PDA

View Full Version : Winston on Padded Practices


HoustonFrog
07-25-2011, 10:20 AM
Part of the new labor deal was a limit on padded practices. In MMQB, King talks to Winston..what's new :)...and I'm trying to tell if his comment was damming or good. Many Cowboy players thought part of Garretts good start was getting guys in pads again and getting them aggressive. Thoughts on this? Yes, you had the leading rusher but many thought you were soft..so pads help or hurt? From high school play all our practices except Thursday special teams was padded and I liked it that way. I know it is a different speed

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/peter_king/07/24/labor/index.html?xid=cnnbin&hpt=hp_bn10

Padded practices. Teams can have 14 per regular season, including only three in the last six weeks of the season. Grumbling leaguewide has begun over the sissification of the NFL; coaches won't be able to toughen up soft teams anymore.

"Not sure this is a very big deal,'' Winston of the Texans said. "We had the leading rusher in the league last year [Arian Foster] and I bet we only had 17 padded practices all season.

TexanSam
07-25-2011, 10:31 AM
They also had a 6-10 record...

GP
07-25-2011, 10:33 AM
I think the griping about fewer practices in pads is funny.

It's not going to translate to a softer NFL. I suppose "the man" in us would like to think that if WE had to do 2-a-days in full pads then that's sacred and that's how it should be. Anything less....and we call it being a puss.

You guys come back on here after we've had a few weeks of reg season to judge, and let's see if they're trying to pull a flag or two-hand-touch rather than tackle out there.

I file this one under the "things guys like to ***** about" category. The lockout has made us focus on the funniest things. Glad to have some real news in about two days. LOL.

I think we should be more concerned about two other items that probably play a larger role in the success of each team, as it pertains to fewer injuries and being ready for Sundays: (1) Stretching and other prep work before each game, i.e. sleep habits, supplements (the legal ones), eating properly, etc., and (2) strength & conditioning.

Then again, the Packers were near the top last season in terms of teams who had the most injuries...and they found a way to win the SB. So go figure. Nothing is quantifiable, IMO. You're either going to be a winner or you're not. That's what makes the NFL the best.

nero THE zero
07-25-2011, 10:44 AM
I think this is something that falls along the lines of personal preference. Some probably need to practice in pads to rev themselves up and some probably don't.

There's no "right" or "wrong" answer to it, and it doesn't mean you're soft if you prefer less practice in pads.

HoustonFrog
07-25-2011, 10:59 AM
I think the griping about fewer practices in pads is funny.

It's not going to translate to a softer NFL. I suppose "the man" in us would like to think that if WE had to do 2-a-days in full pads then that's sacred and that's how it should be. Anything less....and we call it being a puss.

You guys come back on here after we've had a few weeks of reg season to judge, and let's see if they're trying to pull a flag or two-hand-touch rather than tackle out there.

I file this one under the "things guys like to ***** about" category. The lockout has made us focus on the funniest things. Glad to have some real news in about two days. LOL.

I think we should be more concerned about two other items that probably play a larger role in the success of each team, as it pertains to fewer injuries and being ready for Sundays: (1) Stretching and other prep work before each game, i.e. sleep habits, supplements (the legal ones), eating properly, etc., and (2) strength & conditioning.

Then again, the Packers were near the top last season in terms of teams who had the most injuries...and they found a way to win the SB. So go figure. Nothing is quantifiable, IMO. You're either going to be a winner or you're not. That's what makes the NFL the best.

Completely disagree. I think some teams thrive on hitting in practice and getting the feel for the schemes and how they play out on game day. I'm not saying you have to be pounding each other every day but it goes to conditioning too. As I said, the one main thing pointing to Garrett's "success" was getting guys back in pads. In high school we did two a days in the Texas heat at some old camp in Granbury where the field was sand and burrs and we stayed in cabins. We played "Highway to Hell" on the bus on the way in. We always thought we were the best conditioned/tackling teams out there. We did pads all but one day during the season just so we could run schemes against scout teams and the lineman could hit and move. I'm not saying one way is right or wrong but I found his comment interesting since they have been labeled soft. As Nero said above there may be some teams..older maybe..that prefer no pads so their bodies can rest.

GP
07-25-2011, 11:03 AM
I wish there could have been a way to say "All rookies and UDFAs and street free agents no matter your age" will have full pads all the time.

This gives extra chances to those who need the reps to show coaches why they should belong or maybe even become a starter. But I know that's not gonna' happen because the older vets would say "Rookie is stealing my job out there because he gets seen popping pads and cracking helmets, and I'm in shorts all the time."

Would there even be enough players to do that, though? Would you have to say "All players with less than 3 years NFL experience will have full pads"? So in the morning, all players are in pads/helmets. And in the afternoon, you have one group of players doing shorts-only drills and another group in pads/helmets battling it out in front of coaches. This would give coaches a chance to judge the younger talent, and give the older vets (4th year guys and above) a chance to rest their bodies and do basic no-contact drills.

Think about it: If you're a 4th-year guy out there in training camp, do you want to get decked by some rookie trying to make the team? Do you want YOUR 3 years of dedication and YOUR momentum to be wiped out by a dude trying to impress a coach? I can see where the older guys want fewer practices in pads. They're playing the numbers game, and frankly if they're a 4th year (or more) guy in the NFL...then they deserve the protection they can be afforded. I have no problem with that sense of "entitlement."

nero THE zero
07-25-2011, 11:04 AM
Completely disagree. I think some teams thrive on hitting in practice and getting the feel for the schemes and how they play out on game day. I'm not saying you have to be pounding each other every day but it goes to conditioning too. As I said, the one main thing pointing to Garrett's "success" was getting guys back in pads. In high school we did two a days in the Texas heat at some old camp in Granbury where the field was sand and burrs and we stayed in cabins. We played "Highway to Hell" on the bus on the way in. We always thought we were the best conditioned/tackling teams out there. We did pads all put one day during the season just so we could run schemes against scout teams and the lineman could hit and move. I'm not saying one way is right or wrong but I found his comment interesting since they have been labeled soft. As Nero said above there may be some teams..older maybe..that prefer no pads so their bodies can rest.

I'd argue this was the benefit of change more so than any inherent advantage is practicing in pads itself. Which is not to say there is no advantage to practicing in pads, just that you hear as many stories of teams improving after dumping an old-school, Coughlin-esque approach as you do teams reverting to it. When things get stale, people respond to change.

HoustonFrog
07-25-2011, 11:06 AM
I'd argue this was the benefit of change more so than any inherent advantage is practicing in pads itself. Which is not to say there is no advantage to practicing in pads, just that you hear as many stories of teams improving after dumping an old-school, Coughlin-esque approach as you do teams reverting to it. When things get stale, people respond to change.

Agree. They went from Parcells to Wade and improved first year. As you ..and I said, I'm not saying right or wrong. The comment just struck me as funny considering the label on the team for years and him using Foster as an example of why less pads may work.

GP
07-25-2011, 11:10 AM
Completely disagree. I think some teams thrive on hitting in practice and getting the feel for the schemes and how they play out on game day. I'm not saying you have to be pounding each other every day but it goes to conditioning too. As I said, the one main thing pointing to Garrett's "success" was getting guys back in pads. In high school we did two a days in the Texas heat at some old camp in Granbury where the field was sand and burrs and we stayed in cabins. We played "Highway to Hell" on the bus on the way in. We always thought we were the best conditioned/tackling teams out there. We did pads all put one day during the season just so we could run schemes against scout teams and the lineman could hit and move. I'm not saying one way is right or wrong but I found his comment interesting since they have been labeled soft. As Nero said above there may be some teams..older maybe..that prefer no pads so their bodies can rest.

I knew it would come back to "Back in my day..." bravado stuff.

You guys were high school kids, most of which never made it to college ball. These NFL guys have survived high school, got recruited by large colleges, played through college, got scouted and drafted by an NFL team, and play in the most physically-challenging level yet.

I think it's OK if they were treated a little differently than a high school kid. Man, you and I are about the same age. Our bodies WERE so wildly regenerative "back in the day..." it's not even funny. It's like we were Wolverine from the X-Men or something. You get into your mid-to-late 20s, and then into the 30s, and we both know that THAT doesn't last forever.

I steer-wrestled for only 5 years (Was 17 when I learned, and "retired" when I was 22). I'm 35 and my right knee literally GRINDS and makes noises when I climb stairs. Age is a *****. Now think about those guys in the NFL.

You and I could argue about this like we would "back in the day," frog, and I can tell it's an important point of yours. I just think it's a different circumstance. Entirely.

nero THE zero
07-25-2011, 11:12 AM
Agree. They went from Parcells to Wade and improved first year. As you ..and I said, I'm not saying right or wrong. The comment just struck me as funny considering the label on the team for years and him using Foster as an example of why less pads may work.

Let's just say that it is no surprise to me that Winston falls in the "prefers less pad days" camp.

GP
07-25-2011, 11:14 AM
Let's just say that it is no surprise to me that Winston falls in the "prefers less pad days" camp.

Oh I think Winston wears pads all the time, or at least a few days out of the month.

Just kidding! I don't want that guy's caveman face showing up at my door demanding an apology.

HoustonFrog
07-25-2011, 11:18 AM
I knew it would come back to "Back in my day..." bravado stuff.

You guys were high school kids, most of which never made it to college ball. These NFL guys have survived high school, got recruited by large colleges, played through college, got scouted and drafted by an NFL team, and play in the most physically-challenging level yet.

I think it's OK if they were treated a little differently than a high school kid. Man, you and I are about the same age. Our bodies WERE so wildly regenerative "back in the day..." it's not even funny. It's like we were Wolverine from the X-Men or something. You get into your mid-to-late 20s, and then into the 30s, and we both know that THAT doesn't last forever.

I steer-wrestled for only 5 years (Was 17 when I learned, and "retired" when I was 22). I'm 35 and my right knee literally GRINDS and makes noises when I climb stairs. Age is a *****. Now think about those guys in the NFL.

You and I could argue about this like we would "back in the day," frog, and I can tell it's an important point of yours. I just think it's a different circumstance. Entirely.

It's not bravado. I mentioned this in my first post and even stated that it was different because these guys go a whole different speed. But getting assignments right, especially for an O-line, is alot different while moving to actually block someone in pads vs walking through and around people to show you know your assignment...speed, traffic, etc. That is my point. I know these guys are torn up...thus why I hate the 18 game schedule idea...but limiting pads, to me, MAY be a disadvantage. Walking through is alot harder than the first snap of a real game when some LB comes screaming in and you are actually getting hit.

GP
07-25-2011, 11:35 AM
Walking through is alot harder than the first snap of a real game when some LB comes screaming in and you are actually getting hit.

I think preseason games can accomplish this, no? I mean, in preseason the defense is not really coming at the QB all that hard anyways.

Feels like it's starting off with a lower level of contact in camp, then a bump up in preseason, and then the real deal in reg season.

Besides, there are plenty of people who are complaining that preseason itself robs us of the full joys of football every year. It's always going to be something else that comes along and ruins the game, I suppose.

I'm more concerned with rule changes that give the offense, especially the QB, a weighted advantage. That's where my concern is at, not on how many camp practices are in pads vs. shorts and shirt only.

Shaft75
07-25-2011, 11:43 AM
What ever happened to the saying "practice makes perfect"?

Aren't pads made to limit player injury? I've seen some of the practices that the Texans have with no pads. Those guys going 75% without pads seems more risky than going 90% with pads. I'm always worried that someone is going to get thrown into someone else's knee, or some of those collisions are going to cause someones clavicle to snap.

I think the league should step off telling coaches how to run their practices. It's okay that they limit the number of hours teams can spend together, but don't take away the coaches authority. At least put a clause in there that shitty teams are allowed to put on pads for up to 20 practices. Or soft teams...

Shaft75
07-25-2011, 11:45 AM
I think preseason games can accomplish this, no? I mean, in preseason the defense is not really coming at the QB all that hard anyways.

Feels like it's starting off with a lower level of contact in camp, then a bump up in preseason, and then the real deal in reg season.

Besides, there are plenty of people who are complaining that preseason itself robs us of the full joys of football every year. It's always going to be something else that comes along and ruins the game, I suppose.

I'm more concerned with rule changes that give the offense, especially the QB, a weighted advantage. That's where my concern is at, not on how many camp practices are in pads vs. shorts and shirt only.

GP, you need to think back to practice...

Double Barrel
07-25-2011, 11:46 AM
Then again, the Packers were near the top last season in terms of teams who had the most injuries...and they found a way to win the SB. So go figure. Nothing is quantifiable, IMO. You're either going to be a winner or you're not. That's what makes the NFL the best.

And the Packers were one of the teams that never practiced in pads twice a day according to NFLN. The fact that the Super Bowl champions never did it is a torpedo to anyone's point that two-a-days is required to be successful.

These guys are pros, and I think the potential wear and tear on their bodies is a far greater risk than any slight gains that might come from pads twice a day.

FirstTexansFan
07-25-2011, 11:54 AM
And the Packers were one of the teams that never practiced in pads twice a day according to NFLN. The fact that the Super Bowl champions never did it is a torpedo to anyone's point that two-a-days is required to be successful.

These guys are pros, and I think the potential wear and tear on their bodies is a far greater risk than any slight gains that might come from pads twice a day.

And there lies the problem... the Texans wore pads all season... maxi-pads :)

Texecutioner
07-25-2011, 11:59 AM
And the Packers were one of the teams that never practiced in pads twice a day according to NFLN. The fact that the Super Bowl champions never did it is a torpedo to anyone's point that two-a-days is required to be successful.

These guys are pros, and I think the potential wear and tear on their bodies is a far greater risk than any slight gains that might come from pads twice a day.

I agree with you DB and I don't see this as a problem at all. It's not like it's going to make these guys less on game day. If anything I think it makes them more intense on game day, because their bodies should be able to take and dish out more. Plus the emotions of having to wait a little more to dish out those brutal hits will finally get there on game day where they can let it all out. I'm all for seeing an NFL with less injuries. It sucks seeing big name great players go down every year and if this can help to limit that, then I'm okay with it.


And there lies the problem... the Texans wore pads all season... maxi-pads :)

Repped!! Lol!

HoustonFrog
07-25-2011, 12:00 PM
And the Packers were one of the teams that never practiced in pads twice a day according to NFLN. The fact that the Super Bowl champions never did it is a torpedo to anyone's point that two-a-days is required to be successful.

These guys are pros, and I think the potential wear and tear on their bodies is a far greater risk than any slight gains that might come from pads twice a day.

Agree that is goes against the argument. But I never said 2 a days was required. I think they are unecessary for pros, despite me doing them, as noted. My point was seasonal. Limits on the season...again, mostly from a full speed assignment type view. I just think some teams might find it beneficial. When I watch walk throughs I'm like..really? Considering I hate the 18 game schedule because of injuries I guess you can stay my stance here might be a little muddling to it. But I'm not asking that they have "pit" drills where they make the tunnel and kill each other. Just that they have some full locking on/speed type playbook time.

CloakNNNdagger
07-25-2011, 12:14 PM
I'll probably be one of the only "black sheep" voices on this subject, but "simulation" does not allow the learning of good and proper techniques. Some techniques are for attack such as tackling. Improper tackling can cause injuries to the tackler and to the one tackled. Some techniques are for "defensive" moves of how to avoid injuries.........how to fall, how to react when tackled, how to protect oneself when catching a ball in traffic. Madden-like experience ill prepares a player for such game day situations. And don't kid yourself, vets become "rusty" also.

cuppacoffee
07-25-2011, 12:21 PM
What ever happened to the saying "practice makes perfect"?

Aren't pads made to limit player injury? I've seen some of the practices that the Texans have with no pads. Those guys going 75% without pads seems more risky than going 90% with pads. I'm always worried that someone is going to get thrown into someone else's knee, or some of those collisions are going to cause someones clavicle to snap.

I think the league should step off telling coaches how to run their practices. It's okay that they limit the number of hours teams can spend together, but don't take away the coaches authority. At least put a clause in there that shitty teams are allowed to put on pads for up to 20 practices. Or soft teams...


I don't think this is the 'league' doing this as much as the players telling the league what to do.

Kinda like the inmates taking control of the asylum.

:coffee:

Rey
07-25-2011, 12:30 PM
And the Packers were one of the teams that never practiced in pads twice a day according to NFLN. The fact that the Super Bowl champions never did it is a torpedo to anyone's point that two-a-days is required to be successful.

These guys are pros, and I think the potential wear and tear on their bodies is a far greater risk than any slight gains that might come from pads twice a day.

What works for one team may not work for another.

Like if one team is not as talented they may have to work twice as hard to win. Some teams may respond to more physical practices while other teams may respond to another method. Maybe a team wants to mix it up and hit every now and then.

Why not set a larger maximum and let individual teams decide.

A lot of people like to site injuries, and it's kind of funny because greenbay was an example of both sides of the argument because it wasn't as if there lack of full contact practices helped them stay healthier.

CloakNNNdagger
07-25-2011, 12:44 PM
I don't think this is the 'league' doing this as much as the players telling the league what to do.

Kinda like the inmates taking control of the asylum.

:coffee:

How do they say it?......Great minds think alike........:ahhaha:From a post I made in the "All Encompassing" thread:

It has been pointed out that the Texans were one of the teams that was always doing their second practice without pads or helmets, just walk-throughs anyway. So it won't change much for them. Certainly helped in the injury department.........and we sure showed great execution in games.

Believe me, besides sloppier performance, it will result in MORE injuries........MANY MORE. That's what essentially happens when the inmates begin running the asylum. http://www.texanstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1728701&postcount=1091

IDEXAN
07-25-2011, 01:00 PM
Even though he's a right tackle (and not left tackle), I think Winstons profile/rep is more that of an athletic, finesse LT and not the prototypical power blocker many RTs are. Of course a lot of that is because the Texans are one of the few ZB teams in the league.
And on the subject of "finesse", I seem to recall that's the name Jets HC Ryan gave the Texans and it's kinda stuck. Maybe the Texans are one of those teams who, say unlike the Steelers or Ravens, need to put the pads on more to do some poppin and toughen up ?

Double Barrel
07-25-2011, 01:45 PM
What works for one team may not work for another.

Like if one team is not as talented they may have to work twice as hard to win. Some teams may respond to more physical practices while other teams may respond to another method. Maybe a team wants to mix it up and hit every now and then.

Why not set a larger maximum and let individual teams decide.

A lot of people like to site injuries, and it's kind of funny because greenbay was an example of both sides of the argument because it wasn't as if there lack of full contact practices helped them stay healthier.

Yep, and I can't really argue against the logic that it might work for some teams. I was addressed the "one size fits all" mentality, but after I heard that half the teams in the NFL - including may successful franchises - don't do two-a-days, I came to the conclusion that it's the media and fans that are making a bigger deal out of it than anything else.

I think the product on Sundays is going to be just fine, regardless of all this ancillary stuff.

cuppacoffee
07-25-2011, 01:52 PM
How do they say it?......Great minds think alike........:ahhaha:From a post I made in the "All Encompassing" thread:

http://www.texanstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1728701&postcount=1091


I probably read it there and it made such an impact that I repeated it here.

At my age I don't get too many original thoughts. .:winky:


:coffee:

GP
07-25-2011, 02:02 PM
And the Packers were one of the teams that never practiced in pads twice a day according to NFLN. The fact that the Super Bowl champions never did it is a torpedo to anyone's point that two-a-days is required to be successful.

These guys are pros, and I think the potential wear and tear on their bodies is a far greater risk than any slight gains that might come from pads twice a day.

Agreed.

I think there's just a part of us, as guys, who harken back to a day when WE had to do 2-a-days out in the heat. You felt it made you tougher, and if you did it more and harder than you thought other teams did...it made you feel even more invincible. Except for the fatties, we ALL had the extra boost of piss and vinegar, at our ages back then, that we HAD to do something with it! LOL.

Those guys are playing a game every weekend from September to January. In fact, most of August (preseason) and most of September (reg season) are played in the heat. And then there's the rest of October, November, December, and like a week or two in January.

So how will a few more training camp sessions in pads/helmet going to really translate to a better overall season? I feel like if that's the case, then I want the Texans doing 4-a-days in pads/helmets. Should get us into the wildcard round, I suppose.

Marcus
07-25-2011, 02:47 PM
Like if one team is not as talented they may have to work twice as hard to win.

That might be true . . in high school.

But in the NFL, it don't matter how hard you work if you're not as talented.

As for the reduction of padded practices . . . the answer will be in the injury statistics. After say, week 3 of the regular season, take the all the teams' injury reports and compare them to last year's.

I have a feeling the difference will be 'eye-opening".

GP
07-25-2011, 02:54 PM
That might be true . . in high school.

But in the NFL, it don't matter how hard you work if you're not as talented.

As for the reduction of padded practices . . . the answer will be in the injury statistics. After say, week 3 of the regular season, take the all the teams' injury reports and compare them to last year's.

I have a feeling the difference will be 'eye-opening".

Yeah, it was also "eye-opening" that the team who pretty much led the league in injuries (Packers) and who had Brett Favre's whipping post (Aaron Rodgers) at QB, and a virtual no-name cast of players--AJ Hawk was said to be a bust, they had an inferior Clay Mathews II instead of the big-name USC LBs, and no real big-name RBs, too--and yet they win the Super Bowl. Go figure, eh?

So to that end, I don't put ANY stock into any STAT anymore. Outside of who stands on top at the end of the Super Bowl, we can all take stats and shove them where the sun don't shine.

A bad bounce of the ball here, a blocked kick there, a timely fumble or interception, superior strategy and decision-making at key moments in time, and a myriad of other unpredictable events can render everything else a waste.

Ask the USA Women's Soccer Team. For all practical purposes, they looked phenomenal up until the Japan game. In that game, logic and reason and stats and "entitlement" went right out the window. Japan, for some damn reason, just hung around and played it cool. And they won. This was a team who had such little land to use, that most of their practices were just repetitive drills on a shortened field. After I heard that, while the game was going on, I was amazed that those ladies were playing full-field soccer like they were when they really had no full field to practice upon--They were winging it out there, in terms of moving from one end to the other and staying in the flow and rhythm of playing soccer on a full field. Yeah, they had played in games elsewhere. And yeah, they had some veterans who had played for years prior. But to practice with no "full" field? Amazing, IMO.

I don't know why, for the life of me, why this sacred cow of full pads/helmet practice (twice per day) is supposedly the life source of quality NFL football. 1900 NFL players disagree with the notion. Obviously.

DexmanC
07-25-2011, 04:51 PM
They also had a 6-10 record...

They also had a swiss-cheese defense.

keyser
07-25-2011, 05:04 PM
I don't know why, for the life of me, why this sacred cow of full pads/helmet practice (twice per day) is supposedly the life source of quality NFL football. 1900 NFL players disagree with the notion. Obviously.

You don't think that the players were arguing for fewer full pads practices because it would help improve the quality of football, do you? It's basically that they just didn't want to practice as hard.

If it's better for teams to have fewer practices in full pads, then teams will do that. If practices in pads/helmets more than once a week is better, then teams would do that. The only reason this has to be in the CBA is that players know that teams will want to (because it will produce a better team...) have more/tougher practices, and the players don't want to have as much/as tough of practices.

The thing I (and I think lots of others) find annoying about these practice limitations is that the restrictions are in the CBA not out of any sense of what's "fair" or "better for the game" or anything like that. They're in there because the players just don't want to work as hard. We've been hearing about all this stuff about how each side is wanting too big of a piece of the TV revenue and all that, and then what comes out are a bunch of restrictions on stuff like how hard they have to practice. It's fine that they want to argue for these things, but so much for them taking some sort of high road - they're arguing just to get the most that they can, regarless of the quality of the product that comes out, just like any other union.

TEXANRED
07-25-2011, 05:48 PM
The players have taken the first step in watering down the product.

All I can figure is the vets that negotiated these deals are attempting to extend their own careers. What the vets seem to be missing is that every year 224 plus new players emerge opening the exit door for 224 plus old players.

SheTexan
07-25-2011, 06:15 PM
Just fewer chances for an old lady to see well built men in tight pants!! Not sure I can handle the trauma!:smooch:

GP
07-25-2011, 09:16 PM
You don't think that the players were arguing for fewer full pads practices because it would help improve the quality of football, do you? It's basically that they just didn't want to practice as hard.

If it's better for teams to have fewer practices in full pads, then teams will do that. If practices in pads/helmets more than once a week is better, then teams would do that. The only reason this has to be in the CBA is that players know that teams will want to (because it will produce a better team...) have more/tougher practices, and the players don't want to have as much/as tough of practices.

The thing I (and I think lots of others) find annoying about these practice limitations is that the restrictions are in the CBA not out of any sense of what's "fair" or "better for the game" or anything like that. They're in there because the players just don't want to work as hard. We've been hearing about all this stuff about how each side is wanting too big of a piece of the TV revenue and all that, and then what comes out are a bunch of restrictions on stuff like how hard they have to practice. It's fine that they want to argue for these things, but so much for them taking some sort of high road - they're arguing just to get the most that they can, regarless of the quality of the product that comes out, just like any other union.

Well, they're the ones who are out there.

It had enough traction to get approved, so that says something. It's probably something like Item #125 on the owner's "Most Important" list. I'm sure they won't lose sleep knowing there's less "hard contact" in a training camp.

Marcus
07-26-2011, 02:47 AM
Well, they're the ones who are out there.

It had enough traction to get approved, so that says something. It's probably something like Item #125 on the owner's "Most Important" list. I'm sure they won't lose sleep knowing there's less "hard contact" in a training camp.


BS. What we have now is a softer NFL. They oughta take Brian Urlacher's suggestion and rename the NFL to the NFFL, for National Flag Football League.

Not sure I'm going to be able to stomach watching a bunch of unconditioned high paid candy asses running around on the football field. Pulled muscles and hamstrings will be off the charts