[News] Late For Work 5/23: Ray Lewis Explains How Pro Athletes Go Broke

[BR News]

NFL’s most-hated players list proves we cover offseason football waaaaay too much. A veteran who could lose his job to a rookie. Ravens expecting strong attendance at voluntary OTAs.

View the full article

[bioLarzen]

What I am truly baffled by is how the NFL can use taking away from the rookies practice time as a punishment, and getting away with it - an absolute beginner lawyer would have an easy time proving that such a penalty results in the reduction of the rookies readiness for the season - and that this reduction in their readiness increases the chance of them getting hurt. Thus, such a penalty itself increases the risk of injury - something the NFL is supposed to fight against, not facilitate...

Edited May 23, 2016 by bioLarzen

[rmcjacket23]

6 minutes ago, bioLarzen said:

What I am truly baffled by is how the NFL can use taking away from the rookies practice time as a punishment, and getting away with it - an absolute beginner lawyer would have an easy time proving that such a penalty results in the reduction of the rookies readiness for the season - and that this reduction in their readiness increases the chance of them getting hurt. Thus, such a penalty itself increases the risk of injury - something the NFL is supposed to fight against, not facilitate...

1. The NFL is just creating the PERCEPTION that they care about players. They don't.

2. They're not concerned with injuries per say. They are concerned with head injuries, by which less practice time would lead to less opportunities for that to happen. The NFL doesn't care if a rookie tears his ACL because he didn't practice enough. 

3. The punishment is clearly designed to reduce preparation time for a team, as that's a viable punishment for abusing the practice time you were given.

Its all about concussions and head injuries. 

[bioLarzen]

" “He rarely fumbles, which is something Allen and Taliaferro have struggled with in their young careers. "

 

It's one thing when NFL staff writers, who only know a little about each NFL team don't really know what they're talking about regarding this or that player - but Zrebiec should be at least familiar with the key stats. Taliaferro had exactly 1 fumble in his two seasons... Forsett, in his first season where he was really more than depth on the chart, had 4 fumbles... Now Forsteett is, indeed, one of the more dependable backs. But Taliaferro is, too. The real knock on him is his low YPC and that he cannot seem to be able to stay healthy, not the fumbles.

 

You see, Mr. Zrebiec, it's not cool to do such things. You casually call Taliaferro a fumbler just to make your article look good - and the next thing you know that people who read your article will go on thinking about Taliaferro as a fumbler - which he, at this point of his career, isn't.

[bioLarzen]

8 minutes ago, rmcjacket23 said:

3. The punishment is clearly designed to reduce preparation time for a team, as that's a viable punishment for abusing the practice time you were given.

Its all about concussions and head injuries. 

... which reduced practice time clearly makes more likely - because where do you learn how to avoid them if not in the practices?

 

If the NFL was clearly out to avoid rookies being trained in way the CBA doesn't allow, they could simply have in such cases someone sent to the guilty organisation's practice facility - at the organization's cost - to observe the practices. This would eliminate the risk of such things happening again, and the rookies wouldn't lose precious practice time. And heck, they could even slap some fine to it, just to really make it feel like a penalty.

Edited May 23, 2016 by bioLarzen

[rmcjacket23]

5 minutes ago, bioLarzen said:

... which reduced practice time clearly makes more likely - because where do you learn how to avoid them if not in the practices?

Well its not like teams are actually practicing how to not get hit in the head, especially at the Professional level.

[757RavensFan]

Glad OTA's start tomorrow.  Can't wait to hear the status of Perriman. 

[bioLarzen]

2 minutes ago, rmcjacket23 said:

Well its not like teams are actually practicing how to not get hit in the head, especially at the Professional level.

You think they are not covering this topic? (And anyway, this is merely what you think. You may be right - and you may be wrong...)

Edited May 23, 2016 by bioLarzen

[stixfix69]

I said Dixon had RR traits as far as running between the tackles, and being a excellent receiver out of the backfield...But it would do him good to be a 3rd down back, and watch and learn from Forsett.....Forsett is aa great mentor, and he can gain so much knowledge from him....JMO...

[rmcjacket23]

17 minutes ago, bioLarzen said:

You think they are not covering this topic? (And anyway, this is merely what you think. You may be right - and you may be wrong...)

Not even a little bit. That's the sort of thing you learn when you're developing basic football skills (Pop Warner, High school, maybe a little bit in college). That's why a lot of the "root" of the problem of concussions is being heavily pushed to be "tackled" at the introductory level. Teaching young players how to hit, tackle, etc. correctly at a young age. Once you're 21-22 and a Pro player, really no turning back in terms of technique from that standpoint.

I seriously doubt the Ravens or any other Pro team are taking even five minutes of a finite amount of practice time teaching adults who have been playing football for a long time how to not get hit in the head.

[eze17]

It would come as a complete surprise to me if Forsett is not the starting RB for the Ravens. Yes, Dixon has an impressive resume, and his skill set coincides with Trestman's offensive schemes, but I don't think you dump a veteran player who has shown the drive and leadership that Forsett has. Now as the season wears on, if Dixon, or for that matter Allen or whoever they keep on the roster show they can legitamately be a better back than Forsett, then let the best player get the most snaps. But I still see Forsett getting the nod as our starter, and getting the majority of snaps.

And yet again this discussion comes about from PFF, who the writers on this site love to quote over all other organizations. Although as i've stated before, PFF's dubious comments and rankings do stir up good debates. Usually because they're laughably inane.

[robbie29]

Glad OTA's start tomorrow.  Can't wait to hear the status of Perriman. 

Yeah...unless that status is "day-to-day" or "ought to be ready by..."

[RRRRRavens]

  2 hours ago, bioLarzen said:

What I am truly baffled by is how the NFL can use taking away from the rookies practice time as a punishment, and getting away with it - an absolute beginner lawyer would have an easy time proving that such a penalty results in the reduction of the rookies readiness for the season - and that this reduction in their readiness increases the chance of them getting hurt. Thus, such a penalty itself increases the risk of injury - something the NFL is supposed to fight against, not facilitate...

1. The NFL is just creating the PERCEPTION that they care about players. They don't.

2. They're not concerned with injuries per say. They are concerned with head injuries, by which less practice time would lead to less opportunities for that to happen. The NFL doesn't care if a rookie tears his ACL because he didn't practice enough. 

3. The punishment is clearly designed to reduce preparation time for a team, as that's a viable punishment for abusing the practice time you were given.

Its all about concussions and head injuries. 

To understand the NFL's style of justice I recommend reading "Alice in Wonderland" chapters 11 and 12. The process of the trial depicted there by Lewis Carroll seems to me to resonate strongly with how Goodell and the NFL owners run things. Go ahead and read chapters 11 and 12. You'll get a chuckle. It's on the internet

http://www.alice-in-wonderland.net/.

[rmcjacket23]

1 minute ago, RRRRRavens said:

To understand the NFL's style of justice I recommend reading "Alice in Wonderland" chapters 11 and 12. The process of the trial depicted there by Lewis Carroll seems to me to resonate strongly with how Goodell and the NFL owners run things. Go ahead and read chapters 11 and 12. You'll get a chuckle. It's on the internet

http://www.alice-in-wonderland.net/.

 

And I don't blame them for running things that way...its precisely what I would do if I held all the power and people just kept agreeing to give me more.

Edited May 23, 2016 by rmcjacket23

[RRRRRavens]

  10 minutes ago, RRRRRavens said:

To understand the NFL's style of justice I recommend reading "Alice in Wonderland" chapters 11 and 12. The process of the trial depicted there by Lewis Carroll seems to me to resonate strongly with how Goodell and the NFL owners run things. Go ahead and read chapters 11 and 12. You'll get a chuckle. It's on the internet

http://www.alice-in-wonderland.net/.

 

And I don't blame them for running things that way...

No blame. Just a good source of black comedy.

[eze17]

I'm not implying that PFF is not without its merits, especially in its evaluation of certain positions that most analytical organizations ignore, or at least breeze over. Certainly, most zero in on "fantasy football" stats that focus almost exclusively on scoring positions. I applaud PFF for being much more subjective in evaluating players that some publications give scant notice to.

And as I said, PFF if nothing else invites debate with their topics, which is what this commentary section is all about: fan opinions. Maybe I don't give PFF enough credit when I agree with their opinions, and I certainly do voice myself when I disagree. Which, I have tended to find, I disagree with their take more than I agree with. AS such, I, personally, take a lot of their so called "expert" opinions with a grain of salt. Which is what I take out of PFF's John Breitenbach's opinion that Dixon is the better starter at RB over Forsett. I don't consider myself a "homer" because I think that the job is Forsetts to lose and shouldn't be given to Dixon based on Breitenbach's opinion that he's better as our starter.

My beef with PFF is not so much their statistical analysis, but some of their writers opinions...

[Ravenous_Ravens]

  3 hours ago, rmcjacket23 said:

  3 hours ago, bioLarzen said:

What I am truly baffled by is how the NFL can use taking away from the rookies practice time as a punishment, and getting away with it - an absolute beginner lawyer would have an easy time proving that such a penalty results in the reduction of the rookies readiness for the season - and that this reduction in their readiness increases the chance of them getting hurt. Thus, such a penalty itself increases the risk of injury - something the NFL is supposed to fight against, not facilitate...

1. The NFL is just creating the PERCEPTION that they care about players. They don't.

2. They're not concerned with injuries per say. They are concerned with head injuries, by which less practice time would lead to less opportunities for that to happen. The NFL doesn't care if a rookie tears his ACL because he didn't practice enough. 

3. The punishment is clearly designed to reduce preparation time for a team, as that's a viable punishment for abusing the practice time you were given.

Its all about concussions and head injuries. 

To understand the NFL's style of justice I recommend reading "Alice in Wonderland" chapters 11 and 12. The process of the trial depicted there by Lewis Carroll seems to me to resonate strongly with how Goodell and the NFL owners run things. Go ahead and read chapters 11 and 12. You'll get a chuckle. It's on the internet

http://www.alice-in-wonderland.net/.

You do not need to read anything to understand the NFL is about money above all else. They have been exploiting people for a long long long time now. It is only recently that people are starting to wake up and realize the truth. They will also continue as long as people continue to give them what they want, which is more money. Why else go global? How very un-patriotic of the NFL.

[rmcjacket23]

3 minutes ago, eze17 said:

I'm not implying that PFF is not without its merits, especially in its evaluation of certain positions that most analytical organizations ignore, or at least breeze over. Certainly, most zero in on "fantasy football" stats that focus almost exclusively on scoring positions. I applaud PFF for being much more subjective in evaluating players that some publications give scant notice to.

And as I said, PFF if nothing else invites debate with their topics, which is what this commentary section is all about: fan opinions. Maybe I don't give PFF enough credit when I agree with their opinions, and I certainly do voice myself when I disagree. Which, I have tended to find, I disagree with their take more than I agree with. AS such, I, personally, take a lot of their so called "expert" opinions with a grain of salt. Which is what I take out of PFF's John Breitenbach's opinion that Dixon is the better starter at RB over Forsett. I don't consider myself a "homer" because I think that the job is Forsetts to lose and shouldn't be given to Dixon based on Breitenbach's opinion that he's better as our starter.

My beef with PFF is not so much their statistical analysis, but some of their writers opinions...

Generally speaking, I don't use PFF for much else other than player scores and rankings. Because while those statistical measures are inherently objective, they do use a certain level of assumptions, as most statistics do. And, as I always tell people, I've yet to read see a better method out there for grading players, particularly when they actually do watch every single play of every single player in order to evaluate. 

A lot of their opinions are based on said scores, so there's that. The whole Dixon/Forsett hypothesis isn't really validated by any NFL data, because they obviously have none on Dixon. Its more or less PFF attempting to grade Dixon as a college player and projecting what he would do as an NFL player, because that's all they have to go by. So, knowing that, I would agree that, much like any opinion or projection of a rookie overtaking a veteran, its just an estimate at this point. 

[Ravenous_Ravens]

" “He rarely fumbles, which is something Allen and Taliaferro have struggled with in their young careers. "

 

It's one thing when NFL staff writers, who only know a little about each NFL team don't really know what they're talking about regarding this or that player - but Zrebiec should be at least familiar with the key stats. Taliaferro had exactly 1 fumble in his two seasons... Forsett, in his first season where he was really more than depth on the chart, had 4 fumbles... Now Forsteett is, indeed, one of the more dependable backs. But Taliaferro is, too. The real knock on him is his low YPC and that he cannot seem to be able to stay healthy, not the fumbles.

 

You see, Mr. Zrebiec, it's not cool to do such things. You casually call Taliaferro a fumbler just to make your article look good - and the next thing you know that people who read your article will go on thinking about Taliaferro as a fumbler - which he, at this point of his career, isn't.

Good catch. No one ever talks about the fact that some fumbles are from carelessness protecting the football while others are due to very determined defenders making something happen. A fumble once in a while doesn't make you fumbler either. Fumblers typically fumble the ball at least 1 a game if given the opportunities.

[rmcjacket23]

Just now, Ravenous_Ravens said:

Good catch. No one ever talks about the fact that some fumbles are from carelessness protecting the football while others are due to very determined defenders making something happen. A fumble once in a while doesn't make you fumbler either. Fumblers typically fumble the ball at least 1 a game if given the opportunities.

What is the basis for that statement? What, do you mean if they got like 100 carries a game they would fumble at least once? 

Guys that fumble once a game wouldn't even last a season in the NFL. They'd be unemployed.

In general, NFL teams really don't care what the reason for the fumble is. They certainly don't discount "carelessness" more than "a defender making something happen", because I'd bet most NFL teams would tell you the latter is simply a product of the former. A defender being more determined to strip the ball away from you than you are of holding onto it, by NFL standards, is carelessness. All that means is that your personal determination needs to increase to a level above that of the defenders.

[WNC-Raven]

  40 minutes ago, RRRRRavens said:

  3 hours ago, rmcjacket23 said:

  3 hours ago, bioLarzen said:

What I am truly baffled by is how the NFL can use taking away from the rookies practice time as a punishment, and getting away with it - an absolute beginner lawyer would have an easy time proving that such a penalty results in the reduction of the rookies readiness for the season - and that this reduction in their readiness increases the chance of them getting hurt. Thus, such a penalty itself increases the risk of injury - something the NFL is supposed to fight against, not facilitate...

1. The NFL is just creating the PERCEPTION that they care about players. They don't.

2. They're not concerned with injuries per say. They are concerned with head injuries, by which less practice time would lead to less opportunities for that to happen. The NFL doesn't care if a rookie tears his ACL because he didn't practice enough. 

3. The punishment is clearly designed to reduce preparation time for a team, as that's a viable punishment for abusing the practice time you were given.

Its all about concussions and head injuries. 

To understand the NFL's style of justice I recommend reading "Alice in Wonderland" chapters 11 and 12. The process of the trial depicted there by Lewis Carroll seems to me to resonate strongly with how Goodell and the NFL owners run things. Go ahead and read chapters 11 and 12. You'll get a chuckle. It's on the internet

http://www.alice-in-wonderland.net/.

You do not need to read anything to understand the NFL is about money above all else. They have been exploiting people for a long long long time now. It is only recently that people are starting to wake up and realize the truth. They will also continue as long as people continue to give them what they want, which is more money. Why else go global? How very un-patriotic of the NFL.

Wait and see what happens when they expand the playoffs and it becomes common to see 7-9 or 6-10 teams in the post season. That may be the moment their greed hits a tipping point and regular season games all of a sudden don't mean as much.

[Ravenous_Ravens]

Good point R Lewis is making. Funny it's not the NFL trying to change things and make a difference though. Sure seems like they had this whole thing planned out from a very long time ago.

If most players go broke after their careers, they cannot help themselves very much and when they deal with the side effects of football careers, they cannot get the help they need and are left fending for themselves. Worst off, the NFL is not even held fully accountable, at least until recently. IMHO it is a joke they were let off so easy when you look at the evidence. Sure they have to pay some, but they still made more money than they ever paid out and still come out ahead. The scam continues.

Why is it people feel it is acceptable for a multi-billion dollar industry to get away with withholding vital information from it's employees only to financially gain off of their misery? They sure operate a lot like big tobacco companies.

[MissRay27]

Keenan,
You make a older lady "Want to holler and throw up both my hands". Nice moves.

[Tru11]

3 hours ago, bioLarzen said:

What I am truly baffled by is how the NFL can use taking away from the rookies practice time as a punishment, and getting away with it - an absolute beginner lawyer would have an easy time proving that such a penalty results in the reduction of the rookies readiness for the season - and that this reduction in their readiness increases the chance of them getting hurt. Thus, such a penalty itself increases the risk of injury - something the NFL is supposed to fight against, not facilitate...

Its in the CBA which the players negotiated for.

Pretty sure they also agreed with the league on the type of punishments and agreed that its up the league to enforce it.

So before blaming the NFL you might want start with the players.

 

[rmcjacket23]

15 minutes ago, WNC-Raven said:

Wait and see what happens when they expand the playoffs and it becomes common to see 7-9 or 6-10 teams in the post season. That may be the moment their greed hits a tipping point and regular season games all of a sudden don't mean as much.

That's a bit of a stretch, considering they're only going to add one team on each side.

Note that in most cases where a 7-9 team makes the playoffs, its as a division winner, not as a wildcard team, and they're only looking to add one wildcard team.

If the NFL added one additional wildcard team on each side, in the last ten years, here would be the records of those teams....

11-5 - one instance

10-6 - six instances

9-7 - seven instances

8-8 - six instances

So the sweet spot range of record for adding an additional playoff team would be between an 8-10 win team. In the last ten years, 70% of the teams that finished 7th in their conference had a winning record, and 100% of them finished at least at .500. 

 

[rmcjacket23]

24 minutes ago, Ravenous_Ravens said:

Good point R Lewis is making. Funny it's not the NFL trying to change things and make a difference though. Sure seems like they had this whole thing planned out from a very long time ago.

If most players go broke after their careers, they cannot help themselves very much and when they deal with the side effects of football careers, they cannot get the help they need and are left fending for themselves. Worst off, the NFL is not even held fully accountable, at least until recently. IMHO it is a joke they were let off so easy when you look at the evidence. Sure they have to pay some, but they still made more money than they ever paid out and still come out ahead. The scam continues.

Why is it people feel it is acceptable for a multi-billion dollar industry to get away with withholding vital information from it's employees only to financially gain off of their misery? They sure operate a lot like big tobacco companies.

Well, the scam doesn't continue, because its no longer a scam. Players can't plead ignorance anymore, starting from about 5 years ago.

I'll never, ever, ever blame the NFL for the financial woes of former players. 

[RRRRRavens]

  36 minutes ago, Ravenous_Ravens said:

Good catch. No one ever talks about the fact that some fumbles are from carelessness protecting the football while others are due to very determined defenders making something happen. A fumble once in a while doesn't make you fumbler either. Fumblers typically fumble the ball at least 1 a game if given the opportunities.

What is the basis for that statement? What, do you mean if they got like 100 carries a game they would fumble at least once? 

Guys that fumble once a game wouldn't even last a season in the NFL. They'd be unemployed.

In general, NFL teams really don't care what the reason for the fumble is. They certainly don't discount "carelessness" more than "a defender making something happen", because I'd bet most NFL teams would tell you the latter is simply a product of the former. A defender being more determined to strip the ball away from you than you are of holding onto it, by NFL standards, is carelessness. All that means is that your personal determination needs to increase to a level above that of the defenders.

I wonder how many fumbles per carry qualify a ball carrier as a fumbler? Is anyone aware of some sort of average for all ball carriers?

[RRRRRavens]

Good point R Lewis is making. Funny it's not the NFL trying to change things and make a difference though. Sure seems like they had this whole thing planned out from a very long time ago.

If most players go broke after their careers, they cannot help themselves very much and when they deal with the side effects of football careers, they cannot get the help they need and are left fending for themselves. Worst off, the NFL is not even held fully accountable, at least until recently. IMHO it is a joke they were let off so easy when you look at the evidence. Sure they have to pay some, but they still made more money than they ever paid out and still come out ahead. The scam continues.

Why is it people feel it is acceptable for a multi-billion dollar industry to get away with withholding vital information from it's employees only to financially gain off of their misery? They sure operate a lot like big tobacco companies.

Doesn't the Player's Association or the NFL itself have some sort of pension plan?

[RRRRRavens]

  3 hours ago, bioLarzen said:

What I am truly baffled by is how the NFL can use taking away from the rookies practice time as a punishment, and getting away with it - an absolute beginner lawyer would have an easy time proving that such a penalty results in the reduction of the rookies readiness for the season - and that this reduction in their readiness increases the chance of them getting hurt. Thus, such a penalty itself increases the risk of injury - something the NFL is supposed to fight against, not facilitate...

Its in the CBA which the players negotiated for.

Pretty sure they also agreed with the league on the type of punishments and agreed that its up the league to enforce it.

So before blaming the NFL you might want start with the players.

 

If the CBA clearly spells out the law that's one thing. But then who is the one that determines whether the law was broken and what the punishment should be? To me this is the flaw in the system as we saw in the Ray Rice affair and others. That is why I don't see why the NFL does not use retired esteemed judges for this. They are trained and well-practiced to taking violations and applying the applicable law to them.

[rmcjacket23]

10 minutes ago, RRRRRavens said:

I wonder how many fumbles per carry qualify a ball carrier as a fumbler? Is anyone aware of some sort of average for all ball carriers?

I found this upon quick research...

http://www.sportingcharts.com/nfl/stats/rushing-fumble-rates/2015/

Sort by rushing attempts (highest) and you get a better feel for percentage. The top ten in rushing attempts in 2015 had an average fumble rate of 1.3%.