Jason Taylor: Bad Fit?

[Ring 6]

Is it really necessary for me to repost from earlier in the thread? It's not in the CBA as mandatory workouts. It's supposed to be voluntary. And your contract cannot be terminated for ANY reason.

Seriously, what the hell is so difficult about this? If the teams think these events should be mandatory, let them bargain for that in the next CBA. If not, stop *****ing about players that actually take the word "voluntary" to mean voluntary.

Players can be cut at any time without reason. That is exactly terminating a contract without reason.
The Redskins wanted him at the 'voluntary' workouts and cut him because he refused.
They have the right to do that UNDER THE CBA.

You can't have it both ways.
You can't say the CBA calls them voluntary so you cant require them to attend when the CBA also provides for cutting them if they do not.

I'm curious though. Would you like BB to cancel off-season workouts so that the players can be with their families and not get better? Then the team can disgress.

 

[Ring 6]

Interesting that you think "Not in the CBA" somehow is an identical match to "don't matter".

No I think that

"How does it make sense to require these players to come in for camp after camp during the offseason AND have to show up for the offseason conditioning? When did it become reasonable to deny these men any time with their families?"

is the equivalent to 'don't matter'. Those were your words, not 'not in the CBA'

 

[Deus Irae]

Players can be cut at any time without reason. That is exactly terminating a contract without reason.
The Redskins wanted him at the 'voluntary' workouts and cut him because he refused.
They have the right to do that UNDER THE CBA.

You can't have it both ways.
You can't say the CBA calls them voluntary so you cant require them to attend when the CBA also provides for cutting them if they do not.

I'm curious though. Would you like BB to cancel off-season workouts so that the players can be with their families and not get better? Then the team can disgress.

Ok, so you just don't understand labor law, is that the problem here?

 

[Deus Irae]

No I think that

"How does it make sense to require these players to come in for camp after camp during the offseason AND have to show up for the offseason conditioning? When did it become reasonable to deny these men any time with their families?"

is the equivalent to 'don't matter'. Those were your words, not 'not in the CBA'

The CBA outlines what activities can be done and when, along with what can happen during those activities. Examples are the voluntary workouts, non-contact activities, etc...

 

[TripleOption]

Ok, so you just don't understand labor law, is that the problem here?

I understand labor law quite well. The problem is that those players, while under contract, can still be terminated at any time for any reason.

It's a silly rule, and it should be bargained out of the CBA. I'd imagine the owners could change it and go to impact bargaining whenever they want.

 

[Deus Irae]

I understand labor law quite well. The problem is that those players, while under contract, can still be terminated at any time for any reason.

It's a silly rule, and it should be bargained out of the CBA. I'd imagine the owners could change it and go to impact bargaining whenever they want.

Sentence 2 is simply not correct.

 

[Patriot Missile]

I could either way if he came or not. If he does that is fine, I'll be hoping he contributes and cheer for the guy. If he doesn't, no big deal. I'll be assuming Belichick has someone in mind to be drafted in April.

 

[TripleOption]

Sentence 2 is simply not correct.

Really? And why is that? It happens all the time. Employers are usually granted managerial prerogative. If they wish to change a portion of the contract, many times they just do it and force the union to go to impact bargaining.

 

[SladeRider]

The problem with Taylor is the sameone we would have with Peppers, converting him from defensive end to outside linebacker because I don't see Taylor getting in the defensive line ahead of Seymour, Wilfork or Warren.

 

[spacecrime]

It's supposed to be voluntary. And your contract cannot be terminated for ANY reason.

The player cannot terminate the contract for any reason. He can quit his job, but if he comes back into the NFL, the contract is still there waiting for him. It's his until he fulfills it or the team lets him out of it.

The team can terminate it without a reason.

As far as time away from family goes, I believe a football player spends a lot more time with his family in a year than I ever did working 40 hours a week with three weeks vacation and holidays. Some jobs require time away and some don't. It is up to the person to decide if he wants that kind of job or not. If you want to be with your family every night, don't take a job that requires travel. Or, as is sometimes the case and you need the job, you can want to be with your family but your family is better off if you kept that job and traveled. So you do what you have to do. If you already have plenty of money like Taylor, you have the advantage of quitting. There are very few in that position in this world.

I think a player who goes into the NFL understands the landscape, and does not believe that he will only be on the job during training camp and the actual season.

Many jobs you cannot advance without doing lots of things not in your official job description. No, they cannot "force" you, but you will be viewed as not a company person, and as such not promoted, given good assignments, and watch out if a layoff occurs.

This is real life.

 

[Deus Irae]

The player cannot terminate the contract for any reason. He can quit his job, but if he comes back into the NFL, the contract is still there waiting for him. It's his until he fulfills it or the team lets him out of it.

The team can terminate it without a reason.

As far as time away from family goes, I believe a football player spends a lot more time with his family in a year than I ever did working 40 hours a week with three weeks vacation and holidays. Some jobs require time away and some don't. It is up to the person to decide if he wants that kind of job or not. If you want to be with your family every night, don't take a job that requires travel. Or, as is sometimes the case and you need the job, you can want to be with your family but your family is better off if you kept that job and traveled. So you do what you have to do. If you already have plenty of money like Taylor, you have the advantage of quitting. There are very few in that position in this world.

I think a player who goes into the NFL understands the landscape, and does not believe that he will only be on the job during training camp and the actual season.

Many jobs you cannot advance without doing lots of things not in your official job description. No, they cannot "force" you, but you will be viewed as not a company person, and as such not promoted, given good assignments, and watch out if a layoff occurs.

This is real life.

The team cannot terminate for "any" reason. That is real life. They are no different in that respect than any other non-governmental company in America. There was a change made when the CBA was extended which has allowed teams broader latitude to fire players for getting arrested and the like, but since people here have been trying to play semantics with "voluntary", I find it interesting that they've been so careless with "any reason".

 

[JSn]

I think the player needs to show up to work ready. If he needs to make use of the company gym and trainers, so be it, but a professional athlete should be well able to remember what he does while he's at home. His conditioning is directly related to his paycheque, and I would think anyone who belongs in a Patriots uniform knows this, whether they work out in Foxborough or at home.

I don't buy that anyone with vet status should be "forced" to participate, but Bill has it right by rewarding the guys who expend the extra effort, because it will translate to the field and that's what matters most.

A guy like Taylor doesn't need to show up before mandatories, imo. Especially if he already has the playbook and is only going to rush the passer. After all this time, we're not looking at a monster learning curve.

Weirdly, I'm siding with Deus on this one (I think - I skimmed a few of the posts) and I think the program is voluntary and participation simply tells us about the players we have. Non-participation is meaningless if guys are showing up in shape and are playing well.

 

[HEY BRO! WHAT UP?]

Jason Taylor would be a good fit and I will tell you why. Many people seem to forget that Taylor played in a 3-4 scheme in Nick Saban's last year with the Dolphins. Nick Saban coached with BB in Cleveland. Saban had Taylor all over the field as a down lineman and a stand up rusher. He returned a pick for a touchdown against the Bears when he lined up as a LB. The Pats will probably draft a OLB in the first round to groom but still sign Taylor.

 

[satz]

BAD FIT as you are benching a high draft pick DE/OLB to play him. but we not draft a DE/OLB in say the first 4 rounds then we are good.

 

[Amnorix]

Jason Taylor won Defensive POY under Saban in Miami just 2 years ago, using a system very similar to the Patriots'.

Yeah, why would we want him?!?

 

[alvinnf]

Hey, Jason. Hit the Bowflex, the Thighmaster, whatever, see you in June.

 

[Ring 6]

Ok, so you just don't understand labor law, is that the problem here?

Nice. We have moved to the passive-aggressive Deus Irae knows he is wrong so will change the subject portion of our program.

NFL players can be cut for no reason. That is an incontrovertible fact. Jason Taylor was in fact cut because he did not want to participate in off-season workouts. If that is a violation of labor laws why is there no action against the Redskins?
The Patriots cut about 30 players last summer. Did they sue because there needed to be grounds for dismissal?

There is a collective bargaining agreement and a contract between the club and player that mandates the team can decide to terminate a player without needing a reason to do so. End of story, you are wrong. For once, when it is totally black and white with no possiblity for misinterpretation ARE YOU CAPABLE OF ADMITTING YOU ARE WRONG. I think you are not.

 

[Ring 6]

The team cannot terminate for "any" reason. That is real life. They are no different in that respect than any other non-governmental company in America. There was a change made when the CBA was extended which has allowed teams broader latitude to fire players for getting arrested and the like, but since people here have been trying to play semantics with "voluntary", I find it interesting that they've been so careless with "any reason".

Wow. This is so far out of touch with reality that its scary.
NFL teams can cut players for whatever reason they wish.
Jason Taylor, Terrel Owens, and dozens of other players were recently cut by their teams. Please show me evidence of where a reason was necessary to do so.
If players are cut and no reason is necessary, then there can't be one necessary when you feel their should be.
You really are now just making things up to not be wrong.

 

[Ring 6]

Sentence 2 is simply not correct.

Players get cut every day. Teams are not required to document a reason. That's it there is no gray area. You are arguing against fact.

 

[Ring 6]

The CBA outlines what activities can be done and when, along with what can happen during those activities. Examples are the voluntary workouts, non-contact activities, etc...

Were you responding to a different post? This has nothing to do with the one you copied, which was based on your conflicting posts: ie at first you bemoaned why teams would want a player to have to be away from their family for the sake of off-season workouts (imply they were valueless) then when I categorized that as calling them unimportant you asked how 'not in the cba' equalled unimportant.
Are you now back tracking on off-season workouts being unimportant? Or are you trying to recreate history and say that you think they are as important as BB seems to think but that the CBA bans them and all 32 teams are violating the CBA by wanting their players at these important functions?
Or are you saying that you want a team full of players who don't take football seriously enough to show up a few times a month during a few of the months in the half a year they are off work???????????
I'm not sure what you are trying to say, I only know that this post had nothing to do with the topic.