2011 NFL Lock out

No, not a post on the Detroit Lions draft class. That will be along in a few days. Instead I have something much more intriguing to deal with (no offense meant to the Lions).

Because (I know) I was perusing the interwebs for more data on whom the fans blame for the lockout. ProFootballTalk.com did a poll which had over 30,000 respondents. They seemed to favour either "both to blame" or "the players". There have been a number of much, much smaller polls (mostly >1000 people) which have shown a tendency to blame the owners, but their sample size is dwarfed by the PFT poll.

I was only curious because a number of people post in the comments at PFT claiming that the owners and their shills are deliberately placing pro-owner comments on the site and voting them up, while voting down pro-player posts. They claim this doesn't represent the mood elsewhere; even though most other major sites I've visited seem to also have a decidedly pro-owner leanings among their commenter's.

But this is not the intriguing thing that I came across. No.

Instead I stumbled upon NFLLockout.com, which is apparently the site that you're redirected to when you try and access the old NFLPA site. It's basically the players propaganda outlet. The owners have their own too - NFLLabor.com.

What I want to highlight are some of the frankly idiotic statements on the players site. We'll go through them in order and there's a fair few:


If there is not a football season in 2011, the owners’ costs will drastically decrease.
- As will, you know, their revenue.

They are willing to sacrifice the sport of football in this country in order to have less cost, less work, and more revenue for themselves.
- Yes, this is the owners new grand strategy for making money; to go out of business. If an entire season of football is lost the owners would still have to pay all of their rents, utilities, taxes and debt service. Any money from the so-called "Lockout Insurance" would serve only to soften the blow of their costs. It would leave very little in the way of profit.

The owners have not been willing to give proof that they have taken a financial loss, therefore needing more money back from players.
- Nor do they need to. That's why they're called owners, because it's their business and they own it. They manage the finances and in every other part of the world outside of the NFLPA's fairyland, the private owner of a business is not required to divulge his accounts to his employees. I don't ask my boss to show me his accounts so I can work out what my share of the cash should be. If he cuts my wages that's his prerogative. I can put up with or I can find a new job. That is my prerogative.

The average NFL career is only 3.6 years.  It takes 3 accredited years to get just 5 years of post career healthcare.
- An average that is unduly weighted to the bottom due to the high number of rookies that get cut from training camps never to return. Teams have a 53 man roster plus 8 spots for practice squad players leaving a total of 61 spots. Teams typically take as many as 80 players into camp, leaving 19 disappointed young men as the seasons starts. Their short careers (if that even counts as a career) are pulling the figures down below what would be a more realistic assessment (say 5-8 years).

The addition of 2 more games would hinder a player’s ability to get post career healthcare
- Although I don't agree with the 18 game proposal, actually it offers players an increased chance to gain access to healthcare. Marginal/backup players would have more opportunities to get games in and earn an accredited season, especially as it is expected that there will be more "garbage" games in an 18 games season.

Some of the things players have fought for include: clean socks and jocks, free agency, former player benefits etc
- Sorry, clean socks and jocks? Huh? Does this mean the players fought to have their socks and jocks laundered by the teams? Could they not just, like everyone else, clean their own socks? Jesus.

The players have stated many times they’re content with the current system and revenue split… NFL owners and players each split roughly 50 percent of the revenue pie.
- Well of course they are. They make more money this way. I just love the way the players are trumpeting this as some kind of plus point, like they're being incredibly fair and noble.

In 2008, however, NFL owners voted to opt out of the 2006 CBA extension, thereby terminating the agreement in March of 2011—two years early.
- So the question then becomes, why did you agree to the opt out? You signed up knowing it was in there, so what's your point? You had to know there was a chance they would use it if they thought it was a bad deal.

Did you know that if NFL owners choose to lock out players in 2011, they will receive $4.5 billion from their TV contracts EVEN if there is no football games played next season?
- Shouldn't this be taken down now, as we know the league will not get any revenue from the TV companies.

Did you know that NFL owners receive a credit of slightly more than $1 billion for operating and investment expenses off the top of the revenue pool ($8.8 billion) BEFORE the remainder of the money is divided with players?

- Yes I did. It's a widely used practice in business often referred to as retained income. Essentially it is money that is fed back into the business. It is NOT profit, paid to the owners. It is money used for things like contributing to new stadiums, refurbishing current stadiums, organising the International Series games etc. These are all things designed to increase future revenues, or in other words, make more money for the players and owners in the years to come. Speculate to accumulate.

Did you know that while NFL owners complain about financial risks, players contributed $800 million to the new Meadowlands Stadium for the owners of the New York Giants and Jets, and contributed $300 million to the new Dallas Cowboys Stadium?
- Sorry, hold the fuck up a second. Say that first bit again...

Did you know that while NFL owners complain about financial risks, players contributed $800 million to the new Meadowlands Stadium for the owners of the New York Giants and Jets...

- That is complete, utter, total and unmitigated bullshit. The NFL teams (not players) contributed $300 million to the project (remember that retained income?). The Jets and the Giants were then both asked to cough up $650 million a piece. The Giants raised their money from two investment banks; Goldman Sachs and Lehman Brothers. The Jets raised theirs from Citicorp and the Royal Bank of Scotland. So unless the players own $800 million of shares in those companies, then they should take what is a blatantly untrue statement down.

What they actually did was to appease the other owners in the league, in particular those from small market teams, who were worried that increased revenues from the new stadium would increase their expenses by pushing up the minimum salary thresh hold. So the NFLPA agreed to reduce the salary cap obligations for the league by the tune of $800 million over a 15 year period (roughly $53 million per year, or $1.66 million per team, per year), something Union officials were more than happy to agree to knowing that they would claw back all of that money and more from the additional revenues in due course.

That's a heck of a difference compared to claiming that you contributed a large, upfront capital sum to fund a stadium. And they didn't do it for the benefit of the Jets and Giants owners either.

Did you know that NFL owners have rejected the union’s request that players get ownership stakes in return for assuming financial risk?
- Yes, because it would essentially allow the players to "double dip", taking a guaranteed salary off the team while also taking a portion of team revenue.


So there you have it, my rant for the day. I'm not saying the owners are squeaky clean in all this. When they negotiated the last round of TV deals it's been shown that they did indeed sacrifice the opportunity to maximise total revenues in return for "lockout insurance", against the good faith bargaining terms that they had agreed with the players. There is no excuse for that.

So the owners are no saints. But right now I have to believe that the players are a little further from heaven than the owners.

Anti-trust me on this one

Ok, so we've now entered that bizzaro hybrid land of part lock out, part work stoppage, part nothing has happened. The players Union has shut itself down. The League is calling that a sham, saying that the Union never intended to bargain in good faith (which to be fair, they probably didn't). Thus they're trying to impose a lock out, even though there is nobody to lock out anymore (you can only legally lock out a Union. Well, at least as I understand it. I could be wrong). Among the legal boredom it's been pointed out that one of the lawyers for the Players used to work as a clerk for the very same Judge who is likely to hear the coming anti-trust case. But anyway, that's not what I'm interested in today. I want to look instead at the situation that the players are hoping will happen. The likely hood is that by going for an anti-trust case, they will push the league back to the negotiating table in a position that significantly favours the players, just like they did the last time around. Looking ahead though, further into the horizon, what happens if the owners just say "screw it, let's see how the case pans out"? Of course by 'owners', I actually mean enough guys like Jerry Jones, Robert Kraft, Dan Snyder and those with relatively large pockets, refusing to agree to any new CBA deal, deciding that they'd rather see out the litigation over the next few years. That will either end in: a) A ruling that the league doesn't violate anti-trust laws. The players are screwed. Big time. or b) The league does violate the laws. Now the players (and Jerry Jones, Dan Snyder etc) get their holy grail; complete freedom of trade in the NFL. What would this result in? How would the league shape up? Well as it happens we have a perfect example of what will happen. It's right here in my backyard (not literally). The English soccer "Premier League". Founded in the early 1990's, the Premier league consists of 20 teams, operating in an almost completely free market fashion. Apart from certain restrictions on when trades can take place (called "Transfers" over here), each of the teams is a completely independent business and is free to conduct that business in whatever manner it sees fit. So, put your soccer scarf on, grab a pie and a pint, and let's go! The Draft: Simply put, there isn't one. Young players can be signed to a contract at any time, by any team. Most Premier League teams operate a youth team at the very minimum, and many teams have so-called "academies". Talent scouts for the teams scour the world looking for young players who can be brought to the academy for training. Eventually the best of these young players will find their way through to the full team, while many of the others are "Loaned" to teams in the lower divisions, essentially a temporary trade that allows the player to gain some experience. Imagine the Patriots for example loaning out a young QB to the Seahawks. Both teams benefit. The trouble with this system is that naturally young players are enticed more by a big team with a history of success and big pockets. Eventually the less talented young academy players of the big teams grow older and are discarded, often finding other homes at teams around the country. Free Agency: Free agency in English soccer is absolute. When your contract is up, off you go. No exclusive rights. No restricted rights. No transition tags. No franchise tags. If you sign into the league as a young player on a one year deal then that's that. When your contract is over you're free to sign with whomever you choose, for however much they're willing to pay you. Naturally this would seem to favour the big teams with the big pockets. But it's actually relatively rare for a major player to be let go in this way. Sure some players hit the open market. Either because their talent is under rated or because they are simply just a good player playing for a team full of world class players, the odd gem will find it's way out onto the open market. But for the most part the top players don't come for free. With no tags to guarantee that they can hold onto a top player, teams are more inclined to do deals at an earlier stage, avoiding the risk of losing a player on the open market. With no salary cap or roster size concerns, there is no reason not to hold onto as many players as they wish. When it is clear a player has no intention of signing a new contract or their demands are simply beyond the capacity of his current team, they will shop him around in the transfer market and just take the best deal that they can. Which brings me onto.... Trades: In the NFL it's picks and players. I give you a third round pick and a backup tackle who I have no intention of ever using, you give me your second string running back. Simple. In English soccer there are no draft picks. Some times players are thrown into the deal, but in 99% of the cases it is purely money that changes hands. I give you $10 million, you give me that goalkeeper I want. It's here that things start to get a little ridiculous and really start to favour the big teams. The record transfer fee (the name for trades over here) for an English team was set in January of this year, when Chelsea FC purchased a player from Liverpool FC. The players name was Fernando Torres (Spanish) and although the exact fee was never officially announced, it was basically in the region of £40 million. Depending on the exchange rate that's somewhere between $60-64 million. And this is before we take into account any salary. That's just the expense of moving the player from one team to another. Naturally then this favours teams like the Cowboys, Redskins and Patriots etc, who have deeper pockets than most. Of course, the fact that Torres has so far been utter shit for Chelsea highlights the fact that simply throwing money at a problem isn't always the best solution. But then Dan Snyder should already know that. And speaking of throwing money at something.... Salary: Simply put, there is no cap and no floor. You can pay a player £100 or £10,000 per week. It's entirely down to you. There is no obligation to pay anyone a minimum % of total revenue, providing you at least meet a wage that equates to the legally defined national minimum of £5.97 per hour (a problem not present in the US to my knowledge). So those practice squad players can kiss their $88,000 guaranteed annual checks good bye. The earnings of a Long Snapper will probably amount to about $30,000 per year if they're lucky. And there will be no guaranteed wage increases each year to account for a players veteran status. On the top end of the scale, wages for top soccer players in England now routinely exceed £100,000 per week, which is around $150,000-$160,000 per week. So as you've probably guessed, the removal of the salary cap and the salary floor has the effect of making guys like Tom Brady and Peyton Manning much richer, while making the guys at the bottom of the pile (who really need it) much poorer. I wonder how many players have had this explained to them? Oh, and say bye, bye to all that mandatory money and health care that is channelled to veteran players in their retirement. Team Income: In the NFL there is extensive revenue sharing. Everything from TV money to ticket prices gets counted up and divided between the teams. Expect this to continue to a degree. In England, the Premier League executives bargain for TV deals on behalf of the teams and then share the cash around. Everyone gets their slice of the biggest pie. As for individual teams? They make some of their money out of ticket sales and boxes. All revenue is kept by the teams. They also have concessions naturally, and do all the usual outside football stuff like hosting weddings for crazy fans, renting out function rooms and doing stadium tours. But the big earner aside from TV money is merchandise and sponsorship, which is partly one and the same. Teams are independent businesses in the Premier League. While they collectively bargain for things like TV deals and deals with people like EA sports for video games, each team runs it's own merchandising. Shirts, cups, scarfs, air fresheners for cars, fucking doormats. You name it - no matter how tacky - and there will be a Premier League team that sells it. And all that money goes into the team that sells it. That means teams sign their own apparel deals with whomever they choose, allowing them all to sell to their own highest bidder. The same with sponsorship deals. Be it boards and hoardings around the ground, stadium naming rights, or the big money spinner - shirt sponsors - each team is free to milk it's brand for every last penny that it can. Competition: So, compared to the NFL and it's planned parity, how balanced is the level of competition in the English Premier League? The answer is not very. Since the league formed in 1992, there have only been four different winners; Arsenal, Chelsea, Blackburn Rovers and Manchester United. Of those, Manchester United have won by far the most titles (11) and have never finished lower than 3rd (remember it's one big division with no knockout stage). Apart from the blip that was Blackburns win in '94-'95, the top four spots in the league have largely been dominated by Arsenal, Chelsea, Manchester United and Liverpool. Hold your horses though. I know you're already thinking that this would be terrible for the NFL, but we have to put this into context. There are two mitigating factors that have driven the large unbalance in English soccer, which wouldn't exist in the NFL. Relegation: Every year the bottom three teams are relegated from the Premier league to Division One and three teams are promoted from Division One to the Premier league. Saddled by huge wage bills and suddenly cut off from the lucrative TV deals, the relegated teams often struggle. The newly promoted teams have a different problem. Given the much lower income they received in Division One, they're team is full of players who otherwise couldn't cut it in the Premier League. The gulf in class is often painfully obvious. This often prevents the lower teams from building themselves up over the course of time and becoming competitive. They are often seen as easy pickings for the big four. Naturally the NFL wouldn't suffer from such a problem UEFA Champions League: If you're wondering what UEFA is, no, it's not a form of waffle. It's an acronym for "Union of European Football Associations", which is the governing body of soccer in Europe and it helps us to explain why there is a "Big Four" in the English Premier League. Every year the top four teams in the Premier League qualify for the next seasons UEFA Champions League tournament, played on weekday nights concurrently with the Premier League season. The added TV revenue from this is immense (often four times the value of Premier League TV money) and with every successive year that an English team plays in it, the money just mounts up, widening the gulf significantly from the rest of the teams in the Premier League. So you see, there are certain factors that are unique to the Premier League which the NFL would not have to contend with. There are also some other factors that should be borne in mind when we compare a potentially fully open and competitive future NFL to the Premier League. -- Premier League teams often spend millions buying players in from European clubs. This would not occur in the NFL because their simply is no other source of high quality football players outside the US. That means that over time, if teams like Washington and Dallas splash the money all around the league to essentially try and "buy championships", they will end up funding everyone else's programs. -- The lack of parity in the Premier League is not helped by the one division system, which sees every team play all the other 19 teams twice, home and away, with points awarded for wins and draws. Over time it reduces the effect of shock losses by better teams to the lesser clubs. It also means that clubs with lots of money can build "strength in depth", rotating high quality players in and out during the 38 game season. For example, if all 32 NFL Teams had to play each other twice, it would have reduced the impact of San Diego's losses due to special teams mishaps in the early season, and likely would have crushed any hope the Seahawks had of making the playoffs. -- With the salary floor removed and no draft, the worst teams in the league wouldn't get themselves into such a financial pickle on such a regular basis. No longer would teams have to bank $50 million on a QB who has never taken a snap, just purely because they had to take him first overall in the draft. Teams would find themselves much better able to cope with disappointing performances from young prospects, without hamstringing their future due to cap restraints. -- With no limit on the number of players that a team could have on it's books (even if they're not permitted on a roster for the season), teams would be able to hold onto a number of young players who they could develop over time. Teams in poor markets like Green Bay and Pittsburgh would thrive in much the same manner that they do now; by playing the long game with quality coaching of a multitude of young prospects. Except now they'd have an even bigger cushion for error. Then when those players were still good but just nearing the point of ultimate decline, they could sell them to Dan Snyder for a big wad of cash while they bring in the next young gun. This is essentially the preferred approach of Arsenal manager Arsene Wenger, who has a masters degree in Economics and who has over seen three Premier League titles for Arsenal, arguably building some of the greatest club soccer teams along the way (including the '03-'04 team that still holds the record for most consecutive games unbeaten). -- Some people fear that the big teams would simply hoard all the talent. But that is highly unlikely. I can't see Michael Vick and Phillip Rivers being happy to jeopardise their future careers (and thus earnings) by sitting behind Peyton Manning on the hope that he gets injured. Even in the Premier League where teams regularly rotate players in and out of the starting line up, the top paid players get bored and frustrated when they can't get on the field, often taking pay cuts to move elsewhere where they can be guaranteed "first team football". Conclusions: All in all, if we did away with the draft and free agency as it currently stands, it might make the NFL a little less competitive, but given the reigns that some teams have had in the league (70's Steelers, 80's 49ers etc) there is a case to be argued that there isn't as much parity currently as some commentators would believe there to be. What we should also recognise is that the Players are the stupidest fucking people in the world right now. They have a situation so well balanced in their favour, it's almost inconceivable that they would be considering litigation to bring it down. If the NFL sees this thing out, or just openly preempts it by switching to a completely free and competitive business model, the owners would stand - I think - to make a heck of a lot more money than they do right now. Even the poorest teams would be able to dump all the dead weight sagging down on their books and potentially teams like Buffalo and Green Bay could end up cashing in by trading desirable young players to the richer teams for cold, hard cash instead of empty draft picks. The big losers of course would be the lower value players. Johnny Long Snapper would kiss goodbye to his $88,000 per year guaranteed check just for being able to accurately snap the ball a few more yards than the regular center. Kickers and punters would likely be in the same boat, along with a raft of other players. The big winners would be the top tier players like the Quarterbacks, as well as the left tackles and shutdown corners. But then they already cash in big time anyway. Again, I just hope that the situation has been fully outlined to the bottom tier guys. And if I was an owner, I'd be more than happy to ride this one out. If the league becomes open then you win. If the lower tier players realise what the full implications of a successful anti-trust suit would mean for them, then they're bound to turn on the high earners and come back to the negotiating table begging the league to give them a deal, any deal, so long as it protects the salary floor. Another win. On that note, it's time for me to head off to sleep I think. As usual, if you like the blog then do me the honour of sharing it about. There is even a little widget thingy at the bottom of the post where you can automatically share it with your friends on facebook, designed specifically for those of you who are too fucking lazy to type the URL onto facebook yourselves. If you want to e-mail me to complain about the swearing, please send your message to; keepingthechainsmoving@gofuckyourself.co.uk If you want to e-mail me about anything else related to the blog, send it to; keepingthechainsmoving@live.co.uk Night all.

So it begins

Let me just check, see if they've fixed the whole CBA thing yet.... .... nope. Far from it. With the CBA due to expire in about 3 hours (from when I write this), the two sides have packed it in and the NFLPA has formerly decertified. At this point I would just like to call bullshit on DeMaurice Smith, who has spent the last six months banging on about a lockout and how the players should prepare for it etc, knowing full well that the Union was planning to shut itself down and prevent a lockout, just like I've been saying for the last six months that it would. Now the fun begins. Ten players have filed an anti-trust law suit against the NFL. Those ten are; Tom Brady, Peyton Manning, Drew Brees, Vincent Jackson, Ben Leber, Logan Mankins, Brian Robison, Osi Umenyiora, Mike Vrabel and Von Miller. Wait, what? Von Miller? He doesn't even fucking play for a team! He hasn't even been drafted yet! How the hell can he file suit? What's this horse shit? Ah well. What now follows is a ton of legal rambling and junk which I kinda have my head around, but really can't be bothered to explain. It's all speculation anyway. Until we hear anything from the courts, then all the networks can say with any certainty is about as much as you or I can. E.G. Jack shit. Free agency should begin at 1 minute past midnight, which is a pain in the arse because I still haven't got round to previewing the AFC West or North. Ah well. Just because it begins, doesn't mean anyone is gonna move. The owners might be sitting in a room right now deciding that they'll all agree not to do any deals until this thing sorts itself out. As for the anti-trust lawsuit? Again, I'm not sure how Von Miller fits into all of this. What catches my eye though is that the players technically filed their suit before the CBA expired. Now God knows I'm not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure you can't file a lawsuit against someone because of something they might do. I wonder if that might invalidate it? Of course the biggest losers here are the fans, as always. I had a brief look over some of the comments made by people on the various articles over at ProFootballTalk.com and here are some of the my favourites. "Eat sh*t, DeMaurice." (over 125 thumbs up) "I’m kind of tired of hearing about the $1B figure. The league has 32 owners. Splitting that is only a little over $31 million more a year per team. If the owners came down, then it is obviously less than that. In the grand scheme of things, that is close to what Tom Brady and Peyton Manning will make this next year. Using one big figure makes it sound worse than it actually is. I don’t feel sympathy toward either side, but the union and players are a little less sympathetic to me know [sic] with this stunt today." "I saw his statement on TV, and Smith kept suggesting the NFLPA represented the players as well as the fans against the greedy Scrooge ownership. I would have found that more convincing if he said even one thing about making the game more AFFORDABLE for the fans. All these billions of dollars getting tossed around, and not a word about cutting ticket prices? Food? Parking?" (112 thumbs up, 6 down) "Ok so correct me if I’m wrong but the owners are people that have worked hard in their lives and were smart enough to acquire wealth to buy the NFL teams. They are the ones who have made this league this profitable. Now due to the economy and all the expenses that they have their profits have taken a hit and they want a piece of the pie back. Now the players mostly have not even graduated from college yet get a minimum pay of 400K a year, while players with larger roles on teams usually make millions. How much would these players be making in the outside world with no NFL that the owners created. The players are the greedy ones, not even listening to the owners offers." "The question I have is Why are the owners under any obligation whatsoever to show that they are in less advantageous financial position now than they were before the current (now expired) CBA as a basis for this renegotiation? I think the basis for terminating the CBA early was the Owners decided it was not fair to them, not that they were having financial trouble, just htat it was not fair to them. I think a 50/50 split of revenue (revenue, not profit) IS unfair given that the players don’t incur any of the costs associated with running an NFL franchise (team facilities, stadiums, training camps, medical costs, etc etc) why should they get 50% of revenue? I think it would be fair if the players union assumed 50% of the costs of running a franchise if they insist they should get 50% of revenue. The current model probably is unsustainable." "Public opinion has shifted to the Owners. Seeing the deal that the owners were willing to go with just confirms that the Players have no argument when it comes to the fight of who is more greedy. Give me replacements. Every player we like today will be gone in a few years anyway. I’ll get over it. F them. Go work at walmart." "I hope the owners win the injunction or whatever and can lock these bums out and show them what hard times are." "With all this action from the union happening so quickly it’s hard not to believe the owners when they say that the Union never intended on negotiating. Seems like the union had everything in place and lined up to go." "And thus begins the one week of “We are UNITED!” and then the “Oh Sh#T i’m not getting paid…lets do this.”" "So the ink wasn’t even dry on the statement and these guys file suit??? Yeah, the union really wanted to negotiate–not. And Von Miller, you’re a fool–you’re not even in the NFL yet and are already a part of this suit?? If you were hoping to go in the 1st round, I think you’ll be waiting in round 3–if you’re lucky." For those that might accuse me o being one sided with the comments, the reality is that the fans (at least those that read PFT) are overwhelmingly against the players. There are a few pro player comments, but they nearly all have way more thumbs down than up. I guess the fans have chosen their side. And lastly, for those that are interested, here is a summary by PFT.com of the alleged final offer that the owners put on the table for the players.

Super Bowl 45

It's over. It's all done. At least for one more season. Pittsburgh Steelers 25 @ Green Bay Packers 31: Normally I'd do a game recap, but frankly if you're reading this then there is a 95% chance you watched the game and thus a recap would be redundant. So I'll just share my thoughts for the game: -- Why did Ben Roethlisberger throw 40 passes when it was obvious to almost everyone watching (except Bruce Arians for example) that the Packers defense was struggling to stop the Steelers rushing attack? Rashard Mendenhall had 14 carries for 63 yards. Issac Redman carried twice for 19 yards. Mewelde Moore (who will hopefully find a team that values him in free agency. Good player) picked up 13 yards on 3 carries. The Packers were getting creamed on the ground. -- Credit to MVP Aaron Rodgers. I thought WR Jordi Nelson might give him a run for his money on that score, but 24/39 for 304 yards and 3 TD's is nothing to be sniffed at. Having cruised in the first half, he struggled in the third but recovered very well for the endgame. -- Antwaan Randle El made a case for his elderly ass receiving more targets next year. -- The Packers controlled field position well, helped by the Steelers bizarre 52 yard field goal attempt. -- Troy who? I'm a real advocate of getting your best players involved in the game somehow. And while I understand that sometimes the Steelers lean on Polamalu too much (and even made mention of that the other day) I'm absolutely astounded with just how little a part Polamalu played in the gameplan. Bad decision. -- Ben Roethlisberger came out after the game (no, not like that) and said that he feels he should shoulder a lot of the blame for Pittsburgh. If he was hoping that everyone would come to his defense and rub his ego (the jokes are just too easy, so I wont), then I think he's in for a long wait. -- When was the last time that a team with a minus 3 turnover ratio actually won a game? Any game? Honestly I don't know. It can't have happened that often. -- I'm pleased for rookie LB Frank Zombo, who had a pretty solid impact for that Packers defense. -- And credit to the Packers D in general, who played well despite the loss of Charles Woodson and Sam Shields. I honestly thought the second half might have swung massively in the Steelers favour. It didn't it because the Pack held it together. -- In fact, just all out respect to the Green Bay Packers. A ton of people had them tipped for Super Bowl glory at the beginning of the year and they were right. This team drafted well, came together well as a team, fought a season long battle with injuries and is truly a very worthy champion. Now enough of blowing smoke up the Packers butts (I'm sure the players, with their salaries, can find plenty of places that offer that service). Time for a bit of general news: -- For those who hadn't already seen the list, the Pro Football Hall of Fame has chosen it's seven inductees for 2011; Richard Dent. Defensive End for the Bears, including the famous team of '85 which resulted in his MVP award in Super Bowl 20. Marshall Faulk. Running Back for the Rams "greatest show on turf". Enough said. Chris Hanburger. Linebacker for the Redskins from 1965 to 1978. Elected to 9 Pro Bowls and a 4 time All-Pro selection. Les Richter. Linebacker, Guard and Kicker for the Rams from 1954 to 1962. 8 Pro Bowls and 2 time All-Pro. Ed Sabol. Founder of the company that eventually became NFL Films. Seen as a controversial choice by some, but the work of NFL Films has probably done more to promote the NFL into the multi-billion dollar industry it is today than any other form of advertising or promotion. It also makes kick ass montages. Deion Sanders. 8 Pro Bowls, 6 All-Pro selections and 2 Super Bowl rings. Plus a bunch of off field issues and the "kiss of drama" anytime he decides to mentor a young player. Also pretty famous for publicly criticising players toughness etc, despite being notorious for shirking away from tackles. Shannon Sharpe. 8 Pro Bowls. 4 time Associated Press All-Pro. 3 Super Bowl rings. Finally in. Thumbs up. Those who missed out were; Jerome Bettis, Tim Brown, Cris Carter, Dermontti Dawson, Chris Doleman, Charles Haley, Cortez Kennedy, Curtis Martin, Andre Reed and Willie Roaf. Of those I'm disappointed in particular that Bettis didn't get in ahead of Faulk and that somehow Deion Sanders is considered better than Charles Haley. Ronnie Lott was particularly pissed off about Haley not making it, again, voicing his complaints to the press that a five time Super Bowl winner like Haley can't get in possibly because of off field comments/actions he has made in the past. Didn't hurt Sanders. -- The Labor situation still isn't under control. And given that I mercilessly bash the NFLPA every time it spouts some bullshit line such as the possibility of a lock out still being very high, despite the fact that they themselves can prevent such an action in a heartbeat, I feel it's only fair that I bash the owners or indeed their mouth piece Roger Goodell anytime he/they too spouts a line of pure bollocks. So it is that I draw your attention to this article on ProFootballTalk.com. Written prior to the Super Bowl and basically just reporting that Roger Goodell has once again re-iterated that he would like to see an 18-game regular season and that it's what the fans want. But PFT.com cited a study by the Associated Press that contradicts that view. What is even more telling is the first comment that simply says "No".... and has been given the thumbs up (last time I checked) by 1229 people compared to just 117 thumbs down. This is a story repeated everywhere an article about this subject props up. The majority of fans seem to hate this idea (me included). Now if the league wants to push it, they are more than welcome to say that but they have to stop trying to bullshit that the fans are in full support of the idea. So what now? Well, with no football till August (hear, have a tissue) the next big date on the calender is early March, when we'll either be waiting to see how Free Agency pans out or we'll be looking at the start of a protracted and ugly labor dispute. Then we have the draft (regardless of the CBA) in April. Until then I'll be churning out articles looking at how each team fared in 2010 and how they might go about handling free agency and the draft. I'll also hopefully be around for the 2011 combine starting February 23 - March 1st, but that's subject to me being able to loaf off at the appropriate times. Fingers crossed.

A Dollar and 68 cents

In today's post; - More back and forth in the Labor dispute, - Jeff Fisher gets the boot... - .... as does Jim Zorn, So we'll start with the labor issue being that March is just around the corner, kind of, and the expiration of the CBA could lead to a loss of football in 2011. But commissioner Roger Goodell has laid down a gauntlet, a challenge if you will, to the heads of the NFLPA to get the deal done... by saying he'll take a pay cut in 2011 if there is a work stoppage. How much of a pay cut? From $10 million to just $1. Now the issue of paying a jackass executive like Goodell $10 million a year is a blog post in it's own. In fact I not so long ago tackled such an issue, albeit briefly (you're telling me you couldn't find someone equally skilled for say $1 million?). But taking a pay cut from such a hefty amount to just a single dollar is quite the promise. Maybe I could grow to like Goodell? (erm... no). So how did the head of the NFLPA DeMaurice Smith respond? By announcing on Twitter that he'll take a pay cut to just 68 cents.... if a deal gets done before the Super Bowl. Wait. What?? That makes no sense. The only incentive I can see in that is the unlikely event of the league rushing to the table to get a deal done just to see the tears in Smiths eyes when he realises he has to man up and take the cut. But being that the league doesn't pay his wages, the players do, I can't see them throwing away their entire position just for a bit of personal gratification. So that only leaves the incentive to Smith to get the job done. Except, if he does do a deal before the Super Bowl then he would have to take a massive pay cut. See what I mean? It makes absolutely no sense at all. If he'd said "if we don't get a deal done by the Super Bowl then I'll take a pay cut", that might have made a bit more sense. But as it stands that statement basically gives him zero reason to strike a bargain early. So the question is now; where the hell is this post leading? Well I'm glad you asked. The point is, this is the man who is negotiating for the players. This is the guy who is facing down the $10 million dollar man (for now) at the bargaining table. A guy who can't even string together a coherent and logical Twitter post. Further proof maybe that some people in this world are being grossly over paid for the services they provide? Maybe. One thing's for sure, if I was a member of the NFLPA I'd be pretty damn nervous right about now. As Kevin Mawae, their President is. On the issue of the 18-game regular season Mawae has now said that he can't see a way to sell that to the players. Remember that any deal that is reached has to be approved by a majority of the players and not many of them are keen to see an 18-game regular season. That's two more games of fast paced, dangerous football they'll have to endure. Just ask the injury racked Packers how they'd have felt about playing another two games before they made it to the play offs. The stupid thing is, the players have a secret weapon up their sleeve when it comes to the issue of the length of the season and it could even be a tool that swings some of that public support back in their direction (and man do they need some support right now). All they have to do is walk up to the negotiating table and throw in a demand that Season Tickets only cover regular season games, with an opt-in for one or more pre-season games at the buyers discretion, and that all pre-season games be reduced in price to a third of normal prices along with free parking for ticket holders and reduced prices for beer and food concessions. That's pretty much guaranteed to at least turn a few heads in the players favour. Not many. But some. Of course the NFLPA hasn't exactly helped itself in trying to win fan support, primarily because there are two major lies that they keep propagating in the vain hope that the fans will put the blinkers on and not see through them. The first is any notion of a lockout. Pretty much every NFL fan in the entire world now knows that the NFLPA holds in its hands the ability to decertify the union and prevent any lockout. If there is one, it's because the NFLPA allowed it to happen. The second is that league will get paid for not playing games. Strictly speaking, as I understand it, the owners will get the money from the TV contracts to tide them over. But having just been paid a big pile of money for producing a product (games) and then having failed to produce that product, the owners will be obliged to pay back every last cent, possibly with interest on top. While that might tide them over in the interim, it will leave them saddled with a big ass debt that needs repaying sooner rather than later. This also glosses over the fact that the league is already losing money, as we speak, and will continue to do so until the moment that it can guarantee that football will be back on. The cause of this loss is sponsorship. Simply put, nobody is going to fork out huge sums of cash to sponsor various elements of the NFL, including coverage on its own network, without there being anything to sponsor. I'm sure there are also a number of clever advertising executives, if such a thing truly exists, around the country right now applying the screw to the NFL, trying to push down the costs of future sponsorship using the "you might not even play a game this year" chip. All in all both sides need to pull their fingers out of their butts, stop throwing turds at each other through the media, and actually sit down and get a deal done. After all, Jeff Fisher needs a team to coach. It just wont be the Titans. Which it's safe to say came as quite a surprise to me. Forgive me for being dumb, but I'm pretty damn sure that Titans owner Bud Adams recently said that he was dumping Vince Young in favour of Fisher? So what happened to that promise? I'm sure more details will come out soon and there is bound to be some personal dispute at the root of this, but for now we're just left staring at the legacy that Fisher left behind. A legacy that is (or rather was) largely based around his being the longest tenure among active Head Coaches. Fisher joined the Titans in 1994, back when they were still called the Houston Oilers. Since then he's produced a Super Bowl appearance and a few AFC Championship showings, but it's been a while now since the Titans actually won a playoff game. The last two season have been particularly hard for Titans fans. Overall Fisher has achieved a reasonably consistent record, especially given the amount of time he's been the head honcho of the Titans. There are certainly plenty of names out there in the coaching world who, if they were holding a candle, wouldn't be able to hold it against Fisher's. On that odd analogous note, let's finish with Jim Zorn. Ah yes, the much maligned Zorn. Previously the Head Coach in Washington, Zorn was fired after what was a frankly rubbish 2009 season. The Ravens saw an opportunity and pounced, picking up Zorn as their new QB coach. But it appears Zorn, QB Joe Flacco and offensive coordinator Cam Cameron can't all get along and play nicely so someone has to go. In this case it's Zorn. As part of the shuffle the Ravens have announced that offensive assistant Craig Van Steeg will now assist with the quarterbacks, and that Cameron will take a much bigger role in their coaching. Not sure how happy Ravens fans will be with this, considering that many were after Cameron's head for the part he and the offense played in Baltimore's post season exit. Unfortunately for them, it looks like Zorn has once again become the scapegoat du jour.

Millionaires arguing with Billionaires (and week 13 picks, part2)

It's Saturday Night which means time to finish off my picks for week 13 of the NFL season. But before we get to that, I want to draw your attention to an interesting article. The link is to foxsports.com, but the article is credited to the Associated Press and versions of it can be found on most of the major sports news outlets. For those without the time/inclination to read it, it's basically the NFLPA warning players that the likely hood of a lock out is looming ever closer and that they should seriously consider saving their last 3 game checks for next year. But to be honest, I'm calling bullshit on this one (I've given up hiding my swear words. Fuck it). See the thing is, earlier this year the NFLPA received authorisation from enough of the teams to be able to decertify if it so chooses. To cut a long story short and simplify it a little, that basically prevents a lock out by the league owners. If they league decides to enforce a lock out, the union simply decertifies and that's that; no lock out. So if there is any risk of a lock out taking place then it'll be the NFLPA's doing. They have the power to stop a lock out at anytime, so if it goes ahead then they have absolutely no leg to stand on with the fans. It'll be their fault that it went ahead. They will have chosen to allow the lock out and there is no squirming out of that reality. Of course, telling players to save three game checks to see them through next year doesn't help their image either. And I know someone is going to e-mail me to complain (I'll make it even easier for you: keepingthechainsmoving@live.co.uk )about those poor practice squad players and tell me how they don't make millions etc. Well that's very true, they don't make millions. But would you like to know how much they do make? Approximately $88,400 per year. Converted to UK pounds that's about £56,000. I did a quick google search and the first job I found that pays that sort of money is for a Human Resources Manager somewhere the 'City of London' (that's the bit of London where Canary Wharf is, along with all the banks and insurance giants). In other words that is still a hell of a lot more than the average person earns. A hell of a lot more. Which is why, frankly, I'm sick of hearing about lock outs and work stoppages. We have Millionaires arguing with Billionaires, and after all that it looks like the average fan is once again going to be the person that gets shafted. I'm almost willing there to be a lock out now, so that we can see a bunch of replacements come in and play football for a fraction of what the current players do, and probably put on a more heart felt and determined performance. Enough ranting though I guess, pick time. Oakland Raiders @ San Diego Chargers: After watching the Chargers dismantle the Colts, I can't possibly back the Raiders. To do so would be foolish. The Raiders had a good thing going at one point as Darren McFadden carried the team (literally) to victory. With the additional contribution of guys like Jacoby Ford, the Raiders were looking like something they haven't been in years; menacing. Now? Eh, the wind has largely wafted from their sails. It's almost like they had a game plan finally sorted, they wrote it all down and used it a couple of times... then someone accidentally dropped it into a sewer and they didn't think to make back ups before hand. Just when they thought they'd turned a corner, it turns out they've just walked into a fresh dead end. Waiting at the end of that dead end street? The Chargers. Ready to pounce on what should be easy prey given their recent form. They've sorted out their defense, turning it into a sack grabbing machine. On offense they've turned away from their passing game to a great extent, resting their offense instead on the mighty shoulders of FB/RB Mike Tolbert who is lead into the hole regularly by the leagues most effective and fun to watch FB, Jacob Hester. Suffice to say that Hester is to blocking what Troy Polamalu is to tackling, and Brett Favre is to throwing the football. None of the above use a particularly traditional technique. In fact, from a technical stand point they would all be considered rubbish at what they do.... were they not so effective from a results stand point. Hesters philosophy seems to be a) find the man he's supposed to be blocking, b) run at him at full speed, c) take a Polamalu-esque dive at the guys ankles. It works though, so more power to him. So in case you hadn't otherwise guessed, I'm going with San Diego. Chargers win. St. Louis Rams @ Arizona Cardinals: It boggles the mind to think people would shell out good money to go and watch the Cardinals this year, but indeed some people have as the Cardinals sell out yet another game. My best guess is that many of them are Rams fans come to gloat at last years division winners, or simply those with a morbid curiosity as to whether Derek Anderson will wait to melt down in his press conference, or whether he'll simply skip the formalities and go for it right there in the middle of the field. What makes me laugh most about the Cardinals though is not the team itself but the multitude of press reports claiming that the Cardinals offense this year is helping Kurt Warner to get closer to the Hall of Fame. Now that's true to a degree, but what is more true is that the Cardinals defense is helping to make the case for Karlos Dansby, Chike Okeafor and Bertrand Berry to make the Hall. Without those three, the Cardinals linebacking corps has collapsed in a truly shocking fashion. The loss of safety Antrel Rolle to the Giants hasn't exactly helped either. That then sets the stage for the Rams to come along and get a confidence boosting win. With Sam Bradford at the helm, Steven Jackson in support and a defense that at least tries to make plays, and even occasionally succeeds, St. Louis is poised to make a run at the NFC West division title, starting here. Rams win. Dallas Cowboys @ Indianapolis Colts: It's not often that a game comes up where I want both teams to lose (the Texans and Panthers don't play that often). This one though is a definite win-win for me. One of these teams is about to suffer yet another setback, and honestly I don't care which one it is. The reason I like seeing the Colts lose is... well actually there are loads. I don't like the way Peyton Manning spends half the game waving his arms at the referees. I don't like the way the Colts are always described as being unstoppable, even though that sentiment is clearly garbage. I don't like the fact that they are the worst team in the league for running the supposedly illegal "pick" or "rub" plays, normally in the red zone or on third down, only to complain to the league about any decision that doesn't go there way. I don't like the fact that they're allowed to get away with using their left guard to watch the snap count before patting the center on the leg without a flag ever being thrown for a false start. And just generally, I don't like the Colts. I don't like the Cowboys, because... well they're the Cowboys. Nobody who was born outside of Dallas seems to like them anymore. But at least I dislike them a little less than I dislike the Colts. Which is lucky because I think they might win this one. The blueprint was laid last week for them by the Chargers; show the blitz, then back out while getting the pressure home. Knock Manning around enough and he starts to get ruffled. Then he starts complaining to the refs and that gets him even more riled up. Oh, and pick on the right guard. Mercilessly. And don't bother playing the run, because the Colts don't run much this season (or any season) and when they do they tend to not go very far. Hopefully the likes of Jay Ratliff and DeMarcus Ware should be more than sufficiently equipped to make it happen. But then this is the Cowboys we're talking about and they do tackle like small children, especially in the secondary. Still, Cowboys win. Carolina Panthers @ Seattle Seahawks: You know you're bad when = there's a distinct possibility that the 2010 Carolina Panthers might beat you, or at least you know the game will be close. That says it all really. The Seahawks suck. Really, really badly. In fact, they need to take a few basic lessons from this guy: But are the Panthers really much better? No, but at least they have Jonathan Stewart and Mike Goodson, two running backs who at least have a credible chance of making a difference in this game. As much as it scares me to say this, and as much as I'm probably going to regret it... Panthers win. Atlanta Falcons @ Tampa Bay Buccaneers: I find it quite odd that most people around the web seem to be taking the Buc's over the Falcons. I say this because the Falcons have won a number of games against tough opponents now, including beating Green Bay last week. The Buc's on the other hand have so far beaten their weaker opponents handily, but tended to struggle against the better sides. This is made doubly odd in that the Buc's real strength on offense is battering ram running back, LaGarrette Blount. And yet the Falcons biggest strength on defense has been up the middle, predominantly the play of MLB Curtis Lofton. I posit to you then that the Falcons are well placed to win this game, at least more so than their opponents. Matt Ryan has been playing very well this season, as has his number one receiver Roddy White. Tight end Tony Gonzalez has lost none of his skills and Michael Turner's ongoing health has been a major boon this season. In short, Falcons win. Pittsburgh Steelers @ Baltimore Ravens: The clash that could potentially decide the AFC North takes place this Sunday Night, and you have to think the Steelers have hit this one at a bad time. They've not been themselves of late. They still win games, but getting taken to overtime by the Bills is hardly the most promising sign. The defense has been fine, as you'd expect from the Steelers and defensive coordinator Dick LeBeau. The trouble is on offense. Ben Roethlisberger came back from his suspension with avengence (that's not even a real word. Look it up in the dictionary). Since then he's looked a little out of place. Certainly not the "Big Ben" we all remember winning the Super Bowl. Rather he looks more like the "Big Ben" who was suspended for being a dick and is now rather rusty. Which is kind of a disadvantage against the Ravens defense. Ed Reed is back. Ray Lewis is still making plays all across the field. Haloti Ngata is still... Haloti Ngata (watch the battle between him and Maurkice Pouncey closely). To top it off, the Steelers O-line is back to its shaky best from last year, which means we'll probably see a lot Roethlisberger running around for dear life trying to make a play. Hopefully he'll throw the ball straight to a Ravens defender for a pick six, because I'm taking Baltimore, it's solid defense and it's pretty good (if sometimes inconsistent) offense for the victory. Ravens win. New York Jets @ New England Patriots: Will Rex Ryan kiss Bill Belichicks Super Bowl rings? I can't imagine Rex gets to kiss much these days. But I doubt he'd kiss Bills rings even his Jets team does go down on Monday Night to a resurgent Patriots side. I have to admit I'll never get comfortable calling the Patriots resurgent. They were 10-6 last year. They lost to the Jets earlier in the year and bombed against the Browns a few weeks ago, but other than those two blips and one or two tight games, the Patriots have basically looked like the most dominant side in a season where dominant teams don't really seem to exist. Their offense has been over hauled to include the two rookie tight ends more. Deion Branch has been traded in to fill the gap left by Randy Moss. Danny Woodhead was snatched from the Jets left overs and turned into a starting running back. The defense is a feast of rookies, young guns and "who the hell are you's?". But somehow it's all been brought together, thanks to the efforts of QB Tom Brady and Head Coach Bill Belichick. Now don't get me wrong, the Jets are hardly a push over in comparison. But they're just not as good. Defensively they're not as tight as you'd expect. Offensively, they've been pretty lucky at times to fight through the games they have. Mark Sanchez is nothing if not erratic in 2010. But they're still in there, fighting for the AFC East crown. I just can't see them taking the Patriots second time round. Patriots win. Ta da! There you go, all week 13 games covered. Now all I have to do is sit back, enjoy the show, and watch my picks blow up in my face. Awesome. Have a great day everyone.

Thanksgiving picks and general thoughts.

So again time has conspired against me to rob me of the chance to assess the rookie watchlist in detail. Suffice to say that; - The first rounders are a mixed bag, - The middle rounders are mostly doing reasonably well, given that they're rookies taken in the middle rounds, - The late rounders/undrafted are largely filling out practice squads, Now, to a few things that are a little more immediately important: -- The League and the NFLPA have met regarding the ongoing labor discussions. Except that according to the NFL Network's Jason LaCanfora, all they really seemed to have discussed were the proposals for an 18-game schedule. Nice to see that they have their priorities straight. -- I watched a video of a Neuropsychologist (they study the brain in relation to psychological processes, oddly enough) talking about concussions. Inevitably the NFL came up. But what I can't understand is this; if concussions are such a big thing (they are) then why is the current helmet technology so abysmal? Let me start by saying that I understand that removing concussions 100% is probably an unachievable goal, but we can at least lessen their impact. Concussions are measured by acceleration/deceleration of the brain as it makes impact with the inside of the skull. Subsequently it is measured in "G"s, as in G-force. The average helmet-to-helmet collision in a football game is estimated to generate somewhere between 100-120g (why are we estimating? Can we not afford in this day an age to put some kind of accelerometer on/in a helmet?). Naturally then the concern is to reduce this impact. And to be honest, encasing the head in a soft inside layer and a hard outside layer is pretty much the stupidest thing you can do, short of encasing the head in a purely hard, thick layer. What is even more absurd/criminal, is that we already know this and we already have a design plan from which to draw inspiration. You get in it everyday. It is probably one of your most valuable possessions. It costs you a ton of money but you couldn't do what you do without it. I am of course talking about your car. Cars are dangerous. They travel at speeds that humans were never supposed to travel. They can deliver a tremendous impact when they crash. But they've also come along leaps and bounds safety wise in recent years. The part that we're interested in is the crumple zone. This is the section of your vehicle that is designed to essentially undergo a controlled collapse in the event of a high speed impact. As significant force is transmitted into the crumple zone, it begins to deform and absorb the Kinetic energy of the impact, allowing for a more gradual deceleration. The passengers are protected against the more severe impacts by a rigid central cabin structure. This is precisely what we need in modern football helmets. A rigid structure against the head to protect it with a softer, possibly deforming outer shell to reduce the effect of serious acceleration/deceleration. Maybe then there would be less bitching from the league about quarterbacks/defenseless receivers getting hit in the head. And think of the awesome replays, with chunks of spent helmet flying all over the place in High Definition....... ahem. And the safety factor of course. Time for my Thanksgiving Thursday night picks I think, starting with; New England Patriots @ Detroit Lions: Holy crap! The Patriots are on a roll. Deion Branch may not have the speed or the size of Rand Moss, but critically for the Patriots he does run every route in the tree. This makes him a more versatile asset up and down the field. With the additional emergence of the two rookie tight ends (Aaron Hernandez and Rob Gronkowski) and of RB Danny Woodhead, coupled with the Patriots seemingly more balanced offense this year -- both in play-calling and execution -- they are close to being back to their fearsome best. Will they put up 30 points a game? On occasion. For the most part though, it is about ruthless efficiency right now. Oh, and the Lions are also playing in this game. Unfortunately for them. Patriots win. New Orleans Saints @ Dallas Cowboys: I f...reakin' knew a game like this would come up this weekend. Here is the dilemma I see from a pick perspective; the Saints are ok, but they're not the Saints from 2009, meanwhile the Cowboys have put up two good wins in a row after dumping Wade Phillips, but those wins were against a so-so Giants team and.... the Detroit Lions (what's with the Lions bashing today?). So will the Cowboys keep up the offensive show we've become accustomed to in the last couple of games? Have the Saints seen enough on film to catch out the newly reborn Cowboys (who've gone a little outside their normal box recently in search of big plays)? Has the Dallas secondary really learnt to tackle yet? When are Saints fans going to learn to spell? When will Saints fans finally admit that their defense was allowed to get away with murder in the NFC Championship game? And that if they're honest, they kind of lucked their way into the big game? All important questions. Sadly I'm not sure as I have the answers. So, stab in the dark time..... I'm going with the home team. Cowboys win. Cincinnati Bengals @ New York Jets: Given the "Bungals" showing last week, I really can't take them over the Jets. Yes, I know the Jets have scraped through their recent games by the skin of their teeth, but that is better than getting your ass handed to you by the 2010 Buffalo Bills. That said, I'm not sure as the Jets record tells us everything we need to know about them. Their pass rush seems to have stumbled a little lately. Mark Sanchez might be earning a reputation for being cool at the end of games, but what about the rest of the contest? And what happened to the Jets running game? Still, they're playing the Bengals. Jets win. Have a great Thanksgiving everyone.

More uses of the word "decertify" than I had previously planned

Interesting news has come to light, as players from 25 teams have now agreed to decertify their union -- the National Football League Players Association (NFLPA) -- if necessary at the end of the current labour deal. Talks will be held with the other 7 teams, but there are enough votes now to proceed without their consent. I believe the current labor deal expires on March 1st, after which the players would have 15 days to decertify themselves as a union. The question is why; and the two-fold answer largely involves lawsuits. The first aspect is simply to avoid a lock out. Under current US Labor law, if the union fails to decertify in time then the owners can both figuratively and literally stop the players from coming to work. No work equals no pay, for as long as the owners decide is necessary, e.g. until they run out of money (unlikely) or the players do (more likely) and subsequently buckle. Don't forget that although players earn obscene amounts of money, they also spend obscene amounts in payments on multi-million dollar homes and flashy cars. Even the richest players in the league will feel the strain and start looking at those Ferrari's in the drive as unsustainable expenses. On the other hand, if the players decertify then there is no union to lock out. Everyone comes to work as normal. Until the lawsuits begin of course. See, without a union there is nobody for the league owners to collectively bargain with. They will simply have to strike a deal among themselves regarding rules for free agency and how to conduct the draft. It's at this point that the players will likely begin filing a class action anti-trust lawsuit. They will argue in court that the league constitutes 32 independent businesses who -- with their newly agreed temporary draft and free agency rules -- are colluding together to restrict fair trade, in breach of the Sherman Anti-trust Act. The goal of the players will not really be to take the NFL all the way to the judgement and end up effectively shooting off the hand that feeds them (not if they have any sense at least). The goal is more likely to take the league to a point where the owners are starting to get worried about what might happen if they lose, forcing them to come to the table and strike a deal with the players that is in the players favour. It effectively will be a stare down. Who will blink first..... and how many fans will have got sick and damn tired of two groups of rich people arguing over who should be the slightly richer. Have a great day everyone.