Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

In the event of a lockout and replacement players


  • Please log in to reply
24 replies to this topic

#1 HSCBandit07

HSCBandit07

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,118 posts

Posted 11 February 2011 - 05:50 PM

What kind of talent can we expect on the field? Are there any specific names that come to mind? Could we see the return of players like Jarrett? UDFA's over the past couple years? CFL or NFLE or AIFA players? Could the Panthers actually look any worse than last season?

#2 HSCBandit07

HSCBandit07

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,118 posts

Posted 11 February 2011 - 05:51 PM

Winning our only superbowl with scrubs in a lockout would be just our luck

#3 DT3428

DT3428

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 263 posts

Posted 11 February 2011 - 06:01 PM

we would see the return of Josh McCown and other UFL players

#4 blackcatgrowl

blackcatgrowl

    Trolls live here

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,944 posts

Posted 11 February 2011 - 06:04 PM

From what I understand, if the owners lockout the players, they are going to de-unionize, and sue the NFL under employment laws. Their goal would be to stop the NFL from actually having games next year among other objectives. If this happens, I don't believe there will be replacement players, and we simply won't have football.

However, there is a possibility that the owners agree on a CBA of their own design, throw it at the NFLPA and say take it or leave it, and force them to strike. If that happens, we could see replacement players (though they de-unionized last time this happened in an attempt to do the same tactic as above).

It's a big clusterfug right now is all I think anyone can say for certain.

#5 OneBadassCat

OneBadassCat

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,082 posts

Posted 11 February 2011 - 06:20 PM

Shane Falco please

#6 SPANKY

SPANKY

    Smitty hugger

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 421 posts

Posted 11 February 2011 - 06:21 PM

Falco!

#7 Jangler

Jangler

    Its gonna be just like they say, them voices tell me so

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 44,836 posts

Posted 11 February 2011 - 06:26 PM



#8 Nicbsbll2

Nicbsbll2

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,480 posts

Posted 12 February 2011 - 12:15 AM

For the last damn time, if there is a lockout then there can't be replacement workers because the owners lock the building up and won't let anyone in the building. There can only be replacements if the players strike (aka- refuse to come to work).

#9 Mother Grabber

Mother Grabber

    Gettlemagic 2.0

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,959 posts

Posted 12 February 2011 - 12:24 AM

Posted Image

#10 KillerKat

KillerKat

    Top Banana

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,555 posts

Posted 12 February 2011 - 12:31 AM

Darian Durant :)

#11 Squirrel

Squirrel

    Drink a beer and relax

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,973 posts

Posted 12 February 2011 - 12:50 AM

From what I understand, if the owners lockout the players, they are going to de-unionize, and sue the NFL under employment laws. Their goal would be to stop the NFL from actually having games next year among other objectives. If this happens, I don't believe there will be replacement players, and we simply won't have football.

However, there is a possibility that the owners agree on a CBA of their own design, throw it at the NFLPA and say take it or leave it, and force them to strike. If that happens, we could see replacement players (though they de-unionized last time this happened in an attempt to do the same tactic as above).

It's a big clusterfug right now is all I think anyone can say for certain.



This is the most likely scenerio I can see. The owners wont take the blame for no football. They will make the players strike.

#12 rodeo

rodeo

    Keelah se'lai

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,153 posts

Posted 12 February 2011 - 01:21 AM

the owners will receive the blame either way, as they're the ones who opted out of the CBA in the first place. playing politics to back players into a corner to 'strike' isn't going to win hearts and minds.

this is an America where we just spent hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars to bail out these owner types. they aren't going to get sympathy.

#13 Squirrel

Squirrel

    Drink a beer and relax

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,973 posts

Posted 12 February 2011 - 01:26 AM

Really? Which one looks more greedy? One is running a business the other is a employee.

I compare this to a airline strike. Which side does the public usually side with Pilots or management.

#14 Frash Brastard

Frash Brastard

    The Frashmaker

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,076 posts

Posted 12 February 2011 - 01:34 AM

Winning our only superbowl with scrubs in a lockout would be just our luck


hey the redskins have one of those kinds of wins (though it was a players' strike)

that lombardi doesn't look any less shiny than the other two

#15 Squirrel

Squirrel

    Drink a beer and relax

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,973 posts

Posted 12 February 2011 - 01:39 AM

hey the redskins have one of those kinds of wins (though it was a players' strike)

that lombardi doesn't look any less shiny than the other two


Actually 2 but the 87 strike didint last as long.

Edited by Squirrel, 12 February 2011 - 01:43 AM.



0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com - IP Content Design by Joshua Tree / TitansReport.