Looks like the NFL is about to have the New CBA.

[MAJBobby]

Just now, GG said:

 

Come again?  The PFT take in this case is FOR the owners.

everytbing PFT writes is slanted to the players. Hence saying oooo the fact sheet says this but players “Don’t Believe it” our source says otherwise. 
 

happened last CBA as well. 

Just now, FireChans said:

It’s been shown to you already. Multiple times. What else could they suspend you from Bobby?

really where I posted the fact sheet. It says nothing in there about game suspensions for a positive test. So I will wait and re-engage once I see posted a NFL or NFLPA Fact sheet or the full CBA that says there will be suspensions for a positive test. 

[GG]

1 minute ago, MAJBobby said:

everytbing PFT writes is slanted to the players. Hence saying oooo the fact sheet says this but players “Don’t Believe it” our source says otherwise. 
 

happened last CBA as well. 

 

That's not what the PFT article says, at all.

 

It would be so much simpler to say,  Oops I misread one bullet point, and move on.

 

[MAJBobby]

Even though the full player vote might be a week or two away. They would not be doing this if NFL and NFLPA doesn’t think it passes. 
 

 

[FireChans]

2 minutes ago, MAJBobby said:

everytbing PFT writes is slanted to the players. Hence saying oooo the fact sheet says this but players “Don’t Believe it” our source says otherwise. 
 

happened last CBA as well. 

really where I posted the fact sheet. It says nothing in there about game suspensions for a positive test. So I will wait and re-engage once I see posted a NFL or NFLPA Fact sheet or the full CBA that says there will be suspensions for a positive test. 

It says there will be “no game suspensions for strictly a positive test.” That language is made specifically about “strictly a positive test.” It doesn’t say there will never be suspensions for weed related offenses. It says “strictly a positive test.” It doesn’t say, “no weed related suspensions ever.” It is very clearly only talking about strictly a positive test. Which is why they wrote it that way.

 

You would make an awful lawyer.

[MAJBobby]

3 minutes ago, FireChans said:

It says there will be “no game suspensions for strictly a positive test.” That language is made specifically about “strictly a positive test.” It doesn’t say there will never be suspensions for weed related offenses. It says “strictly a positive test.” It doesn’t say, “no weed related suspensions ever.” It is very clearly only talking about strictly a positive test. Which is why they wrote it that way.

 

You would make an awful lawyer.

And I clearly clarified my weed suspension to the positive test as that is what the majority have been in the NFL. And someone that can follow a conversation can see that as It was the links strictly to a question about the TESTING Policy

Edited February 26, 2020 by MAJBobby

[FireChans]

1 minute ago, MAJBobby said:

And I clearly clarified my weed suspension to the positive test as that is what the majority have been in the NFL. And someone that can follow a conversation can see that as It was the links strictly to a question about the TESTING Policy

It even clearly says “strictly a positive test.” Which may even imply ONE, SOLITARY positive test. Which is why the context GG provided is so important. Multiple positive tests may still result in suspensions. 

 

It’s okay to be wrong man, honest.

[Buffalo Junction]

No clue why y’all are arguing over the weed rules. Seems pretty obvious they’re making an exception for players that smoke a little and stay at home. They left the door to the house of pain open for players that get caught doing stupid things with weed. They “decriminalized” usage, not transportation, possession, etc. Can’t open the legalese up to eliminate suspensions for dumbasses that get caught with pounds of marijuana. 

[jwhit34]

So with active roster at 55 and practice squad at 14, the teams take 90 to training camp and conceivably the net number of cuts will be only 21 (35 cuts to 55 but add back 14). It will put a premium on GMs signing undrafted free agents, futures deals and picking up vets at or around the league minimum to fill out rosters. 

 

While somewhat subtle, it could be a significant change in strategy in terms of roster building. Also will be interesting to see what positions are added with the increase from 53 to 55. Will more teams keep 3 QBs? I would expect not because of the lack of quality players at the position. I could see more offensive linemen kept, maybe an extra WR. On D, I could see extra DB. 

[Mr. WEO]

54 minutes ago, MAJBobby said:

Because that is how they are. They still have the “testing” program. They can keep their history of see we are still testing for something illegal in our state. Blah blah blah. 
 

Completely get rid of it they lose those Conservative Owners that still think it should be banned and the Owners do not approve their own CBA 

 

Yeah none of that makes any sense at all.  A "conservative owner" who doesn't want his players smoking weed is going to insist on suspensions for weed...or he is going to go along with the other owners and just let it go.

 

None of them is going to go along...yet say: "but I STILL WANT THEM TESTED so I know who the druggies are!!"

[LittleSammy]

Good points raised. You hit on the various key strategic aspects of the new CBA to be considered going forward. Let's focus on these vs. 25 posts debating whether or not pot penalties are included in the CBA.

[Warcodered]

1 hour ago, GG said:

 

Actually it does, because the fact sheet specifically mentions the word "strictly," which means there will be ways for a player to be suspended for weed that falls outside the definition of what "strictly" is supposed to encompass.  

 

That's why PFT followed up to get a clarification from a direct source and attributed this line to the source  "a new CBA also would include dramatically reduced penalties, with suspensions happening only in the event of extreme and repeated disregard of the policy or significant violations of applicable law regarding the possession and use of marijuana."

 

Seems pretty clear

 

Perhaps That's there due to the weird state legalization is in. Leaves the window open to punish players who repeatedly get in trouble in states where it's not legal yet.

[1ManRaid]

4 hours ago, ALF said:

With the expanded roster and PS , the XFL will be hurting for players.

 

Expansion of the playoffs by one team in each conference is not a bargaining issue, but the owners would prefer player approval of a new CBA before instituting it

Can't help but wonder if expanded rosters was at least partially a result of XFL competition. 

[Hardhatharry]

6 hours ago, MAJBobby said:

 

there are some indications that the owners did negotiate a bit on the 17th Game. 
 

 

Yea knew this was going to happen. No one cares about the few NFL players that didn't want it.

[1ManRaid]

3 hours ago, MAJBobby said:

AFC

1 seed Bye - Best Record 

2 vs 7

3 vs 6

4 vs 5

 

not to difficult. Then a reseed that has

 

1 vs 4

2 vs 3 

Ya I'm not sure why he found that so difficult to understand.  Did he think they were adding an extra division as well?  Only the #1 seed gets a bye now, would have maybe given the Patriots and others a reason to not rest starters in the regular season.  Make games meaningful again.

[hjnick]

5 hours ago, Gugny said:

This seems like a very short-sighted act by the players.  I don't see anything in the new CBA about post-career healthcare.  I see a significant drop in padded practices, more days off and more money due to the 17th game. 

 

NFL owners "negotiating" with players is like Kramer competing in a karate match against a 9-year-old.

where can you get the CBA doc at??? Thanks.

[tcampbell104]

5 hours ago, Gugny said:

 

 

NFL owners "negotiating" with players is like Kramer competing in a karate match against a 9-year-old.

so who do you think would win?

[tcampbell104]

5 hours ago, H2o said:

Is the stipulation still in there about players only being able to physically play in 16 games, that at some point during the season they have to sit one out?

wouldn't they have to increase the size of the rosters to do that?

[H2o]

7 minutes ago, tcampbell104 said:

wouldn't they have to increase the size of the rosters to do that?

I know the idea had been floated out there that players would only be allowed to play in 16 games still, but people in this thread have said it is not part of the agreement anymore. But yes, they are proposing a roster increase by 2 players in total and 2 active on game days I believe. 

[Malazan]

6 hours ago, costrovs said:

 

Huh, maybe the CTE has already set in....

 

No, it's never been important to current players unless it meant higher salaries *now*. It's only important to them afterwards when they suffer the effects and the money has run out.

[Formerly Allan in MD]

6 hours ago, ALF said:

I wonder if they stay with 4 preseason games and allow 53 active for games.

3 preseason