ICanSleepWhenI'mDead

Try thinking about this from the players' perspective for a minute. Right now, the unionized players collectively get a bargained-for percentage of the NFL revenues based on a collective bargaining agreement between their union and the league. The assistant coaches aren't unionized, and don't collectively get a specified percentage of NFL revenues - - instead each assistant coach negotiates with team ownership to get the best salary he can out of the money each team has left over after the players get their bargained for cut. Why do you think the players unionized in the first place? It was because they realized that collectively as a group they had more negotiating leverage than any single player individually. Well don't you think that if they included all of the NFL's assistant coaches in the group of people who could threaten to go on strike if their salary demands weren't met, they would have even MORE leverage over the team's owners? I don't recall the exact numbers, but hypothetically, let's assume that currently (1) the players get 50% of annual NFL revenues, and (2) although not currently guaranteed like the players' cut, the assistant coaches combined salaries, although individually negotiated by each coach, take another 5% of those same annual NFL revenues. By banding together, the players and assistant coaches collectively would have even more leverage than the players alone do now. So hypothetically, they could tell the owners during the next round of collective bargaining, pay us 58% of all NFL revenues next year (not 55%), or we ALL go on strike. With more leverage, they can ask for a bigger piece of the revenue pie, just like the players union already can ask for a bigger piece of the revenue pie than individual players could. Net result, by adding the assistant coaches to their side of the bargaining table, their side of the table gets 3% more $ than they did when acting separately. The extra 3% could be split between the coaches and the players any way they negotiated for at the bargaining table with the owners. So the players would probably get MORE money under Fergy's proposal, not less. The ability to have more employees (i.e., not just players, but assistant coaches, too) go on strike means more bargaining power, which directly translates to getting a bigger piece of the revenue pie. It's really not that complicated, if you stop and actually think about it.

Santa's auctioning off his lead reindeer? That's awful. Wait, what?

If you think Fergy's take on this is off the wall, you should do what my brother Darryl did - - spend a little time on the google to educate yourself about the issue. Here's an article Darryl found showing that the prospect of a salary cap for coaches is real: http://www.espn.com/nfl/news/story?id=5188986 As the article points out, the NFL used to have a required league-wide pension plan for the assistant coaches of all NFL teams. But the league changed its rules, and allowed individual teams to withdraw from the league-wide pension plan and to instead offer their own, team-specific pension plans for assistant coaches. Roughly a third of the NFL teams withdrew and began offering their own, stingier pension plans. I don't know what the Bills did, but Indy is one of the teams that took advantage of the opportunity to reduce pension benefits for its assistant coaches. As a result, veteran Indy assistant coach Howard Mudd, a former Pro Bowl guard for the 49ers, retired in protest and took a lump sum retirement payout (although he did later return to the team as a "consultant"). Here's what Mudd had to say about the matter: ". . . the owners are going to keep stripping away more and more. To me, the potential is there for a salary cap for coaches . . ." So folks, don't act like uneducated Pats*** fans and ridicule Fergy's idea. It may take years for the sweeping breadth of his proposal to be realized (Mudd did not forecast a salary cap for all team employees, just assistant coaches), but the future is moving in Fergy's direction, even if it's not for competitive balance reasons.

Rookie salaries are slotted based on where they are picked, right? My brother Darryl thinks maybe he figures he should have the option of getting paid the combined salaries of the 2 fourth round picks we used to trade up to select him. Seems logical - - would it be more money?

Ed "Mongo" Oliver comes to town: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bVpypcLbbIE

Mongo only pawn in game of football!

If the Pope owns a 1-legged duck, does it poop in the woods?

The QB has seniority, so make the new guy wear a jersey that reads "Yor A. Turnstile" to troll the other team's OLinemen as he pass rushes right past them.

Guy's been a-moulderin' in the grave for years, and he's still an upgrade to our WR corpse. Glory Hallelujah! The Bills go marching on.

Ever heard of James Lofton? https://www.profootballhof.com/players/james-lofton/biography/ Not sure exactly what Bills record was before he joined the team, but it was pre-Super Bowl run.

Tough gig - - do you like the work?

Negotiate much?

Like the alien plant in Little Shop of Horrors, maybe he ate the kid. Can we arrange for him to have a late lunch with Brady?

Tom, you sure rock that Michael Jackson one glove thing, but I can't moon walk, so let's just waltz.

I think you're making my point. I agree with you that the ACLU has a history of pushing the envelope, if you will, for asserting and/or protecting the rights of individuals against the powerful, including but not limited to the government. If even an organization with such a history of advocating for individual rights says that the First Amendment protects against the government prohibiting individual speech, but provides no protection to a non-governmental employee whose speech violates a company's rules, that should tell you something. I don't know where you got "you can declare all you want about free speech." It sounds like we both believe that the First Amendment doesn't protect the Giants fans in the article from being kicked out of the stadium if their "speech" violated stadium rules about fan conduct. If the stadium security guys used excessive force to get them to leave the stadium (I don't know if they did or didn't - I suspect those fans did not peacefully agree to leave), that's independently wrong, but it has nothing to do with the First Amendment.

Would you expect a senior staff attorney at the ACLU's Speech, Privacy and Technology Project to know about this stuff? From https://www.marketplace.org/2017/08/08/business/speaking-out-workplace "Lee Rowland, senior staff attorney at the ACLU's Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project, joined us to talk about the role the First Amendment has in cases like these and when companies can fire you. David Brancaccio: I know you tend to focus on public employee free speech rights. But if someone works for the private sector, help us understand what the law says about our ability to say what we want in the workplace. Lee Rowland: Well, the law doesn't say a lot about it. The First Amendment really only acts as a restraint on government. In fact, the first few words of the First Amendment are: Congress shall make no law restricting freedom of speech or of the press or religion. So when you work for the private sector and your employer is not the government, the Constitution gives you zero protection in terms of keeping your job based on what you say."

If they strip out and don't count balls they consider uncatchable, why don't the catch rate % and drop rate % add up to 100%? Is the unaccounted for % a measure of how often the pass was neither droppped not caught, but knocked away by the defender after it hit the receiver's hands as the receiver was trying to "secure" the catch? If so, it would be interesting to see that number separately listed for each receiver. Not sure what else the unaccounted for % could possibly be.

Might even wash his car in the tunnel? Is that what the kids are calling it these days?

Calling that performance a "rope-a-dope" is an insult to the greatest rope-a-doper of all time:

If you don't stand for the national anthem this year, we'll just reel you back into the tunnel.

Well, since you specifically asked - - 1. Imagine what might have happened if they had named the town Blizzardburg: http://abc30.com/news/fire-destroys-historic-department-store-in-firebaugh/1742809/ 2. I hope the kid lights it up, but If he bombs and gets cut, at least he'll feel right at home in the stands: http://kingfm.com/5-tips-for-drinking-fireball-whisky-in-wyoming/

Lots of people here apparently didn't get the joke re "craft service." This might help: https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124245252 " . . . craft service assists not so much the stars, but the crew: "craft" workers such as grips, gaffers, property masters, costumers, electricians, hair and make-up artists. These days, the job is mainly known for providing workers and actors with lavish snacks — all day long."

What? Home run throwback isn't even listed? [Ducks for cover]

"Aim for a star - - if you miss you may hit a Bills WR !"

We used to be fresh meat - - now we're processed !