Reggie White, Jerry Kramer, most of the “Drug using drunk” retired guys wouldn’t screw over the rest of the league for themselves….
just saying….

Manning, Brees, and Brady all stand a good chanch of losing their locker rooms this season.
_______________________
What does Brady have to do with this? He already has a contract, and I haven’t read or heard anywhere that he’s asking for anything special. Personally, I have nothing against most of these players trying to get a LITTLE something for themselves. They put their butts on the line when they added their names to the lawsuit. In the past, owners have retaliated against certain players because they were upset with the union and those players were reps or union officers. As long as they don’t let things sidetrack the settlement (which I highly doubt, since they’ll have to face their fellow players after this is all over), I have no problem with most of them trying to get a little something in the settlement. I do have a problem with Peyton asking to be exempt from the franchise tag, however. Yes, he put his name on the lawsuit, but immediately after that he ran for cover and acted like he didn’t know what a lawsuit was. At least Brady and Brees answered questions about the lawsuit. Peyton, however, was so worried about his public image and his advertising deals that he refused to answer a single question about the issue. The only time we heard from him was after the breakthrough when he said it was time to get the deal done. Way to put your butt on the line there Peyton. He just wants the exemption so he can squeeze even more money out of the Colts, as if he hasn’t signed max contracts since day one. He let himself be franchised the last time his contract was up so that he’d have a much higher starting salary when he negotiated this past deal. Now that he’s getting older and has had two neck surgeries, he doesn’t want to risk playing things out a bit and getting injured. He just wants to jump straight to the uber-contract with all of that guaranteed money. Funny thing is, I remember reading posts Colts fans wrote earlier where they said Peyton was such a team guy he’d take a little less to help the team. LMAO on that one then, and even more so now. By the time Peyton is done with the Colts, not only will they not be able to afford a quality backup QB, they won’t be able to afford a defense…oh, wait.

“And what does that sound like? It sounds like precisely what the NFL did when it was supposed to be maxing out the shared TV revenue in 2009, but instead cut its own deal for lockout insurance.”

I knew you couldn’t write an article that long without taking some dig at the owners when the subject clearly is about how greedy the players are.

But guess what.

You’re little lockout insurance jab doesn’t work anymore now that DSmith came out and said he secured lockout insurance for the players.

You should remember that since the article is right here on PFT. From just a few days ago.
_______________________
Big difference between the lockout insurance case and the lockout insurance De Smith picked up. In the case of the NFLPA, they’re simply paying a premium for an insurance policy that would pay them in the case of an extended lockout. Just a typical insurance policy, only on a grand scale. In the lockout insurance case, the problem is that the owners were negotiating with the tv networks for revenue they already had a contractual agreement with the players to share. In their capacity as sole negotiator, however, the owners left extra revenue on the table in return for guarantees that would bolster the position of the owners in the case of an extended lockout. In other words, they went behind their partners’ backs and made a deal that sacrificed some of their partners’ money in order to make a deal that would help them further screw their partners in the upcoming negotiations. Huge difference. Oh, and before there’s a big argument about whether the owners and players are partners, I simply used that term as a quick way to refer to the fact that they had an agreement in place to share the revenue the league took in.

I heard Schefty say on NFL Live that there is absolutely NO way that Manning & Brees get exempted from the FT, FWIW.

I am totally with with cdwains on this one. I do not typically side with big business but in this particular case, my feeling is that the owners are the ones that stand to lose everything. They are the ones who spent the money on the franchise and pay all the players very well to play a game. This story exemplifies what the players are all about – and I find it very hard to be in their corner on the issues at stake (and I really would like to be able to side with the players).

Mankins and Jackson – have either of these guys played more than half the games over the past two seasons? Do we really care if we never see them again?

Brees and Manning – I can’t wait for their offensive lines to “miss” a block as a little payback for looking out for themselves more than all the players that they are supposed to represent. In fact, I am sure Manning will get up with that whinny look on his face, and that will be a very enjoyable moment for all who remember this lockout.

I love football, especially NFL football, and I hope to be watching it in early September.

The reason they were pissed is they were both told they would be taken care of and neither the Pats nor Chargers made them a priority! In Mankins case he is a small town guy and felt he had a gentleman’s agreement with Kraft, Mankins actually is a man of principle and for that I respect him. Jackson is an egomaniac and wants to get a long term deal and be a Top paid receiver……………….but in reality he isn’t a Top 5 receiver in the league……….so by no stretch did he lose millions.

The only thing the Tag does in practical terms is retain a player to a team it doesn’t in theory cost him money unless he has a career ending injury in that year. This is why they are both pissed; there is no security in having the Tag placed on a player. Now from an Owner’s perspective keep this in mind when you sign a young player who you see promise in to a long term deal the player out plays that contract and demands to have his contract re-negotiated …………along the same lines there is nothing fair about that. The player signed the deal, he was given long term security, he then outplays the deal refuses to report and then holds out……………………this happens all the time.

Mankins has a legitimate gripe with Kraft I will give him that Jackson is a spoiled brat!

god forbid a business does something thats in its best interest

All the Brady haters take note, Tom isn’t trying to throw a monkey wrench into the whole machine for his own self interest.

It also leads me to believe that all these guys, Brees and Manning more so, could lose their locker rooms. I know Brady’s name is on the lawsuit, but I haven’t heard him demanding anything. I used to couldn’t stand Brady, but I have a new found respect for him, IF he isn’t trying to cut any deals.

Both Mankins and Jackson lost millions of dollars last year due to the franchise tag. I don’t blame them for either seeking compensation or moving forward with their lawsuit.

Why didn’t all the players sign? I’m assuming that the named plantiffs had to spend some time on this action, more than the other players spent (which is probably ‘none’).

I think they’re entitled to ask for something. Cash doesn’t seem appropriate, but getting the White ‘no franchise tag’ treatment is reasonable. Maybe Peyton should ask for extra-tall hats to cover his sixhead.

Now, if they hold up the CBA by refusing to sign unless they get special treatment, then I’ll bash them.

This is why Tom Brady’s name was first on that list. Love him or hate him he’s a team first guy.”

Yeah it probably has nothing to do with the fact his name comes first alphabetically…..