Around the League: WEEK 1 Baby!

Lacy suffered a concussion but no word on how serious. I had him pegged for a really big year. While Starks seems competent, I think losing Lacy for any length of time would be a big blow to GB.

Also, Seattle was very creative with its change-ups. GB had to focus so much on Lynch that they could run all sorts of plays off of the option or play-action games.

Regarding Harvin, here's to hoping we use DJax in a similar role.

No fun league strikes again:

Carolina Panthers Greg Hardy's Kraken face paint now NFL violation - ESPN (http://espn.go.com/blog/carolina-panthers/post/_/id/8449/hardys-kraken-face-paint-now-an-nfl-violation)

Okay. I get the uniform violation rules (I mean, by definition, uniform means all the same). It's ticky tacky, but I get it.

I could understand if he was face painting a competitor's logo.

But, putting on extra black ... under the helmet? What about what Ray Lewis used to do with giant triangles under his eyes, is that okay? Are they regulating the amount and location of eye black?

C'mon man!

I wouldn't throw at Sherm either when the guy on the other side is making his 6th career start.

Maxwell is going to get a lot of balls thrown his way. But to me it just limits your offense. I know Sherman is a great player , but is he Deion great? IDK.

It all depends on how the policy is worded and if the Union agrees to it. Part of the negotiation is to have applied to all players suspended this year for testing positive prior to the season. The policy is not being unilaterally imposed but is being through negotiations with the players union. From the article linked within the cited article:



While I am not 100% certain b/c I don't do much employment law, pretty sure if the NFLPA agrees to it, the NFL is protected from litigation by the players (past or present).


Why wouldn't former NFL players be able to sue say the NFLPA if they agreed to only include those suspended this year? Think of the lost wages that players could regain due to their suspensions.

Pretty sure that when you join any union, you assign it the right to negotiate for you, and in the same vane, barring pure negligence or gross misconduct, you agree to abide by the agreements the union settles on. Sometimes a vote is required, but I doubt the handful of players that might benefit from what you are talking about, would be outweighed by the majority of the players who see the whole tradeoff as a good thing.

Unions would fall apart if each time an individual member could sue the union each time he/she was unhappy about a negotiated policy.

Pretty sure that when you join any union, you assign it the right to negotiate for you, and in the same vane, barring pure negligence or gross misconduct, you agree to abide by the agreements the union settles on. Sometimes a vote is required, but I doubt the handful of players that might benefit from what you are talking about, would be outweighed by the majority of the players who see the whole tradeoff as a good thing.

Unions would fall apart if each time an individual member could sue the union each time he/she was unhappy about a negotiated policy.


Couldn't that be argued by the former and current ones who's had wages lost due to suspensions.

Go back to that Redskins vs Seahawks playoff game in 2013. Talk about two teams/QBS going in completely different directions since that game.

Absolutely. It makes watching Seattle games very difficult. The Skins are light years away from what Seattle is doing.

Regarding Harvin, here's to hoping we use DJax in a similar role.

Count on it.