PDA

View Full Version : You're Gonna Love the New Offseason Practice......or Should I Say, Walk-Thru Rules


CloakNNNdagger
04-15-2012, 02:55 PM
All the restrictions on offseason and preseason and regular season practices can't help but create negative implications.

The new offseason practice rules feature less practice, more offseason (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/04/15/the-new-offseason-practice-rules-feature-less-practice-more-offseason/)

AWith more and more teams launching their offseason programs, now is as good a time as any to explain the new offseason rules, courtesy of Article 21 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement.

According to Section 2(b) of Article 21, it’s a three-phase, nine-week process. Phase One lasts for two weeks, and the activities are limited to “strength and conditioning” and “physical rehabilitation.” Only strength and conditioning coaches may be present; other coaches may not attend or observe in any way. Footballs cannot be used, with the exception of quarterbacks throwing to uncovered receivers. No helmets may be worn.

In Phase Two, which lasts three weeks, all coaches are permitted on the field. The workouts may include individual player instructions and drills, including “perfect play” drills — with offense or defense only but no offense and defense at the same time. Special-teams drills also may be conducted without opposing units on the field at the same time. There can be no live contact and no one-on-one competition, and no bump-and-run coverage of receivers by defensive backs. Also, no helmets are permitted.

Phase Three consists of four weeks, during which a total of 10 days of “Organized Team Activities” may be conducted. A maximum of three OTA days may be conducted per week during the first two weeks of Phase Three, and four OTA days may be conducted in the third or fourth week, with the mandatory minicamp scheduled for the other week. (In weeks with three OTA days, a Phase Two day may be conducted on the fourth day.) Helmets may be worn, but no other pads.

The CBA provides as follows regarding OTA days in Phase Three: “No live contact is permitted. No one-on-one offense vs. defense drills are permitted (i.e., no offensive linemen vs. defensive linemen pass rush or pass protection drills, no wide receivers vs. defensive backs bump-and-run drills, and no one-on-one special teams drills involving both offense and defense are permitted). Special teams drills (e.g., kicking team vs. return team) are permitted, provided no live contact occurs.”

Players receive $155 per day in 2012 for participating in the offseason program, and they must participate in at least three workout days per week in order to qualify for payment for any.

The new CBA has enhanced penalties for violations of the offseason workout rules. For a first offense, as determined by an Impartial Arbitrator, the head coach will be fined $100,000 and the team will be fined $250,000. For a second offense that same year, the coach will be fined $250,000 and the team will be fined $500,000. (Lesser fines may be imposed if the Commissioner finds that the violation was based on a good-faith interpretation of the rules, or that it was not a “material violation.”)

Also, a first offense will result in cancellation of the team’s next week of OTAs. A second offense that same year results in the cancellation of the next week of OTAS — and forfeiture of a fourth-round draft pick.

Previously, teams were permitted to engage in 14 total weeks of offseason workouts, and 14 total days of OTAs. There was no set fine amount, and a “good-faith interpretation” of the rules provided an “absolute defense” to any alleged violation. The prior CBA also called for the forfeiture of a fourth-round pick in response to a second violation.

The difference under the new CBA likely will be the league’s willingness to enforce the rules. While live contact was prohibited under prior labor deals, live contact routinely occurred, usually without a violation of the rules being investigated, detected, or enforced. (Long-time readers will recall the posting of pictures and videos indicating clear instances of live contact during offseason workouts.) Thus, it will be interesting to see whether the teams comply with the ban on live contact in Phase Three, and whether the NFL and NFLPA will take swift and decisive action in the event of a violation.

Regardless, look for plenty of complaints from coaches regarding the new rules. New Rams coach Jeff Fisher already has bemoaned the impact of the rules on the development of quarterback Sam Bradford. And as one league insider told PFT after the new CBA was negotiated regarding the in-season and offseason practice rules, “The only thing the players didn’t get is someone else to play for them.”

So why did the owners agree to five fewer weeks and four fewer OTA days? That’s an easy one. The folks who have the money will always be inclined to agree to terms that don’t cost them any of that money, especially when the quid pro quo entails keeping more money in their pockets, via a smaller percentage of every dollar gong to the players.

Basically, the players wanted it, the owners used it as leverage to get a better financial deal, and the coaches will now have to deal with it.

welsh texan
04-16-2012, 05:58 AM
Can't help but wonder if the players are going to stand a much better chance of making it through the off-season uninjured and then find themselves dropping like flies once the live rounds start flying.

You have to think that gradually ramping up the severity of the hits your body takes in a controlled environment amongst your team-mate is going to set you up for when some hate-filled opponent decides he wants to take you out of the game in week 1.

Not that I have the time or the will to do it, but I'd love it if someone was to chart injuries from the various stages of pre-season right through the regular season, for the years leading up to this CBA, then the lost off-season, and then the next few years from here, I bet we see a reduction in guys losing a season during the off-season and an increase in guys getting taken out for the year in the opening few weeks of the Regular Season.

Just look at Arian Foster last year, pulled a hammy early in preseason, and although it lasted weeks and weeks before he could even play consistently, I'm not even that sure he fully recovered all season (I know he put up great numbers once he came back but I felt he wasn't as big a threat as he'd been in 2010). Can't help but envision more cases like that coming from this, but hey, its what the players wanted, and I guess once they get on the opening day roster they get their money whatever.

CloakNNNdagger
04-16-2012, 08:05 AM
Here is an attempt to focus in on the question you asked regarding only RBs.

Has the Lack of an Offseason Increased Running Back Injuries (http://thebiglead.com/index.php/2011/10/27/has-the-lack-of-an-offseason-increased-running-back-injuries/)?

TimeKiller
04-16-2012, 08:17 AM
Less practice, eh? Quality of the game going down in 3......2.......1......

welsh texan
04-16-2012, 11:16 AM
Here is an attempt to focus in on the question you asked regarding only RBs.

Has the Lack of an Offseason Increased Running Back Injuries (http://thebiglead.com/index.php/2011/10/27/has-the-lack-of-an-offseason-increased-running-back-injuries/)?

Interesting, the person who wrote that article readily admits to not having particularly thorough evidence, but the logic he uses is reasonable, and injuries were up.

It does only relate to week 1 starters, so I don't think Foster would be included in that (?), for instance.

As well as the injury aspect, it'll be interesting to see if the likes of rookies and backups have their progress slowed overall with fewer practice snaps available to the coaches etc.

Throughout the regular season you'll see guys starting every week who don't practice through the week due to injury, when that happens his backup is getting valuable first team snaps all week in practice etc, something the players have negotiated to limit over time.

Maybe their thinking was partly to safeguard the positions of established vets, especially when you consider that the overall money pot available under the salary cap looks to be shrinking in real terms over the first few years of the CBA, perhaps limiting practice is one way the vets take a little back for themselves?