The Fujitas - "The game that used and abused them"

saintfan · 03-23-2011, 04:04 PM

Originally Posted by ALLSAINTS66

I just think it's weird that the players keep getting blamed for this.
From what I understand, there already WAS an agreement, and the
owners opted to back out of it early. Now the players are being
portrayed as greedy because they're not agreeing to a sudden
new deal.

I think of it like I agreed with payments to a car company
for a car, and partway before my loan was up, they opted out
of the contract, locked me out of my car, and told me I have to
give them more money to be able to use it again. I know a job
isn't a car, but still, there WAS already a contract in place!

Fujita's wife aside, my sympathy still falls squarely with the players.

And as for Benson... oh, you mean the Benson that wanted to
move the Saints to Texas when the city was still underwater?
Yeah. I got no sympapthy for that guy. None whatsoever.
If it weren't for the NFL and the Commish, he would have
done it, too. I dont' care HOW hard he had to work to get
where he is. I never forget that if he'd've gotten what he
wanted, they'd be the San Antonio Saints.

I guess I'm just an oldschool bluecollar kinda gal. I side
squarely with the Unions, the players, and the working man.
Owners and management can all go to h#LL in my book.

You mean when a player signs a contract he should honor that contract? No more holding out for more money? No more *****ing to the media about how he needs more dime?

I'm with you. When you agree with someone on something you stick to it. As Danno stated, the owners aren't doing anything that wasn't provided them in the contract. And I'm for old school Unions too, which is, sadly, not what most unions are today.

Oh and Benson didn't want to move the team. He's one savvy old man. He got precisely what he wanted at the end of the day. Let's not forget his involvement in keeping the team in New Orleans to begin with.

I'm old school too. There is right and there is wrong on both sides of this or any disagreement, but you can't simply disregard what Fujita's wife is saying. It's part of the ploy. It's part of the marketing. It's part of the effort by the players to make us think they go through hell and that they are not fairly compensated. They are MORE than fairly compensated even if you add two more games to their season (something I'm against by the way).

At the end of the day, the owners own and the players play. I don't get to ask my boss to see the books. Neither do you. We'd both of us be out of a job if we did.

Memnoch_TP · 03-24-2011, 08:46 AM

Originally Posted by saintfan

You mean when a player signs a contract he should honor that contract? No more holding out for more money? No more *****ing to the media about how he needs more dime?

I would agree with your point if the contracts that they are cornered into signing weren't so one sided. If the owners were obligated to honor a contract as well, I would agree more. As it is, 4 years is 4 years for the players, but the owners can sign that contract and then cut you before the ink dries.

And there are more specific cases I can't fault the players for either. Like Vincent Jackson. The best WR his team has had in years, hugely talented, highly successful, one of the most productive players on the team... But he had no star power when he signed his contract, and got a scrub contract and then played like an all-pro. I don't blame him for finally saying "Screw this, the kicker makes 3 times more money than I do, my 3rd string backup makes twice the money I do, pay me!".

Originally Posted by saintfan

And I'm for old school Unions too, which is, sadly, not what most unions are today.

I'm totally with you there. When the unions were created they were sorely needed. Now they are a big part of what is hindering this country. Naturally, there are still unions that are exceptions to this, but for the most part...

Originally Posted by saintfan

At the end of the day, the owners own and the players play. I don't get to ask my boss to see the books. Neither do you. We'd both of us be out of a job if we did.

What you or I get to do is totally irrelevant. It should not, and does not, have any bearing on the NFL players and owners because neither your nor I are as indispensable to our bosses as the NFL players are to the NFL.

SAINT_MICHAEL · 03-24-2011, 11:36 AM

Originally Posted by Memnoch_TP

What you or I get to do is totally irrelevant. It should not, and does not, have any bearing on the NFL players and owners because neither your nor I are as indispensable to our bosses as the NFL players are to the NFL.

When the players and their families try to play the sympathy card and make themselves out to be simple down home-folks who sacrifice their blood, sweat, and tears to play a game they love without being properly compensated for, then it is relevant. They are blatantly and unashamedly shopping for public support with this letter, so if they are going to try and paint themselves as of the common fan, then the common fan has the right to make these comparisons.

I also disagree that the players are not indispensable. This is the same egotistical stance that the players are taking and thereby making the mistake of thinking they are bigger than the game. Let's face it, we don't follow the Saints because of Drew Brees, we follow them because they are the New Orleans Saints

The fact is that football is bigger than it ever has been. In college, TV ratings are good for even lesser ranked schools and through the roof for top ten programs. People are dying to watch football these days.

If the owners could somehow "wipe the slate clean" and cancel all the contracts for current players, then they cold hold open try-outs to all the Arena League, UFL, and CFL players. I would bet this "new" league would be viable and people would watch it if there was no NFL to fall back on. I’d even bet that if given the choice between sticking by the current NFL players and thereby not being able to play professional football for a living or being the first stars of a “new” NFL system that the current college players would join as well.

The college players joining might be a dream, but my point is the NFL and the teams they include are much more historically important to the fans than the individual players who have worn the uniforms. Players come and go, but the colors never change (unless you are the Tampa Bay Bucs).

lynwood · 03-24-2011, 12:33 PM

Originally Posted by SAINT_MICHAEL

When the players and their families try to play the sympathy card and make themselves out to be simple down home-folks who sacrifice their blood, sweat, and tears to play a game they love without being properly compensated for, then it is relevant. They are blatantly and unashamedly shopping for public support with this letter, so if they are going to try and paint themselves as of the common fan, then the common fan has the right to make these comparisons.

I also disagree that the players are not indispensable. This is the same egotistical stance that the players are taking and thereby making the mistake of thinking they are bigger than the game. Let's face it, we don't follow the Saints because of Drew Brees, we follow them because they are the New Orleans Saints

The fact is that football is bigger than it ever has been. In college, TV ratings are good for even lesser ranked schools and through the roof for top ten programs. People are dying to watch football these days.

If the owners could somehow "wipe the slate clean" and cancel all the contracts for current players, then they cold hold open try-outs to all the Arena League, UFL, and CFL players. I would bet this "new" league would be viable and people would watch it if there was no NFL to fall back on. I’d even bet that if given the choice between sticking by the current NFL players and thereby not being able to play professional football for a living or being the first stars of a “new” NFL system that the current college players would join as well.

The college players joining might be a dream, but my point is the NFL and the teams they include are much more historically important to the fans than the individual players who have worn the uniforms. Players come and go, but the colors never change (unless you are the Tampa Bay Bucs).

Good post and to the point!

Memnoch_TP · 03-24-2011, 08:03 PM

Originally Posted by SAINT_MICHAEL

When the players and their families try to play the sympathy card and make themselves out to be simple down home-folks who sacrifice their blood, sweat, and tears to play a game they love without being properly compensated for, then it is relevant. They are blatantly and unashamedly shopping for public support with this letter, so if they are going to try and paint themselves as of the common fan, then the common fan has the right to make these comparisons.

Fujita's wife's letter pissed me off too. And I didn't say you didn't have the right to make those comparisons, just that they are bad comparisons that don't apply. Which is true. You can say the earth is flat till you are blue in the face, too. It doesn't make it so.

Originally Posted by SAINT_MICHAEL

I also disagree that the players are not indispensable. This is the same egotistical stance that the players are taking and thereby making the mistake of thinking they are bigger than the game. Let's face it, we don't follow the Saints because of Drew Brees, we follow them because they are the New Orleans Saints.

Actually... When we signed Drew Brees season ticket sales spiked. Weeks later when we drafted Reggie season tickets were sold out. I can't tell you the last time this happened, but I know it has been a long damn time.

So, I'm sorry, but all I have to dispute that statement with are indisputable facts. Hard cold numbers that say before Drew Brees played a single down for the Saints he filled more seats than Aaron Brooks.

You can call it an egotistical stance, fine. Maybe it is egotistical, but that does NOT make it incorrect.

Originally Posted by SAINT_MICHAEL

...my point is the NFL and the teams they include are much more historically important to the fans than the individual players who have worn the uniforms. Players come and go, but the colors never change (unless you are the Tampa Bay Bucs).

True, but then again, it is the great players that make the unforgettable moments, but the bad players make the eras you want to forget about.

I mean, really, do you cherish the Aaron Brooks years and the Bobby Hebert years as much as the Drew Brees years or the Archie Manning years?

Do you think people from Pittsburgh get puffed up with Steeler Pride at the mention of Cordell Stewart? Nope. Now mention Terry Bradshaw. Yup, they puffed.

If the quality of the players made no difference then every team would sell out every seat in every game. I haven't seen a blackout in New Orleans since, hmm... Since Aaron Brooks was the QB.

saintfan · 03-24-2011, 08:50 PM

Originally Posted by Memnoch_TP

I mean, really, do you cherish the Aaron Brooks years and the Bobby Hebert years as much as the Drew Brees years or the Archie Manning years?

Yes. I certainly do. And the Billy Joe's and the Everette's too. And I don't remember any blackouts during Brooks' time with the team, but I could be wrong.

Look, it's a combination of players and geography for most people, and we latch on to players and loathe others, but we still live and die by what the 'team' does on Sunday. I'll be bleeding Black and Gold long after Drew retires. So will you. That's part of what makes it so popular - the fact that we'd latch on to replacement players too if they played long enough. That's just the nature of the beast. And I think that's the argument.

And I agree with Saint_Michael 100%. The comparisons are completely valid. Why shouldn't they be?

SAINT_MICHAEL · 03-25-2011, 12:54 PM

Originally Posted by Memnoch_TP

Fujita's wife's letter pissed me off too. And I didn't say you didn't have the right to make those comparisons, just that they are bad comparisons that don't apply. Which is true. You can say the earth is flat till you are blue in the face, too. It doesn't make it so.

Just like you saying it is a bad comparison doesn't make it so. It is apt. When they want to play the role of common man, then they have to play by the rules of the common man. If they don't want to, then say something like "Hey we are all wealthy individuals here who are dealing with money you normal fans can't understand. We'll get this worked out, but until then just sit tight"? But don't try to play it both ways. Why you seem to think that just because they make more money they get to create a new set of rules is beyond me.

Originally Posted by Memnoch_TP

Actually... When we signed Drew Brees season ticket sales spiked. Weeks later when we drafted Reggie season tickets were sold out. I can't tell you the last time this happened, but I know it has been a long damn time.

So, I'm sorry, but all I have to dispute that statement with are indisputable facts. Hard cold numbers that say before Drew Brees played a single down for the Saints he filled more seats than Aaron Brooks.

You can call it an egotistical stance, fine. Maybe it is egotistical, but that does NOT make it incorrect.

So, you think that because of the “indisputable fact” the Saints had a ticket spike when Drew and Reggie joined the team it proves your point about the players being indispensable? That’s a jump! Back in 1987 the players thought they were indispensable too. After watching replacement players fill their shoes for three games, they quickly realized that people would indeed watch without them and their big work stopping strike lasted all of 24 days. There is your indisputable fact. And let’s think about it…is football less or more popular than it was in 1987? You can say what you want to about MLB and NHL strikes hurting the sports, but they were not as strong as football is now. When Sundays and Monday nights come rolling around in October, people will watch football if it’s on no matter if it’s drew Tom Brady QBing or not.

Originally Posted by Memnoch_TP

True, but then again, it is the great players that make the unforgettable moments, but the bad players make the eras you want to forget about.

I mean, really, do you cherish the Aaron Brooks years and the Bobby Hebert years as much as the Drew Brees years or the Archie Manning years?

Do you think people from Pittsburgh get puffed up with Steeler Pride at the mention of Cordell Stewart? Nope. Now mention Terry Bradshaw. Yup, they puffed.

If the quality of the players made no difference then every team would sell out every seat in every game. I haven't seen a blackout in New Orleans since, hmm... Since Aaron Brooks was the QB.

The rough moments may not be as cherished as the good ones, but they were and are still watched and that is the point. You can’t enjoy the good times without having the bad times to compare them to.

saintfan · 03-24-2011, 01:58 PM

Originally Posted by Memnoch_TP

I would agree with your point if the contracts that they are cornered into signing weren't so one sided. If the owners were obligated to honor a contract as well, I would agree more. As it is, 4 years is 4 years for the players, but the owners can sign that contract and then cut you before the ink dries.

And there are more specific cases I can't fault the players for either. Like Vincent Jackson. The best WR his team has had in years, hugely talented, highly successful, one of the most productive players on the team... But he had no star power when he signed his contract, and got a scrub contract and then played like an all-pro. I don't blame him for finally saying "Screw this, the kicker makes 3 times more money than I do, my 3rd string backup makes twice the money I do, pay me!".

I'm totally with you there. When the unions were created they were sorely needed. Now they are a big part of what is hindering this country. Naturally, there are still unions that are exceptions to this, but for the most part...

What you or I get to do is totally irrelevant. It should not, and does not, have any bearing on the NFL players and owners because neither your nor I are as indispensable to our bosses as the NFL players are to the NFL.

Lets discuss contracts. I know, you know, the owners know, and the player is well aware (through his agent if he's not savvy enough on his own) how things work. They negotiate these contracts with that in mind. It isn't like they get blind-sided. They aren't cornered into a damn thing. In my opinion that is ludicrous. Wouldn't either of us like to sign on with employer "X" and get half-a-mil before we stepped foot in the door? Damn skippy.

The fact is just about every damn one of them is over payed right out of college - and yes, even the league minimum guys. Even the league minimum guys are making enough to maintain two (or more) residences. Even the league minimum guys are through with their pay in to social security before the season even starts, and before they've played a down. Even the league minimum guys can afford to buy their cars outright. Even the league minimum guys go to work in first-class facilities and enjoy Cadillac heal care plans most people can only dream about. The rest of them sign deals worth many millions of dollars before they play their first down in the NFL. Yes, some guys out play their deals. You know what? I out performed my hiring position with Google. In three years I was promoted twice, but I had to wait until the promotion period before I could 'negotiate'. That's how it works in the 'real' world. Why should the NFL be excluded from the real world?

If these players think they're gonna out play their deals, then they should write a renegotiation clause into their contracts. If the owners go for it great, but if they don't, well, that's great too. The player is free to not sign, not play, and not get wealthy. Of course the players don't do this, because it's too risky. They might suck. This is why they hold out (and hold teams ransom) for every last penny they can get. It happens every summer, and it'll happen again this summer assuming there is actually any football.

The owners have to be able to protect themselves too. The players don't seem to get this. The owners have a right to make money too. Lots of it. They are the owners. That's the way it works.

Memnoch_TP · 03-24-2011, 09:33 PM

Originally Posted by saintfan

That's how it works in the 'real' world. Why should the NFL be excluded from the real world?

You guys seem to think I am arguing philosophy. I am arguing reality.

Why the NFL should or should not be excluded from the "real world" is irrelevant.

The fact is, the NFL IS excluded from the "real world".

When it comes to the philosophy, I can't even agree that they "should" be held to the same employment standards. They DO have a greater value to their business than the average employee has to their own employers. I'm just not down with communism. Everyone does not have the same value. If you have the leverage to make a better deal because of higher value, good on you.

saintfan · 03-24-2011, 11:41 PM

Originally Posted by Memnoch_TP

You guys seem to think I am arguing philosophy. I am arguing reality.

Why the NFL should or should not be excluded from the "real world" is irrelevant.

The fact is, the NFL IS excluded from the "real world".

When it comes to the philosophy, I can't even agree that they "should" be held to the same employment standards. They DO have a greater value to their business than the average employee has to their own employers. I'm just not down with communism. Everyone does not have the same value. If you have the leverage to make a better deal because of higher value, good on you.

That thinking is how Union labor got too big for its britches.

03-23-2011, 04:04 PM	#1
saintfan Donated Plasma Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: San Francisco, CA Posts: 18,556 Blog Entries: 5	Originally Posted by ALLSAINTS66 I just think it's weird that the players keep getting blamed for this. From what I understand, there already WAS an agreement, and the owners opted to back out of it early. Now the players are being portrayed as greedy because they're not agreeing to a sudden new deal. I think of it like I agreed with payments to a car company for a car, and partway before my loan was up, they opted out of the contract, locked me out of my car, and told me I have to give them more money to be able to use it again. I know a job isn't a car, but still, there WAS already a contract in place! Fujita's wife aside, my sympathy still falls squarely with the players. And as for Benson... oh, you mean the Benson that wanted to move the Saints to Texas when the city was still underwater? Yeah. I got no sympapthy for that guy. None whatsoever. If it weren't for the NFL and the Commish, he would have done it, too. I dont' care HOW hard he had to work to get where he is. I never forget that if he'd've gotten what he wanted, they'd be the San Antonio Saints. I guess I'm just an oldschool bluecollar kinda gal. I side squarely with the Unions, the players, and the working man. Owners and management can all go to h#LL in my book. You mean when a player signs a contract he should honor that contract? No more holding out for more money? No more *****ing to the media about how he needs more dime? I'm with you. When you agree with someone on something you stick to it. As Danno stated, the owners aren't doing anything that wasn't provided them in the contract. And I'm for old school Unions too, which is, sadly, not what most unions are today. Oh and Benson didn't want to move the team. He's one savvy old man. He got precisely what he wanted at the end of the day. Let's not forget his involvement in keeping the team in New Orleans to begin with. I'm old school too. There is right and there is wrong on both sides of this or any disagreement, but you can't simply disregard what Fujita's wife is saying. It's part of the ploy. It's part of the marketing. It's part of the effort by the players to make us think they go through hell and that they are not fairly compensated. They are MORE than fairly compensated even if you add two more games to their season (something I'm against by the way). At the end of the day, the owners own and the players play. I don't get to ask my boss to see the books. Neither do you. We'd both of us be out of a job if we did.
	C'mon Man...

03-24-2011, 08:46 AM	#2
Memnoch_TP Logic Troll Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Southern Louisiana Posts: 565	Originally Posted by saintfan You mean when a player signs a contract he should honor that contract? No more holding out for more money? No more ***ing to the media about how he needs more dime? I would agree with your point if the contracts that they are cornered into signing weren't so one sided. If the owners were obligated to honor a contract as well, I would agree more. As it is, 4 years is 4 years for the players, but the owners can sign that contract and then cut you before the ink dries. And there are more specific cases I can't fault the players for either. Like Vincent Jackson. The best WR his team has had in years, hugely talented, highly successful, one of the most productive players on the team... But he had no star power when he signed his contract, and got a scrub contract and then played like an all-pro. I don't blame him for finally saying "Screw this, the kicker makes 3 times more money than I do, my 3rd string backup makes twice the money I do, pay me!". Originally Posted by saintfan And I'm for old school Unions too, which is, sadly, not what most unions are today. I'm totally with you there. When the unions were created they were sorely needed. Now they are a big part of what is hindering this country. Naturally, there are still unions that are exceptions to this, but for the most part... Originally Posted by saintfan** At the end of the day, the owners own and the players play. I don't get to ask my boss to see the books. Neither do you. We'd both of us be out of a job if we did. What you or I get to do is totally irrelevant. It should not, and does not, have any bearing on the NFL players and owners because neither your nor I are as indispensable to our bosses as the NFL players are to the NFL.
	"Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so." -- Douglas Adams.

03-24-2011, 11:36 AM	#3
SAINT_MICHAEL 100th Post Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 446	Originally Posted by Memnoch_TP What you or I get to do is totally irrelevant. It should not, and does not, have any bearing on the NFL players and owners because neither your nor I are as indispensable to our bosses as the NFL players are to the NFL. When the players and their families try to play the sympathy card and make themselves out to be simple down home-folks who sacrifice their blood, sweat, and tears to play a game they love without being properly compensated for, then it is relevant. They are blatantly and unashamedly shopping for public support with this letter, so if they are going to try and paint themselves as of the common fan, then the common fan has the right to make these comparisons. I also disagree that the players are not indispensable. This is the same egotistical stance that the players are taking and thereby making the mistake of thinking they are bigger than the game. Let's face it, we don't follow the Saints because of Drew Brees, we follow them because they are the New Orleans Saints The fact is that football is bigger than it ever has been. In college, TV ratings are good for even lesser ranked schools and through the roof for top ten programs. People are dying to watch football these days. If the owners could somehow "wipe the slate clean" and cancel all the contracts for current players, then they cold hold open try-outs to all the Arena League, UFL, and CFL players. I would bet this "new" league would be viable and people would watch it if there was no NFL to fall back on. I’d even bet that if given the choice between sticking by the current NFL players and thereby not being able to play professional football for a living or being the first stars of a “new” NFL system that the current college players would join as well. The college players joining might be a dream, but my point is the NFL and the teams they include are much more historically important to the fans than the individual players who have worn the uniforms. Players come and go, but the colors never change (unless you are the Tampa Bay Bucs).
SAINT_MICHAEL 100th Post Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 446

03-24-2011, 12:33 PM	#4
lynwood 1000 Posts + Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Hockley, Tx Posts: 1,515	Originally Posted by SAINT_MICHAEL When the players and their families try to play the sympathy card and make themselves out to be simple down home-folks who sacrifice their blood, sweat, and tears to play a game they love without being properly compensated for, then it is relevant. They are blatantly and unashamedly shopping for public support with this letter, so if they are going to try and paint themselves as of the common fan, then the common fan has the right to make these comparisons. I also disagree that the players are not indispensable. This is the same egotistical stance that the players are taking and thereby making the mistake of thinking they are bigger than the game. Let's face it, we don't follow the Saints because of Drew Brees, we follow them because they are the New Orleans Saints The fact is that football is bigger than it ever has been. In college, TV ratings are good for even lesser ranked schools and through the roof for top ten programs. People are dying to watch football these days. If the owners could somehow "wipe the slate clean" and cancel all the contracts for current players, then they cold hold open try-outs to all the Arena League, UFL, and CFL players. I would bet this "new" league would be viable and people would watch it if there was no NFL to fall back on. I’d even bet that if given the choice between sticking by the current NFL players and thereby not being able to play professional football for a living or being the first stars of a “new” NFL system that the current college players would join as well. The college players joining might be a dream, but my point is the NFL and the teams they include are much more historically important to the fans than the individual players who have worn the uniforms. Players come and go, but the colors never change (unless you are the Tampa Bay Bucs). Good post and to the point!

03-24-2011, 08:03 PM	#5
Memnoch_TP Logic Troll Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Southern Louisiana Posts: 565	Originally Posted by SAINT_MICHAEL When the players and their families try to play the sympathy card and make themselves out to be simple down home-folks who sacrifice their blood, sweat, and tears to play a game they love without being properly compensated for, then it is relevant. They are blatantly and unashamedly shopping for public support with this letter, so if they are going to try and paint themselves as of the common fan, then the common fan has the right to make these comparisons. Fujita's wife's letter pissed me off too. And I didn't say you didn't have the right to make those comparisons, just that they are bad comparisons that don't apply. Which is true. You can say the earth is flat till you are blue in the face, too. It doesn't make it so. Originally Posted by SAINT_MICHAEL I also disagree that the players are not indispensable. This is the same egotistical stance that the players are taking and thereby making the mistake of thinking they are bigger than the game. Let's face it, we don't follow the Saints because of Drew Brees, we follow them because they are the New Orleans Saints. Actually... When we signed Drew Brees season ticket sales spiked. Weeks later when we drafted Reggie season tickets were sold out. I can't tell you the last time this happened, but I know it has been a long damn time. So, I'm sorry, but all I have to dispute that statement with are indisputable facts. Hard cold numbers that say before Drew Brees played a single down for the Saints he filled more seats than Aaron Brooks. You can call it an egotistical stance, fine. Maybe it is egotistical, but that does NOT make it incorrect. Originally Posted by SAINT_MICHAEL ...my point is the NFL and the teams they include are much more historically important to the fans than the individual players who have worn the uniforms. Players come and go, but the colors never change (unless you are the Tampa Bay Bucs). True, but then again, it is the great players that make the unforgettable moments, but the bad players make the eras you want to forget about. I mean, really, do you cherish the Aaron Brooks years and the Bobby Hebert years as much as the Drew Brees years or the Archie Manning years? Do you think people from Pittsburgh get puffed up with Steeler Pride at the mention of Cordell Stewart? Nope. Now mention Terry Bradshaw. Yup, they puffed. If the quality of the players made no difference then every team would sell out every seat in every game. I haven't seen a blackout in New Orleans since, hmm... Since Aaron Brooks was the QB.
	"Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so." -- Douglas Adams.

03-24-2011, 08:50 PM	#6
saintfan Donated Plasma Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: San Francisco, CA Posts: 18,556 Blog Entries: 5	Originally Posted by Memnoch_TP I mean, really, do you cherish the Aaron Brooks years and the Bobby Hebert years as much as the Drew Brees years or the Archie Manning years? Yes. I certainly do. And the Billy Joe's and the Everette's too. And I don't remember any blackouts during Brooks' time with the team, but I could be wrong. Look, it's a combination of players and geography for most people, and we latch on to players and loathe others, but we still live and die by what the 'team' does on Sunday. I'll be bleeding Black and Gold long after Drew retires. So will you. That's part of what makes it so popular - the fact that we'd latch on to replacement players too if they played long enough. That's just the nature of the beast. And I think that's the argument. And I agree with Saint_Michael 100%. The comparisons are completely valid. Why shouldn't they be?
	C'mon Man...

03-25-2011, 12:54 PM	#7
SAINT_MICHAEL 100th Post Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 446	Originally Posted by Memnoch_TP Fujita's wife's letter pissed me off too. And I didn't say you didn't have the right to make those comparisons, just that they are bad comparisons that don't apply. Which is true. You can say the earth is flat till you are blue in the face, too. It doesn't make it so. Just like you saying it is a bad comparison doesn't make it so. It is apt. When they want to play the role of common man, then they have to play by the rules of the common man. If they don't want to, then say something like "Hey we are all wealthy individuals here who are dealing with money you normal fans can't understand. We'll get this worked out, but until then just sit tight"? But don't try to play it both ways. Why you seem to think that just because they make more money they get to create a new set of rules is beyond me. Originally Posted by Memnoch_TP Actually... When we signed Drew Brees season ticket sales spiked. Weeks later when we drafted Reggie season tickets were sold out. I can't tell you the last time this happened, but I know it has been a long damn time. So, I'm sorry, but all I have to dispute that statement with are indisputable facts. Hard cold numbers that say before Drew Brees played a single down for the Saints he filled more seats than Aaron Brooks. You can call it an egotistical stance, fine. Maybe it is egotistical, but that does NOT make it incorrect. So, you think that because of the “indisputable fact” the Saints had a ticket spike when Drew and Reggie joined the team it proves your point about the players being indispensable? That’s a jump! Back in 1987 the players thought they were indispensable too. After watching replacement players fill their shoes for three games, they quickly realized that people would indeed watch without them and their big work stopping strike lasted all of 24 days. There is your indisputable fact. And let’s think about it…is football less or more popular than it was in 1987? You can say what you want to about MLB and NHL strikes hurting the sports, but they were not as strong as football is now. When Sundays and Monday nights come rolling around in October, people will watch football if it’s on no matter if it’s drew Tom Brady QBing or not. Originally Posted by Memnoch_TP True, but then again, it is the great players that make the unforgettable moments, but the bad players make the eras you want to forget about. I mean, really, do you cherish the Aaron Brooks years and the Bobby Hebert years as much as the Drew Brees years or the Archie Manning years? Do you think people from Pittsburgh get puffed up with Steeler Pride at the mention of Cordell Stewart? Nope. Now mention Terry Bradshaw. Yup, they puffed. If the quality of the players made no difference then every team would sell out every seat in every game. I haven't seen a blackout in New Orleans since, hmm... Since Aaron Brooks was the QB. The rough moments may not be as cherished as the good ones, but they were and are still watched and that is the point. You can’t enjoy the good times without having the bad times to compare them to.
SAINT_MICHAEL 100th Post Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 446

03-24-2011, 01:58 PM	#8
saintfan Donated Plasma Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: San Francisco, CA Posts: 18,556 Blog Entries: 5	Originally Posted by Memnoch_TP I would agree with your point if the contracts that they are cornered into signing weren't so one sided. If the owners were obligated to honor a contract as well, I would agree more. As it is, 4 years is 4 years for the players, but the owners can sign that contract and then cut you before the ink dries. And there are more specific cases I can't fault the players for either. Like Vincent Jackson. The best WR his team has had in years, hugely talented, highly successful, one of the most productive players on the team... But he had no star power when he signed his contract, and got a scrub contract and then played like an all-pro. I don't blame him for finally saying "Screw this, the kicker makes 3 times more money than I do, my 3rd string backup makes twice the money I do, pay me!". I'm totally with you there. When the unions were created they were sorely needed. Now they are a big part of what is hindering this country. Naturally, there are still unions that are exceptions to this, but for the most part... What you or I get to do is totally irrelevant. It should not, and does not, have any bearing on the NFL players and owners because neither your nor I are as indispensable to our bosses as the NFL players are to the NFL. Lets discuss contracts. I know, you know, the owners know, and the player is well aware (through his agent if he's not savvy enough on his own) how things work. They negotiate these contracts with that in mind. It isn't like they get blind-sided. They aren't cornered into a damn thing. In my opinion that is ludicrous. Wouldn't either of us like to sign on with employer "X" and get half-a-mil before we stepped foot in the door? Damn skippy. The fact is just about every damn one of them is over payed right out of college - and yes, even the league minimum guys. Even the league minimum guys are making enough to maintain two (or more) residences. Even the league minimum guys are through with their pay in to social security before the season even starts, and before they've played a down. Even the league minimum guys can afford to buy their cars outright. Even the league minimum guys go to work in first-class facilities and enjoy Cadillac heal care plans most people can only dream about. The rest of them sign deals worth many millions of dollars before they play their first down in the NFL. Yes, some guys out play their deals. You know what? I out performed my hiring position with Google. In three years I was promoted twice, but I had to wait until the promotion period before I could 'negotiate'. That's how it works in the 'real' world. Why should the NFL be excluded from the real world? If these players think they're gonna out play their deals, then they should write a renegotiation clause into their contracts. If the owners go for it great, but if they don't, well, that's great too. The player is free to not sign, not play, and not get wealthy. Of course the players don't do this, because it's too risky. They might suck. This is why they hold out (and hold teams ransom) for every last penny they can get. It happens every summer, and it'll happen again this summer assuming there is actually any football. The owners have to be able to protect themselves too. The players don't seem to get this. The owners have a right to make money too. Lots of it. They are the owners. That's the way it works.
	C'mon Man...

03-24-2011, 09:33 PM	#9
Memnoch_TP Logic Troll Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Southern Louisiana Posts: 565	Originally Posted by saintfan That's how it works in the 'real' world. Why should the NFL be excluded from the real world? You guys seem to think I am arguing philosophy. I am arguing reality. Why the NFL should or should not be excluded from the "real world" is irrelevant. The fact is, the NFL IS excluded from the "real world". When it comes to the philosophy, I can't even agree that they "should" be held to the same employment standards. They DO have a greater value to their business than the average employee has to their own employers. I'm just not down with communism. Everyone does not have the same value. If you have the leverage to make a better deal because of higher value, good on you.
	"Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so." -- Douglas Adams.

03-24-2011, 11:41 PM	#10
saintfan Donated Plasma Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: San Francisco, CA Posts: 18,556 Blog Entries: 5	Originally Posted by Memnoch_TP You guys seem to think I am arguing philosophy. I am arguing reality. Why the NFL should or should not be excluded from the "real world" is irrelevant. The fact is, the NFL IS excluded from the "real world". When it comes to the philosophy, I can't even agree that they "should" be held to the same employment standards. They DO have a greater value to their business than the average employee has to their own employers. I'm just not down with communism. Everyone does not have the same value. If you have the leverage to make a better deal because of higher value, good on you. That thinking is how Union labor got too big for its britches.