MadMonkey Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 Didn't see any existing threads on this so here goes. One of the things that also got approved in new NFL deal, is a new provision has been added that prohibits teams from "Keyshawning" deactivating a player for disciplinary reasons like Philly did with TO last year. This is interesting that the owners would pass something like this which seems to take away any leverage from the teams to prevent players like TO from becoming disruptions and locker room cancers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CPstretch Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 also known as TOing. this was posted earlier in the NFL board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadMonkey Posted March 9, 2006 Author Share Posted March 9, 2006 also known as TOing.this was posted earlier in the NFL board. searched and didn't see any threads....so Mods please delete then Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carlsbadd Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 This is worthy of discussion not to worry . Why they adopted this I will never know. If a players is being a jackass you can't de activate him for the season, even if he is getting paid? Does that also mean that the player is free to come to the practive facility or locker room and becoming a further jack ass? This seems pretty stupid to me if the guys is making a pay check. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewCliche21 Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 I don't know how big a deal this is except for taking a roster spot on game day. I mean we didn't de-activate or IR LaVar, and he still didn't play. If this rule were in effect this season, then Reid just wouldn't have called T.O.'s number. No big deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 This is a good discussion for here. I am surprised the owners would do this as well. If a coach decides not to play a guy, why shouldn't he keep him inactive so another body is available. Owners shouldn't have given this one up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spanishomelette Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 I'd like to see the exact wording on that. I can't see how a team can be prevented from picking whomever they want to deactivate on gameday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 There is an easy solution. Just run about 3 straight series with pass patterns over the middle and the QB passes about 3 feet high to expose him. He'll be on IR in no time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MRMADD Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 I think this was a terrible concession by the owners. Worse, without any enforceable "morals" clauses, the signing bonus is totally guaranteed. If a guy like Kellen Winslow wants to ride a motorcycle on the ski slope, he can. If a guy smokes so much that he grows weed from his ass, he can. Imagine you sign a guy to a fat contract, and the next day he goes out and does something totally stupid and gets injured or arrested. Too bad -- that signing bonus money is gone. The obvious implication of this is more splitting of signing bonuses -- you get so much today, a little more tomorrow, and some more at Christmas. That way, if you do screw up, there's some relief. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cskin Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 Might this make teams even more leery of signing TO? If he begins to act up and start shredding the lockeroom.... you can't suspend or deactivate him? I too am suprised the owners gave this tool up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DixieFlatline Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 This my friends is the power of unions. No other business would be prevented from telling you to stay home AND pay you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RabidFan Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 There is an easy solution.Just run about 3 straight series with pass patterns over the middle and the QB passes about 3 feet high to expose him. He'll be on IR in no time. I endorse that thinking but think you should change your avatar from Riggins to Sonny J cause he has said that on several occasions...nicely done. :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MRMADD Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 I don't know... I think this is a pyrrhic victory for the union. Yeah, the team can't deactivate you, but that's just semantics. They can certainly bench you. In either case, you get paid, so the what was the real problem? Who cares if Keyshawn/TO got deactivated? They got their paychecks. Is it going to be somehow better for the next guy, who just gets benched instead? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueTalon Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 This my friends is the power of unions. No other business would be prevented from telling you to stay home AND pay you.The power of stupidity, more like. The crazy thing about it is that the dues-paying union members are hurt just as bad by a jack@$$ acting up as the coaching staff or front office or owners. I'm sure the rest of the Eagles' players would have prefered to play a season of football without also having to deal with TO drama. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panel Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 when ever you have unions, you have BS. When you hove two Unions, a players, and an owners, you get confusing BS, I just hope I can pretent like this whole agreement never happend, and not be left behind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadMonkey Posted March 10, 2006 Author Share Posted March 10, 2006 In either case, you get paid, so the what was the real problem? Who cares if Keyshawn/TO got deactivated? They got their paychecks. Is it going to be somehow better for the next guy, who just gets benched instead? I think that's a catch 22 ...as an example in the Bucs and Eagles situation it was obvious Keyshawn and TO were being disruptive in the locker room and on the sidelines, which is one of the main reasons for getting suspended for conduct detrimental to the team and effectively prevented them from having contact with other players and such. It was no secret that the Philly locker room was divided on the McNabb-TO fued, basically the new provision will allow a player that's an obvious distraction to continue being that, probably more so now that he knows he can't be deactivated. Also factor in if the palyer in question is not even a starter so benching him really won't effect this type of player. Definately a wierd proviosn to let pass though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grimreaper36 Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 I'd like to have someone look for a loophole in it. There has to be a way or any player could claim that he's not starting for disciplanary reasons only. Maybe we have to fudge up the x-ray/mri machines to selectively insert suspected tumors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peregrine Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 Owners gave a lot up, Upshaw sort of forced them into a ton of stuff they didnt like, but they were bigger men. I agree that its a bad rule to have, but thats what a union will do for you, and one of the reasons I dont like them. Youd think a union would want to remove itself from bad apples, bad attitudes, and members that give the rest a bad name, but instead they tend to stick up for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JeffSchmeff Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 Can't teams just write this into contract language so that they have the option of doing it if the player really is a problem? Does anyone have a link to an article on this specifically? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCsportsfan53 Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 This is a good discussion for here. I am surprised the owners would do this as well. If a coach decides not to play a guy, why shouldn't he keep him inactive so another body is available. Owners shouldn't have given this one up. Well, since they don't want him anymore, they could just cut him. I'm not sure it's fair to say we don't want you but no one else can have you. Also, I'm sure this was put in by the NFLPA, not the owners. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iceman330 Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 This is a good discussion for here. I am surprised the owners would do this as well. If a coach decides not to play a guy, why shouldn't he keep him inactive so another body is available. Owners shouldn't have given this one up. I think it'll be ok. The Eagles made the mistake of making their intentions known too early in the season. All they had to do was not let him start. Then, when he became disruptive, suspend him; but only speak about the specific disruption and x the amount of weeks for that. Then repeat the process (back on sideline and suspension for the next disruption). Teams should keep the right to suspend a guy. I think the Eagles came out, too early in the year, and said he's not going to play this season and maybe never. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeyf316 Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 There is an easy solution.Just run about 3 straight series with pass patterns over the middle and the QB passes about 3 feet high to expose him. He'll be on IR in no time. That's what I'm talking about. A little team-policing would solve the problem. And, of course, if the WR or whoever refuses to go for the ball, or drags feet, the coach has a performance reason to bench him. Seems like it might be the long way around, but I bet the point would be made loud and clear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bangee7 Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 Well, since they don't want him anymore, they could just cut him.... Ding, Ding !! But it was soooo much fun knowing how bad it got to TO. Couldn't be picked up by anyone! Something tells me the union attached this as a rider to the contract language and the owners were too pre-occupied with other topics to notice !! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FullbackIsKey Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 This is a good discussion for here. I am surprised the owners would do this as well. If a coach decides not to play a guy, why shouldn't he keep him inactive so another body is available. Owners shouldn't have given this one up. It probably has something to do with taking away somebody's right to work. I know in virginia there are pretty strict rules on employers and interfering with someone's right to work. You can't give negative references and stuff like that. Telling a player he can't even sit on the bench or practice with his team is taking away, in essence, his ability to get another equivalent job in the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimster Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 this tells players - if you want a new contract, disrupt the team until the team gives in because they're not allowed to send you home. I sure hope there is a clause that says this is not so if that player does things that are detrimental to the team. If not, this could become a huge problem for a lot of teams very soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.