mannc
-
Posts
18,183 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by mannc
-
-
15 hours ago, tumaro02 said:
After being a diehard Bills fan for many years--when the Bills players took a knee last year I immediately called Direct TV and cancelled my Sunday Ticket and didn't attend or watch another Bills game last year. I have no interest in players (most of whom have done "nothing" in their life to earn the right to disrespect the flag and anthem provided by the blood shed for that freedom) use the stage to protest anything. I am one of those who hurt the NFL business in my disgust by stopping my payments for fan gear, tickets, etc. I am hoping the protests end so I can return to paying my hundreds of dollars this year to the Buffalo Bill coffers. If they adopt the Jets owner's lead they will save me a lot of money again this year. Whats next? So when 1500 players want to protest 1500 different social causes you want the NFL ownership to support ALL of those Player's causes too, and shove that down a $200.00 ticket payer 10 times? Provide them another venue if you wish but not one I am paying hundreds to watch.
And yet here you are, posting on an NFL team’s fan message board (and not just about the national anthem, by the way).
I don’t believe you.
-
1
-
1
-
-
48 minutes ago, Alaska Darin said:
That's a great example. Tim Couch is another. NFL history is just littered with them.
And you can’t prove that a single one of them would have been good if only they sat for a year or two. The league is also “littered” with successful QBs who started out of the gate. So there.
-
1 hour ago, gjv001 said:
With all the new faces and inexperience at QB, going against a team that ranked at the top of the AFC could be very beneficial.
I don’t think “Pittsburg” has an NFL team yet. And anyway, it wouldn’t make sense for the Bills to practice with a team from California.
-
3
-
-
Let’s tank for him.
-
2
-
-
12 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:
You are focusing upon one narrow aspect, and skipping the broader point. I did not say what the players are doing is akin to picketing. You brought up " Why do you so strenuously object to union-protected employees expressing their views in this way?"
My point is that union-protection does NOT entitle employees to co-opt their employer's property for their protests, or to protest on their employers time. The placement of picket lines outside the employer's is an EXAMPLE of this principle - not an EXACT ANALOGY to the player's protests. Therefore debunking the analogy doesn't address the point.
You have a viewpoint that the protests are OK because the employees (players) are not using up the bosses time or distracting others. But that's from the viewpoint that football is just about the game, not about the whole "Fan Experience" or about entertainment in general. The players who protest are clearly attracting attention to themselves and influencing public perception of the NFL. (if they weren't, there would be no point to the protests). The owners may take the viewpoint that non-football-game related factors within the stadium (and even outside it) are relevant to their "brand" - they require media availability of players, there's the whole NFL Code of Conduct" prohibiting "conduct detrimental to the integrity of and public confidence in the National Football League."IOW, you can take the viewpoint that the national anthem and how players conduct themselves during it has "zero to do with football", but the NFL can the playing of the anthem as part of the "patriotism/family" connection they wish to market, and see protesting it as "conduct detrimental to the NFL".
You may see football as a sport, where the only thing that matters is the game, but keep in mind to the NFL owners, it's "entertainment" and a "game day experience".
I don't think the league's lawyers were going to advise the owners draft and issue a statement that would be smacked down easily in court. That would not help public perception.
I guess I just disagree that the players are “co-opting” the owner’s property. How are they doing so? They are refusing to participate in a compelled act of false patriotism. Not the same thing at all. Whether the owners have the right to enforce the policy under the banner of the “best interests of the league” clause is an open question.
My guess is that the lawyers told the owners the policy stands a good chance of passing legal muster, but no guarantees. Even if they lose, they can still win the public relations battle because they “tried to uphold the flag”.
-
14 hours ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:
If it's the NFL players you're referencing as "union-protected employees expressing their views in this way", why do you think
1) that employees, union-protected or not, should have the right to protest on the job, on their employer's premises, on their employer's time?
Union picket lines are manned outside the employer's property, for example, because even union-protected employees don't have a legal right to co-opt their employer's property for their protests.
2) that the union contract, the CBA, protects the rights of the players to protest on the job, on their employer's premises, on their employer's time?
At best, this is muddy. You can bet the NFLPA will be looking for a basis to challenge the new policy, and thus, that the NFL's own lawyers were doing their own comb-through before the policy was released and think they're good.
1. What Kaep and others are doing is not akin to picketing. They aren’t asking people not to attend games or calling attention to poor working conditions. Nor are they using up the boss’s time in their silent protest: they are kneeling while others are standing, doing nothing. They are not slacking off instead of working or distracting others from working. They are simply refusing to comply with a forced show of (IMO, false) patriotism that has zero to do with football. The “protests” need to be viewed in that light.
2. I agree it’s muddy. I don’t believe the CBA clearly addresses the issue, and what it does say also needs to be viewed through the lens of various arbitration decisions related to the CBA and the league’s ability to punish players for off-field conduct. Despite what the CBA might say, the league’s authority in this area is not absolute. And the answer is far from obvious. Lawyers who have spent lots of time on this disagree about it. Kaep’s grievance is proceeding and it might eventually answer a lot of these questions.
The fact that the new policy passed doesn’t mean the league’s lawyers necessarily think it will withstand legal scrutiny if challenged. I think the owners are much more concerned with public perception than they are with the legal implications.
-
4 hours ago, Augie said:
I worked at a large bank that required permission to do any media interviews. They had people for specifically that. THAT was their job. Anything political and I’d be sent packing immediately. I don’t know where that might be in writing, but I wouldn’t even ask to read it - it’s just so obvious that it I’d just get up and go.....if I were ever that stupid. On my own time, I could have all the causes I wished, but NOT representing my employer.
Great. That’s your experience. It doesn’t mean all workplaces work that way (or should work that way). Why do you so strenuously object to union-protected employees expressing their views in this way?
4 hours ago, Bruce_Stools said:I have forced “to stay in line and do what the f*** I’m told or I lose my job”
How about you?
Not me.
Because you have to shut the hell up or be fired at your job, does that mean those rules should apply in all workplaces?
-
2 minutes ago, MAJBobby said:
Yet ratings down all across TV and the NFLs where actually up this year so you might want to rethink why ratings where “down”
Thank you. The “ratings are down because of the protests” argument is nonsense. It certainly has not negatively affected the value of NFL franchises.
-
15 minutes ago, Boyst62 said:
Under thar cba they have rights but this isn't one of them. It's gray area and the NFL is wise not to challenge it. It'd be a PR nightmare and the owners have no balls because they just want to make.money. And as long as they make money they don't care one bit, but they hurt last year and now sick of it.
But, under the CBA they don't have the ability to protest if the NFL stopped them. The CBA hasn't changed yet the NFL just slapped them silly, so they have no protection. This isn't your common employee/employer relationship. It's contract.
As you said, it’s a gray area. I’m not intimately familiar with the CBA so I’m not sure, but it’s possible that the league can’t mandate something like this and that a player who’s fined (or disciplined) could win a grievance.
-
1 minute ago, Boyst62 said:
They're at work. They don't have that right to peacefully protest
The players are union members, so they actually do have rights under the collective bargaining agreement, one of which may be to peacefully protest in a way that has no effect on the on-field product. It’s not “my way or the highway” for the NFL.
-
1
-
-
17 hours ago, Rochesterfan said:
No - that is incorrect.
Lots of teams have multiple owners - majority and minority stakes.
Such as?
-
I thought that would be against league rules, that the franchises can only be owned by one person (except for the Packers, who were grandfathered in), right?
-
5 hours ago, John from Riverside said:
yes Dawkins has been aweful
No question, Dawkins was a good trade up, so far. Maybe the exception that proves the rule.
-
1 hour ago, HappyDays said:
Not really. He played against small school competition and was schemed open most of the time. Also caught a lot of screens. I really think the Bills just whiffed badly on Zay. Even if he reaches his ceiling he'll be a #3 receiver. He has no elite traits at all. His college WR coach was our WR coach so we reached for him.
Another in a long string of awful trade-ups for this team. It was a panic move, and a mistake. Let’s hope Allen and Edmunds are different.
-
Sam Cowart. Think he might have played on the ‘99 team, though. Beast.
-
1
-
-
18 hours ago, billsfan1959 said:
I'm not sure the Jets should have been the team criticized in that deal. Had the Colts held that pick until draft night, they might have been able to get a better deal once Darnold slid to three.
The Giants using the second overall pick on a RB is far, far worse. If Darnold turns into a franchise QB ( I don’t think he will, but whatever) then it was a great trade.
I do agree on the Gruden hiring, though. He will be worse than Rex, and he’s already making huge mistakes.
9 hours ago, billsfan1959 said:I wasn't talking about the Jets. The Colts could have gotten more for that pick on draft night when Darnold fell to three.
That’s an interesting point, but I’m not sure who would have offered more. And Indy wanted to come away with a top 7 or 8 pick.
-
On 4/30/2018 at 5:59 AM, CuddyDark said:
Asking for a friend.
Your friend is an idiot.
-
1
-
1
-
-
4 hours ago, Rico said:
Congrats Jordan Mills!
DO NOT CONGRATULATE
-
6 hours ago, GunnerBill said:
I don't particularly have high hopes for any of our Quarterbacks. I am talking myself into optimism around Allen's upside but I have re-watched some of him since the dratft and I still stick by what I thought pre-draft.
Cheer up. It’s possible that you’re wrong. Remember how much you loved the Shaq Lawson pick?
-
1 hour ago, LeGOATski said:
Bold prediction: Peterman is the starter in week 1.
There is a better chance that they put Allen on the practice squad.
-
5 hours ago, TheBeane said:
Completely agree.... Could be the best, could be the worst. But lets go with the glass being half full!
I really don't get the national media constantly saying we have the worst QB situation in the NFL. I really think you can make the argument that these are all very similar:
Jets: McCown, Darnold, Bridgewater, HACKenberg
Bears: Trubisky, Bray, Daniel
Jaguars: Bortles, Lee, Kessler
Dolphins: Tannehill, Fales, Osweiler, Petty
How is the Chiefs’ situation better than ours? They are handing the job to an unknown second year guy and have no one of AJ’s caliber backing him up.
-
3 hours ago, Aussie Joe said:
So there "wasn't much of a trade market" for Foles, or perhaps there wasn't a team prepared to pay the supposed asking price which was a 1st and another pick ...
I also remember a lot of good judges here saying that they wouldn't be able to get a 7th for Tyrod and that would be after the Bills had to eat his roster bonus...
You’re right...no one really knows what kind of market there was for Foles because he was not traded. What we do know is that the Eagles were willing to deal him but valued him higher as a backup than any of the offers they received for him.
-
46 minutes ago, reddogblitz said:
Hand the reigns to Allen if/when he earns them. If AJ plays well keep him. You have to have a good backup. Earl Moral, Jeff Hoztettler, Frank ... No SBs for them if they had Nasty Nate or Fitz as backup.
Agreed. I think McCarron would have more value as a trusted backup than he would on the trade market. I think people overestimating the trade value he would have after one good season, even with his team-friendly contract. Unless he absolutely lights it up, McCarron would likely still be viewed as a bridge/back-up type QB. Foles, for example, absolutely killed it filling in for Wentz and still there apparently wasn't much of a trade market for him; despite what he accomplished, teams still did not see him as a franchise QB. Cousins had to put up three really good seasons before people looked at him as a long-term QB solution, and even then many weren't sold.
-
2 hours ago, HappyDays said:
This is a question that's impossible to answer for sure. But EJ progressively got worse from his first game with the Bills to his last game with the Bills. We can't know for sure how his career would have gone otherwise but there is decent evidence that starting him early ruined him.
Yep, impossible to prove either way, but EJ should have been more pro-ready than almost any other college QB, having started 40 or so games for a major program. He should not have been overwhelmed. It’s more likely that the tape (and opposing DCs) caught up with him, and let’s face it, even at his best, EJ was never really good.
NYC politician wants Bills+Giants to adopt Jets Anthem policy
in The Stadium Wall Archives
Posted
Why would any of that make me more likely to believe you when you say you quit the NFL because of the protests?