PDA

View Full Version : NFL's never-ending offseason a concern to Vincent



The_Philster
07-04-2004, 08:12 AM
Troy Vincent's dissent is a testament to his character, his commitment to family, his belief that whatever success he attains in life is only marginally related to how well he supports the run or defends the pass.
Troy Vincent, the new Buffalo Bills cornerback, created a stir this spring when he groused about the proliferation of organized team activities. You know what OTAs are, right? They're practices disguised by a euphemism in order to circumvent the minicamp limitations imposed by the NFL's collective bargaining agreement.
Participation in an OTA is, of course, quite voluntary. About as voluntary as walking the plank with the point of a sword pressed to the small of your back. You're better off taking the plunge willingly rather than dealing with the other ramifications....
more (http://www.buffalonews.com/editorial/20040704/2028453.asp)

Pride
07-04-2004, 08:35 AM
I tend to agree. The guys make millions of dollars, but there should be a 2 month period where they do not have to report to anything. Feb/March then meet after the draft in april?

One one hand you have to figure that these guys get paid millions, for just a few years worth of work, but on the other hand, they need to be fathers (if they have kids), husbands, and get some alone time.

Everyone needs alone time.

saviorbledsoe
07-04-2004, 08:44 AM
I want to be a big Vincent fan but this is BS. Lets say the average father works 40 hrs per week and if lucky its first shift. Now the NFL season lasts between August and February (7 Months) which during they are home a lot as well. And in the offseason they are home for 5 months with the occasional OTA for a week or 2 here and there. (sarcasm time) Oh my...that seems like a terrible job to me. (end sarcasm) Try defending the country over seas and being gone from your family for 2 years or being on an oil rigg in the middle of the ocean somewhere for 6 months or working 70 hours per week all year to support your family...this just sounds like a spoiled athlete who thinks he doesnt need to the extra work in anymore.

OpIv37
07-04-2004, 11:27 AM
Originally posted by saviorbledsoe
I want to be a big Vincent fan but this is BS. Lets say the average father works 40 hrs per week and if lucky its first shift. Now the NFL season lasts between August and February (7 Months) which during they are home a lot as well. And in the offseason they are home for 5 months with the occasional OTA for a week or 2 here and there. (sarcasm time) Oh my...that seems like a terrible job to me. (end sarcasm) Try defending the country over seas and being gone from your family for 2 years or being on an oil rigg in the middle of the ocean somewhere for 6 months or working 70 hours per week all year to support your family...this just sounds like a spoiled athlete who thinks he doesnt need to the extra work in anymore.

amen
Or like people in this area who work 40 hours a week EVERY WEEK then have to commute an hour plus each way just so their family can have a decent house in a safe neighborhood.

Not to mention that "working" for a football player means, well PLAYING FOOTBALL, which is what the rest of us do with our free time. True, they have team meetings and press events as well, but mostly all they do is work out with the best athletic equipment and personal trainers in the world, then go play a game.

And let's not forget that the league minimun is $200 K a year and most players make millions- for that kind of money, I have no sympathy.

As far as being family men, the article about the rookie seminars last year said the average NFL career is only 4 years. I think their families will glady sacrifice the 4 years to be financially stable til the end of time. I know I would...

B-DON
07-04-2004, 11:35 AM
exactly, lets hope vincent isnt this big of a ***** on the field

Tatonka
07-04-2004, 01:20 PM
Originally posted by saviorbledsoe
I want to be a big Vincent fan but this is BS. Lets say the average father works 40 hrs per week and if lucky its first shift. Now the NFL season lasts between August and February (7 Months) which during they are home a lot as well. And in the offseason they are home for 5 months with the occasional OTA for a week or 2 here and there. (sarcasm time) Oh my...that seems like a terrible job to me. (end sarcasm) Try defending the country over seas and being gone from your family for 2 years or being on an oil rigg in the middle of the ocean somewhere for 6 months or working 70 hours per week all year to support your family...this just sounds like a spoiled athlete who thinks he doesnt need to the extra work in anymore.

mark it down.. i agree completely and 100% with savior.

hurls
07-04-2004, 01:32 PM
Wow, I'm surprised. I thought more people would be on Vincent's side. I know there's tougher jobs, like the military. But athletes are away from their families much more than your average 40 hr/week worker. And when's the last time some dude walked into work at Denny's, and the manager came up and said, "Sorry son, we needed a frycook real bad, so we had to trade you to the franchise on the West Coast?" That would suck, lol. :D

Tatonka
07-04-2004, 01:56 PM
Originally posted by slruh
Wow, I'm surprised. I thought more people would be on Vincent's side. I know there's tougher jobs, like the military. But athletes are away from their families much more than your average 40 hr/week worker. And when's the last time some dude walked into work at Denny's, and the manager came up and said, "Sorry son, we needed a frycook real bad, so we had to trade you to the franchise on the West Coast?" That would suck, lol. :D


most of you would sacrifice for 10 years tops to make 200k - 10 million a year for your families that are home in the big fancy house.

cry me a river.. it is not like their careers last the 27 years that my fathers did as a police officer. when he retired after 27 years.. he made 55k a year. so vincent and all the other athletes can STFU, or quit and go get another job like the rest of us.

TigerJ
07-04-2004, 04:36 PM
Here's what I think:

Vincent is a big shot in the Players Association. Maybe he was putting the owners on notice that he'd like to see the OTAs included as an item for negotiation when the CBA comes up for renewal. Teams are limited in what they can do for minicamps. In essence I think the OTAs are an exploitation of a loophole in the CBA now in effect. By making them "voluntary" they don't come under the rules regulating mini camps. It does not seem to be a shot a Buffalo in particular.

Now, does Vincent have a point? When players maintain homes in other parts of the country (Montana. Georgia, etc) and their families stay in those permanent homes, I can see where there is pressure on players and families. Kids don't get to see their dads, players with time to kill and no family around to remind them of their responsibililties can end yup doing stupid things. BUT, the choice to have families live in other parts of the country is o ne that players and their families are making, not teams. If players did what virtually everyone else does, have their families live near where they work, then when their work day is over at the OTA, they can go home to a loving wife and family. They are not living in seclusion like they are at training camp. Someone has to open my eyes as to why that is not true, or I will find it difficult to be sympathetic.

Mr. Cynical
07-05-2004, 02:58 AM
Another sad example of how bad pro sports have become. If you want to spend more time with your family, then quit the NFL and get a 9-5. IT IS THAT SIMPLE. Don't ***** and whine when you are financially set for the REST OF YOUR LIFE, for cranking the hours for 7-10 years.

Big thumbs down on TV from me. I wasn't totally thrilled on him anyway, so no big loss for me.

Buckets
07-05-2004, 08:16 AM
I have to agree with the disenters here. Boo Hoo for pro ball players, they waltzed their way through school, making more money in a year than most of us will make in a lifetime and he is complaining about family. Go ahead get that 9-5 and then see who *****es.

Bulldog
07-07-2004, 07:30 AM
Originally posted by slruh
Wow, I'm surprised. I thought more people would be on Vincent's side. I know there's tougher jobs, like the military. But athletes are away from their families much more than your average 40 hr/week worker. And when's the last time some dude walked into work at Denny's, and the manager came up and said, "Sorry son, we needed a frycook real bad, so we had to trade you to the franchise on the West Coast?" That would suck, lol. :D

And when was the last time a frycook made millions of dollars a year? The possibility of being traded comes with the territory. Like others have said, if these players find the rigors of the NFL so demanding, get a job like the rest of us and let me know that goes for them.

eyedog
07-07-2004, 09:51 AM
Is Vincent for real ? Even with 3 or 4 ota weekends cutting into their 5 month break they still don't put in nearly as many hours as a regular 9-5 guy. He should keep his mouth shut and be thankful he is playing in the NFL and getting all those benefits. When he retires in a couple of years at age 35 he will have the rest of his live to not work and hang with the family 24/7. What a tough break for Troy.

TheGhostofJimKelly
07-07-2004, 10:18 AM
I am going to have to ask how many hours a year do you think an NFL player actually "works"?

If a guy works 40 hours a week with 3 weeks vacation/sick time, he works 1,960 hours. That is just the guy that works and doesn't have to travel at his job.

(Spring training would be the only time that the players would have to be somewhere for extended periods of time. Still they only work for a few hours a day.

I say during the season the players "work" 4 hours during the week and get Tuesday off. Sunday home games they work 8 hours? So I say during the season the players work 32 hours a week. Eight times during the year they work out of town.)

The players go to "voluntary" workouts what 3 weeks during the offseason?


I also agree, when you are in college you know what it takes to be in the NFL. I would bet that there wasn't one person in college that said they think the hours in the NFL are too much for them and that they would rather just get a "regular" job.

THATHURMANATOR
07-07-2004, 10:32 AM
I don't have an offseason at my job and I don't make millions. If they don't like it then don't be a football player.

HenryRules
07-07-2004, 05:43 PM
Why is everyone comparing the work of a 9-5er to a NFL player.

Last I checked, there's about 100 people in the world (at most) that can play CB at the NFL starter level.

There's hundreds of millions (if not billions) of people that are qualified to do most 9-5 jobs.

When you're that good at what you do, you can demand to be treated better.

OpIv37
07-07-2004, 09:50 PM
Originally posted by HenryRules
Why is everyone comparing the work of a 9-5er to a NFL player.

Last I checked, there's about 100 people in the world (at most) that can play CB at the NFL starter level.

There's hundreds of millions (if not billions) of people that are qualified to do most 9-5 jobs.

When you're that good at what you do, you can demand to be treated better.

But what they do is a damn game- granted, a game that we love to watch, but in the long run it doesn't make a difference. If there were no football, life would go on. If there were no teachers or farmers or cashiers, life as we know it would be drastically altered.

Maybe only a few people are qualified, but it's a cushy job with very high pay that contributes very little to society. If you're lucky enough to get it, don't ***** about this petty crap.

Charlieguide
07-07-2004, 11:44 PM
I think we're all missing Vincent's point here. We can talk for hours about the value of NFL players (let's not even APPROACH ARod), or the number of hours they put in, but there's more to this argument.

Read the next-to-last sentence: "How much can the league demand of its players without hurting the large role they play in society? "

Vincent's point is that NFL players live their lives in the spotlight, and therefore must live exemplary lives. It is their job to play football. It is their duty -- far more than it is yours or mine -- to live clean, responsible lives in the hope that others will follow their example.

The extent to which OTA's affect this duty are certainly debatable, but Vincent has a valid concern. If teams can simply label offseason practice as "voluntary," what's to stop them from holding "voluntary" two-a-day-practices year round? In this age, the league is so competitive that every team is scrambling for the smallest advantage. This scenario is the only excuse teams need to take advantage of loopholes. If the league truly wants to limit offseason practice -- and clearly they do, or it wouldn't be in the CBA -- they need to do a better job defining and enforcing such rules.

Mr. Cynical
07-07-2004, 11:52 PM
Originally posted by HenryRules
When you're that good at what you do, you can demand to be treated better.

How about guys like Favre? Ever hear him ***** or whine about too much OTA? No. And he is 1,000 times more special than Vincent ever was or will ever be.

Bottom line is that just because you "can" demand to be treated better doesn't mean you should.

DraftBoy
07-08-2004, 01:23 AM
Only one word describes his comments: Ridiculous

HenryRules
07-08-2004, 07:16 AM
Originally posted by Mr. Cynical
How about guys like Favre? Ever hear him ***** or whine about too much OTA? No. And he is 1,000 times more special than Vincent ever was or will ever be.

Bottom line is that just because you "can" demand to be treated better doesn't mean you should.

Brett Favre also got hooked on pain killers. Maybe because of those, the off-season wasn't such a big grind. Who knows?? You're acting like Vincent is the only person to ever complain about these. He may be the only one quoted in the article, but many other players have had problems with these OTAs.

Regarding football players and other entertainers not being as important as teachers, farmers, etc. I strongly disagree with statements like this. People in this world are not meant to merely be factory-line like machines. The reason that I (or most) people live is to enjoy life. And while teachers, farmers, doctors, etc. help us to stay alive/be productive, it is the arts/entertainers that allow us to enjoy life (life would be enjoyable without entertainers - but less so and by the same token, I'd still be working, but maybe less productively if I hadn't had any true teachers other than my parents). The supply-and-demand argument is my main argument as that is the only equitable way to pay/reward people. However, even with a "common good" argument - people in Buffalo feel the impact of a Drew Bledsoe not having a great season a lot more than they notice the loss of a single teacher.

OpIv37
07-08-2004, 07:34 AM
Originally posted by Charlieguide

Vincent's point is that NFL players live their lives in the spotlight, and therefore must live exemplary lives. It is their job to play football. It is their duty -- far more than it is yours or mine -- to live clean, responsible lives in the hope that others will follow their example.



Whether or not it is an NFL player's duty to live clean, responsible lives depends on what you do. I'd rather have my team's QB on drugs than a doctor, lawyer, politician, construction worker, truck driver.... all of these people have responsibilities to society that actually affect people's lives- beyond just providing a good example. Plenty of people who make far less than football players have equal or greater social responsibility.

OpIv37
07-08-2004, 07:39 AM
Originally posted by HenryRules

Regarding football players and other entertainers not being as important as teachers, farmers, etc. I strongly disagree with statements like this. People in this world are not meant to merely be factory-line like machines. The reason that I (or most) people live is to enjoy life. And while teachers, farmers, doctors, etc. help us to stay alive/be productive, it is the arts/entertainers that allow us to enjoy life (life would be enjoyable without entertainers - but less so and by the same token, I'd still be working, but maybe less productively if I hadn't had any true teachers other than my parents). The supply-and-demand argument is my main argument as that is the only equitable way to pay/reward people. However, even with a "common good" argument - people in Buffalo feel the impact of a Drew Bledsoe not having a great season a lot more than they notice the loss of a single teacher.

I know plenty of people who hate football, but still seem to enjoy life. Also, college and professional football have existed for what- 100 years or so? Maybe slightly longer? People still found ways to entertain themselves.

And what if that single lost teacher was your kid's teacher? The impact on your family would be far greater than if Drew Bledsoe left- a football player leaving may affect more people, but a teacher who leaves has a more profound effect on the lives of the people around them.

eyedog
07-08-2004, 07:55 AM
This whole issue is over "professional" football players *****ing about putting in an extra 20-30 hours a summer to practice.
Unbelieveable. If my job paid me a couple of million a year and I was told I needed to put in another 20 hours for the year I'm sure I wouldn't complain. At least not in public in front of people barely getting by.

HenryRules
07-08-2004, 06:37 PM
Originally posted by eyedog
This whole issue is over "professional" football players *****ing about putting in an extra 20-30 hours a summer to practice.
Unbelieveable. If my job paid me a couple of million a year and I was told I needed to put in another 20 hours for the year I'm sure I wouldn't complain. At least not in public in front of people barely getting by.

When was the last time someone offered to pay you millions of dollars for what you do? It's easy to say how you would act when you never have to follow up on it.

There's people working in sweatshops who think you're spoiled by not having to work weekends that often. Every argument that anyone says about Vincent being greedy, lazy, or asking for too much can be used in the exact same manner when comparing the average American to the average person in, oh say, Uganda or something similar.

HenryRules
07-08-2004, 06:45 PM
Originally posted by OpIv37
I know plenty of people who hate football, but still seem to enjoy life. Also, college and professional football have existed for what- 100 years or so? Maybe slightly longer? People still found ways to entertain themselves.

And what if that single lost teacher was your kid's teacher? The impact on your family would be far greater than if Drew Bledsoe left- a football player leaving may affect more people, but a teacher who leaves has a more profound effect on the lives of the people around them.

I'm not saying football is the only way to enjoy life - the same way a wheat farmer isn't the only way that someone gets fed. If you're going to compare the impact of the two - do so on an equal basis.

Let's say Vincent comes to town and we have a single home playoff game because of his arrival - that makes Ralph what, an extra $5 mil or so? It provides an extra days work for everyone on staff at the Ralph (estimate of 300 people sound reasonable?). For most bar owners in the area, that's also an extra Sunday of a packed-house - who knows the economic impact of that. Then there's the fact that, let's say 5 million fans in the Bills fan base area have a better time because of that.

If the teacher leaves, that will effect my kid and my family yes - there's about 25 kids in the class, but I doubt all would say they're a fan of the teacher (nothing against the teacher, but no one can ever be a good teacher for all in the class - the aptitudes are too different). Let's give the benefit of the doubt and say 15 kids are getting a lot out of the teacher. I really do think that the extra playoff game will have a more serious impact on society and people within it than that one teacher leaving.

eyedog
07-08-2004, 06:45 PM
The point is most people don't want to hear Vincent cry about an extra 20 hours of practice a year.

HenryRules
07-08-2004, 06:51 PM
Originally posted by eyedog
The point is most people don't want to hear Vincent cry about an extra 20 hours of practice a year.

It's not 20 hours of practice a year it's like 6 or 7 trips with 3 or 4 days each ... try travelling on business. It's ****ty as hell. I don't care the quality of hotel you stay in or the type of people you work with - its not fun. And if someone did it, thought it was a waste of theirs and their employers time, and didn't suggest to their employer a way to improve the situation, I'd call them a spineless jackass and nothing else.

eyedog
07-08-2004, 07:09 PM
Why is the extra practice a waste of the Bills time ? Did I miss their Super Bowl parade last year ?

20, 30, 40 hours, tell Vincent to shut the **** up and be happy he has such a nice job.

HenryRules
07-08-2004, 07:36 PM
Originally posted by eyedog
Why is the extra practice a waste of the Bills time ? Did I miss their Super Bowl parade last year ?

20, 30, 40 hours, tell Vincent to shut the **** up and be happy he has such a nice job.

Hasn't Vincent made the NFC championship the last 3 years and the Pro Bowl 5 or 6 times now? I'd say he knows a thing or two about performing and winning.

chernobylwraiths
07-08-2004, 08:18 PM
I have no problem with Vincent not being happy with the offseason "voluntary" workouts and such. The NFLPA made up the rule that there can only be how ever many mandatory offseason meetings, and the NFL is skirting the issue by making these "voluntary" camps that aren't really voluntary at all. That's all they are are extra practices and when a player is absent, not only is he *****ed at by management and the coaches, but management has his teammates exert pressure on him to come in and if that doesn't work, they tell the media that the guy doesn't show up and all the fans ***** about these prima donna players that make millions of dollars to play a game and this guy has to skip these camps. IMO, they should have a right to skip them if they want. If the team wants them to come in for them, then they can pay them the little extra or write it into their contracts that they have to make these camps or they won't be paid a little bonus or something.

Most of the guys that complain are probowl types that don't really need the extra work and keep themselves in great shape anyway. I had no problem with Bruce Smith missing most of training camps when he was here either. As long as they show up for the games and play well and be ready, that's all I can ask for.

Lastly, as one of the leaders in the NFLPA, he HAS to speak out against these types of things.

Throne Logic
07-08-2004, 11:03 PM
Originally posted by Charlieguide
I think we're all missing Vincent's point here. We can talk for hours about the value of NFL players (let's not even APPROACH ARod), or the number of hours they put in, but there's more to this argument.

Read the next-to-last sentence: "How much can the league demand of its players without hurting the large role they play in society? "

Vincent's point is that NFL players live their lives in the spotlight, and therefore must live exemplary lives. It is their job to play football. It is their duty -- far more than it is yours or mine -- to live clean, responsible lives in the hope that others will follow their example.

The extent to which OTA's affect this duty are certainly debatable, but Vincent has a valid concern. If teams can simply label offseason practice as "voluntary," what's to stop them from holding "voluntary" two-a-day-practices year round? In this age, the league is so competitive that every team is scrambling for the smallest advantage. This scenario is the only excuse teams need to take advantage of loopholes. If the league truly wants to limit offseason practice -- and clearly they do, or it wouldn't be in the CBA -- they need to do a better job defining and enforcing such rules.

This is how I took it, also. Multiple agenda's here. Nip a potential problem in the butt before it becomes an actual problem. If something looks, smells, and feels like a duck (namely, required practice if you want to keep your roster spot), then don't call it a goose (namely, OTA's). Also, take the opportunity to get in a good word about family values, which Troy feels strongly about.

I didn't really take this as whining about too working too much. He just used an issue that people would actually listen to as he made his points.

If the oil rig worker had the opportunity to make a statement about his circumstances, I'm sure that he too would jump at the chance.

Dozerdog
07-08-2004, 11:17 PM
Originally posted by Pride
I tend to agree. The guys make millions of dollars, but there should be a 2 month period where they do not have to report to anything. Feb/March then meet after the draft in april?

One one hand you have to figure that these guys get paid millions, for just a few years worth of work, but on the other hand, they need to be fathers (if they have kids), husbands, and get some alone time.

Everyone needs alone time.

There are plenty of players who take off a few months and don't work hard in the very short time span called a pro career.


Their "Alone Time" has a name. It's called "The playoffs".