The more I hear about the ongoing battle for a new CBA, the more I believe that a lockout in 2011 is likely. How might that affect our plans for this season? Would you go ALL OUT to win this year by signing vets or, would you "stay the course" in what we are doing by rebuilding with younger players in the draft. It does make a difference. Just a little food for thought. Opinions?
I wouldn't change the plan based on an unknown and largely uncontrollable possible outcome. They should stay the course.
A couple of weeks ago, I would have completely agreed with you. Now, I'm not so sure. I would have to at least consider making a couple of moves for this year, which I may not have. To give a VERY brief run down, after many hours of input, the players are saying that if it's not broke don't fix it. As of now, they are non-negotiable. Owner's are saying the economy is down, expenses are up, and they do not have the same revenue. They point to the NFL office laying off many employee's, and teams doing the same. They say they are paying 60% to players, and want it to be 50-50. The union is saying it's 53%, and want to see the books. It's gonna get ugly.
I completely agree that a lockout is likely and have thought so for several months now. I just don't think it makes sense to alter the plan, for a couple of reasons. First of all, just thinking it's likely doesn't mean it will happen. It's still too much of unknown. Second, I don't see much benefit in going the all out FA route. I don't think the Redskin style works all that well. They should stick with the plan.
Good points, as always. I am not saying we go a Redskin's route. I am saying that we may look at a few vet players in a different light. For example, a vet WR if we have no luck with Boldin, and a LB who we may have not normally signed, as a stop gap. JMO.
First of all I think you have to stay the course regardless. If you have a model for success and you believe in it then you're foolish to throw it aside for some fool's gold. If you do then I would have to say that you probably never really believed it was the right way to do things in the first place. Secondly, I honestly don't believe there will be a lockout season. The Players' Union is going to be under extreme pressure to get it resolved. a. Theirs is a new administration and the players' belief in them isn't going to be as strong as it was with Upshaw. They need to either get something done or player belief is going to falter. b. The owners side will still get paid if there is no season, while the players won't.
It would surprise me if there is a lockout. The league/owners have "insurance" for revenue for the season thru the DirecTv deal. http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writers/peter_king/03/24/meetings/index.html The players know this and the owners could just sit on their hands, if they choose, and still rake in $31 mil per team. Not too bad for doing next to nothing. So, this gives the owners the upper hand. Also, the owners also know that if they impose a lockout, then the fans will undoubtedly be real pissed and tic sales likely would plummet. This gives the players the upper hand here. So, with that said, both sides have valid reasons to get a deal done or risk doing ir-repairable harm to the sport. i'm not sure just what real power the league itself may have in this but I would imagine they will be doing whatever is necessary to see a stoppage and risk losing their #1 status of all sports leagues.
The biggest mistake the NFL could do is lockout...the NFL is a money maker, I'll always watch it cuz I love football, but there are the avg fans that just watch that would be turned off, and leave...I know many people that just walked away from baseball, and still haven't watched it to this day....ver sad... Miami has to take the approach where will they be in the year following the lockout, the younger players will be older, older players will be ancient ha!...but somehow if there is a lockout this time next year, they have to "pretend" that they are going to play and develop the kids the same way you would a normal season..
A lockout would be just that, a lockout. If that occurs, players no longer have access to the training facilities and the employees [players] are pretty much split form the management [coaches, etc]. All negotiations would have to be conducted with the owners and the NFLPA. But from what i gather, any training or "developement" of players would have to be done privately. I may be wrong about this but that's generally the way work stoppages work. But you are right, a work stoppage would be greatly detrimental to the sport. The league would lose a lot of the "enthusiasts" as did baseball. I was one of the ones that now shun baseball. I watched a good portion of games before the strike but really was never satisifed watching it as opposed to playing it, which interested me more. After the strike, I lost all interest in the sport.
