thebandit27

The NFL sure doesn't think that Landry is better than Watkins: His trade value was significantly lower, and he got less money in terms of AAV and percentage fully guaranteed. I said it when he was traded: if you can pluck an UDFA like Adam Thielen and see him produce similar numbers, then how good can Landry really be? He's a good player, but he's not in the same discussion as the WR1s of this league.

Believe it or not, the 2013 game where EJ lead the GW drive against Carolina at home. It shouldn't have been anything more than a cool moment, but, well... My mother had died that summer, and she was a big Bills fan. She told me that she really liked EJ, that he was a great kid, and that she really wanted him to do well. He threw that pass to Stevie and I just lost it. Yep, a 32 year old man subjugated in heaving sobs. The same thing happened when Andy Dalton threw that TD pass to Tyler Boyd. Same reason: my 96-year old grandfather was on his death bed. He lived just long enough to see them make the playoffs one last time. He went to bed that night and never woke up; passing on a few days later. Did I cry over the Bills, or did I cry over my loss of people I loved? Both I think.

The combination of outside zone and pin/pull concepts is very similar to what Lynn did in 2016...which is good news.

Most overrated for certain

Colorado definitely mentioned that the owners were within their rights.

Well said. I don't agree 100%, but I definitely agree with the spirit of what you're saying.

On this board? That's kind of what we do

I feel pretty confident that many (probably most) private employers wouldn't allow employees to protest in their place of employment while working (it's highly debatable at best whether being on the field before kickoff is "not working"). If private employers aren't allowed to have workplace behavior policies in place, then we're venturing toward government control of private enterprise. And again, it's fine if you disagree with the owners' decision; that doesn't mean that they aren't within their rights.

Apparently it was the World Series: https://www.si.com/mlb/2015/09/23/sandy-koufax-yom-kippur-1965-world-series

So the NFLPA is going to review whether or not there's any ability under the CBA to challenge the process? Okay, if it turns out that the owners acted outside of their bounds, then I'll agree with you that it was a shady process.

I'm very grateful for the service of all of our military personnel; I would love to understand why you think this is any different than any employer placing restrictions on behavior? In my view, it's 100% permitted under the constitution.

That would be really interesting; I think there's precedent for this...didn't Sandy Koufax refuse to pitch in a pennant game back in the day?

The CBA determines what say the NFLPA has in rule changes. The competition committee changes rules every single offseason with no input from the NFLPA. Now I'll admit I'm not 100% intimately familiar with the terms of the CBA, so if you can show me where in the CBA the NFLPA is afforded the opportunity to give input on this particular rules change, I'm open to seeing your position on it. Until then, it kind of feels like you've pivoted your point from "restricting free speech" to "is this allowed under the CBA?"

They're 100% free to express their opinions; they simply aren't free from the consequences imposed upon them from their private employers for doing so.

Some of the owners own stadiums, many of them are leased from local municipalities. None of the players work for the municipality; they all are employed by the owners, and the owners set the rules. That's the simple truth of working for someone else: there are rules that you may not agree with, but nevertheless must abide by in order to stay in their employ.

Employers limit constitutional rights all the time; that's totally legal. Why should the NFL be any different?

I'm sure that there will be some consequences, and I would be interested to see whether or not the owners are prepared (let alone happy) to accept them. I would guess, however, that a group of people so driven by the bottom line wouldn't be taking this action if they didn't feel that drawing a line in the sand against on-field anthem protests would present a better look than tolerating the practice.

I agree that it's all about optics, and I also agree regarding fan behavior during the anthem. I simply think that the league owners (right or wrong) are not operating outside of their rights as employers in this case. I don't know...but if they did, that would be within their rights as employers. The individual's freedom lies in their choice to work for that company versus another.

Is it any more ironic or unfair than any employer that receives any public funding having rules of conduct by which they expect their employees to abide?

What about an abomination?

Not at all. You have freedom of choice, but not freedom from consequences. Anyone can receive punishment from their employer for their actions; that's a simple truth of being under someone else's employ. Individual freedom means that nobody can take away your choice to say/do what you want provided that you aren't impinging upon the rights of others. That's not happening here; players can say/do what they want. Individual freedom doesn't insulate them from consequences.

Not really. You're talking about what employees are free to do versus how employers are free to respond in light of their actions. That's completely different than a government impinging upon individual freedoms. You're free to call your boss a jerk, and the government can't do a darn thing about it. That wasn't true back in the colonial 1700's prior to the American Revolution; it is true now. What's also true now is that your boss is free to fine, fire, or otherwise punish you for calling him a jerk, and you receive no protection from that. Am I saying that kneeling during the anthem is the same as calling your boss a jerk? No. Do I think that some (or many) owners find it just as offensive? Yes. Are they free to place consequences upon their employees for doing so? Absolutely.

They're absolutely allowed to protest; they simply need to be prepared to be fined or released for doing so...individual freedom doesn't insulate anyone from the consequences that their private employer chooses to impose for their voluntary actions.

This is really simple: the owners are the employers, and they are free to set the rules. They also have to be prepared to deal with any ramifications of those rules. They've made the rules the way that they've chosen to make them based upon what they feel is important to them. Now the players can choose to abide or not based upon what's most important to them, and they--like the owners--need to be prepared to deal with any ramifications of their choices. Freedom of choice without freedom from consequence; 'merica!