Skip to content

Privately, many coaches like the NFLCA brief

lockoutx-large Getty Images

As coaching staffs from more and more teams continue to claim that the brief filed by the NFL Coaches Association on behalf (supposedly) of all NFL coaches, we’re hearing that plenty of coaches privately are pleased with the efforts of the NFLCA to attempt to lift the lockout.

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.

Permalink 43 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Rumor Mill, Sprint Football Live - Rumors, Top Stories, Union
43 Responses to “Privately, many coaches like the NFLCA brief”
  1. ballsdeep24 says: Jun 6, 2011 2:45 PM

    oh no… coaches would have to work all year? imagine you had to work all year too!

  2. dan39564 says: Jun 6, 2011 2:52 PM

    This sounds more like Self-Serving comments, rather than true player support!

  3. seahawkhuskyfan says: Jun 6, 2011 2:55 PM

    Funny how many stories come on this site with “sources” but never names. Why write a story without facts, seems like there is a great deal more of that happening on this site everyday

  4. airraid77 says: Jun 6, 2011 2:56 PM

    a pro union, anti owner article, that is not even a story, that cant be verified, wont be verified. another pro union story.
    still waiting for you do to just bash the union for its tactics, praise the owners for their tactics. and in seperate pieces.

  5. nabz034 says: Jun 6, 2011 2:57 PM

    What a shame. Football could be so exciting right now and its not.

    I think the message that the judge gave both sides last week that football will continue under there guidelines will scare them into coming to an agreement hopefully sooner rather then later.

  6. t1mmy10 says: Jun 6, 2011 2:58 PM

    “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.”

    Um…then wouldn’t the coaches be OPPOSED to a court ordered lockout end which the NFLCA filed in support of? And isn’t this time “downtime?”

  7. nfl25 says: Jun 6, 2011 3:00 PM

    pretty sure the ones that back this thing are only the ones that are having their pay reduced.

  8. hail2tharedskins says: Jun 6, 2011 3:02 PM

    Well there are sides to this from the coaches perspective. On the competitive side, they want to be able to meet with players and prepare for the season. On the financial side, their interests are directly opposed to the players! Since the coaches and players are both an employee expense to the owners/teams, that means that every extra dollar that goes to the players is one less dollar available to the coaches.

    I know a multitude of people will scream that the owners want to pay the players less so they can keep it all for themselves. Don’t get me wrong, I understand the owners are trying to reduce costs to increase their profits. But if the reduction in non-player staff during the lockout has shown you anything, it is that the owners are not going to take the difference out of their pockets it will come at the expense of other areas within the organization.

  9. saints25 says: Jun 6, 2011 3:06 PM

    So privately some coaches like the NFLCA brief? An you got this info how? just saying

  10. Deb says: Jun 6, 2011 3:08 PM

    It makes sense that coaches would privately support the players. They’re management, but the owners shutting down the league doesn’t help them in any way. It screws up their preparation time, and for some, cuts into their paychecks. If the league re-opens and their teams perform badly, the type of owners who fire coaches every other year aren’t going to cut a guy slack because he lost his offseason to this nonsense.

    I believe it was foolhardy to file the brief, putting coaches in a no-win situation. But while nearly half have disavowed it, more than half haven’t commented so far. That suggests good relationships between coaches and owners, who aren’t going to require coaches to take public loyalty oaths that could further alienate players once the lockout ends.

  11. phelbin says: Jun 6, 2011 3:08 PM

    This just doesn’t make sense. After half the teams’ coaches have publicly said they knew nothing about it and that the NFLCA doesn’t speak for them, the credibility of the brief is so marginalized that it will likely have no effect on the ruling. So, by this logic, the coaches who were happy about the brief, intentionally damaged its credibility just to save face with their employers. At best that’s really far-fetched. IMO, the more logical conclusion is that roughly half the coaches side with the league. I don’t see why that’s so hard to believe.

  12. discostu570 says: Jun 6, 2011 3:12 PM

    Ain’t no surprise here. The coaches aren’t the same as the players. There’s only a handful of them, and given how much easier they are to replace, they absolutely need to maintain a pleasant relationship with their owners to keep their jobs.

    The players can’t be fired wholesale because while many are willing to compete at the highest level of the sport, few are able. The coaches lack the fundamental job security needed to grouse publicly about your employer’s conduct.

  13. 2mannings1cup says: Jun 6, 2011 3:15 PM

    Privately, one NFL Coach in particular likes smooth, lotion soaked feet.

  14. smacklayer says: Jun 6, 2011 3:16 PM

    I am calling BS on this story. There is only so much money that a team has. They can not print money. So if the players take an increasing portion of the money a team has to spend on employement, it necessarily means that there will be less for coaches. Maybe that is why they have seen their salaries going down because the players are soaking up every cent a team has –
    in ever increasing amounts, beyond the rate of revenue increases as shown in the Breen bay books.

    You seem to imply that if the players make out like bandits on the labor dispute, then somehow that means the coaches will catch a glimpse of this windfall too. Not gonna happen. Like I said if anything, more money to the players means less money to the coaches.

  15. duanethomas says: Jun 6, 2011 3:17 PM

    So I was right…unlike the pro-owner shills I just don’t spout my opinion or try to project on what “I would do” if I was a owner/coach. I know the inner working of the NFL from 410 Park Ave to the equipment room of teams, since the 80’s. Those coaches have no protection and are left to the owners whims. Such as opted out of contributing to their pension plans 3 years ago. They side with the players, but they also need to protect their jobs. They want an union and representation, they just haven’t put it all together yet…..they will. Fear not you shills, your owners are making the right concessions and a deal is coming soon.

  16. hystoracle says: Jun 6, 2011 3:18 PM

    Coaches need to stay out of this thing all together. They are in a No Win situation. This article basically says they tell the owners (the ones who sign their paychecks) that they are behind them. But in secret are supporting the players. That would be playing both sides of the fence. They need to stay out of it altogether. They will either piss off their boss or piss off the 53 guys who they have to lead when football restarts. No Win situation.

  17. radrhatr says: Jun 6, 2011 3:19 PM

    “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. ”

    I call a big, fat “bullsh!t” on this story.

  18. biggerballz says: Jun 6, 2011 3:29 PM

    I heard from a “source” that players would like to make more money and work less. My “source” also told me owners would like to pay players less and have them work more.

  19. deadeye says: Jun 6, 2011 3:31 PM

    This is no surprise. Obviously many coaches will side with owners, and many will side with players. Common sense dictates that it wouldn’t be all of one or the other. Thus the idea of filing a brief that purports to represent all the coaches is nonsensical.

  20. jimr10 says: Jun 6, 2011 3:35 PM

    Mike, you are getting pathetic. I use to enjoy this site because you were objective. So, Privately, coaches called you and told you they supported the union that is not a union.
    at least 15 coaches staffs have reported that they did not have any idea about the coaches union filing a friend of the court brief, but privately, they notified you. Your pro-union side is getting a but boring.

  21. endzonezombie says: Jun 6, 2011 3:35 PM

    “Since the coaches and players are both an employee expense to the owners/teams, that means that every extra dollar that goes to the players is one less dollar available to the coaches.”

    @hailtotharedskins: Stay as foolish as a typical owner shill can be. The players salaries must fit under the cap. The coaches’ salaries are unconstrained. Also, the working limits for players are restricted under the CBA. There is no limit to coaching hours.

  22. myballsmyrules says: Jun 6, 2011 3:36 PM

    @duanethomas
    Just an hour or so ago you said you “had to go make some money” then turned tail and ran

    Yet you are still posting? Dude, you ain’t got no job. You and tommyf15, paperlionsand jakek2 are LOCKED OUT, remember?

    Oh, i guess you meant taking your turn on the corner holding the cardboad sign.
    You are a fake, a shill, a pawn of DEmoron’s.

  23. myballsmyrules says: Jun 6, 2011 3:46 PM

    @duanethomas

    Now you claim to know the inner workings of the league from Park ave. to the locker rooms.

    You are as fake as a $7 dollar bill.
    A fraud, a DEmoron shill, a troll
    Is “pretending” on here how you feel important? You have ZERO credibility. You are an imposter, a phoney, a LOSER

  24. myballsmyrules says: Jun 6, 2011 3:47 PM

    endzonezombie=another fake, phoney, pretending DEmoron shill planted by the *association*

  25. lostsok says: Jun 6, 2011 3:52 PM

    Funny, people are calling “bs” on a story when they have no sources or insight of their own.

    Yeah, no bias there! LOLOLOL

  26. Deb says: Jun 6, 2011 4:03 PM

    @phelbin …

    The more likely inference is that many, if not most, of the coaches who have spoken out were required by their owners to publicly disavow the brief. The lockout is harming them and their families–there’s no way they genuinely support the owners’ strategy. On the other hand, they are management and the brief has put them in a difficult position with company ownership.

    @endzonezombie …

    Still in the light ;)

  27. anonymouslyanonymouscommentor says: Jun 6, 2011 4:10 PM

    Many people here obviously don’t know how sources work. If Mike disclosed a name, that source wouldn’t be volunteering anymore information anytime soon.

    And to those of you saying the coaches shouldn’t do anything because they are in a no-win situation, you obviously don’t understand the implication of not saying anything. If coaches say nothing, it tells owners they support it. There only choice, if they want to please their respective owner, is to speak out against it. They were put in the no-win situation as soon as the NFLCA brief was filed, they didn’t put themselves in it.

    Finally, why is it so hard for many of you to believe many coaches are against the lockout? This impacts them just about as much as anyone, and not in a positive way.

  28. snowpea84 says: Jun 6, 2011 4:35 PM

    Unnamed sources say that they were lying before and don’t listen to them when they are willing to put their name to it…
    Is this a joke?

  29. capslockkey says: Jun 6, 2011 4:42 PM

    I don’t understand the logic behind coaches supporting the players. The bigger share of the pie the players get, is less money available for coaches. The only reason in my opinion to get behind the players is to make sure you don’t have a locker room full of guys who think you are against them.

  30. anonymouslyanonymouscommentor says: Jun 6, 2011 4:45 PM

    capslockkey says: Jun 6, 2011 4:42 PM

    I don’t understand the logic behind coaches supporting the players. The bigger share of the pie the players get, is less money available for coaches. The only reason in my opinion to get behind the players is to make sure you don’t have a locker room full of guys who think you are against them.
    ————————————————-

    Because everything always has to be just about money, right?

    Sometimes I wonder why the world is how it is today, but then I remember the mentality of most people here.

  31. childressrulz says: Jun 6, 2011 4:59 PM

    Go Unions. Screw the dusty ol’ fart owners.

  32. prosb4hos says: Jun 6, 2011 4:59 PM

    News Flash: There’s a lot more coaches who used to be players (many) than coaches who used to be owners (none).

  33. schemefactory says: Jun 6, 2011 5:26 PM

    the owners will win

  34. schemefactory says: Jun 6, 2011 5:29 PM

    the players will win

  35. turgidsen says: Jun 6, 2011 5:30 PM

    Is the PFT ?

    Yes it is how may we help you?

    This is the NFLCA we have a story for you.

  36. mayfieldroadboy says: Jun 6, 2011 5:59 PM

    As one coach told me, he doesn’t give a sh*t, one way or the other, about the NFLCA brief; all he cares about is getting back to the game of football, not courtroom antics. Why won’t anyone tell us which teams cut the paychecks of coaches? And by what percent? And are the coaches reporting to their respective facilities daily to perform some facsimile of work, or are they also locked out?

    So much blather, faldarah and frumpery about a story which may be true, or may be false…depending of the “unnamed” sources which contribute the majority of grist for this one-sided pro-union rumor mill.

    And with that, this post will be deleted.

  37. Brian says: Jun 6, 2011 6:12 PM

    So it MUST be that they were simply protecting their own long-term employment, and EVEN if they loudly deny it, we know they are REALLY smiling at the NFLCA brief?

    Sounds like a pretty big straw to me.

  38. jimr10 says: Jun 6, 2011 6:53 PM

    So, how many coaches were there? one? twenty? a hundred? I am finding it hard to believe this story.

  39. nflfan101 says: Jun 6, 2011 7:02 PM

    Don’t believe what they say, just believe what I tell you they think???????

    How do we know that you can read their minds??????

    This post is utter nonsense and comes from someone who is pro-player and who thinks that everyone is pro-player. That is simply not the case.

    Take the coaches at their word – they disagree with the NFLCA’s brief/position.

  40. Deb says: Jun 6, 2011 7:40 PM

    @nflfan101 …

    I don’t think everyone is pro-player. Who could read these comments and think that? And I believe the NFLCA brief was ill-conceived because it put the coaches in a difficult position. Given the well-known pettiness of some owners (Dan Snyder, for instance), it’s hard for me to believe the coaches agreed in advance to what is essentially open insubordination against their bosses.

    But the lockout serves only the owners. It is a hardship for everyone else connected to the league: players, coaches, employees, networks and their employees, etc. Why would coaches support a lockout that jeopardizes their own incomes? That keeps them from preparing for the season, which could ultimately jeopardize their jobs? That keeps them and their families from interacting with the players many consider friends?

    I can believe some coaches feel loyalty to longtime owners who treat them well. But I can equally believe some were forced to disavow the brief. Not all serfs are as in love with the filthy rich as the PFT posting majority.

  41. cesquire says: Jun 6, 2011 10:52 PM

    The fact that the coaches are saying anything publicly at all (rather than speaking privately or saying nothing at all) can only mean that they were pressured by ownership, and their lawyers, to.

    Honestly, why would they even care that strongly one way or another about the brief?

  42. macjacmccoy says: Jun 6, 2011 11:00 PM

    Like I said the denials 2 weeks after the intitial ones came out were BS. If they didnt agree with the brief they would have said so right away. The fact that they didnt shows that they really do agree with it and they are just saying that they dont to appease their owners.

  43. comeonnowguys says: Jun 7, 2011 5:38 PM

    “schemefactory says:
    Jun 6, 2011 5:26 PM
    the owners will win
    Thumbed up: 6 Thumbed down: 7

    schemefactory says:
    Jun 6, 2011 5:29 PM
    the players will win
    Thumbed up: 6 Thumbed down: 8 ”

    I absolutely love this.

    I have no doubt there are very invested parties from both sides trolling these stories, but the stance that that everyone who disagrees with you is a shill and everyone who agrees with you is speaking truth to power is absolutely infuriating.

    Oh wait, we’re talking about anonymous Internet commenting. Carry on.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!