Jacksonville Jaguars Fan Forums

(04-24-2019, 01:44 PM)JackCity Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-24-2019, 01:42 PM)jagibelieve Wrote: [ -> ]Fake news.

It's not

It basically is.  The league simply caved to the NFLPA for his comments which did not break any rules or call out any player by name.  Supposedly an "un-named source" said the letter warned about fines etc. if Coughlin "pressured" players to show up for voluntary workouts.  If Ramsey or Smith feel "pressured" by what Coughlin said then they are really soft (which I doubt).

(04-24-2019, 01:50 PM)MikePete54 Wrote: [ -> ]http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/26595...-voluntary

Quote:The NFL has sent a warning letter to Tom Coughlin, the [font=Georgia,]Jacksonville Jaguars' executive vice president of football operations, about his criticism of players not attending voluntary offseason workouts, a source told ESPN's Dan Graziano on Wednesday.[/font]

Coughlin was not fined, but another source told Graziano that the letter warned Coughlin and the Jaguars that future comments could lead to discipline in the form of a fine or possible loss of OTA practice days.

From the same article.

Quote:The NFL Players Association had asked the league to reinforce the rule about pressuring players to attend the voluntary workouts and to reach out to the Jaguars.

(04-24-2019, 01:57 PM)jagibelieve Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-24-2019, 01:44 PM)JackCity Wrote: [ -> ]It's not

It basically is.  The league simply caved to the NFLPA for his comments which did not break any rules or call out any player by name.  Supposedly an "un-named source" said the letter warned about fines etc. if Coughlin "pressured" players to show up for voluntary workouts.  If Ramsey or Smith feel "pressured" by what Coughlin said then they are really soft (which I doubt).

No, its objectively true that the league gave Tom a warning, with the help of a recommendation from the NFLPA. Its not the same as just being a warning from the NFLPA which is basically meaningless.

If you're offended by Coughlin's comments, you're soft as baby [BLEEP].

Wouldn't be surprised if he calls it quits after this season is over. He's too old school for today's softer era of football rules and regulations and the degree in which these players are pampered at times is disgusting. I don't blame him for expecting his players to be here. Especially the players with the most exposure in and outside the lockeroom and with these two guys being pretty vocal.

It does help set a standard. I know we're not the only team that has to deal with this. But... it's still voluntary. Doesn't matter what he says, thinks or feels regarding it at this point. It's still voluntary. He can thank the NFL upper Executives and the Player's Union for that. And he can't fault his players for taking advantage of that. Jalen Ramsey has done enough at this point in his career to where we should trust his judgement and decision making in regards to how he approaches the off season.

I could say the same for Telvin Smith. He had a down year last season in most eyes on this board. I saw him out of position here and there but not enough to where I am terrified of him being out there as a starter. And certainly not enough to cause much concern with him missing a voluntary workout. The NFL is actually right to come down on Coughlin for this.

And we all know Tom. This is classic Tom. Tom has, and forever will be a no nonsense, zero tolerance for missing ANY team activity, whether voluntary or not, disciplinarian. That's how he was coached by Parcells. It's the same way Belichick was coached. It's hard to argue about any of those three's approaches and results because they all account for 10 Superbowl victories out of the 53 that have been played since it's inception.

(04-24-2019, 02:21 PM)JackCity Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-24-2019, 01:57 PM)jagibelieve Wrote: [ -> ]It basically is.  The league simply caved to the NFLPA for his comments which did not break any rules or call out any player by name.  Supposedly an "un-named source" said the letter warned about fines etc. if Coughlin "pressured" players to show up for voluntary workouts.  If Ramsey or Smith feel "pressured" by what Coughlin said then they are really soft (which I doubt).

No, its objectively true that the league gave Tom a warning, with the help of a recommendation from the NFLPA. Its not the same as just being a warning from the NFLPA which is basically meaningless.

The NFLPA asked the league to "reinforce the rule about pressuring players to attend the voluntary workouts".  That's what the NFL did.

Another "source" said that there were threats of fines and/or loss of OTA time from the NFL.  That has not been confirmed and is not "fact".

This non-story is getting blown out of proportion.  The sports "media" is trying to gin up a story that doesn't really exist.  Coughlin never "pressured" or "threatened" any players, he simply stated an opinion.  The league did not issue a warning, they simply "reminded him of the rules regarding voluntary workouts".  Nothing more.

It is NOT "objectively true" that the league issued a warning.

(04-24-2019, 03:48 PM)jagibelieve Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-24-2019, 02:21 PM)JackCity Wrote: [ -> ]No, its objectively true that the league gave Tom a warning, with the help of a recommendation from the NFLPA. Its not the same as just being a warning from the NFLPA which is basically meaningless.

The NFLPA asked the league to "reinforce the rule about pressuring players to attend the voluntary workouts".  That's what the NFL did.

Another "source" said that there were threats of fines and/or loss of OTA time from the NFL.  That has not been confirmed and is not "fact".

This non-story is getting blown out of proportion.  The sports "media" is trying to gin up a story that doesn't really exist.  Coughlin never "pressured" or "threatened" any players, he simply stated an opinion.  The league did not issue a warning, they simply "reminded him of the rules regarding voluntary workouts".  Nothing more.

It is NOT "objectively true" that the league issued a warning.

Yes he was reminded of the rules and was quite literally warned that any future comments could result in a fine or loss of practice days. The other 31 front offices were not sent a warning letter about this, Coughlin was the only one.  

Unless you have any sources claiming he wasn't warned in the letter, bar yourself of course.

Warning implies wrong doing.
This wasnt a warning, just a refresher at the behest of the NFLPA, to say hey look we did something.

The NFL doesnt give out warnings. They punish wrong doings.

(04-24-2019, 04:44 PM)jagshype Wrote: [ -> ]Warning implies wrong doing.
This wasnt a warning, just a refresher at the behest of the NFLPA, to say hey look we did something.

The NFL doesnt give out warnings. They punish wrong doings.

You can be warned without actually doing something wrong. In this case, he was warned further comments like the ones he made could be punished.  

A reminder of the rules and a warning about  future "behaviour". 

And yes it is fairly overblown. The world and their wife knows Tom Coughlin (and most other team officials) would want as many players in to as many sessions as possible. He could however have delivered the message in a different way as to not arouse controversy

T.C., "Honey, can you bring me that warning letter I got? We are out of [BLEEP] wipes in here?

So...............It's voluntary but if we come we want to be paid?



Hey John, are players paid any extra for attending voluntary activities?

Players under the 2011 Collective Bargaining Agreement must be paid at least $215 per day for participating in the voluntary offseason program.

The official mascot of the NFLPA

Soft, that's the one word that comes to mind over this whole ordeal. Soft. Media nonsense, lets take this dude's answer to a loaded media question and take it way out of context. I hope the next time he answers a question he simply tells these jokes where to go, in 3 words or less.

(04-24-2019, 02:38 PM)JagNGeorgia Wrote: [ -> ]If you're offended by Coughlin's comments, you're soft as baby [BLEEP].

But who is "offended" by his comments?

The question is not whether the comments are offensive, but whether they violate in fact  or spirit, the letter of the collective bargaining agreement to which the NFL's member teams agree to be bound.

I find the "Simon says" rule many of you are adopting to say TC did not violate the terms of the CBA-in fact or in spirit-because he did not specifically mention Ramsey and Smith by name to be humorous.

I take it none of you have ever had parents who gave them "the look" for any misbehaviors, or minimally somehow didn't know you were receiving it? Even though your parents didn't mention your name or explicitly state what you did wrong, when you got the look, you knew to stop, or else.

He doesn't have to have named them specifically for them to know he was referring to them. He spoke of those not at the workouts. That is specific enough.

The law is not required to specifically list every citizen subject to it by name. If a particular behavior is prohibited, it is sufficient to indicate that anyone engaging in such behavior would be subject to the appropriate sanction.

(04-25-2019, 07:47 AM)Bullseye Wrote: [ -> ]I find the "Simon says" rule many of you are adopting to say TC did not violate the terms of the CBA-in fact or in spirit-because he did not specifically mention Ramsey and Smith by name to be humorous.

I take it none of you have ever had parents who gave them "the look" for any misbehaviors, or minimally somehow didn't know you were receiving it?  Even though your parents didn't mention your name or explicitly state what you did wrong, when you got the look, you knew to stop, or else.

He doesn't have to have named them specifically for them to know he was referring to them.  He spoke of those not at the workouts.  That is specific enough.

The law is not required to specifically list every citizen subject to it by name.  If a particular behavior is prohibited, it is sufficient to indicate that anyone engaging in such behavior  would be subject to the appropriate sanction.

Yeah the warning is in relation to the pressure potentially instilled by what he said. Even if he didn't mention anybody by name, he applied some level of public pressure to those who may not attend voluntary sessions. In the NFLPAs eyes and the NFLs eyes thats near enough to the line of whats allowed to be worth a warning on future comments

(04-25-2019, 07:52 AM)JackCity Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-25-2019, 07:47 AM)Bullseye Wrote: [ -> ]I find the "Simon says" rule many of you are adopting to say TC did not violate the terms of the CBA-in fact or in spirit-because he did not specifically mention Ramsey and Smith by name to be humorous.

I take it none of you have ever had parents who gave them "the look" for any misbehaviors, or minimally somehow didn't know you were receiving it?  Even though your parents didn't mention your name or explicitly state what you did wrong, when you got the look, you knew to stop, or else.

He doesn't have to have named them specifically for them to know he was referring to them.  He spoke of those not at the workouts.  That is specific enough.

The law is not required to specifically list every citizen subject to it by name.  If a particular behavior is prohibited, it is sufficient to indicate that anyone engaging in such behavior  would be subject to the appropriate sanction.

Yeah the warning is in relation to the pressure potentially instilled by what he said. Even if he didn't mention anybody by name, he applied some level of public pressure to those who may not attend voluntary sessions. In the NFLPAs eyes and the NFLs eyes thats near enough to the line of whats allowed to be worth a warning on future comments

Exactly.

They should not be voluntary. These people work half the year what's one more week.

(04-25-2019, 08:24 AM)Browntrouser Wrote: [ -> ]They should not be voluntary. These people work half the year what's one more week.

Perhaps not, but since both the NFLPA and the member teams agreed they would be voluntary, they need govern themselves accordingly.

(04-25-2019, 08:24 AM)Browntrouser Wrote: [ -> ]They should not be voluntary. These people work half the year what's one more week.

its still work to many of them. Its a job, a job with great perks and pay but also with some grave physical downsides of playing along with a relatively short window to make the most of things. 

I don't know why you care about other grown men having voluntary sessions