https://www.sportingnews.com/us/nfl/news/nfl-players-17-game-schedule-richard-sherman/zx9f0zsmpqav1eow8kun3krz6

The NFL’s motivation behind its push for a 17-game schedule is obvious, especially considering nobody (not even the fans) is asking for regular-season expansion. If the league can tout 17 games as opposed to 16 games in its upcoming negotiations with potential broadcast rights holders, it can and will charge more for those rights.

Yes, the players would earn a game check for that 17th regular-season contest, but the terms of the proposed CBA reportedly would limit that check to $250,000 per player, a laughable deal to the many players who make more per game. Yet, according to the sentiments expressed by Richard Sherman almost a month ago, the players’ pushback against the idea of a 17-game schedule is rooted deeper than compensation.

“I don’t think it’s something that players are interested in, honestly. And if that’s the point they’re negotiating on, I think these negotiations are going to go on a lot longer than anticipated.

“It’s odd to me — and it’s always odd — when you hear player safety as their biggest concern. They’re really standing up for player safety, player safety, player safety. But it seems like player safety has a price tag. Player safety up to the point of, ‘Hey, 17 games makes us this much money. So we really don’t care how safe they are, if you’re going to pay us this much money to play another game.’

“That’s the part that’s really concerning for us as a union and us as players, because they think that players have a price tag on their health. And I don’t think we’re in the same ballpark in that regard. Players have been more aware of player safety and longevity and just life after football. And the league kind of pretends that they’re interested in it, pretends that they care about it, makes all these rules and fines all these players, but then still proposes for players to play an extra game.

“And not just 17. They’re really just saying 17 so they can get to 18. So that’s two more opportunities for players to risk their bodies and put their bodies on the line. That’s what’s so ridiculous about it, and nobody calls them out. Nobody calls out the hypocrisy.

“I’m hoping that one day people will be brave enough to call out the hypocrisy of saying, ‘Hey we really care about player safety, but hey we also want you to play an extra game, put your body on the line and risk your career.’”

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/28751269/nfl-cba-vote-delayed-need-know-biggest-changes-2021-proposal-potential-agreement-line

What’s the main sticking point?

Put simply, the players don’t want to play 17 games. They feel it’s asking too much in a sport that is already ridiculously tough on their health and safety. Sources close to the situation said the reason the NFLPA executive council voted to not recommend the deal was because of concerns some of its members still have over the idea of an expanded regular season and doubts some of them have over the owners’ projections for how much more revenue it would generate.

The meeting in Indianapolis between the two sides is likely to address these issues directly, possibly giving members of the board of player reps a chance to hear the owners’ side of the issue. It’s unlikely that vocally anti-17-game executive council members like Richard Sherman and Russell Okung will be convinced, but it’s possible that meeting could help convince enough player reps to vote in favor of the proposal.

https://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2020/2/21/21145466/nfl-cba-proposal-owners-nflpa-vote-changes-players-revenue-benefits

It should worry the players that the NFL owners want this deal done so badly.

If the owners are so willing to do this deal now, almost a full year before it’s necessary and several weeks before the start of the new league year, what is the reason and what are they gaining from this new CBA?

The NFL owners want a CBA done ASAP so they can start negotiating new TV and streaming deals. That’s where the bulk of the revenue is generated, and with an additional few weeks and two more playoff games, the NFL can name its price for its rights.

On top of that, if an agreement can’t be reached, it could lead to a lockout next offseason. That would leave a bad taste in the mouth of consumers, who have driven NFL ratings and profits up over the last two years of the current CBA deal.

Lastly, tucked away in the bullet points of that deal is a vague mention of gambling:

Gambling definitions that ensures money is included in players’ definition of All Revenue, including portions of non-football activities

That will explode the revenue of the league. This needs to be more defined, but it adds to the reason the NFL wants this done now.

Albert Breer@AlbertBreer
I would not consider ratification of this CBA proposal a fait accompli. It has strong, influential detractors in the player ranks.

The players’ leverage is the owners’ desire to get going on the TV deals. And certain guys realize that. The owners may be willing to quit on negotiating with the players. They won’t quit on TV talks.

Anyway … I think with the CBA stuff where it is now, it underscores a) how important the TV deals are to everything and b) how impactful exec comm guys (who voted NOT to recommend the owners’ CBA proposal today) can be.

Big days ahead.

CBA Notes: Funding Rule, Marijuana, Fines

https://www.profootballrumors.com/2020/02/cba-notes-funding-rule-marijuana-fines

The momentum toward a new CBA took a blow on Friday, but all hope is not lost, as the two sides have agreed to meet at the combine next week. As we await more word on where exactly the players union stands, here’s the latest on what was in the most recent proposal:

One issue that players didn’t get what they wanted on is the ‘funding rule,’ per Dan Graziano of ESPN.com (Twitter link). The players wanted the rule eliminated, but instead Graziano notes the proposal only “weaken[ed] the rule somewhat.” The rule requires teams to put any amount of guaranteed money in a contract over $2MM into escrow. As Graziano points out, it’s an outdated rule from many years ago designed to prevent teams from being unable to make payroll. As the players have argued for years now, that makes owners less willing to give players large guarantees, since they have to put all the money away up front. Graziano writes that the proposal increases the “funding rule threshold to $15 million in the first year of the deal and $17 million in 2029, the final year of the deal.”

There’s been talk for a while about the new deal relaxing marijuana restrictions, and we have the full details on what that would look like, courtesy of Mark Maske of the Washington Post (Twitter link). The THC testing window would be reduced from a huge four-month period to just two weeks at the start of training camp. Additionally, players would no longer be suspended solely for positive marijuana tests, the number of players tested would be reduced, and the thresholds for positive tests would be increased. In other words, marijuana use will virtually never be an issue again for NFL players.

Another smaller benefit for the players is they won’t have to pay as much money in fines, Maske tweets. The proposal will apparently reduce the fines from both teams and the league for on-field infractions. That means players won’t be fined as much for things like unnecessary roughness and unsportsmanlike conduct penalties.

Our statement on today's collective bargaining meeting: pic.twitter.com/MVOODW65fV

— NFLPA (@NFLPA) February 21, 2020

Jordan Reid@JReidNFL
The NFL’s 2020 compensatory draft picks are expected to be awarded later on today.

J.B. Long@JB_Long
ICYMI, once the offensive line stabilized in front of Jared Goff, he effectively returned to Pro Bowl form and outplayed some of the most decorated QBs in the NFL. #LARams

Tom Pelissero@TomPelissero
The NFLPA executive committee voted 6-5 NOT to recommend the current CBA proposal, source said. That is simply a recommendation, though. It now goes to the 32-man board of representatives.

The NFLPA constitution says the board of representatives must approve the proposed CBA by a 2/3 majority (22 votes), and the full membership must approve by a simple majority. So, even if the full membership votes yes, my understanding is the board still must approve as well.

Darren Rovell@darrenrovell
Hearing NFL players are being told that there’s not much negotiation here. That this is the deal the owners are presenting and if they don’t take it, it’s strike/lockout next year. Billionaires are in a better position than millionaires. Do the players fold?

Billions of dollars would shift to players under the CBA proposal they'll discuss tomorrow. But there remains a faction of NFLPA reps that are committed to voting no on the deal in its current form, and they only need 11 votes to block it. No slam dunk. @nflnetwork pic.twitter.com/Y9zbLikFry

— Tom Pelissero (@TomPelissero) February 20, 2020

"Right here… everything went slow motion for me." @IsaacBruce80 breaks down the game-winning touchdown from @kurt13warner in Super Bowl XXXIV. #TBT pic.twitter.com/EQZZgyYoPP

— Los Angeles Rams (@RamsNFL) February 21, 2020

Andrew Brandt@AndrewBrandt
The NFL spinning this potential CBA in the media so players feel like they should take it is something to see. Strategic public relations, they hope. We’ll see if it works.

Haven’t seen/heard a word about new NFL CBA addressing deficiencies in team minimum spending threshold, currently too light (89%) and too spread out (4 year inspections). Would hope/expect that is improving.#CBA

NFL CBA proposal re marijuana testing: (1) testing window goes from four months to two weeks at start of training camp; (2) reduces number of players tested; (3) reduces penalties for positive tests; (4) raises nanogram threshold for positive test from 35 to 150 (WADA threshold).

Tom Pelissero@TomPelissero
The proposed CBA also reduces penalties for players who test positive for THC, eliminating any game suspensions strictly for positive tests. So no more getting banned strictly for smoking weed.

Darren Rovell@darrenrovell
I’ve been covering sports labor for 20 years. This deal the NFL owners are putting forth might be the worst deal with the exception of the deal the NHL players accepted in 2005 after a year off. There’s no way the NFLPA says yes to this.

Joel Corry@corryjoel
Each team must spend 89% of the league wide salary cap in cash over the 4 year period of 2017 through 2020. A 4 year period is too long & the % should be higher. Players should be pushing to change these things in the new CBA. I’m expecting status quo.

Tom Pelissero@TomPelissero
One interesting nugget from the proposed CBA: The NFL’s answer to the NBA’s mid-level exception, with an extra $1.25 million excluded from salary cap for up to 2 players with 4+ years experience. Minimum salaries also up across the board.

Albert Breer@AlbertBreer
Among the training camp changes in proposed deal …

• 2.5-hour limit on padded/full speed practices
• Limit time at facility during given workday
• Limit of 16 days in pads
• 3-day weekend at end of camp if 17 games is in
• 2 days off first week, one day every 7 thereafter

Jared Goff’s strong finish a good sign for 2020

J.B. Long

https://www.therams.com/news/jared-goff-s-strong-finish-a-good-sign-for-2020

By any objective measure, 2019 was the least productive of the three seasons Jared Goff has played for Sean McVay.

And just about everyone associated with the Rams – from the coaches and staff, to the media who cover the team, to QB1 himself – spent a decent percentage of last year trying to sort through why that was the case.

So, we won’t delve too deeply into it again here.

It was disappointing to be the only winning NFL team not to make the playoffs, but now that some time has passed, it might be worth extracting some optimism from the way Goff performed in December.

These were his metrics in the Rams final five games of 2019:

7.8 AY/A (adjusted yards gained per passing attempt)

5.1 TD%

1.9 INT%

98.2 Rating

Compare those categories to what he did in his Pro Bowl seasons of 2017-18:

8.5 AY/A

5.8 TD%

1.8 INT%

100.8 Rating

Hardly a dire discrepancy.

In fact, from Weeks 12-17, Goff ranked eighth in the NFL in AY/A, comfortably ahead of peers like Patrick Mahomes, Russell Wilson, Tom Brady, Aaron Rodgers, Kirk Cousins, and Deshaun Watson, just to name a few.

It’s also worth noting that after fumbles plagued Goff and the Rams for the better part of the season, he only put one on the ground after the trip to Pittsburgh in Week 10 (thankfully, it was recovered by L.A.), and he did not fumble at all during this December turnaround.

So it seems that Goff and McVay and last year’s coaching staff deserve credit for identifying and addressing the myriad reasons why the Rams quarterback play was not up to par for a good portion of 2019.

And even though I said we wouldn’t go down this road, at least one remedy was readily apparent, even to us laymen.

Offensive linemen who made at least one start from Weeks 1-11: Nine, including six who were making their first or second NFL start.

Offensive linemen who made at least one start from Weeks 12-17: Just five.

Indeed, during that December uptick, Goff had the same starting line in front of him each time out. That’s not to say that the combination of Andrew Whitworth, Austin Corbett, Austin Blythe, David Edwards, and Bobby Evans is the final answer and must return intact for Week One in 2020.

Rather, it’s only to point out that the health and stability of that group gave McVay and Goff a foundation to build on, and they did so successfully.

Adam Schefter@AdamSchefter
There are now multiple NFL teams waiting to make roster moves based on the potential of a new CBA. If a new CBA is approved in the days to come, a flurry of roster moves will follow.

Cameron DaSilva@camdasilva
The Rams don’t need Darius Slay and they shouldn’t even consider trading more assets for yet another cornerback

==

Big Michael Brockers has been a team leader & Rams mainstay. Those who don’t have unrealistic sack expectations for an interior lineman know he impacts the game in the trenches. Coming off his highest combined tackle total of his career last season (63) Brock hits free agency…. pic.twitter.com/EMuzFDZwji

— RAMS ON FILM (@RamsOnFilm) February 20, 2020

Rohrabacher confirms he offered Trump pardon to Assange for proof Russia didn’t hack DNC email

https://news.yahoo.com/rohrabacher-confirms-he-offered-trump-pardon-to-assange-for-proof-russia-didnt-hack-dnc-email-131438007.html?soc_src=hl-viewer&soc_trk=tw

WASHINGTON — Former California Republican congressman Dana Rohrabacher confirmed in a new interview that during a three-hour meeting at the Ecuadorian Embassy in August 2017, he told Julian Assange he would get President Trump to give him a pardon if he turned over information proving the Russians had not been the source of internal Democratic National Committee emails published by WikiLeaks.

In a phone interview with Yahoo News, Rohrabacher said his goal during the meeting was to find proof for a widely debunked conspiracy theory: that WikiLeaks’ real source for the DNC emails was not Russian intelligence agents, as U.S. officials have since concluded, but former DNC staffer Seth Rich, who was murdered on the streets of Washington in July 2016 in what police believe was a botched robbery.

A lawyer for Assange in London on Wednesday cited the pardon offer from Rohrabacher during a court hearing on the U.S. government’s request to extradite the WikiLeaks founder.

White House press secretary Stephanie Grisham immediately denounced the claim about a pardon discussion with Assange as a “complete fabrication,” adding that the president “barely knows Dana Rohrabacher” and has “never spoken to him on this subject or almost any subject.”

Rohrabacher said that not only did talk of a Trump pardon take place during his meeting, but he also followed up by calling then White House chief of staff John Kelly to discuss the proposal. He did not, however, ever speak to Trump about it, he said.

“I spoke to Julian Assange and told him if he would provide evidence about who gave WikiLeaks the emails I would petition the president to give him a pardon,” Rohrabacher said. “He knew I could get to the president.”

When he spoke to Kelly, the then chief of staff was “courteous” but made no commitment that he would even raise the matter directly with the president. “He knew this had to be handled with care,” Rohrabacher said, and that it could be spun by the news media in ways that would be “harmful” to the president. In fact, Rohrabacher said he never heard anything further from Kelly about the matter, nor did he ever discuss the subject directly with Trump.

Rohrabacher, who was defeated when he ran for reelection in 2018 and is now a consultant to the cannabis industry, long had a reputation as one of the few members of Congress willing to defend Russian President Vladimir Putin.

He also was a strong defender of Trump on the Russia investigation by special counsel Robert Mueller. He said the president personally called him to thank him for one of his TV appearances during which he said that Trump was right to be angry with then Attorney General Jeff Sessions for recusing himself about all matters relating to the investigation.

Rohrabacher also emphasized in the interview that he only wanted “truthful” information from Assange and never suggested that he “lie.” But he said he believed then — and even more so now — that the information he was seeking would prove that WikiLeaks got its DNC emails from Seth Rich, a claim that if true would undercut the findings of U.S. intelligence agencies and Mueller’s prosecutors that Russian agents had hacked the Democratic Party and stolen the emails.

“Seth Rich’s name came up a couple of times” during his meeting with Assange, Rohrabacher said, although he acknowledged that the WikiLeaks founder never confirmed to him that Rich was his source. Still, Rohrabacher added, he believed the media is covering up the late DNC staffer’s supposed role in the theft of the party emails. “The whole thing stinks,” he said.

A Yahoo News podcast, “Conspiracyland,” revealed last summer that Russian intelligence agencies first planted the conspiracy theory that Rich was murdered by gunmen hired by Hillary Clinton. It also reported that Russian trolls later repeatedly boosted claims on Twitter and other social media platforms that the former staffer had leaked the material to WikiLeaks.

In fact, a top Washington police commander overseeing the investigation into Rich’s death said during the “Conspiracyland” podcast that law enforcement had found no evidence that Rich’s death was in any way related to his work at the DNC or that he played any role in the leaking of party emails.