Author: Anthony Stalter (Page 143 of 1503)

Marvin Lewis aware that Palmer won’t be back next season?

Cincinnati Bengals’ head coach Marvin Lewis talks to quarterbacks Carson (L) and Jordan Palmer as they play the Baltimore Ravens’ at M&T Bank Stadium in Baltimore on January 2, 2011. UPI/Kevin Dietsch

One unnamed NFL GM tells CBS Sports that head coach Marvin Lewis “knows” that quarterback Carson Palmer won’t play for the Bengals next season.

Essentially, the question is this: Can [Lewis] convince Brown to deal Palmer for draft picks, players or both to get something of value this season? Most people believe he cannot, and that was reiterated by our GM who said he’s certain Cincinnati won’t budge on Palmer because of what it would mean for others.

But he also said that if Palmer is true to his word and retires it might increase his value for 2012, with teams believing that if he has that much of a conviction, is that disciplined, is that true to himself, then he’s exactly the sort of quarterback they’d like as a leader.

“He can still play, and he can still play at a high level,” the GM said.

It’s kind of a moot point to talk about potential trades seeing as how we’re in the middle of a lockout but this Palmer situation won’t die down. Making matters more complex is that if the Bengals were willing to trade him, it would make sense to do so before the draft. But since teams can’t make trades right now, the Bengals are stuck.

It cannot be overstated: the Bengals have a mess on their hands here. Brown doesn’t want to set a precedent for other disgruntled players to follow Palmer and demand trades just because they want out of Cincinnati. But if Palmer follows through and retires, then obviously the best recourse for the Bengals is to trade him in order to get something in return. And if Lewis knows that Palmer doesn’t want to be his quarterback, then I would have to assume that he wants someone else in place who does.

For now, at least the Bengals have plenty of time on their hands to figure out what they want to do with Palmer. Because there doesn’t appear to be a quick resolution to the labor mess.

Enjoy it this year NFL fans, because there may not be a draft in 2012

For the past two days, columnist Michael Silver has taken to the pages of Yahoo! Sports and Twitter to rant about the NFL draft.

No, not because he thinks it’s wrong for the NFLPA to instruct top prospects not to attend Radio City Music Hall next month and no, not to lash out about the fact that players and owners are ruining the Holy Grail of the NFL offseason.

He’s ranting that the NFL draft should become yet another victim of the current labor dispute.

Silver offers a cold dose of reality when it comes to the draft: that it’s not as important as 1,7000 players fighting for their financial livelihoods. And as much as I’d like to punch him in the ear and tell him to get on board with the rest of us draftnits, he’s right.

He’s also right about something that will really make devote draft followers sick to their stomachs: The fact that there may not be a draft in 2012 if the owners and players can’t agree to a new CBA.

In the absence of a collective bargaining agreement, the draft is kind of … how shall I say this gently? … illegal. The notion that a person trying to ply his trade can be denied the opportunity to negotiate his/her services on the open market – in this case, that he is prohibited from signing with 31 of the NFL’s 32 franchises – isn’t simply un-American; it’s also a violation of federal law.

In fact, the controversy over the upcoming draft would likely be moot if not for a stipulation in the recently expired CBA that this year’s draft would proceed as scheduled. Otherwise, the players would have had an excellent chance of convincing a judge to disallow it. And if there’s still no CBA a year from April, even if the players are successful in blocking the lockout and the owners merely impose rules while the two sides wage their fight over the antitrust lawsuit, you can forget about a draft happening in 2012.

Even though the situation looks bleak, I’m willing to bet that most fans believe everything will eventually work out. That there will be a football season next year and the events of these past months will fade away once that ball is placed on the tee in Week 1. But Silver makes a great observation here. If the courts rule against the owners’ lockout, that doesn’t mean that a new CBA will be put in place. The players and owners still have to agree to a new deal and thus, we could be back to square one after next season even though the lockout has ended. How nauseating does that sound?

In the meantime, we can still enjoy the draft but read Silver’s column in full and then tell me you’re still excited for the end of April to come. Personally, I think Silver’s anti-draft rants can be toned down a notch. He seems to be revealing in the fact that he has solid points and those points suck the life right out of whatever excitement fans still have left about this offseason. As a NFL fan and a diehard draft follower myself I want to say to him, “Are you enjoying all of this, Eyebrows? Are you enjoying the fact that we don’t have free agency and trade rumors to chew on for the next couple of months and now the powers at be are also trying to ruin the draft, too? Because it sure seems like it.”

But as a realist, I say: “Damn it Silver, right on.”

Panthers leaning towards Cam Newton?

Auburn University Quarterback Cam Newton speaks to the media after winning the 2010 Heisman Trophy Award at the Marriott Marquis in New York City on December 11, 2010. UPI/John Angelillo

Unless it’s a ruse created to lure teams into trading up, all signs point to the Panthers selecting Auburn quarterback Cam Newton with the No. 1 overall pick according to the Charlotte Observer.

Carolina sent six representatives to Auburn’s Pro Day and will attend a private workout by Newton in Alabama on Wednesday. With Blaine Gabbert’s Pro Day coming up on Thursday, the Panthers should have a good idea as to whom they will be selecting with the top pick next month. There have been reports that the injury concerns surrounding the top defensive linemen in this year’s draft have scared the Panthers off, so maybe they’ve narrowed their wish list down to Newton or Gabbert.

Of course, there are rumblings that the Vikings and Bills are interested in Newton as well, so maybe a trade is in order. The Panthers don’t have a second round pick this year, so they may want to trade down in order to regain that selection. If they do trade down, Gabbert, LSU cornerback Patrick Peterson or even Georgia receiver A.J. Green become possibilities for the Panthers depending on how far they fall.

As of right now, this is still a cat and mouse game. The Panthers want to do their due diligence when it comes to scouting prospects, but they also don’t want to make their intentions obvious. If they have a couple of prospects rated close to each other, maybe they wouldn’t mind trading down, acquiring more picks and still landing a player at the top of their board.

Were the owners more flexible in negotiations than players?

NFL Executive Vice-President and General Counsel Jeff Pash (C) talks to reporters about negotiations with players association representatives as they seek an agreement as a deadline looms for a player lockout, in Washington, March 4, 2011. The NFL and the players’ union agreed to extend talks on a new collective agreement for another week, the League-owned NFL Network reported Friday. The chief sticking point in the talks is how to distribute the league’s $9 billion in annual revenues. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst (UNITED STATES – Tags: SPORT FOOTBALL BUSINESS)

Jim Trotter of SI.com wrote a great piece about the breakdown of the NFL labor talks and in the article, he writes that the owners felt they were more flexible in the negotiations than the players were.

Owners also argue they were more flexible in the negotiations than the players. On Friday the two sides were $640 million apart on the 2011 salary cap number; the NFL offered to split the difference. The union, however, would not move from its best offer of an additional $137.5 million a year for four years without a detailed accounting of each team’s books, a demand it had requested as early as May 2009. Says Pash, “In November ’09 we asked for an 18 percent rollback, and we didn’t get that either. Demands that you make before your first-ever face-to-face bargaining session might not be where you end up two years later.”

Ultimately, players contend that the owners initiated the standoff, so the burden of proof rests with them. “Not once have the players asked for more money during this negotiation,” Brees said on Friday. “Past players sacrificed a great deal to give us what we have now, and we will not lay down for a second to give that up.”

It may come down to a court to decide if they have to.

Because of the media blackout, there’s not a whole lot of information available on this labor dispute. Of course the owners are going to feel like they were more flexible, as I’m sure the players felt like they were more than fair with their demands. We the fans and media can only go off of what certain people tell us because we weren’t in the meeting rooms.

That said, there’s a real possibility that the union overplayed its hand here. They knew they had an advantage in talks once Judge David Doty ruled that the owners couldn’t use the $4 billion from renegotiated TV contracts to fund their lockout. The players then figured that if they decertified and their case went in front of a judge, they always had Doty (who has ruled often ruled in the players’ favor when it comes to previous NFL cases) in their back pocket.

Thus, when the owners came to the table with a last-second proposal on Friday before the lockout, the players wouldn’t budge on their offer. But they may have screwed themselves because Judge Susan Nelson will oversee their case, not Doty. So while they still could wind up winning big, they may have bypassed a decent offer and a way to end this charade before the CBA expired last week. Instead, they decided to go to court and now here we are.

When the dust finally settles on this issue, I wonder which side will have more regret: the owners for not opening their books (even though they did agree to show the players five years worth of aggregated league wide profitability information), or the players for not taking that last-second proposal last Friday.

Adrian Peterson compares NFL to modern-day slavery

Minnesota Vikings running back Adrian Peterson runs for a 4-yard gain during the first quarter against the Chicago Bears at Soldier Field in Chicago on November 14, 2010. UPI/Brian Kersey

You knew somebody was eventually going to say something stupid when it came to the current state of the NFL.

Meet Adrian Peterson, that “somebody.”

Minnesota Vikings running back Adrian Peterson made some controversial comments about the NFL labor situation in an interview with Doug Farrar of Yahoo’s Shutdown Corner. The interview was conducted just before the NFLPA decertified.

It’s modern-day slavery, you know? People kind of laugh at that, but there are people working at regular jobs who get treated the same way, too. With all the money,” Peterson continued. “The owners are trying to get a different percentage, and bring in more money.”

Farrar took out the quote shortly after publishing. He tweeted that he wanted to give Peterson an opportunity to explain. Farrar described the comment as “a real misstep.”

As expected, AP is being ridiculed about the remarks. A person set to make $10.72 million in a down economy can’t refer to his job as “modern-day slavery” and not expect to receive backlash for it. In fact, at least one player has already taken to Twitter to disagree with what Peterson said. Below is a series of tweets from Packers’ running back Ryan Grant.

I have to totally disagree with adrian Peterson’s comparison to this situation being Modern day slavery..false..

Their is unfortunately actually still slavery existing in our world.. Literal modern day slavery.. That was a very misinformed statement

But I understand what point he was trying to make.. I just feel like he should have been advised a little differently

Actually, it’s hard to understand the point Peterson was trying to make. Is he saying he’s been forced to play football against his will the past couple of years? Is he viewed as property of the NFL or the Minnesota Vikings or can he come and go as he pleases? Is he treated poorly or met with violence if he doesn’t serve his employer?

As Grant noted, slavery still remains today so Peterson’s comment was pretty insensitive and, to use Grant’s words, misinformed. It was a dumb comment and he should take every opportunity to clarify what he meant (or better yet, tell everyone that it was stupid to even suggest such a thing).

If I’m AP’s publicist, I just fired myself.

« Older posts Newer posts »