Re: This is why I wanted Rex...
Glenn Greenstein
> Ya hear all the negativity & questions in the Media, about *chemistry.*
> Listening to the players, and even the new players at Rookie Camp, they all speak of one
> thing - - they're playing for a championship. It's like the Media, the Pundit types, are
> so busy looking for angles, they miss the story in front of their faces.
> They focus on these answers to questions ABOUT chemistry, rather than just listening to
> the players... they're, in general, having fun.
> For one... look at interviews of Kyle Wilson, after his first camp day... the guy is light
> & confident, and is seemingly comfortable & relaxed.
>
> I don't think this is Super Bowl year. Last year they learned to play together. But I
> don't necessarily think they took much of a step forward, in terms of being championship
> caliber. 2010 is the year to take the leap... we'll see.
>
> Back to Rex - two things... I heard him in Friday's Presser say an interesting thing, in
> response to a question (I think) about anything negative he saw on the first day of Rookie
> Camp.
> He said (paraphrase): *if there's one thing I was troubled by, it was too many serious
> faces. I want them to have fun.*
> His personality, it seems, just goes (bang zoom) over most in the Media, which is why
> there are so many people that criticize him. You know, the *fatso*, *loudmouth* garbage.
> They don't get that he's just playing. He really enjoys himself... and that is key to
> what he's trying to build here. If he can get the team to lighten up, especially the new
> guys, something nice may really be starting to seed.
>
> Which brings me to thing 2: Glauber writing about, what else - - *chemistry.*
> Rex responds: " ... I came here to win. I never came here to be average. I know when it's
> all said and done I'm going to be held to those standards. Did you win? Did you deliver a
> championship? I'm man enough to go for it, where a lot of guys aren't. Well see what
> happens."
>
> THAT, my friends, is what Rex is bringing to Jetslandistan.
> And if Rex is able to infuse his enthusiam into his players... I mean, it's been my whole
> adult life. I was in my early teens, when I last met Vince.
> That I'm even thinking this stuff... weird ;)
You better hope this is a SB year because I really think next year is
a lock out year
A J
Bullseye, buRf
I've been saying for years, until the time comes when your goal is the
championship,
you'll never win it. It seemed like the perennial goal for this team
was to make the playoffs,
which they did several times. IMHO, because THAT was the goal, they
weren't successful
in advancing.
This team is talented, they have a clear, common goal, and they
believe in themselves because
of the late success last year.
In my mind, that makes them a very dangerous group.
I'm not predicting a Vince here, don't get me wrong, but winning one
wouldn't shock me either.
When you have a D as stingy as this one combined with improved options
on O ( on paper, that is), for me
this year comes down to 2 things, assuming that the D will continue to
be as it was last year.
Limit turnovers on O
Utilize the offensive balance and let their D dictate how they want to
be beaten.
As far as 2011, who knows. I've heard all the gloomy predictions, I
just have difficulty believing
that any of them, players or mgmt., would allow a year to pass with no
revenue. They also
must realize that they would be jeopardizing the huge fan base they
have worked so hard to develop.
This is a business, we hear it all the time.
Allowing a lockout would be a very poor business plan.
Just My Opinion.................
A J
Harlan Lachman
<f9a54837-56d7-410d...@d19g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,
A J <a...@fogliettaandson.com> wrote:
AJ, as Glenn posits in his response, a lock-out seems all but certain.
You give the owners far too much credit.
These men, all rich enough to buy and/or own franchises with Stadiums
costing billions and paying off millions of dollars for players not to
play and coaches not to coach are willing to jeopardize our fandom in
order to break the union once and for all.
h
Tutor
>
> - Show quoted text -
Here is another fan's opinion on the possibiity of a lockout. I sure
hope he and you are correct!
"Not going to happen. Take away the football context and look at this
as a business - which is what this is all about. The owners gave away
too large of a chunk to the players when the percentage of gross
revenue was pushed up in extending the CBA. That's the pivotal point
in the whole issue. The players got their salary cap numbers increased
substantially because of the years under the increased percentage, and
now it is at a very desirable level.
That gives the owners significant leverage now in two ways: 1) The
players can afford to back off the percentage of gross revenue since
the cap is at a high number, knowing that they won't give any of the
acquired cap number back, and 2) The players as always are under a
very real constraint of time in regard to their careers. They can't
afford to lose a year of being paid at the current salaries with the
time/value of money, lose a year off their career year ceiling that
has a definite end of which they simply can't recover - they'll never
regain that lost money no matter what kind of agreement would be
struck under a lockout, not even close.
Here's where I see this going: The owners will demand that the
percentage of gross revenues dedicated to the players be reduced by
about 2%. The players will howl and act offended and militantly
posture about being willing to take a one year hit in the lockout. The
owners will then offer to the players a reduction in the rookie cap -
something the owners desparately want because the top draft picks
simply cost way too much given the risk, and which is why high draft
picks are virtually untradable. The players kick & scream about it -
all the while secretely agreeing completely with it since that doesn't
reduce the amount of cap money going to vets, plus it salves the
resentment vets have of seeing untried rookies making so damned much
more than them - but will finally agree to it while they get additonal
benefits tied to franchise tags, etc. The owners can wait out the
players - they'll lose revenue from the league but they all have
additional income streams that the vast predominance of the players
can't even think about matching.
It becomes a win-win for the owners and the players. The owners reduce
gross revenue percentage given to the players, the players get to make
their strong public stand and get some fringe benefits while not
losing a bit in cap space dedicated to vets, and both sides are very
quietly extremely happy for very different reasons about getting upper
eschelon rookie contracts under control.
No one kills the golden goose that is NFL football, everyone gets to
look like they took a tough stance, and the only losers are the agents
and the incoming rookies. The agents don't have any say in the matter
since their licensing is controlled by the NFLPA, and the rookies of
future years don't have any say in the matter since they don't belong
to the NFLPA yet - plus the first rounders salaries and signing
bonuses are WAY out of hand and everyone knows it, including we poor
dumb-ass schlubs who love watching the game so much, so there will be
great fan empathy for the agreement.
So, now that the truth has been exposed publicly and everryone knows
what the game is and who holds the leverage, the NFL and the NFLPA may
as well just concede to having their little game being exposed in
regard to how this will shake out, sit down, get this agreement done
with without all the posturing and rhetoric, and stop screwing with
the greatest pro sports league and one of the most lucrative
businesses ever created."
papa.carl44
"Tutor" <dcat...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:297beb8c-603b-4c30...@k29g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
And you don't think the owners have an AIG type insurance to take a season
off? I say there will be a lockout....and the owners will weather the storm
in hopes they totally break the union. American greed begets more
greed...and yes, the players are over paid...but not even in the ballpark
with the owners and what the league gets out of it. The owners will have
some scheme going so they can pull this off.
Harlan Lachman
"papa.carl44" <papad...@nospamverizon.net> wrote:
>
> And you don't think the owners have an AIG type insurance to take a season
> off? I say there will be a lockout....and the owners will weather the storm
> in hopes they totally break the union. American greed begets more
> greed...and yes, the players are over paid...but not even in the ballpark
> with the owners and what the league gets out of it. The owners will have
> some scheme going so they can pull this off.
Agreed. But isn't the no play still get paid TV contract better than any
insurance contract. An insurance company might sue for collusion, if one
was dumb enough to write this policy. This is almost a lose lose for the
owners.
But with the huge TV revenues they get paid and have no salary payments
to pay. The rich teams don't have to share revenues, a huge reason for
the richer teams promoting a lock-out. The players lose a year of their
careers and the NFL hopes to be the first league to successfully kill a
union without killing the product (see death of the NFL).
Plus, it will stop after the new format money making draft.
I don't see why anyone has any hopes of no lock-out.
h
Tutor
wrote:
>
> And you don't think the owners have an AIG type insurance to take a season
> off? I say there will be a lockout....and the owners will weather the storm
> in hopes they totally break the union. American greed begets more
> greed...and yes, the players are over paid...but not even in the ballpark
> with the owners and what the league gets out of it. The owners will have
> some scheme going so they can pull this off.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I don't know what to think. That quote was from someone else, not
from me. I'm just a fan who wants to see the game played, so yes... I
hope that he is right.
papa.carl44
I admire you. I'm serious about that, I admire guys who can still think the
best of a lot of the American business scene. I try, but I've seen so much
disgusting behavior that I wonder. I think they figure that in the long run
they can break the union and keep the league, maybe even bring in scabs and
run some kind of season...I don't think they are that interested in the
quality of the game and feel they will get someting out of it. And....they
will be exporting the game soon too. If they can play games you can't get
on any broadcast TV they will not worry so much about the TV contracts, they
figure they will make up for that in the completely open shop when they do
return. OMHO, I really wish I had more faith in people.
JetsLife
Umm, when did any year not become a Super Bowl year? Last I checked
the Jets came close to the show last year?
And yes, you're right about Rex. I've said, you've said it ... the
entire world has seen it. He knows his football, is confident, a
leader, says what he feels, and expresses it all through an honest
"we're going to kick your ass" mentality.
He is a great coach.
Johnctx
Papa, I doubt it. It would be so expensive & cover so little after the
cost of the product that they are probably self-insuring. That the
Cowboys & Pats, whose owners run the league, didn't spend $ this off
season is enough to tell me that they are expecting the worst.
>
American greed begets more
> greed...and yes, the players are over paid...but not even in the ballpark
> with the owners and what the league gets out of it. The owners will have
> some scheme going so they can pull this off.
The owners have leverage. I am not sure what the average career is,
vaguely I remember at one time the avg career of an OL is 11 games, so
losing one year is 10% of a career if you play 10 years, 20% if you play
5. Losing a year kills the players. Losing two......
If the union boss has brain he cuts a deal far superior to what Upshaw
did but w/o a strike. He needs to take care of the vets not the draftees
which is really taking care of a few agents.