O-Line and ST questions
 

Why havent we gone after Scott Gragg or Ross Verba?
Gragg is a very good backup and Verba is an excellent starter at Tackle.
I think the 35 million request was bogus... He just wanted to get out of Cleveland....wouldnt you? Not exactly a winter wonderland at -40F.

Why dont we renegotiate ST's contract to pay for any additions?
Heck, you could void it on a morality clause or insubordination or a thousand other reasons.
ST and Drew know that and are probably shaking in their boots about that.
I dont have a good feeling about the trial.
I think he will get probation.
I think he will not be playing this year in any uniform.

I hope they write into all contracts that players are not allowed to use or own guns or lethal weapons.
Guns and knives keep getting players into trouble.
They should also write into every contract that it is void if the player is CHARGED with a felony (not convicted), DUI or possession of drugs and all signing bonuses must be returned.
The following contract should be for the league minimum for 5 years.
These kids would be forced to take the high road then and become adults.
They would be forced to make better judgements.

Re: O-Line and ST questions
 

First off it's very unlikely any sort of decision will come on Taylor during the season. Most reports are saying he's safe for the 2005 season.

In regard to the offensive line, if the staff felt they needed help, I think they would have gone after some help. They made one key addition in Rabach, and I'm guessing they feel pretty good about everyone else.

Re: O-Line and ST questions
 

I get scared about our lack of depth and having Dockery as a starter.
Dockery was awful last year.
Buges does have a way of developing players though.
I just hope our kids who are backing up the line develop in to something great and that Friedman and Raymer are cut because of lack of talent. I could smell how bad they stunk out here in Frisco....3000 miles away.
ST's trial begins the day after the season starts and will end a few weeks after that, at the most, and he will not play during that time.
Then when it is over he will not play the rest of the season due to suspension or jail is my feeling.

Re: O-Line and ST questions
 

I would argue that Dockery was far from awful. He's still green but we could do alot worse.

I wouldn't say our depth is so bad. We have Ray Brown, Friedman (I think Raymer will get the axe), Molinaro and Wilson.

Re: O-Line and ST questions
 

But you must admit Dockery played badly in comparison with his first year.
He has so much promise and I pray that was a soph slump not a harbinger of things to come.

Re: O-Line and ST questions
 

I hope what you say is true about ST playing this year. We need him alot.

Re: O-Line and ST questions
 

Personally I thought Dockery was much improved over his rookie season.

Re: O-Line and ST questions
 

I agree. I think for him, as with Ramsey, it's his make or break year. Another year under Bugel will fix it I believe.

Re: O-Line and ST questions
 

Dock was anything but awful! He wasn't spectacular, but I think serviceable. I mean, not many people can make very good calls on the ability of lineman because you don't hear about them when they are doing good. . .I didn't hear much about Dock last season.

I'm starting to think that this last Taylor incident is going to be just one speed bump on a long and troubled life for this dude. I'm not saying he is not going to have a good career, he already is in fact good, but man, he is a thug. Wait till he gets married, screws that up, crashes cars, and I'm calling this now, he is going to get into a fight with a teamate, then not pay taxes, maybe some kind of substance abuse...Sorry, I know this a crappy thread, but I'm feeling it. At this age, his resume is longer than so many players. His balls must be dragging on the floor to hold out after his rookie year and not call Gibbs?? Hang on boys and girls!

Re: O-Line and ST questions
 

[QUOTE=gortiz]Dock was anything but awful! He wasn't spectacular, but I think serviceable. I mean, not many people can make very good calls on the ability of lineman because you don't hear about them when they are doing good. . .I didn't hear much about Dock last season.

I'm starting to think that this last Taylor incident is going to be just one speed bump on a long and troubled life for this dude. I'm not saying he is not going to have a good career, he already is in fact good, but man, he is a thug. Wait till he gets married, screws that up, crashes cars, and I'm calling this now, he is going to get into a fight with a teamate, then not pay taxes, maybe some kind of substance abuse...Sorry, I know this a crappy thread, but I'm feeling it. At this age, his resume is longer than so many players. His balls must be dragging on the floor to hold out after his rookie year and not call Gibbs?? Hang on boys and girls![/QUOTE]

Great Post.... I also read that article about Taylor where they show he has a good side and a bad side. He is just a very intense player. That translates to causing chaos for other defenses on the field.

Re: O-Line and ST questions
 

I think that just the opposite could happen from this incident. It could be the scared straight thing that turns his life around. If he is on the field we need him in a skins jersy and not playing for another team. If he becomes a team distration then maybe we have to rethink his value to the team. As for now we have to let the chips fall where they fall and move on from there. After this year we may not even have a choice on his status, it could be made for us. While reading the article on him I couldn't help but think of Ricky Williams and thats not good.

Re: O-Line and ST questions
 

Just a couple of comments here:

1. The Redskins are not permitted to re-do Taylor's contract now. The CBA forbids it. A rookie contract cannot be renegotiated until after one year passes from the date the original one was signed. So, if the Skins redid Taylor's deal now, they'd be fined by the league and the renegotiated contract would be voided.

2. I understand that someone who works for an employer that is going to pay that person millions of dollars might have to sacrifice some of his rights and freedoms to accommodate the wishes of his beneficient employer. But it seems like an awful lot to ask of someone that they waive their right to own a gun or a knife (does that include dinner knives so you can cut your T-Bone steak?) or to suffer a penalty when being charged with a crime. A baseball bat can be a lethal weapon; would it be reasonable to say that NFL contracts forbid a player to own a baseball bat?

3. "Innocent until proven guilty" has worked for about 220 years so I'd be reluctant to throw away all of that legal standing just because some athletes get in trouble.

4. Someone said that athletes would be forced to use better judgment. Sorr, but I have to disagree here. I don't think anyone can force anyone else to use good judgment - - particularly when there is not a whole lot of basis to say that the person in question has the ability to exercise good judgment. In Sean Taylor's case, I'm hard pressed to come up with a situation where the outcome showed that he used good judgment. Maybe it's because he felt no pressure to do so. OR maybe "good judgment" is beyond his capacity. He is after all a world class MEATHEAD.

5. Dockery was better last year than he was his rookie year. Dockery last year was still below average as a starting guard in the NFL. Can he improve? Sure, he's only a kid. Will he improve? That's the big question for the OL this year because if he does not improve, there will be a hole in the dike.

Re: O-Line and ST questions
 

[QUOTE=sportscurmudgeon]Just a couple of comments here:

1. The Redskins are not permitted to re-do Taylor's contract now. The CBA forbids it. A rookie contract cannot be renegotiated until after one year passes from the date the original one was signed. So, if the Skins redid Taylor's deal now, they'd be fined by the league and the renegotiated contract would be voided.

2. I understand that someone who works for an employer that is going to pay that person millions of dollars might have to sacrifice some of his rights and freedoms to accommodate the wishes of his beneficient employer. But it seems like an awful lot to ask of someone that they waive their right to own a gun or a knife (does that include dinner knives so you can cut your T-Bone steak?) or to suffer a penalty when being charged with a crime. A baseball bat can be a lethal weapon; would it be reasonable to say that NFL contracts forbid a player to own a baseball bat?

3. "Innocent until proven guilty" has worked for about 220 years so I'd be reluctant to throw away all of that legal standing just because some athletes get in trouble.

4. Someone said that athletes would be forced to use better judgment. Sorr, but I have to disagree here. I don't think anyone can force anyone else to use good judgment - - particularly when there is not a whole lot of basis to say that the person in question has the ability to exercise good judgment. In Sean Taylor's case, I'm hard pressed to come up with a situation where the outcome showed that he used good judgment. Maybe it's because he felt no pressure to do so. OR maybe "good judgment" is beyond his capacity. He is after all a world class MEATHEAD.

5. Dockery was better last year than he was his rookie year. Dockery last year was still below average as a starting guard in the NFL. Can he improve? Sure, he's only a kid. Will he improve? That's the big question for the OL this year because if he does not improve, there will be a hole in the dike.[/QUOTE]

SC-
Up until #4 you had me scared there. I was afraid you'd grown soft on Taylor.

I would worry less about Dockery than most of you are. He is going to be spending his second year with one of history's great position coaches, and last year - when we had some depth on the O-line (Friedman has several starts at guard over his career) - Dockery got all his starts. He may not have looked good to us, but Bugel sees things a little differently.

Re: O-Line and ST questions
 

Like Greg Williams I'm still a Sean Taylor Fan... We as fans don't understand everything and we trully don't know what happened on June 1st at all. I do however find it odd that Taylor has been processed and charged on a lessor offence, but there hasn't been a real investigation into who fired the shots at Taylor's Denali.

In the South, there is corruption in the law system.. I feel the district attorney thinks that he has found a big fish and is gonna milk the case for all the money they he can get.

I see all these post like Sean Taylor is Lucifer or something and i just have to say "get off his back". He had a DUI charge that got dismissed, and he trying to live his life. I know one thing for shore, that he brought stability to our secondary and he is the most talented player on the D hands down... so please stop hatin

Re: O-Line and ST questions
 

[QUOTE=sportscurmudgeon]Just a couple of comments here:

1. The Redskins are not permitted to re-do Taylor's contract now. The CBA forbids it. A rookie contract cannot be renegotiated until after one year passes from the date the original one was signed. So, if the Skins redid Taylor's deal now, they'd be fined by the league and the renegotiated contract would be voided.

2. I understand that someone who works for an employer that is going to pay that person millions of dollars might have to sacrifice some of his rights and freedoms to accommodate the wishes of his beneficient employer. But it seems like an awful lot to ask of someone that they waive their right to own a gun or a knife (does that include dinner knives so you can cut your T-Bone steak?) or to suffer a penalty when being charged with a crime. A baseball bat can be a lethal weapon; would it be reasonable to say that NFL contracts forbid a player to own a baseball bat?

3. "Innocent until proven guilty" has worked for about 220 years so I'd be reluctant to throw away all of that legal standing just because some athletes get in trouble.

4. Someone said that athletes would be forced to use better judgment. Sorr, but I have to disagree here. I don't think anyone can force anyone else to use good judgment - - particularly when there is not a whole lot of basis to say that the person in question has the ability to exercise good judgment. In Sean Taylor's case, I'm hard pressed to come up with a situation where the outcome showed that he used good judgment. Maybe it's because he felt no pressure to do so. OR maybe "good judgment" is beyond his capacity. He is after all a world class MEATHEAD.

5. Dockery was better last year than he was his rookie year. Dockery last year was still below average as a starting guard in the NFL. Can he improve? Sure, he's only a kid. Will he improve? That's the big question for the OL this year because if he does not improve, there will be a hole in the dike.[/QUOTE]

There is officially a first time for everything.. I agree with SC!

Re: O-Line and ST questions
 

First of all, why can't we leave an offensive line together for a while. We needed an obvious upgrade at Center, let's let these guys gel some. Continuity is key. Regardless of what many people think, I'm just happy to have a coaching staff that will at least give the organization some stability. I hope when Gibbs is ready to step down, he's able to hand the reins to Greg Williams, let's hire from within!

As far as Taylor, I think he'll wise up eventually. This is the type of charge that will probably either scare him straight, or send him into a downward spiral. This is going to be a critical year for him.

Re: O-Line and ST questions
 

Ross Verba is a locker room cancer. The Browns got rid of him because of his attitude. There is no way in hell he is going to see the contract that he is trying to get. The only team semi interested in him is the Texans and I think I could start at tackle for them right now. Verba would not get the money he is looking for from us and he would not even challenge Samuels or Jansen for a starting spot so he would never sign with us anyway. Also, I am not 100% sold on Dockery but he has shown improvement and he is still very young. Why was he even brought up in conversation with Verba anyway? Verba=tackle Dockery=guard. In reguards to o-line depth Wilson and Molinaro are both young guys that the staff seem to like so why bring in a big contract when we could use the money at another spot. Gragg is a good DT but he is not a major upgrade over Noble or Salave'a so why waste time bringing someone else in to learn the system.

Re: O-Line and ST questions
 

i don't even know why we are having a discussion about the o-line. our o-line is solid if healthy, the only one with any questions is derrick dockery, but we need to give him some time. and if he performs poorly we have the ageless wonder in ray brown. our o-line can be one of the best in the league if we give it some time.

Re: O-Line and ST questions
 

[QUOTE=PSUskinsfan11]Why was he even brought up in conversation with Verba anyway? Verba=tackle Dockery=guard. In reguards to o-line depth Wilson and Molinaro are both young guys that the staff seem to like so why bring in a big contract when we could use the money at another spot. Gragg is a good DT but he is not a major upgrade over Noble or Salave'a so why waste time bringing someone else in to learn the system.[/QUOTE]

Please note that it says O-line questions at the title....Last I heard, OG was still on the O-line.
Scott Gragg besides having double letters at the end of his first and last names is also noted for being an OT not a DT.....hence the title of this thread.

:cool-smil

Re: O-Line and ST questions
 

[QUOTE=sportscurmudgeon]Just a couple of comments here:

1. The Redskins are not permitted to re-do Taylor's contract now. The CBA forbids it. A rookie contract cannot be renegotiated until after one year passes from the date the original one was signed. So, if the Skins redid Taylor's deal now, they'd be fined by the league and the renegotiated contract would be voided.

2. I understand that someone who works for an employer that is going to pay that person millions of dollars might have to sacrifice some of his rights and freedoms to accommodate the wishes of his beneficient employer. But it seems like an awful lot to ask of someone that they waive their right to own a gun or a knife (does that include dinner knives so you can cut your T-Bone steak?) or to suffer a penalty when being charged with a crime. A baseball bat can be a lethal weapon; would it be reasonable to say that NFL contracts forbid a player to own a baseball bat?

3. "Innocent until proven guilty" has worked for about 220 years so I'd be reluctant to throw away all of that legal standing just because some athletes get in trouble.

4. Someone said that athletes would be forced to use better judgment. Sorr, but I have to disagree here. I don't think anyone can force anyone else to use good judgment - - particularly when there is not a whole lot of basis to say that the person in question has the ability to exercise good judgment. In Sean Taylor's case, I'm hard pressed to come up with a situation where the outcome showed that he used good judgment. Maybe it's because he felt no pressure to do so. OR maybe "good judgment" is beyond his capacity. He is after all a world class MEATHEAD.

5. Dockery was better last year than he was his rookie year. Dockery last year was still below average as a starting guard in the NFL. Can he improve? Sure, he's only a kid. Will he improve? That's the big question for the OL this year because if he does not improve, there will be a hole in the dike.[/QUOTE]



1. They can void the contract and re-do it that way. No penalty.

2. Dont be overly dramatic. I am not talking silverware unless it is bought with the intent to kill or harm. People can buy butcher knives to kill with and often do. Some of our worst killers used them.

3. Innocent until proven guilty doesnt work in business or politics. Why should it work in the NFL? The NFL is a massive business. Their employees(players) need more accountability. I was once fired for suspicion of doing something that 3 years later was proven to be done by my manager. I got an apology after the company went bankrupt because of him. The NFL can do the same thing. I am not saying he can not own a gun after he gets out of the NFL. After all, for most, NFL means Not For Long. Would you rather see one of the best safeties ever to roam the field or would you like him rotting in prison for murder one day?.....which it may come to if he keeps upping the ante. The DUI he got of on technicalities. He wont do that forever... even with Rosenhaus.

4. You said it yourself..."Maybe it's because he felt no pressure to do so." You proved my point for me. Thank you. You may wish to reiterate that and say you agree with me.

5. I disagree. I think Dockery played alot better in his rookie year and I think many coaches that watched him would agree. Ray Brown is not an answer....his body has to give out one day and it will be sooner than later.

Re: O-Line and ST questions
 

[QUOTE=aprius]Why havent we gone after Scott Gragg or Ross Verba?
Gragg is a very good backup and Verba is an excellent starter at Tackle.
[/QUOTE]

For one, I've never even heard of Scott Gragg. Two, we already have decent depth on the o-line. Three, what good does a starting Tackle do? I'd rather not pay for a starting tackle that sits on the bench (because he's not going to see the field as long as Samuels and Jansen are healthy.

[QUOTE]Why dont we renegotiate ST's contract to pay for any additions?
Heck, you could void it on a morality clause or insubordination or a thousand other reasons..[/QUOTE]

1. I don't think the skins want to completely throw any hope away of keeping ST for the long haul, and this would effectively cause nothing but hurt feelings and bad blood between ST and the skins.
2. ST wouldn't renegotiate for a lower contract.
3. We can't renegotiate the contract yet anyway (see SC's post).
4. We've already paid ST the bulk of his contract (7.2 million signing bonus.....so renegotiating now doesn't make sense).

[QUOTE]
I dont have a good feeling about the trial.
I think he will get probation.
I think he will not be playing this year in any uniform..[/QUOTE]

All reports seem to indicate that this case won't effect the '05 season. And if you have a bad feeling about the trial, then you shouldn't count on probation. IF the trial goes poorly, and IF he's convicted of what he's been charged with he's looking at 3 years minimum.

[QUOTE]I hope they write into all contracts that players are not allowed to use or own guns or lethal weapons.
Guns and knives keep getting players into trouble.
They should also write into every contract that it is void if the player is CHARGED with a felony (not convicted), DUI or possession of drugs and all signing bonuses must be returned..[/QUOTE]

While I fully support certain restrictions and/or penalties on a player's off-field activities, I doubt many players would be willing to give up two constitutional rights in their private contracts with NFL teams (i.e. due process of law and right to bear arms). Not to mention the difficulties in instituting and policing such provisions.

Re: O-Line and ST questions
 

aprius, If Dockery was so "awful" last year why did they not look to replace him this year??

In comparison, we painfully needed an upgrade at center and look what happened, we signed a center right out of the gate when free agency began.

Why did we not do the same for left guard?

Answer that question and you'll have your answer as to what the coaching staff thinks of Dockery.

Re: O-Line and ST questions
 

guns don't kill people.

people kill people.

Re: O-Line and ST questions
 

You're pretty convinced that our O-Line is a major [URL=http://www.thewarpath.net/showthread.php?t=6223&page=5&pp=10]weakness[/URL] , aren't you Aprius?

Re: O-Line and ST questions
 

Jeez, since when did we start needing offensive line help?

Re: O-Line and ST questions
 

In defense of Aprius, Dockery isn't a quality starting left guard. All too often, I see Dockery get beat on the pass rush, seemingly miss blocking assignments, and get called for false starts.

However, Dockery is developing and I don't think the coaching staff wanted to get rid of him just yet. Dockery certainly improved his play over 2003, but that doesn't say much of anything. Dockery could turn out to be a good starter, but he's not there yet. I think that's why Dockery wasn't replaced.

So, I understand why people might want an upgrade at left guard - with the addition of Rabach, he's certainly the worst offensive lineman on a good line But, I understand why the coaching staff didn't replace him.

Re: O-Line and ST questions
 

[QUOTE=aprius]Please note that it says O-line questions at the title....Last I heard, OG was still on the O-line.
Scott Gragg besides having double letters at the end of his first and last names is also noted for being an OT not a DT.....hence the title of this thread.
[/QUOTE]

If you were talking about o-line depth and brought up signing Verba or Gragg, who are both tackles, where does Dockery come into play? Also I confused Scott Gragg for Kelly Gregg the DT from the Ravens, sorry for the confusion.

Re: O-Line and ST questions
 

first off, gragg is a well known player to whoever hasnt heard of him, BUT, he would be another Dave Fiore, and not play most of the season with a hefty contract. AND WHY SIGN VERBA?? WHY? HE'S A OT, NOT A OG. and as people have already stated, we have samuels and jansen as our tackles. ray brown is more than capable of playing LG for us 1 more season if dockery cant handle the load. and dockery would be a good back up. remember, browns original position is OG, the last 10 or so years. Samuels,Dockery,Rabach,Thomas,Jansen...the talent is there and about 30% of our cap...so what makes you think we need to hand out millions for another O-lineman? we dont.

Re: O-Line and ST questions
 

[QUOTE=PSUSkinsFan21]For one, I've never even heard of Scott Gragg. Two, we already have decent depth on the o-line. Three, what good does a starting Tackle do? I'd rather not pay for a starting tackle that sits on the bench (because he's not going to see the field as long as Samuels and Jansen are healthy.

Verba would be a great addition because Samuels has not played up to potential for 2 or 3 years now and may never again. Gragg would give us a proven backup at tackle.
After that if we had one good starting guard to take Dockery's place and a proven back up center and guard and we would have our o-line complete.

1. I don't think the skins want to completely throw any hope away of keeping ST for the long haul, and this would effectively cause nothing but hurt feelings and bad blood between ST and the skins.
ST has never worried about the feelings of the coaches or teammates or FO. Dont worry about bad blood. It is already there.
2. ST wouldn't renegotiate for a lower contract. He will after the trial.
3. We can't renegotiate the contract yet anyway (see SC's post). Not without voiding it....which we could do right now.
4. We've already paid ST the bulk of his contract (7.2 million signing bonus.....so renegotiating now doesn't make sense). He will repay a large portion of that.



All reports seem to indicate that this case won't effect the '05 season. And if you have a bad feeling about the trial, then you shouldn't count on probation. IF the trial goes poorly, and IF he's convicted of what he's been charged with he's looking at 3 years minimum.

3 years of probation, community service, jail, suspended, combination of all of those.....
I just feel like ST is going to have a very hard life.
He sure is setting himself up for it.



While I fully support certain restrictions and/or penalties on a player's off-field activities, I doubt many players would be willing to give up two constitutional rights in their private contracts with NFL teams (i.e. due process of law and right to bear arms). Not to mention the difficulties in instituting and policing such provisions.[/QUOTE]

Dude, dont bring in The Constitution. It has nothing to do with business. You can get fired over a rumor. I know. I was. Was it illegal? No. Was it wrong? Yes. Can a business make you wear certain clothing even though you have freedm of choice? Can a business not hire a person of a certain religion or restrict ages? Yes, freely. The NBA has an age limit now. Oh my god! Stop the presses!....The Catholic Church only hires male Catholics to be priests. Where is the hue and cry for fairness by Pagan women? They have the 10 commandments in the Supreme Court Building!
Separation of church and state please! Dont bring up The Constitution again! Stupid argument.

Re: O-Line and ST questions
 

[QUOTE=jrocx69]first off, gragg is a well known player to whoever hasnt heard of him, BUT, he would be another Dave Fiore, and not play most of the season with a hefty contract. AND WHY SIGN VERBA?? WHY? HE'S A OT, NOT A OG. and as people have already stated, we have samuels and jansen as our tackles. ray brown is more than capable of playing LG for us 1 more season if dockery cant handle the load. and dockery would be a good back up. remember, browns original position is OG, the last 10 or so years. Samuels,Dockery,Rabach,Thomas,Jansen...the talent is there and about 30% of our cap...so what makes you think we need to hand out millions for another O-lineman? we dont.[/QUOTE]

Whoa! Smoking something arent we?
Look at the thread title....
Dockery(G) and Verba(T) are O-line players and I have questions about both....
therefore....
can you put 2 and 2 together....
O-Line questions!!!!!
Hard to figure out....Jeez!
I know what position Dockery and Verba play but I figured anyone with a tiny bit of sense could interpret the meaning of my questions.
I am amazed how many people dont think about the title.
Brown is old and his body may give out this year or next....no one can say....but he is not going to be around long. (not at 42 or 43) He probably wont be able to take the day in day out pounding if Dockery goes down early in the season.
Dockery is a very good backup but was not a good starter last year.
Huge difference in starting and backing up.

Re: O-Line and ST questions
 

[QUOTE=aprius]Dude, dont bring in The Constitution. It has nothing to do with business. You can get fired over a rumor. I know. I was. Was it illegal? No. Was it wrong? Yes. Can a business make you wear certain clothing even though you have freedm of choice? Can a business not hire a person of a certain religion or restrict ages? Yes, freely. The NBA has an age limit now. Oh my god! Stop the presses!....The Catholic Church only hires male Catholics to be priests. Where is the hue and cry for fairness by Pagan women? They have the 10 commandments in the Supreme Court Building!
Separation of church and state please! Dont bring up The Constitution again! Stupid argument.[/QUOTE]

Next you are going to tell us that business can smack all the female employees on the ass, and not be charged with sexual harrasment... A business can not use sex, religion, nationality, or color as gounds to hire or fire a person. If they do it is called discrimination.

Also, this idea that the catholic church "hires" their priests is insane. The catholic church does not hire their priests, these men are ordained in to the faith. A life of poverty is what they accept when they are ordained as priests. I hate to burst your bubble but the U.S. Gov has no say as to who can or can not be priests. Like you said, "separation of church and state."

Re: O-Line and ST questions
 

Let's settle down fellas or else let's lock this thread.

Re: O-Line and ST questions
 

[QUOTE=aprius]Dude, dont bring in The Constitution. It has nothing to do with business. You can get fired over a rumor. I know. I was. Was it illegal? No. Was it wrong? Yes. Can a business make you wear certain clothing even though you have freedm of choice? Can a business not hire a person of a certain religion or restrict ages? Yes, freely. The NBA has an age limit now. Oh my god! Stop the presses!....The Catholic Church only hires male Catholics to be priests. Where is the hue and cry for fairness by Pagan women? They have the 10 commandments in the Supreme Court Building!
Separation of church and state please! Dont bring up The Constitution again! Stupid argument.[/QUOTE]

First off, I've seriously had enough of your bad mouthing members of this board. You're asking people what they are smoking and referring to their arguments as stupid simply because you don't agree with them. Either learn how to discuss matters as a rational adult or get the hell off this site. Tone it down and learn how to act. Anyone can be ballsy in a chat room.......but it doesn't prove anything.

As to you're argument, I guess I'll have to repeat what I said since you seem to have a hard time listening to what people are saying.

"While I fully support certain restrictions and/or penalties on a player's off-field activities, I doubt many players would be willing to give up two constitutional rights in their private contracts with NFL teams (i.e. due process of law and right to bear arms). Not to mention the difficulties in instituting and policing such provisions."

I thought that statement was self-explanatory, but I guess not. What I said there is that I fully support placing restrictions on players' actions on and off the field. Pro atheletes are professionals, and they should be expected to act as such. HOWEVER, you are talking about an athelete agreeing to be penalized without ANY finding of wrongdoing whatsoever. I am well aware that the constitution does not apply to private contracts, but I seriously doubt that any athelete would voluntarily enter into a contract that penalizes him for doing absolutely nothing wrong. The fact that the constitution guarantees due process should tell you something about just how serious a right it is that you think players will be so willing to contract away. Being arrested is a far cry from being guilty of a crime.

Same analysis applies for the right to bear arms. Can a business restrict you from carrying a gun to work? Absolutely. But no business, occupation, profession, etc. that I know of has ever restricted an individual from exercising his or her constitutional right to bear arms outside of the work environment. Regardless of whether two private individuals can contract for that restriction (which they can), I simply cannot imagine players or the NFLPA agreeing to such clauses.

As to your arguments:
1. There is no constitutional right to not be fired for a rumor. In fact, I assume that your job was not subject to an employment contract. As such, it would be an "employment at will". In an employment at will, an employer may fire you for any reason or for no reason at all, as long as that reason is not discriminatory or violative of a constitutional right. If they had fired you because of your age, race, religion, sex, etc. (one of the inalienable rights), then you would have had a cause of action against them.

2. While a business may maintain a certain dress code, that right is not without limitations. For example, an employer can not restrict you from wearing what you must for religious reasons. They can not require you to remove religious garb to comply with the dress code.

3. The fact that you actually said: "Can a business not hire a person of a certain religion or restrict ages? Yes, freely" only proves that you have no idea what you are talking about. The first scenario involving religion is a blatant violation of title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The second scenario [i]could[/i] be a violation of of the ADEA (Age Discrimination in Employment Act) if the employer is refusing to hire, or is firing an individual over the age of 40 in favor of a younger person. If you are referring to the NBA's policy, then yes, an employer can discriminate based on age if the age is under 40 because an individual is not part of a protected class until reaching the age of 40.

4. As to the catholic church: It has already been correctly stated that governments cannot restrict the free practice of religion. As such, the catholic church is free to exclude women from the priesthood ONLY BECAUSE it is a religious institution. If it was IBM or Comcast refusing to hire or promote women, again, you'd be setting forth a scenario where the law would step in and punish the employer.

Trust me when I say you should not assume that you know more about the constitution or employment law than me or anyone else on this site. If you need me to go down the hall and have one of our labor and employment partners confirm the accuracy of my above statements, just let me know.

And in the future, if you don't want people telling you "Why havent we gone after Scott Gragg or Ross Verba?" and "Why dont we renegotiate ST's contract to pay for any additions?", the I suggest you don't ask the question. What exactly was the point of starting this thread with those questions if you are not going to be open to a host of reasonable explanations by the members of this site? And you call other people "stupid"? I have a kettle I'd like to introduce you to.

Re: O-Line and ST questions
 

Sorry Tafkas, I submitted the message before seeing your post. I just don't like the tone he was using with the other members of this board and myself.

Re: O-Line and ST questions
 

[QUOTE=aprius]1. They can void the contract and re-do it that way. No penalty.[/QUOTE]
Ummmm...no they can't. The CBA specifically forbids reworking a rookie's contract until one year from signing. Besides simply voiding the contract is not reworking his deal...it is cutting him which makes him a free agent so he could sign anywhere. There is no way they are going to cut their first round draft pick from last year. Also they'd have to have pretty strong contract language to cut him BEFORE he has been found guilty of any crime.

Re: O-Line and ST questions
 

Daaaaamn. Testosteron-y! :)

Re: O-Line and ST questions
 

Sorry MC, but did you see his response to jrocx69? Totally uncalled for.

Not to mention numerous members of this board have tried explaining to this kid that OT and OG are different positions, but he doesn't seem to understand that.:banghead: Apparently anbody who plays on the line is an "o-lineman" and therefore completely interchangeable........news to me. Maybe somebody should call Buges and let him know too.:rolleyes:

Re: O-Line and ST questions
 

I love the smell of napalm in he morning. Smells like...like...victory.

Re: O-Line and ST questions
 

[QUOTE=PSUSkinsFan21]Sorry MC, but did you see his response to jrocx69? Totally uncalled for.

Not to mention numerous members of this board have tried explaining to this kid that OT and OG are different positions, but he doesn't seem to understand that.:banghead: Apparently anbody who plays on the line is an "o-lineman" and therefore completely interchangeable........news to me. Maybe somebody should call Buges and let him know too.:rolleyes:[/QUOTE]
Yeah he seems a little high on the horse but in the end he could be right about our o-line. I just don't think he is clearly right at the moment. Only time will tell.

Re: O-Line and ST questions
 

Sam, Dock, Rabach, Thomas, and Jansen are all ok to great. If Aprius point is that we need depth, we have Wilson, Molinaro, 92 yr. old R. Brown, Friedman, and all! Probably a couple of our own NFLE or FAs already on the roster may make it over Brown. The position I felt was most suspect, was Brown! But we have Jansen back!

I feel we have fewer questions on the OL than as does Aprius, apparently.

On the S. Taylor situation, we cannot lower his salary. Period. End of subject.