Dan Koppen makes great points on the NFL's offseason

[upstater1]

rules changes to limit the wear and tear on player's bodies.

This is Koppen's take from the ESPNPatriots' Blog:

Koppen shared his opinion on some of the health and safety rules the NFL has proposed, such as offseason programs going from 14 weeks to nine weeks, with organized team activities reduced from 14 to 10.

“I think the offseason and the OTAs, as far as contact and wear and tear – limiting that – I don’t really feel that’s in any way hindering or making my body feel worse,” he said. “It’s one of those things where if you take five weeks away, that’s five weeks of less preparation time you have to get ready for the season, which is a long season and you have to be in shape and ready to go.

“As far as taking the pads away in the practice, I think that’s a good idea, a good start of talks, in how we can limit that. Playing 16 games and four preseason games, playoff games and what have you, you’re in a lot of car crashes. Any time you can take hitting away from the game a little bit, and focus on some other things, I think that will save the body a little bit. The OTAs are not contact and the offseason is just working out, and you should really be working out anyway. It’s a place to start.”

 

[andrewgarrr]

I think diminishing the offseason program will hurt the teams in the long run, and in the end, make for worse teams and less interesting football.

 

[lamafist]

You know, when I read the NFL's statement about the owners' (purported) final offer, I wondered about how much reducing OTA and other offseason activities would actually benefit player health, and how much of it was just a 'bone' the owners could toss the players at no cost to themselves.

I also wonder to what extent the owners should be so blatant about using health-preserving measures as bargaining chips with the union. Occupational safety laws do not allow employees (or their union representatives) to bargain away their right to workplace safety. If the NFL stipulates that these concessions are beneficial to the health and safety of the players, they would be require by law to make them, and any CBA the players' signed that waived them would be invalid.

 

[BTTA]

Occupational safety laws do not allow employees (or their union representatives) to bargain away their right to workplace safety. If the NFL stipulates that these concessions are beneficial to the health and safety of the players, they would be require by law to make them, and any CBA the players' signed that waived them would be invalid.

Having OSHA and state level safety regulators look the other way is one of the "wink wink" nods that the league gets as part of the anti trust exemption. If players were to get the full legitimate protection of workplace safety laws, they'd be playing flag football.