The NFL as we know it is over

[imgreat95]

The 2 sides have failed to reach an agreement... the deadline for the waiver cuts has been pushed back til 11:30.... but i just do not think it is going to be happening.

[rockin500]

well, at least you won the super bowl before armageddon. :D

[imgreat95]

this is true, Ray. The problem is that now we are guaranteed NFL football in 2006.. and in 2007... but thats it.

[imgreat95]

UNION IS FAILING ITS MEMBERS

We've long believed that the NFLPA is doing a less-than-ideal job (we were going to say "piss-poor," but we're trying to be nice) in representing its membership.

Tonight, we're convinced of it.

At times of great tribulation, where multiple diverse interests must be considered and a balance seems nearly impossible to reach, strong leaders don't get close to working it all out and then storm out of the room.

But NFLPA executive director Gene Upshaw continues to posture and preen at a time when the two sides are as close as they might ever get to getting a deal done. Once the teams cut their players in order to get under the cap, the sense of urgency to get something done will diminish, and all of the momentum of the past few days will be lost.

And then the players who get dumped will sign crappy deals due to the restrictive rules of the last capped year, and they'll soon be craving the uncapped year in order to make their money back. And as more guys sign those crappy deals under the current rules, it'll be harder to justify extending the CBA, since more and more of the players who signed deals under the old one will be screwed.

So before anyone knows it we'll be into the uncapped year, when some teams will spend a lot more money that otherwise would be permitted.

And some teams will spend a lot less than otherwise would be required.

Our guess is that, despite the lure of a year without a cap, the total dollars spent on player salaries will be less than what they would have been if there had been an extension and a cap in 2007.

So next comes the expiration of the CBA in 2008, decertification of the union, antitrust lawsuits if the league imposes a uniform set of compensation and free agency rules, and maybe a work stoppage.

As one league source told us on Sunday night, "The union and the players have no idea what they just did to themselves. No one is going to win, but they will suffer the greatest."

It's time to wake up, players. Demand that the guys whose salaries you pay earn their money and get a deal done. The owners will always be making money, but the players have a limited window.

If the 2006 league year gets rolling without a new CBA, you're all going to be making a lot less of it over the next few years.

On Sunday, March 5, 2006, the great ship NFL struck an iceberg, and the owners immediately began rearranging the deck chairs...

[Dward00]

this is true, Ray. The problem is that now we are guaranteed NFL football in 2006.. and in 2007... but thats it.


Right. They have 2 years to work it out. Are you crazy? This is nothing to worry about. :thumbsup:

[imgreat95]

no... its not just as simple as having 2 years to work it out. This year, instead of the salary cap going up, it is staying the same. This is forcing the cutting of veteran players who otherwise would not have been cut. It has already started happening tonight. Next year, there will be NO cap. Which means that teams can spend at will... at that point, it will be tough to reinforce a salary cap without again forcing the cutting of many veterans which the players union would never allow. Therefore, they would probably never again agree to a salary cap. The owners will not agree to play without one. Therefore, the NFL will most likely end.

It is a little bit more serious than just "having 2 years to work out a deal..."

That being said, they have pushed the deadline back to Wednesday. Any cuts made today can be rescinded if adeal is reached. Those cuts include Kevin Mawae... Kerry Collins.. and Lavar Arrington as of right now.

[Dward00]

So they're going to play without a salary cap anymore. big deal. That's not the end of the world.

[imgreat95]

no... you dont get it.... after 2007... there will be no football without a CBA. Without a salary cap, the owners will not agree to a CBA... with a salary cap, after a season without one, the players will not agree to a CBA. Without a CBA, after 2007, there will be no football.

The just expired CBA had language in it which made provisions for 2006 and 2007 if the agreement expired. After that, there is nothing.

[Dward00]

Okay so i don't understand at all. You're saying the NFL as a company is going to go bankrupt, and go away forever?

[imgreat95]

no. not go bankrupt... but a league can not exist without a CBA. You understand that part, I assume...

If no agreement is reached during the extension, there will be no salary cap in 2007. Lets say that, for example, Daniel SNyder... and Jerry Jones... Wayne Hizuenga, and 3 other teams spend $130 million on team payroll during 2007. After 2007, there is no CBA. In order to then implement a salary cap, those 6 teams would have to cut probably close to $20 million in payroll in order to get under the newly implemented cap. In order to cut payroll, you have to cut many many players. That becomes many many players without jobs. Players dont want to take the risk of being without jobs, so they would never agree to a salary cap after a non-capped year. Owners would never agree to NOT having a cap. Without this agreement, there would be no new CBA and there would be no more league.

[Dward00]

Well obviously I don't understand shit if I keep posting questions.

What do you mean there will be no league? Are you saying that every team is disbanding? Do you have any idea of what is going to happen?

I mean shit..........you're being vague.

[imgreat95]

no. you remember the season long strike in the NHL? The reason for that strike was because there was no CBA. After a year, they finally reached an agreement. Without a CBA, there can be no season. If they will never again agree on a salary cap, then there would never again be season. The tema would not disband... the league would just stop existing.

[imgreat95]

As for what is going to happen.. they have pushed the deadline back to Wednesday. So, not all hope is lost yet. The 8 owner negotiating team has accepted the players unions offer... and are taking it to the other owners tomorrow. I BELIEVE.. that 24 of the 32 owners have to accept it in order for it to go into effect. I believe that they will. It allows for a 59.9% of the total NFL revenue to go to the players. The union had been seeking 57% and the players 60%. I am surprised that the owners accepted that. So, it looks like this point may end up being moot.... but there is still that chance that it wont.

[Dward00]

Oh for the love of god. So they'll go on strike in 2 years. That doesn't mean the NFL is kaput. It's not like this hasn't happened before.

[Dward00]

er............that post was worst case scenario.

[imgreat95]

no.. its not that they will go on stirke in 2 years. There will be NOTHING TO STRIKE AGAINST!! there is no labor agreement. It is the belief of many that after an uncapped year, the 2 sides would never EVER again agree on a new CBA. We're not talking about a strike here. We are talking about a 100% complete and total impasse.

[Dward00]

This is an interesting article:


The Rant
Strike might be best thing for mediocre NFL
Posted: Friday March 3, 2006 12:11PM; Updated: Friday March 3, 2006 1:50PM



NFL Team Wristwatches
Quality wristwatches with your favorite NFL team logos and colors from Gametime. Men's,...
memorylanesports.com

NFL Watches - All Teams Available
Tailgate Town has NFL watches for every NFL team. A Universal Shopping store, Tailgate...
www.universalshopping.com

NFL Watches at FatLens.com
Find great deals on watches, clothing and accessories from all your favorite stores in...
www.fatlens.com

Score NFL Watches at FansEdge
An online sports store selling a complete line-up of NFL, NBA, NHL, MLB and NCAA...
www.fansedge.com



MAILBAG

Submit a comment or question for Stephen.
Your name:

Your e-mail address:

Your home town:

Enter your question:




So this is showdown weekend for the NFL and its union, and if the two sides can't figure out a way to extend their collective bargaining agreement there might be a work stoppage... in 2008. What drama. I haven't figured out all the details of our latest gripping sports labor spat, but I have only one question: If next season will be played under a salary cap no matter what happens this weekend, is there any way NFL players can go on strike, say, tomorrow?

Having the NFL go dark for a year or two might be more entertaining than the dreck the league has foisted upon fans in the salary cap era. Yes, the NFL is the economic model the NHL, NBA and MLB aspire to-it has cost certainty, a passive union, rich owners and financially thriving franchises in every corner of the country. That's enough to whip accountants and labor lawyers into a frenzy every Sunday. But football fans -- the ones who wipe off their face paint long enough to take a clear look at what they're watching, anyway -- know that the NFL is excruciatingly dull to watch.

It's not quite the pre-lockout NHL, but it's close. Talent is diluted, and players are little more than interchangeable parts who can shift seamlessly from one team to another. There are too many franchises, and too few of them have a distinct personality, style or edge. The league likes to call that parity. I call it a league where everyone is equally mediocre.

The players union has a chance to help fix those problems, and maybe even make some money for itself in the process: It should hold strong and send the NFL salary cap into extinction. (Of course, holding strong on this or any other issue would be a first for the players union.) Losing the cap wouldn't kill competitive balance, especially if the owners continue to share revenue. Yes, owners like Jerry Jones might spend like madmen, but sophisticated fans know by now that financial resources alone don't guarantee success in any sport. Besides, the league is so successful, so awash in cash, that Jones wouldn't be the only owner writing checks. The ones who spend wisely (surely there's a football version of Billy Beane out there) are the ones who will win.

A capless league won't eliminate all the factors that drain the life out of the league -- control-freak coaches, for example -- but it might make things more entertaining. And, as teams concentrate on talent instead of denuding their rosters with salary cap cuts, we might get to see some football worth watching too.

[imgreat95]

I think that article is crap. No offense because I know you didnt write it.

[Dward00]

That's okay. Here's another one:

NFL heads for uncharted territory
Lack of labor deal will have big effect on free agency
Posted: Wednesday March 1, 2006 6:23PM; Updated: Thursday March 2, 2006 4:46PM


The Broncos released leading rusher Mike Anderson in a salary-cap related move on Wednesday.
Rick Stewart/Getty Images
MAILBAG


SI.com asked Peter King eight questions about the NFL's inability to complete the collective bargaining agreement as free agency rapidly approaches.

SI.com: Where do we stand on the NFL labor agreement as of right now?

KING: You got a glimpse of the future late Wednesday afternoon when Denver cut three players integral to its recent success: DL Trevor Pryce, RB Mike Anderson and TE Jeb Putzier. This is an obvious indication that the NFL isn't going to make a deal with the players because Denver had to trim significant money from its 2006 salary-cap figure. If the owners had been able to make a deal with the players, the cap number would have been about $10 million higher than it's going to be -- probably about $95 million. So Denver becomes first team to puts its cards on the table and show what the new reality in the NFL is going to be like without a collective-bargaining agreement.

SI.com: Why is there a potential $10 million difference in the 2006 salary-cap number?

KING: Because the players want approximately 60 percent of all football revenue. That includes luxury boxes, local TV and radio rights and heretofore other premium dollars that have not been shared. The league is offering about 56.2 percent of all football revenue. The $10 million difference is the approximate difference in what the NFL would be giving the players if the two sides could reach a new labor agreement.

SI.com: How did it get to this point?

KING: As the NFL had tremendous prosperity in the 1990s, the value of franchises rose dramatically. When Bob McNair paid approximately $800 million to field a new team and stadium in Houston, owners were giddy the value of franchises had skyrocketed that high. But the flip side of that bonanza is being felt now. When someone puts down $800 million to buy a team, he doesn't take it out of his wallet. he has to borrow a good deal of the money. So an owner like McNair, as well as several others who bought franchises recently, have had to work extremely hard to raise revenue aside from the ticket sales and television rights fees all teams share. McNair has to sell luxury suites and use that money to help pay his debt. So players see all this money coming into Houston and say we want a bigger piece of the pie. McNair says "Whoa, I have to pay this massive debt. We already share enough money with you." And that has been one of the big problems that just can't get solved: How much from the multi-millions for premium seating should players be able to get their hands on? The two sides just can't agree on a number.

SI.com: What do the next few days hold?

KING: There isn't a last-second deal with the players in place and I have little hope that there will be. I expect that figure to come in at around $95 million. Even though that will be a healthy increase over the 2005 of $85 million, it won't be enough to help teams who were counting on a significantly higher cap number for the year.

SI.com: Why should any of us really care about this?

KING: That's a good question. The 2006 season will be like every season we've had since the salary cap began in 1994. But the 2007 season will be an uncapped year, which means all players will have a chance to make more money than they would in a normal year. But the one thing that not enough fans are focusing on right now -- and I don't believe players are focusing on it either -- is that in this uncapped year, players will have to have six years of NFL service to become a free agent rather than the current four. That will limit the number of free agents out there significantly. The uncapped year won't be the bonanza that players might think.


SI.com: So no matter what, there's going to be football?

KING: Yes. I heard one radio host breathlessly say Wednesday, "The NFL is on the verge of financial catastrophe." Silly rhetoric. Yes, the NFL has been the model sports league since adopting free agency with a cap 12 years ago. But if there's no cap, life will go on and football will be played.

SI.com: Are you saying that the NFL is not going to become like baseball, with tremendous difference in teams' ability to put competitive teams on the field?

KING: That's exactly what I'm saying. In baseball, the Yankees can spend $210 million on players, while a team in its own division, Tampa Bay, spends about $35 million. In the NFL, even if Daniel Snyder takes in $300 million over the course of the year and buys up five premier free agents every year, even the teams at the bottom of the financial totem pole -- e.g., Buffalo, Jacksonville -- will have $160 to $170 million of gross revenue to play with. Obviously, it won't be as egalitarian a system as the one the league has now. And it won't be as good a system, but we're not headed for any sort of football Armageddon. And don't let anyone tell you differently.

SI.com: How will this affect free agency?

KING: Free agency kicks off at 12:01 a.m. EST on Friday. And if there isn't a new deal, it will severely limit the amount of money this year's free-agent crop can earn. Too many teams have to make drastic cuts simply to get to the cap number, never mind spending additional money on free agents. In other words, it's a very bad year for Shaun Alexander to be looking for a six-year, $50 million contract. As I wrote in Monday Morning QB this week, only four teams -- Minnesota, Cleveland, Arizona and Green Bay -- have more than $20 million to spend in free agency this year. And so those teams could be shopping at Neiman Marcus and paying Target prices.

[Dward00]

OMG let me highlight a quote out of that article:

[COLOR="Red"]KING: That's exactly what I'm saying. In baseball, the Yankees can spend $210 million on players, while a team in its own division, Tampa Bay, spends about $35 million. In the NFL, even if Daniel Snyder takes in $300 million over the course of the year and buys up five premier free agents every year, even the teams at the bottom of the financial totem pole -- e.g., Buffalo, Jacksonville -- will have $160 to $170 million of gross revenue to play with. Obviously, it won't be as egalitarian a system as the one the league has now. And it won't be as good a system, but we're not headed for any sort of football Armageddon. And don't let anyone tell you differently.
.

Own'd by Peter King?

[imgreat95]

I disagree with Peter King. I think it is not even close to being that simple. Owners will not allow a league with no salary cap, I dont believe.

[Dward00]

:( You can't disagree with Peter King. He's been writing for sports illustrated for like 30 years or something. :(

[imgreat95]

haha... and that means what?? That his opinion is better than mine?? That he is a genius or something?? He picked the Colts to win the Super Bowl. I disagreed with him then, too. Have been disagreeing with him for years.

[Dward00]

Shit dude.........It's Peter 'frikking' King. You're about to make me go off-topic on a whole slew of things you don't want me to........lol.

[imgreat95]

im failing to get your point...

[Dward00]

My point is it's: Sports Illustrated alum Peter King vs. crazy sports dude in Barkeyville, Pa. :wedgie:

[Dward00]

It's his job to know what the hell is supposed to happen in the NFL, and if he wasn't good at it he would have never lasted 30 years. People like you and me watch football once a week on Sundays for crying out load!!! :)

[imgreat95]

which still means nothing to me... because it is not just me who disagrees with him. I could find hundreds of writers even w ho disagree... Just becaue someone writes for Sports illustrated does not mean that he knows everything.

[imgreat95]

It's his job to know what the hell is supposed to happen in the NFL, and if he wasn't good at it he would have never lasted 30 years. People like you and me watch football once a week on Sundays for crying out load!!! :)


You have no idea how much I watch football... or when and how and what I know about it and labor agreements. You know nothing about my past and or my education.

But, for the sake of discussion, Chris Mortenson, who also is paid to write and talk EXCLUSIVELY about football has said the same things that I have all week long. So who is right?? No one knows ... because no one knows what the NFLPA and the NFL owners will be thinking in 2 years if it were to come to it.

[Dward00]

Alright I want to say I'm getting a kick out of this, and I'm happy we can have this discussion first. :)

Now I want to say you freaked me out at first. :angry:

Now my conclusion: I don't believe it's even remotely possible a multi-billion dollar sports business league is going to blink out of existence in 2008. That just plain sounds nutty to me. There is WAY too much money laying on the table for any1 to let that happen. The NFL is extremely successful if you haven't noticed.

[Dward00]

And yes........that's why I had to ask you all those questions. Because I couldn't believe you were saying what you were saying. :coffee

[imgreat95]

There is a way it could happen, though... It likely wont happen, because i think that an agreement will be reached before Wednesday. The scenerio that I outlined, however, could VERY easily happen. Just because it is a multi-billion dollar industry doesnt not mean much. Those types of industries have cr umbled before.... and I am sure they will again inthe future.

[Dward00]

Okay but it's not going to happen so don't worry about it. And shame on you for freaking me out. :spam:

[imgreat95]

when i first started this thread, there had been no extension to the deadline... so it remained a strong possibility.

[Dward00]

Hehe get some sleep

[imgreat95]

im not tired... but i do have a lot of packing to do tomorrow.

[rockin500]

peter king is one of the biggest douche bags who covers the NFL. I can and will disagree with that pompous blowhard.

[PissedPrincess]

I love Peter King. He is correct. I still think a deal gets done though.

[imgreat95]

I dont have an opinion on King. Some of his stuff I like, some of it is garbage. Just like with ANY sportswriter. I think that now a deal WILL get done... but before the deadline was extended, I was pretty sure that it wouldnt.

There is, however, still one major sticking point that I do not know if the owners will accept. They want it to be so that if a team goes over the spending limit one season, that their cap number would be adjusted up the following season. Isnt that sort of like not even having a cap?

[Durango53]

I just skimmed over this whole thread right quick. But Shawn answer me this. If the cap number was adjusted the following season was they going to add that number on to the total teams could spend or was they going to take that money away from the team?

[imgreat95]

they would add the number. Meaning that it would not be a universal salary cap. Bob Kraft is the biggest pusher for this right now.

Lets say in one season, the Cap is $100 million. The Cowboys spend $112 million. The Dolphins spend $99 million. The next season, the cap is raised to $105 million. The DOlphins would still only be allowed to spend $105 million... but the Cowboys would be able to spend maybe $115 million. Its sort of a joke, really.

[Durango53]

Got ya... ;)

[Baseball Guru]

they would add the number. Meaning that it would not be a universal salary cap. Bob Kraft is the biggest pusher for this right now.

Lets say in one season, the Cap is $100 million. The Cowboys spend $112 million. The Dolphins spend $99 million. The next season, the cap is raised to $105 million. The DOlphins would still only be allowed to spend $105 million... but the Cowboys would be able to spend maybe $115 million. Its sort of a joke, really.


Yeah really... Thats stupid!

[Dward00]

peter king is one of the biggest douche bags who covers the NFL. I can and will disagree with that pompous blowhard.

Peter King > You

:thumbsup:

[rockin500]

Peter King > You

:thumbsup:
intelligent. :hmm:

[rockin500]

they would add the number. Meaning that it would not be a universal salary cap. Bob Kraft is the biggest pusher for this right now.

Lets say in one season, the Cap is $100 million. The Cowboys spend $112 million. The Dolphins spend $99 million. The next season, the cap is raised to $105 million. The DOlphins would still only be allowed to spend $105 million... but the Cowboys would be able to spend maybe $115 million. Its sort of a joke, really.
which totally defeats the purpose of a cap, really.

[Dward00]

I don't care whatsoever as long as they get it done.

[Dward00]

I love Peter King. He is correct. I still think a deal gets done though.

Thank you. A SANE person. :love2:

[Baseball Guru]

Screw the NFL!!

Bring back the XFL:thumbsup:

HeHateMe was my favorite:thumbsup:

;)

[Thedatch]

Peter King > You

:thumbsup:

I haven't read this thread at all...because I hate getting into the money thing with sports. It just makes me stop watching, because I realize how greedy most of the players are.

but those comments remind me of BigR...he had those greater than, lesser than posts all the time. kind of annoying.

smh?

[Dward00]

I haven't read this thread at all...because I hate getting into the money thing with sports. It just makes me stop watching, because I realize how greedy most of the players are.

but those comments remind me of BigR...he had those greater than, lesser than posts all the time. kind of annoying.

smh?

Well actually I didn't mean it like that. In my oppinion Peter King > Everybody on these football forums. It shouldn't annoy you. Do you think you're better then a professional sports writer for the greatest sports mag in US history that's been doing it for 30 years? Because I sure don't. I'd feel like a complete asshole if I thought I was.

Btw I've read a few articles that supported this theory that the NFL was gonna disappear in 2008. The sports writers were either no-names, or non-reputable. I gave this idea credence in the beginning. I did not come into this thread guns blasting, and shooting my mouth off. I've done enough research to feel 100% confident with w/e I've said.

In other words, no I am not BigR...........thank you.

[Dward00]

Screw the NFL!!

Bring back the XFL:thumbsup:

HeHateMe was my favorite:thumbsup:

;)

Yea actually if the NFL dissappeared and all the NFL players went to a revamped xfl or arena football league that would kick major ass.

EDIT: See how silly that sounds? Not gonna happen guys....give it a rest.

[imgreat95]

I think we pretty much did give it a rest when the extension was announced, d ont oyu think?? ?

[Dward00]

Well I can already tell you the proposed deal won't go through. Extension or no extension. I'm not sure what's going to happen but i'm pretty darn sure it's not going to be NFL armegeddon.

[Royce]

Screw the XFL, bring back the XFL Cheerleaders.

[Dward00]

http://ia300121.us.archive.org/1/items/Chuck/chuck_norris.jpg

Chuck Norris can taste lies.

[rockin500]

breaking news via ESPN: Deal is approved by ESPN. now the owners just have to figure out their own figures.

good news and it only required 28 hours of owners meetings (well, not counting sleep time)

[Dward00]

I can't believe they passed the deal. I was fo sho it wasn't gonna. Free Agency starts tonight at midnight.

[00_Agent]

I'm pretty sure that free agency doesn't start until Saturday.

At any rate, this is great, great, great news. I didn't think that the NFL would just disappear after 2007, but even if it didn't, it would have been horrible. They would NEVER have gotten the salary cap back. Anyone who thinks that would not have been a complete disaster for the league is living on another planet. Look what the NHL had to go through to get back to sanity. And of course, there is MLB, which is just about competely ruined (their new CBA is a joke; the players RUN the league).

I'd like to address another couple of things as long as I'm here. I don't like SI. I think it's a rag, and it would be the worst sports mag in the country if ESPN the magazine didn't exist. King is just another guy who writes about stuff. Ward, you can't tell me there are no reporters you disagree with. Are you trying to say that you take whatever anybody says as sooth just because they may have been at it for a while? I don't have anything against King, but it doesn't mean he can't be wrong. And there are a bunch of reporters who don't know anything (ahem, Skip Bayless). Am I supposed to listen to them because they are "professionals?" Everybody I know disagrees with them all the time. What about when they argue with each other? By your logic, if they have both been a sports reporter for a while, there is no way to settle the dispute.

Actually, I do have something against King now - any reporter who thinks this would have been good for the league is incompetent and should be fired, I don't care if their name is Buck, or Berman, or Michaels, or Costas or whoever.

I hate to keep going, but I wanted to say that the owners who were coming up with those kinds of proposals are nuts, and I know Kraft and Jones were part of that faction. I don't understand why they were so intent on destroying the CBA that made the NFL the most successful, competitive pro sport in the country. Thank god Rooney has his priorities in order, or I would feel bad rooting for my Steelers.

00

[Dward00]

I'm pretty sure that free agency doesn't start until Saturday.

At any rate, this is great, great, great news. I didn't think that the NFL would just disappear after 2007, but even if it didn't, it would have been horrible. They would NEVER have gotten the salary cap back. Anyone who thinks that would not have been a complete disaster for the league is living on another planet. Look what the NHL had to go through to get back to sanity. And of course, there is MLB, which is just about competely ruined (their new CBA is a joke; the players RUN the league).

I'd like to address another couple of things as long as I'm here. I don't like SI. I think it's a rag, and it would be the worst sports mag in the country if ESPN the magazine didn't exist. King is just another guy who writes about stuff. Ward, you can't tell me there are no reporters you disagree with. Are you trying to say that you take whatever anybody says as sooth just because they may have been at it for a while? I don't have anything against King, but it doesn't mean he can't be wrong. And there are a bunch of reporters who don't know anything (ahem, Skip Bayless). Am I supposed to listen to them because they are "professionals?" Everybody I know disagrees with them all the time. What about when they argue with each other? By your logic, if they have both been a sports reporter for a while, there is no way to settle the dispute.

Actually, I do have something against King now - any reporter who thinks this would have been good for the league is incompetent and should be fired, I don't care if their name is Buck, or Berman, or Michaels, or Costas or whoever.

I hate to keep going, but I wanted to say that the owners who were coming up with those kinds of proposals are nuts, and I know Kraft and Jones were part of that faction. I don't understand why they were so intent on destroying the CBA that made the NFL the most successful, competitive pro sport in the country. Thank god Rooney has his priorities in order, or I would feel bad rooting for my Steelers.

00

I'm an extreme independent thinker if you haven't noticed yet. Anyways I think this is a politics issue. I'd hate to say what I feel like saying because I know it would piss most of you guys off, and I don't want to do that. I'd rather just subliminally get my point across. :cool:

I respect Sports Illustrated. I respect Peter King, and I respected his take on this. I'm sure he was probably very correct in his statement, but you know what? There's no use to argue about it because we'll never know now.

Who do I disagree with? Probably Dr. Z. I think he's just a bitter old fart with his own personal agenda, and most of his information is biased. But I'm sure he'd probably be the first one to agree with me about that. :clap:

[imgreat95]

My problem with Peter King is that he spends so much time jumping back and forth on issues. He will contradict himself from one week to the next if he thinks that it will g et people reading his garbage.

[Dward00]

My problem with Peter King is that he spends so much time jumping back and forth on issues. He will contradict himself from one week to the next if he thinks that it will g et people reading his garbage.

I don't believe that's the reason why. I think he's realistic. If you can find 1 person in the world who can predict the future then please give him my phone number.

[rockin500]

My problem with Peter King is that he spends so much time jumping back and forth on issues. He will contradict himself from one week to the next if he thinks that it will g et people reading his garbage.
exactly. He is Jay Mariotti of SI.

that and he is too often wrong in his information.

[Dward00]

exactly. He is Jay Mariotti of SI.

that and he is too often wrong in his information.

Well first of all this is off-topic, but 2nd of all if you're going to come in here saying something like that then you should definitely have some information to back it up.

[Dward00]

I don't know why you guys expect a sports writer to be right 100% of the time though.

[imgreat95]

its not about being right. Its about the stories he writes. Sportwriting isnt always about being right or wrong. He changes his opinion from week to week.

You contradict yourself... You say that you believe it because it is Peter King and he is right because he is a sports writer for 30 years with SI... then you say that sportswriters arent always right. So which is it?

[Dward00]

This is stupid. If there's anything he's wrong about it's usually the stuff that's hard to predict anyways...........like who is going to win a superbowl during the offseason. Are you going to label all the sportswriters who predicted the vikings to win the SB last year as retards? Just forget it.....

I can tell when somebody knows what they're talking about, but especially in this matter. From what I've read from different writers over the years I've come to notice that King usually knows whats happening in the NFL business world. He probably has a number of inside sources. Heck he probably has the NFL commish on his speed-dial.

EDIT: but seriously this is off-topic. ther's no reason to squabble about it because the NFL signed a deal.

[imgreat95]

im not talking about making a prediction. I am talking about things such as right at the the end of last season when he said that the Steelers wo uld never win a Super Bowl under Bill Cowher.... then at the end of this season, when he wrote an "I knew all along they could do it" article. He writes what people want to hear and what is the "flavor of the moment..."

[00_Agent]

How can this be off topic? YOU brought it up!

00