clock menu more-arrow no yes

Filed under:

Phinsider Question Of The Day (W/ Live Thread, General Discussion) 03/08/2020

New, comments
Houston Texans v Green Bay Packers Photo by: Jeff Gross/Getty Images

Tonight’s Phinsider Question Of The Day is a follow up to one that I posted a week or so ago. At first it looked as if we would be in one of those long epic fights between the NFL and the NFL players union that either ended in some sort of truncated season or even a canceled season. Of course in both of these cases it hurts everyone from the players to the owners to stadium staff right down to the fans. The big difference though is for the owners. Sure they will lose a season of profits but their investment in their team is still going to be a sound one and they all have plenty of money if they owned an NFL team or not at this point.

Now, suddenly, as if out of nowhere, in the last few weeks it looks like not only is a full deal on the table but the owners have approved it and it looks as if the players will as well. This comes with a caveat that some of the biggest names in and around the league are not pleased with this new deal one bit and have been openly speaking out against it at every turn. Whether this changes the vote is hard to say but it seems to me when you have a deal on the table and only half of the players have to approve it and the bottom half, in many cases cannot afford to not play or miss a season (if you are an on the cusp player that needs to improve you are much less likely to succeed in the future with a year at home sitting on your rear while more talent continues to flow from the college ranks the entire time while someone like Aaron Rodgers already has a mountain of money and will no doubt play again if he wants to following a year off), that it gets signed.

Either way both sides seem to always be motivated by greed, especially the owners. I am all for making every dime you can but I would never be the kind of owner that put things like players safety/well being/financial future before my giant profits. Its the old argument that without the teams the players have no where to make money with their skills and yet without the super talented athletes that the NFL attracts they would not make nearly as much money and in the end everyone winds up fighting for their own scraps. I for one find one huge flaw in the deal and I am agreeing with Aaron Rodgers here. If you are going to extend the season because you, as the NFL and their owners are doing everything you can each year to make the NFL more of a year round event (read more profits). They get closer and closer on this it seems with every new contract.

If the NFL want’s to extend the season and also help the players then give each team two bye weeks and make it an 18 game season. This helps some players that just need a bit of extra time to heal from an injury. This pushes the Super Bowl to the end of February, maybe even to the first week of March. On top of that each team should be able to expand the roster an extra 5 or 6 players. Being able to rotate more players at certain positions would cut down on injuries. Now of course the veteran players do not want the rosters expanded because it leaves less money for them but this could easily be alleviated by giving each team an exemption on the 6 lowest salaries to not be counted against the hard cap as these players will always be the ones at or near the league minimum as it is.

So with all of that in mind do you agree with me and Aaron Rodgers or are we both full of it?

The Phinsider Question Of The Day also serves as our nightly live thread. Please remember to follow all site rules while visiting any of the live threads. You are always welcome to discuss anything you wish just please avoid politics and religion for obvious reasons. Always be courteous towards your fellow Miami Dolphins fans (or visiting fans from another team) when discussing or debating any topics.