[GTripp0012]

NC_Skins, at the risk of sounding like Roger Goodell, the only meaningful issue at play here is the principle of collective bargaining. If the player's decertification was anything more than a leverage tactic, this would be be debatable. However, it isn't. One side is delaying the process of collective bargaining in deference to attempting to change the puzzle as to where the leverage lies.

It's going to come back to collective bargaining at the end, whether the players get more of, or give up a greater share of the leverage. We're spending months of the offseason using the legal system to change the negotiating environment, instead of hammering this deal out in March as both sides could have. This is not disputable. The players didn't accept the owners deal back in March because they knew/thought/believed they could get a better one in July, after the courts decided on specific points.

Which is completely in their right as the players. But the desire to then spin the lockout as the action of the owners is nothing more than intellectually dishonest posturing by the NFLPA. And I think Goodell, and the owners, are going to eventually win the war of public opinion because De Smith is trying to do what's best for the players (and I think he's succeeding on that point), but he's also lying to NFL fans in the process about who is responsible for what. I mean, his job is only to hold out long enough to get the best deal possible for the players. So if he has to lie to do his job and say the NFL is suing to not play games, then he has to lie. But we live in the information age. And he's underestimating, in my opinion, the ease of the ability of NFL fans to get information that contradicts what he's saying.

De Smith may ultimately be win in the end, but I don't think he'll ever be viewed favorably by NFL fans.