Art Monk vs. NFL

[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.