PCS Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 Just seems there must be something else involved with the rule for the owners to make a concession like that. Though sitting the player isn't a bad thing, there's still a roster spot taken by someone who isn't, by any stretch of the imagination, going to end up on the field. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bangee7 Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 Just seems there must be something else involved with the rule for the owners to make a concession like that. Though sitting the player isn't a bad thing, there's still a roster spot taken by someone who isn't, by any stretch of the imagination, going to end up on the field. What are the rules for just de-activating said "hissy-fit boy" on game day? It doesn't count as a roster spot, right? I guess the downside is that jerk-boy could still impose his ill-will in the locker room throughout the week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gridironmike 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. If he acts up, put him at noseguard and move everyone else back into the linebacking or secondary spots. That should shake him up a little. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
novascotiadiesel Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 I think they are just saying that you cannot just put the player on ice. if you want rid of a cancer on a team cut him loose completely, not ice him so that he cannot play or get out and play fors omeone else, they just gave up the right to send the player a big screen to watch the nfl on..not the right to put a guy out. to and keyshawwn were prevented from working at all( i like what was done to them by the way) and they can always just plain bench someone, just cannot lock them out of work any longer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spanishomelette Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 I think they are just saying that you cannot just put the player on ice. if you want rid of a cancer on a team cut him loose completely, not ice him so that he cannot play or get out and play fors omeone else, they just gave up the right to send the player a big screen to watch the nfl on..not the right to put a guy out. to and keyshawwn were prevented from working at all( i like what was done to them by the way) and they can always just plain bench someone, just cannot lock them out of work any longer That sounds more like it...If a player is frustrated, and thinks he's being frozen out, he can file a grievance through the union to be waived. That could have been helpful to Marcus Allen when Davis kept him from playing way back when. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheSchwartz Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 Think everyone is a little confused. Teams can choose which 46 players will suit up on Sundays. There's no way there is a rule in the CBA that says the teams don't get to choose which 46 players suit up (plus a 3rd QB). What I have to assume this rule does is prevent a team from sending a player home for the rest of the year and preventing him from showing up at the team facility. It's a "right to work" issue that the teams wrestled with when they "suspended" Keyshawn and TO. In the end teams won't be able to keep players from showing up to practice and games anymore, but that doesn't mean teams can't prevent them from suiting up on Sundays. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joebagadonuts Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 The good news is that we'll never have to worry about this issue as long as Joe Gibbs' spirit remains at Redskins park. We won't have any Keyshawns on our team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dreamingwolf Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 actually I just saw on cold pizza that what was talked about in the CBA had nothing to do with deactivating or benching the player, but in how much money deactivating a player would have to forfiet. So what happend to TO can still happen to any trouble maker, they just put how much money can be retrieved into stone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 before: Owner: I paid 35 million for this guy: and 4 million for you make it work. Coach: I want to deactivate him: that will work.. Owner: What part of the 35 million don't you understand. Coach: but you gave me the power here in the contract page 4... now. Coach: I want to deactivate him: that will work.. Owner: Sorry not allowed in the rules... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.