It was not Graham's agent driving the truck. It was the NFLPA and their bank of lawyers. In this case Graham was exactly what you claim he wasn't ... a pawn. Yes, his agent had a vested interest, yet neither he, nor Graham, was the driving force. During the whole ordeal Graham was completely out of the picture. He never made any statement, nor even an utterance. The whole confrontation was between the players' association and the league's front office. The PA had been waiting for an opportunity to make the challenge and Graham's case happened to be their first, and best, opportunity.

Graham was just a 28 year old kid and the NFLPA was perhaps the most powerful union in the world. He had little say in the matter. It is easy for a fan to say he should have stood up to his union, but that's easier said than done.

Well I wasn't there so I can never know, but I know that I simply do not believe that Jimmy was simply an unwilling pawn in his own contract negotiation. The fact that Jimmy never made any statement was because his agent told him to sit down and shut up and that is what he did. He didn't have to. He could have stopped that madness at any time - he was holding out for as much money as he could get. To that end I don't necessarily blame the man, but the tactics that were used were unsightly and cost him his position on our team. He was not beholden to any other person or group of people other than by choice.

If anything else were true somebody would have gone to jail.

I don't think you understand the power that the NFLPA holds over its membership. Any tactics that were used were solely to the discretion of the PA's lawyers. Graham was indeed a pawn just as any other union member in the same predicament. None of it was illegal, but any player in his position would have felt highly obliged to consent to the PA's "wishes".

And that whole contract affair did not affect his position upon the team. The only reason why Graham was traded was that it was a stipulation by Seattle that was required for the Saints to get Max Unger and a 1st round pick. The Saints had originally offered up Kenny Stills instead, but the Seahawks demanded Graham as part of the package or no deal would be made. That's why it was such a surprise to both Graham and Brees when the deal was announced.

Only there is precedent of compromise ahead of Jimmy's drama. Terell Suggs tried to get paid as a DE and was also shot down. In 2008.

Jimmy wasn't breaking new ground. Neither was the NFLPA.

Jimmy and his agent and possibly the NFLPA wanted to get as much as they could. I don't argue that. The NFLPA wants to push salaries as do agents...as do players.

I'm sorry we agree to disagree. Jimmy was complicit.

No. While somewhat similar the Suggs case was not the same. Suggs was not franchised. His grievance was over his negotiated salary and an arbiter agreed that he was basically a DE and should be paid as one.

The Graham case was based upon franchise position designation. It was a different animal entirely. The NFLPA was arguing that he was basically a WR and should have been designated as one with the franchise tag. It was all about tag designation, not negotiated salary based. This truly was new ground.

We can argue all that 'til we're purple. If you think Jimmy was merely a pawn and not actively involved then we just have to agree to disagree.

Back in March (early on in the legal battle), Saints quarterback Drew Brees offered Graham advice that remains relevant in light of the latest development: "I just told him be patient," Brees said. "Don't get frustrated. Don't take it personally. It's part of the deal and it's hard and ... you just want it to be over. You want certainty. That's the hardest part."

Oh, I have no doubt Graham was simply a pawn in the franchise designation ploy by the NFLPA. While Graham never provided any input during the proceedings, his good friend Brees implied that Graham was not an enthused participant ...







All the facts point to the NFLPA and their bank of lawyers driving the grievance action. Graham had, in fact, never changed his Twitter description stating that he was an "NFL Tight End".

Oh, I have no doubt Graham was simply a pawn in the franchise designation ploy by the NFLPA. While Graham never provided any input during the proceedings, his good friend Brees implied that Graham was not an enthused participant ...







All the facts point to the NFLPA and their bank of lawyers driving the grievance action. Graham had, in fact, never changed his Twitter description stating that he was an "NFL Tight End".