Thread: lockout could be blessing for undrafted free

Maybe good in one sense but bad in another. Is he forgetting that none of these guys even has so much as an offer on the table yet let alone a contract and a potential job. We all talk about GMspeak and this is an exmaple of agentspeak. Let's all pretend that it's to our advantage that we have to work without pay so our players don't get freaked. LOL, it's a pretty flimsy reason IMO.

Originally Posted by dabears54

agreed the "doubt" of not having a deal SUCKS.. but by same token do agree, gives time to find the "best fits" s opposed to just anyone ina few hour's even if it means will be cut quickly.Don't think Agent speak , as much as trying to give another side than what most are talkign about... and UDFA"s not getting paid until the first week of season anyway( not counting per diem stuff at camp), there are no bonus money for UDFA"s, so a signature on a peice of paper with no money, isn't that big a deal, imo.. rather have the ebt fit and team could actually work out with.. then just signed camp invite where a team alreay goes 4 deep at my position and unless an injury zero chance make it.

No? It's spin doctoring or by another name agentspeak. He's trying to turn it towards the positive in order to keep his clients mollified. You hate lawyers yet this is all so much like the way a lawyer would advise his client when things aren't all that rosy. Can't believe you don't see that! Doesn't matter whether the player gets paid immediately or not, a place in the NFL is what they played four years of college ball for and they want a deal now with a team who wants them, period.

Originally Posted by dabears54

and as getting a camp invite guarantees NOTHING, and surely NOT place in the NFL or on a team as almost all udfa's just camp fodder and cut before camp ends- so guess do not put as much importance on getting that invite the day after the draft as you seem to... and would rather have the "best fit" over just the invite and waste those 2 months w/o a chance of making it.. if there was a team with a better 'fit" that would give me the best opportunity becaue less competition there.

think that was the point.. team make multiple invites to players they KNOW do not ahve a chance, because not sure who will say yes.. so with more time to think about fits, you do not jump at the first but the best fit

I hear ya' but just the same these guys want a shot and right now they're not getting it. They don't know what team may give them a shot or even if any team will give them a shot. I do think that if this season is played under 2010 rules there will be more of an opportunity to replace older guys the team wasn't planning to keep. This agent may feel the delay is beneficial but I doubt the players do.

Besides, if you have an agent/advisor and you're getting offers from multiple teams you'll have a very good idea of who might be a good fit for you. Jeezus, we do that much around here constantly. And if only one team calls you're not going to say no while you wait for another to call........maybe.

Sorry but I just don't see it the same way you do.

One thing is for sure: if this lockout doesn't end, there will be none of these players getting calls. This is the biggest dirge for an offseason I have ever seen in my life.

Originally Posted by Dagan81

One thing is for sure: if this lockout doesn't end, there will be none of these players getting calls. This is the biggest dirge for an offseason I have ever seen in my life.

One question Dags. As a football fan do you consider yourself part of the public in general and if so is this lockout in your best interest. If not what is the substance behind any arguement to uphold the lockout based on that being one of the four conditions for doing so?

How anyone could find bias on the part of the appeals court is beyond me.

Originally Posted by soulman

One question Dags. As a football fan do you consider yourself part of the public in general and if so is this lockout in your best interest. If not what is the substance behind any arguement to uphold the lockout based on that being one of the four conditions for doing so?

How anyone could find bias on the part of the appeals court is beyond me.

I'm not sure if this is going to answer any of your questions, but here I go with my inane ramblings:

I consider myself a part of the general public. In my opinion, I don't consider this draft to be in my best interest. As a member of the general public, I have the right spend money to be entertained. That is the emotional self-gratification I get by spending good money on a product that makes me happy for five months out of the year. Also, as a member of the general public, there is a distinct possibility that I am employed in some facet by the NFL, either as a merchandiser, a vender, grounds' crew worker, or front office worker. When the lockout is in effect, my life is affected by it negatively because it takes money I would normally be earning away from me, especially if that lockout lasts until the regular season. If you are a member of the mainstream media and you are like ESPN or the NFL Network, viewership is going to decrease because pro football is the most popular sport in this country along with baseball (I still won't call pro football more popular than baseball because I'm biased toward baseball), and it decreases the number of viewers who would be normally tuning in to find out more about scores to games and team transactions involving players as opposed having to settle for more depressing news about a lockout. Lastly, if the lockout lasts until the time of the Super Bowl, the NFL is going to be in serious trouble because that game is the single most watched, and covered, sporting event in the world, with people from every country in the world tuning in to watch the game and festivities. The NFL has a real problem on its hands, and it involves more than just money. Their very existence as the nation's sport of choice for nearly half of a calendar year is at stake and if they blow it, they will be losing much more than simply billions of dollars. What will happen to the NFL will be far worse than what happened with baseball after the 1994 strike season.

The bias that may be in play here, Paul, is based in part on something as simple as what political party dominates the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals. Two Republicans preside over it, with one Democrat accompanying them. The Democrats learn more toward a populist agenda and thus fall in line with unions, and have since Wagner Act of 1937. Labor unions have nearly always been championed by the Democrats; you will notice that several of the states in the Midwest and the Northeast with large sectors of employment in machinery, steel, and automotive assembly tend to vote for mostly Democratic candidates and lawmakers running for reelection. The G.O.P. tends to be union busters, and has been since 1947 with the Taft-Hartley Act, which weakened unions. In the days of Ronald Reagan, he used executive orders to make a point against unions. (Remember that he fired airline employees who were on strike back in like 1981 because they refused to go back to work.) The states in the union where the Republican party dominates in elections are the Great Plains states, some Midwestern states, the Southwest, the Rocky Mountain states except for Nevada, and the Southeast. Those areas of the country do not generally fall in line with the usage of labor unions, and they tend to be more agrarian.

I tend to be Libertarian, which isn't represented well in any state, so I usually vote Republican. However, I think that the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals is wrong for granting a temporary extension on the lockout because as a Libertarian, I do not see where in the Constitution it says that the courts have the right to interfere with private businesses. The NFL is a private business, albeit a very large, far reaching one, and thus should not have to worry about the courts determining what will occur in this process. If the 8th Circuit of Appeals does anything, it should leave this case alone and simply keep Judge Nelson's ruling that both sides must return to the negotiating table with an independent overseer and hash out these differences on their own. As a personal bias, I would like for the court to reinstate the "no lockout" policy of Judge Nelson's, but you and I both know that probably won't happen.

I guess my main thrust with this is that virtually no one in the football watching public would say they prefer this lockout and that it's in their best interest for it to continue. That the lockout being in the public interest is one of the conditions for prolonging it that the court of appeals completely ignored in granting the stay. When judges start ignoring the law in favor of their political persuasion we got trouble right here in river city.

That's really what I was trying to say.