Art Monk vs. NFL

[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?

[Giantone]

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.

Two things ...

1) I agree ...that "back then they did play for the Love of the game"I'd say it was the 70's but might even had been the early 80's that(yes some) players were working 2 jobs to make ends meet.
2) They aren't asking for money ,they want health care!!!!
This is about the NFL turning it's back on the like of Johnny Unitis and Deacon Jones and hundreds of other players who use to have to work 2 jobs just to make ends meet.
3)Sam Huff use to go back to west Virgina and sell cars when he was with the Giants ,many would find Jobs where their fame could help them with the public in making extra money.

[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.

[los panda]

i wonder if these helped. that new one for practice is called the guardian but it resembles a water polo cap