NLC1054
06-01-2011, 11:58 PM
Add the Jaguars
Jaguars coaches distance themselves from NFLCA filing - NFL - SI.com (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/football/nfl/06/01/jags.ap/)
So five teams now? Funny, because I thought it was just Snyder bullying the coaching staff of the Redskins.
Clearly Dan Snyder has bullied every other coach in the league as well.
Ruhskins
06-02-2011, 12:54 AM
Looks like the NFLCA dropped the ball, but it'd be foolish to believe that this lockout is not affecting coaches. Honestly, I believe the coaches are stuck between a rock and a hard place. Yet I don't think signing letters of support for the owners is the best way to go.
Giantone
06-02-2011, 07:33 AM
Add the Jaguars
Jaguars coaches distance themselves from NFLCA filing - NFL - SI.com (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/football/nfl/06/01/jags.ap/)
So five teams now? Funny, because I thought it was just Snyder bullying the coaching staff of the Redskins.
Who said that?
SmootSmack
06-02-2011, 08:10 AM
Who said that?
http://www.thewarpath.net/804777-post8.html
http://www.thewarpath.net/804741-post3.html
NC_Skins
06-02-2011, 10:08 AM
Add the Jaguars
Jaguars coaches distance themselves from NFLCA filing - NFL - SI.com (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/football/nfl/06/01/jags.ap/)
So five teams now? Funny, because I thought it was just Snyder bullying the coaching staff of the Redskins.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but have any of those other team's coaches sided with the owners like the Redskins coaches did. That is the difference here.
SmootSmack
06-02-2011, 10:15 AM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but have any of those other team's coaches sided with the owners like the Redskins coaches did. That is the difference here.
The Texans said they support the organization, which one can infer includes ownership
Saints said they support the owner
Cowboys said they didn't approve of the brief, but didn't outright mention support of the owner
CRedskinsRule
06-02-2011, 10:23 AM
The Texans said they support the organization, which one can infer includes ownership
Saints said they support the owner
Cowboys said they didn't approve of the brief, but didn't outright mention support of the owner
dang beat me to it:
here is a Saints coach quote though:
New Orleans linebackers coach Joe Vitt was equally adamant in his opposition toward the brief.
"We're supporting the owners," Vitt told the New Orleans Times-Picayune. "I've said this a million times, our organization has been built on trust. [Owner Tom] Benson has been great to us. Unequivocally, we support our ownership."
There is no difference here unless you're looking for one.
NC_Skins
06-02-2011, 10:33 AM
There is no difference here unless you're looking for one.
There is a huge difference. What I'm referring to is what the Cowboys apparently have done.
Cowboys said they didn't approve of the brief, but didn't outright mention support of the owner
Making a statement about not supporting the brief is one thing. Making a statement that you are siding with the owners is entirely different situation. Huuuuuge difference. One is staying neutral by not picking a side, the other is siding with the very people who the players distrust.
The coaches(any of them) supporting the owners publicly are ****ing stupid to say the least. Now come training camp, you have coaches who ask their players to trust them? lol If I were a FA, I'd never play for a coach who openly sided with a owner in a labor dispute unless he was part of management. (a GM/HC combo) They have no dog in this fight. None. What reason do they have to support owners? I can understand the ones in dual roles in both coaching and management, but for most of these coaches, it's a stupid move.
Taking a stand against the brief implies you're siding with the owners. Come on man stop with the semantics.