Art Monk vs. NFL

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Honestly, I don't know. Maybe CRedskinsRule has a brother who's a lawyer or something

How quirky is that, I just happen to know this guy on this board, he's like a lawyer, and his mom and dad are the same as mine. But you know that guy is pretty shy, and doesn't like to type explanations... :yeahright

[Daseal]

I think the talk about wrap up tackling isn't as easy as it sounds. You reference back to Pop Warner football. I understand the point you're triyng to make with that example, but it's not applicable to the pro game.

The offense constantly get rules in their favor that limits what the defense can really do to stop the offense. I think the focus of NFL defenses have changed from trying to stop the opposing teams in 3 downs and forcing a punt by solid defense to forcing turnovers being the best option for stopping an offense that has all the rules in their favor. Big hits on QBs and on the ball carriers are the best way to stop an offense in today's game.

I believe a lot of the rule changes have forced defensive players to headhunt more than ever before. There were concussions before the change in philosophy to promiting dominant offenses, but I'm talking more about saying "just wrap up" isn't fair anymore.

[los panda]

Originally Posted by Daseal

I think the talk about wrap up tackling isn't as easy as it sounds. You reference back to Pop Warner football. I understand the point you're triyng to make with that example, but it's not applicable to the pro game.

The offense constantly get rules in their favor that limits what the defense can really do to stop the offense. I think the focus of NFL defenses have changed from trying to stop the opposing teams in 3 downs and forcing a punt by solid defense to forcing turnovers being the best option for stopping an offense that has all the rules in their favor. Big hits on QBs and on the ball carriers are the best way to stop an offense in today's game.

I believe a lot of the rule changes have forced defensive players to headhunt more than ever before. There were concussions before the change in philosophy to promiting dominant offenses, but I'm talking more about saying "just wrap up" isn't fair anymore.

right, it's not fair to say that making a great form tackle is easy. punching through the ball while wrapping up is a lot harder than just rolling full steam down the train tracks

[skinsguy]

Originally Posted by Daseal

I think the talk about wrap up tackling isn't as easy as it sounds. You reference back to Pop Warner football. I understand the point you're triyng to make with that example, but it's not applicable to the pro game.

The offense constantly get rules in their favor that limits what the defense can really do to stop the offense. I think the focus of NFL defenses have changed from trying to stop the opposing teams in 3 downs and forcing a punt by solid defense to forcing turnovers being the best option for stopping an offense that has all the rules in their favor. Big hits on QBs and on the ball carriers are the best way to stop an offense in today's game.

I believe a lot of the rule changes have forced defensive players to headhunt more than ever before. There were concussions before the change in philosophy to promiting dominant offenses, but I'm talking more about saying "just wrap up" isn't fair anymore.

Well actually, with the rule enforcement on helmet to helmet, hitting defenseless players and the QB, it is actually doing the opposite. Defenses can't hit the QB too low or high anymore without getting the flag, so it causes them to have to wrap 'em up more so rather than to go for the big hit. Same can be said for hitting a defenseless player. Look at a guy like London Fletcher - he's textbook with his tackling. He still goes for a big hit, but within textbook rules and nine times out of ten, he wraps the ball carrier up in a good solid tackle. Very seldom, if ever, do any ball carriers get out of a London Fletcher tackle. Of course, we're talking about a solid linebacker as opposed to a smaller defensive back, but I think putting more emphasis on going for the big hit it counter-productive if defensive players want to stay within stricter guidelines and to avoiding concussions.

[CRedskinsRule]

or i could trust google/wiki and give a simple answer, allowing that the aforementioned sibling may add several substantial inclusions and addendums to the simple one:

Originally Posted by wikipedia via google

Lead plaintiff
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In a class action lawsuit, a lead plaintiff (also called class representative, named plaintiff, or representative plaintiff) is the named party. The court officially appoints this individual when it certifies the lawsuit as a class action.

The lead plaintiff must be able to represent the interests of all the members of the class. He or she is responsible to hire the attorney, file the lawsuit, consult on the case, and agree to any settlement.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

or i could trust google/wiki and give a simple answer, allowing that the aforementioned sibling may add several substantial inclusions and addendums to the simple one:

But how does the court choose? I guess that's really my question

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

But how does the court choose? I guess that's really my question

I don't know - class actions is one of those areas where a lot of special procedural rules apply that don't apply in standard litigation. I did some basic legal research and can't find the answer. I don't know any attorneys who hand class actions to call and check. I'll keep looking and, if I run across the answer, I will let you know.

[CRedskinsRule]

another interesting article on being a lead plaintiff.

What’s In It For the Lead Class Action Plaintiff?

[SolidSnake84]

I feel sad for all the players that are legitimatley affected by concussion issues today, but sometimes i question the validity of their claims and wonder if they are truly ailing or are they just trying to make a buck now that this lawsuit thing is taking off like hotcakes.

[zeesson]

Originally Posted by SolidSnake84

I feel sad for all the players that are legitimatley affected by concussion issues today, but sometimes i question the validity of their claims and wonder if they are truly ailing or are they just trying to make a buck now that this lawsuit thing is taking off like hotcakes.

I wonder the same thing about some of them. I also laugh when I hear people form their generation try to tell me that everything was better back then. Because they played for the "love of the game". Now they want money.

[Hog1]

Originally Posted by zeesson

I wonder the same thing about some of them. I also laugh when I hear people form their generation try to tell me that everything was better back then. Because they played for the "love of the game". Now they want money.

..........You would disagree that it is better to play for the "love of the game" than strictly for the money?

[los panda]

Originally Posted by Hog1

..........You would disagree that it is better to play for the "love of the game" than strictly for the money?

when did players stop working other jobs just to get by in the off-season? the 70's?

[zeesson]

Originally Posted by Hog1

..........You would disagree that it is better to play for the "love of the game" than strictly for the money?

I don't think that one is better than the other. I just think that it's ridiculous to suggest that just because they didn't make good money that the era was better. The main reason they didn't make millions was because it simply wasn't possible. They went on strike, and everything changed.

A lot of people nowadays act as if these players are supposed to just go out there for nothing, and just be lucky that they have the privilege of playing in the NFL. Meanwhile the owners are making billions off of the players sacrifices, and the best guy at his position is looked at as greedy, and undeserving because he wants to be paid what his services are worth. I just shake my head...that's all I can do.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by zeesson

I don't think that one is better than the other. I just think that it's ridiculous to suggest that just because they didn't make good money that the era was better. The main reason they didn't make millions was because it simply wasn't possible. They went on strike, and everything changed.

A lot of people nowadays act as if these players are supposed to just go out there for nothing, and just be lucky that they have the privilege of playing in the NFL. Meanwhile the owners are making billions off of the players sacrifices, and the best guy at his position is looked at as greedy, and undeserving because he wants to be paid what his services are worth. I just shake my head...that's all I can do.

I hate the saying "a lot of people", it usually covers up the fact that you can't cite specifics.

Who have you heard, on this board, say players should play for nothing? I, for one, think they should get what they are able to, just like the owners should try and pay the least they can and still get quality players. That's what keeps the balance in the pay. I think how a person, player or owner, handles the negotiations determines the opinion of who is "greedy". I the the McCoy deal was handled well on both sides, both got what they wanted, and nobody was calling McCoy greedy, or the Eagles skinflints. The Forte contract situation is a great example of people supporting a player getting paid, and the owners looking like cheapskates who aren't willing to pay long term for a player who has laid it all out there. And Revis, especially if he holds out at all, would be looking like a class A greedy player.

No one brush covers all the players of any era. We shouldn't try to make it.

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by zeesson

I don't think that one is better than the other. I just think that it's ridiculous to suggest that just because they didn't make good money that the era was better. The main reason they didn't make millions was because it simply wasn't possible. They went on strike, and everything changed.

A lot of people nowadays act as if these players are supposed to just go out there for nothing, and just be lucky that they have the privilege of playing in the NFL. Meanwhile the owners are making billions off of the players sacrifices, and the best guy at his position is looked at as greedy, and undeserving because he wants to be paid what his services are worth. I just shake my head...that's all I can do.

I understand the business side of football alot of fans do,nothing wrong with a person getting what he can for doing his job and doing it well.Fans have a (myself) have a hard time with the numbers and hearing a guy say he's just trying to put food on the table,when he is offered7.5 million to play a game and is insulted becuase he wanted 9 million.(just examples).
These players are lucky, play for nothing ...no...but to play in the NFL is a privilege.Owners aren't making billions the NFL gets that money from TV and other contracts and it's divided up among the 32 owners.