The Way a Packers Forum Should Be
https://packers-huddle.com/phpBB/
then why is he here, been here for what 3 years, course the same could be said for several other players on this team, like Burks, mostly st's players that have not impressed at anything else.YoHoChecko wrote: ↑07 Jun 2021 09:12Will Redmond is an answer to nothing. He's simply a different problem. He can't cover, either. He is an actively bad football player from scrimmage.
Correct. He, and Burks, are special teams players who have disappointed from scrimmage. Redmond remains employed for his special teams acumen. The coordinator who repeatedly put Redmond onto the field from scrimmage only to see him commit error after error is no longer employed by the team. Hopefully Scott and Uphoff will supplant him from the roster this year.
I genuinely don't recall him dropping an interception. He has, indeed, on several occasions, been a liability on the field for years. I remember, over and over again, thinking after a key play was given up "oh, looks like that was on Will Redmond." He is not our 7th or 8th DB. He has been our 6th DB on a team that uses 6 DBs well over half the game. He's essentially been a full role player on defense whenever Raven Greene has been out, which has been most of the past two years.BF004 wrote: ↑07 Jun 2021 10:02I think he is fairly reliable, isn't a liability in the pass or run, won't make the big plays, + special teamer. Don't think you can ask for a whole lot more from your 6th, 7th, 8th DB.
If he wouldn't have dropped that INT right before haltime, we'd definitely likely all be remembering him differently.
I hated Bush too. And I stand by that take. Sure, he made a big play in a big game, and sure, he eventually became fine. But good grief did he spend too many snaps on the field.lupedafiasco wrote: ↑07 Jun 2021 10:07Jarrett Bush was a God damn bum for years at CB but a star teams player. He eventually came around and was serviceable after a while.
I mean, he's going to lose. It's very clear cut. The NFLPA urged players to train away from the facility this year to protest offseason workouts and the 17 game schedule and the league was like OK, but at your own risk, fellas. The Broncos are acting in accordance with the league's interest in enforcing their own standards. The player should be suing the NFLPA for giving blanket bad advice without properly warning of the consequences.salmar80 wrote: ↑07 Jun 2021 10:11Former Broncos' OT Ja'Wuan James is suing the team for 15M for getting cut with the non-football injury (NFI) excuse. He got the injury doing football training, but not at the team facility.
The case itself is not super interesting for me (read the article below), but sure feels like if the Packers were pull off this kind of a move, it would be viewed as the front office doing a dirty on a vet player. If AR wants to get traded a team that treats it's players right, this may make his reconsider the betting favorite...
https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2 ... 5-million/
the players union has to cave to the demands of the younger players, who are willing to give in to short term improvements that cater to there situation versus older vets, the only way to force the owners and the league to bend is with work stoppage, none of us want that, but thats the only way the league will listen.YoHoChecko wrote: ↑07 Jun 2021 10:16I mean, he's going to lose. It's very clear cut. The NFLPA urged players to train away from the facility this year to protest offseason workouts and the 17 game schedule and the league was like OK, but at your own risk, fellas. The Broncos are acting in accordance with the league's interest in enforcing their own standards. The player should be suing the NFLPA for giving blanket bad advice without properly warning of the consequences.salmar80 wrote: ↑07 Jun 2021 10:11Former Broncos' OT Ja'Wuan James is suing the team for 15M for getting cut with the non-football injury (NFI) excuse. He got the injury doing football training, but not at the team facility.
The case itself is not super interesting for me (read the article below), but sure feels like if the Packers were pull off this kind of a move, it would be viewed as the front office doing a dirty on a vet player. If AR wants to get traded a team that treats it's players right, this may make his reconsider the betting favorite...
https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2 ... 5-million/
It amazes me time and time again when there is an organization that exists to stand up for a players' rights, and an organization that exists to provide the structure and rules of the game, that the players' rights group gets none of the blame when the structure and rule enforcement group exact a consequence in accordance to the agreed-upon rules.
It's the NFLPA that should be a) forcing better rules through negotiation, and b) looking out for its players' own interests. The structure and rules org would only be doing so through some sense of benevolence, which don't get me wrong, would certainly be nice. But shouldn't be expected.
That's not true. The Players' Union could exchange percentage points of the revenue sharing agreement that goes toward the active salary cap for any concession they demand. At the end of the day, in every round of negotiations, they choose to increase the money and sacrifice the rule changes. The last round, when more of the money goes toward retirees and health care was the first time in a LONG time that they bent on some really long-needed parameters for players' interests outside of current financial compensation for the active players. The option to trade money for rules is always on the table and almost never takenYoop wrote: ↑07 Jun 2021 10:42the players union has to cave to the demands of the younger players, who are willing to give in to short term improvements that cater to there situation versus older vets, the only way to force the owners and the league to bend is with work stoppage, none of us want that, but thats the only way the league will listen.
This could be an interesting case. If the broncos had directed him to work out in some manner by e-mail or had some type of workout regimen planned out for him he has a stronger case. I don't think the Broncos can say "work out like this at home" and then beg off when he gets hurt. I don't think this one goes away easily for the Broncos.salmar80 wrote: ↑07 Jun 2021 10:11Former Broncos' OT Ja'Wuan James is suing the team for 15M for getting cut with the non-football injury (NFI) excuse. He got the injury doing football training, but not at the team facility.
The case itself is not super interesting for me (read the article below), but sure feels like if the Packers were pull off this kind of a move, it would be viewed as the front office doing a dirty on a vet player. If AR wants to get traded a team that treats it's players right, this may make his reconsider the betting favorite...
https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2 ... 5-million/
teams have been urging players to train off sight for decades, Fitzgerald speed clinics, teams love the results of off season training, but not the injury's that my result from them, and just cut players, specially players minus a resume.YoHoChecko wrote: ↑07 Jun 2021 10:16I mean, he's going to lose. It's very clear cut. The NFLPA urged players to train away from the facility this year to protest offseason workouts and the 17 game schedule and the league was like OK, but at your own risk, fellas. The Broncos are acting in accordance with the league's interest in enforcing their own standards. The player should be suing the NFLPA for giving blanket bad advice without properly warning of the consequences.salmar80 wrote: ↑07 Jun 2021 10:11Former Broncos' OT Ja'Wuan James is suing the team for 15M for getting cut with the non-football injury (NFI) excuse. He got the injury doing football training, but not at the team facility.
The case itself is not super interesting for me (read the article below), but sure feels like if the Packers were pull off this kind of a move, it would be viewed as the front office doing a dirty on a vet player. If AR wants to get traded a team that treats it's players right, this may make his reconsider the betting favorite...
https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2 ... 5-million/
It amazes me time and time again when there is an organization that exists to stand up for a players' rights, and an organization that exists to provide the structure and rules of the game, that the players' rights group gets none of the blame when the structure and rule enforcement group exact a consequence in accordance to the agreed-upon rules.
It's the NFLPA that should be a) forcing better rules through negotiation, and b) looking out for its players' own interests. The structure and rules org would only be doing so through some sense of benevolence, which don't get me wrong, would certainly be nice. But shouldn't be expected.
since when has the owners said no off season workouts, which is so ambiquious a statement like that includes anything connected or not connected to football, thats completely idiotic Yoho, that includes jogging or any other sports activity, as i SAID WHICH YOU COMPLETELY IGNORED players have trained for specific football skill sets off site for ages, your wso quick to lawyer this up it's mind bogglingYoHoChecko wrote: ↑07 Jun 2021 13:39The player is NOT on solid ground.
The ONLY two ways I see the player prevailing are if the claims they are making about COVID change the dynamic, or if as @Raptorman said there is a written record of workout instructions.
The CBA and player contracts and the NFL memo are incredibly clear about the liability risk to players if they choose to engage in any sort of workouts or physical activity offsite.
I think every receiver we've had trained off season at some speed seminars or receiver seminars, and those training sessions helped us win, guys like Montana trained off site with Rice, etc. so then I guess if the team likes you after you stub a big toe, whatever, they'll take care of ya, if ya don't have a resume, then not so much, gottcha.YoHoChecko wrote: ↑07 Jun 2021 13:54Forever. Like that has always been the case. And it was OPENLY and PUBLICLY discussed before James got injured, when the NFLPA advised its players to stay away, many MANY people pointed out that it puts the players at risk. Non-football injuries are injuries that occur while doing anything that isn't official football business. If the team has voluntary workouts, you're doing official football activities there. If you're doing it on your own, you're at risk of negating your guarantees. The words in the rule literally say "on your own," which James is contesting by pointing out he had other teammate spresent, which won't hold up.
I don't CARE how much sense anyone thinks this makes. It is a clear-cut rule. It's always been there. It's not new. Ever noticed that players who were injured in college football are added to the Non-Football Injury list when they join their NFL teams? Even if it was a football injury. "NFI" just means "not with an NFL team. James and his camp are trying to change that, but the rules have always been very clear and the risks were articulated in advance of this incident.
And if any of those guys tore their ACL doing that, it is totally up tot he team whether or not to honor their guarantees and keep them on the team. Most probably just sustain minor injuries, sit on the NFI list for the start of the offseason and then are activated to the active roster when it's done. But PLENTY of players who get hurt training in the offseason start training camp on the NFI, not PUP. Plenty of them. It's fairly routine. The only impact is if you terminate the contract because of one, which you are allowed to do (unlike because of a football injury). If you cut the NFI guy, the contract is done. No more guarantees.Yoop wrote: ↑07 Jun 2021 14:46I think every receiver we've had trained off season at some speed seminars or receiver seminars, and those training sessions helped us win, guys like Montana trained off site with Rice, etc. so then I guess if the team likes you after you stub a big toe, whatever, they'll take care of ya, if ya don't have a resume, then not so much, gottcha.
From that link:
The bolded sections (emphasis mine) are the two James is pushing back against. He claims that he was with teammates, and not "on his own," and that he was "specifically authorized by the club."Injuries sustained while a player is working out "on his own" in a location other than an NFL facility are considered "Non-Football Injuries" and are outside the scope of a typical skill, injury and cap guarantee. Such injuries are also not covered by the protections found in paragraph 9 of the NFL Player Contract, meaning that clubs have no contractual obligation to provide salary continuation during the year in which the injury was sustained.
"By contrast, injuries sustained by a player while working out at a club facility or as specifically authorized by his club are considered "Football-Related Injuries." Under our agreement with the NFL Players Association, players that sustain "Football-Related Injuries" are entitled to significant protections, including: (i) payment of Paragraph 5 Salary; (ii) medical care; (iii) pension credit (if the player is unable to perform services for three regular season games due to the injury) and (iv) other benefits, such as Injury Protection, which will provide payments to players in seasons following the season of a career ending injury.