed to the players not playing by their choice. (as in the previous times we had replacement players)

I only know this because some NFL guy was on Mike/Mike one morning and he explained it.

I don't think that's entirely accurate since the players union de-unionized before the CBA expired. The lockout occurred after the CBA expired. The players walked away first. Again, I don't think replacement players would be the first option but there is nothing guaranteeing players jobs right now. It should be interesting to see how the legal proceedings go. The first case could determine whether or not the sides go back to the bargaining table.

I rather expect that the league's expressed intent to invoke a lock out in the event an agreement could not be reached would make it vulnerable to a valid argument of "bad faith" should they attempt to roll with replacement players. With the exception of free agents, players continue to have valid contracts, and have not provided any reason to believe that they would not be available for play. They DID NOT walk away.

Yea see that's how I took it, the players want to play but their being turned away. Man I don't know, I really don't want the scab route and 2011 isn't the same as the 80s when we did good with them.

langleyparkjoe wrote:

Countertrey wrote:

TCIYM wrote:

langleyparkjoe wrote:Replacement players can't be used because its the NFL closing the doors as opposed to the players not playing by their choice. (as in the previous times we had replacement players)

I only know this because some NFL guy was on Mike/Mike one morning and he explained it.

I don't think that's entirely accurate since the players union de-unionized before the CBA expired. The lockout occurred after the CBA expired. The players walked away first. Again, I don't think replacement players would be the first option but there is nothing guaranteeing players jobs right now. It should be interesting to see how the legal proceedings go. The first case could determine whether or not the sides go back to the bargaining table.

I rather expect that the league's expressed intent to invoke a lock out in the event an agreement could not be reached would make it vulnerable to a valid argument of "bad faith" should they attempt to roll with replacement players. With the exception of free agents, players continue to have valid contracts, and have not provided any reason to believe that they would not be available for play. They DID NOT walk away.

Yea see that's how I took it, the players want to play but their being turned away. Man I don't know, I really don't want the scab route and 2011 isn't the same as the 80s when we did good with them.

And... we don't have Beathard... who was the real genius in setting up the replacement team... and Gibbs... who made sure the players stayed united during the strike.

TCIYM wrote:

langleyparkjoe wrote:Replacement players can't be used because its the NFL closing the doors as opposed to the players not playing by their choice. (as in the previous times we had replacement players)

I only know this because some NFL guy was on Mike/Mike one morning and he explained it.

I don't think that's entirely accurate since the players union de-unionized before the CBA expired. The lockout occurred after the CBA expired. The players walked away first. Again, I don't think replacement players would be the first option but there is nothing guaranteeing players jobs right now. It should be interesting to see how the legal proceedings go. The first case could determine whether or not the sides go back to the bargaining table.

You are correct.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20 ... g-lockout/

Thanks for the post Red

So my lawyer friends, since my wife and I already paid for the season tickets, what happens now? I'm not going to see any scab players, what's next for me?

Ahhh, now you have a witness to the madness on THN if it happens. I'm giving the first interview to THN of course and I'm selling the others to the local outlets.

sadly people will pay and show for scabs. that is how dominate football is in american culture.

gay4pacman wrote:sadly people will pay and show for scabs. that is how dominate football is in american culture.

I disagree. I don't think that people would pay to watch replacements at all. If there's no NFL, college football will fill the void, not replacement players. I mean can you imagine how awful the quality of football would be if the teams had to start from scratch with all new (and not very talented) players?

CanesSkins26 wrote:

gay4pacman wrote:sadly people will pay and show for scabs. that is how dominate football is in american culture.

I disagree. I don't think that people would pay to watch replacements at all. If there's no NFL, college football will fill the void, not replacement players. I mean can you imagine how awful the quality of football would be if the teams had to start from scratch with all new (and not very talented) players?

You don't have to imagine... it happened in '87... and, while not of the same caliber, the Redskins replacements were pretty darned good... and won against teams (including Dallas) with significant numbers of line crossers playing.

Some of it was downright entertaining. I remember the first game against the Giants (a 38 - 12 Victory), when Gibbs broke out the Wishbone! Tuna was blown away, had no answer... all he could do was laugh, and tip his hat to Gibbs.

Scabs may play and i assure you that we will cheer for them, maybe the real players will cheer for them behind closed doors too.

As long as OUR SCABS are better than their scabs, we will be alright.

If people had a conscience, we would have stopped supporting the Redskins under Dan Snyder a while ago. We do not have it. Most of us will cheer for anybody dressed up in Burgundy and Gold out of loyalty for the team expecting a solution for the players. We did this the last time around and we will do it again this year, particularly if, as CT said, we beat Dallas again.

Hail to the SCABS!!! j/k

SKINS#1 wrote:Can/Will the NFL use replacement players as they did in '87? If this last thru the summer, I would like to see this happen. It will help get an agreement DONE.

Remember the Skins went 3-0 with "replacements" back then....hahaha