Don’t expect any one running back to carry the load in Green Bay this season.
Packers coach Mike McCarthy said the demands of the position are such that running backs Jamaal Williams Tedy Bruschi Jersey , Ty Montgomery, and Aaron Jones will all be better off if none of them get too many carries.
“The fact of the matter is we’re going to go running back by committee,” McCarthy told ESPN. “But if one of them would emerge as that full-time guy then you have to have that ability to . . . adjust to that. As far as planning and going into the season, that’s why we’re going about it that way. We feel like we’ve got three guys that have all done it, but they haven’t done it over a long period of time, so I think it’s just practical thinking from that position and realizing that it’s a very demanding position.”
Williams led the team with 556 rushing yards, Jones was next with 448 and Montgomery had 273. It sounds like McCarthy would be satisfied with that kind of split again this year, which means all of the Packers’ running backs will get plenty of playing time, but none will finish the season with big numbers.
Given the recent uptick in news regarding the anthem controversy, it’s time to address some of the fundamental questions relating to the situation.
The goal of this article is to take a fairly complicated and polarizing societal question and analyze it, objectively and thoroughly, from the perspective of labor and employment law. (For those wondering why they’d be inclined to read a legal analysis from some Internet hack who writes about football, that’s a very fair question. I practiced law for 18 years Malcolm Mitchell Jersey , specializing over the final 14 or so in matters of labor and employment law, both from the employer’s perspective and from the employee’s perspective.)
The first challenge for anyone considering this issue as a matter of labor and employment is far easier said than done: You need to set aside whatever your personal beliefs may be regarding NFL players protesting during the national anthem. Whether you like it, whether you hate it, or whether you land somewhere in between, if you forget your own feelings on the issue, you’ll be able to better understand the legal issues relevant to the situation.
Along these same lines, you need to forget about the question of whether anthem protests are “bad for business.” (Some presume that the protests have hurt the NFL’s business; the evidence, however, is inconclusive. Yes, TV ratings are down, but not as far down as TV ratings generally. Also, revenues — and in turn the salary cap — continue to rise. For the fifth straight year, the salary cap has increased by more than $10 million per team.)
Actually Reggie Ragland Jersey , let’s assume that the NFL’s teams subjectively have concluded that anthem protests are indeed “bad for business,” inconclusive evidence of a negative impact notwithstanding. If that’s the case, the question becomes whether the NFL can make hiring and firing decisions based on anthem protests that are determined to be “bad for business” under the principles that apply to the employment relationship between NFL teams and NFL players.
For any issue arising under the relationship between NFL teams and NFL players, the question begins with the Collective Bargaining Agreement. However, the Collective Bargaining Agreement between the NFL and the NFL Players Association says nothing about the national anthem. The rule regarding the anthem appears in the NFL’s game operations manual, which provides in pertinent part as follows:聽鈥淭he national anthem must be played before every NFL game, and all players must be on the sideline for the national anthem.聽During the national anthem, players on the field and bench area should stand at attention, face the flag, hold helmets in their left hand, and refrain from talking.”
This rule, adopted in 2009 as part of the league’s decision to move the players from the locker room to the sideline during the national anthem, was drafted by the NFL. By using “must” in connection with the playing of the anthem and the players’ presence on the sideline but the non-mandatory term “should” when referring to standing during the anthem Tim Williams Jersey , the NFL created a loophole in the policy, making it different from the NBA rule that mandates standing: Players must be on the sideline for the anthem, and players should (not must) stand.
When the anthem controversy first emerged in August 2016, the NFL could have quickly revised the language of the rule, or the NFL could have taken the position that “should” as a practical matter means “must” within the broader context of the rule. After all, the league has brought them out of the locker room not to protest during the playing of the national anthem but to be props in the broader effort to wrap The Shield (which looks a lot like the flag) in the flag.
The fact that the rule didn’t appear in the CBA (which is the product of comprehensive collective bargaining between the NFL and NFL Players Association regarding the terms of employment) most likely would have given the league the ability to unilaterally change the rule. In other words, the league possibly could have simply changed the rule on the spot, without talking to or bargaining with the union.
But that’s not what the league did. The NFL’s first comment on the matter was this:聽鈥淧layers are encouraged but not required to stand during the playing of the National Anthem.”
That was the moment the NFL confirmed that players have permission to sit, kneel, whatever during the anthem. And that was the moment that it became inappropriate to make hiring and firing decisions based on whether a player chooses to exercise the league-given right to not stand. After all, what good is any right in employment if exercising that right will get you fired?
When the anthem controversy reached new heights in September 2017, fueled by an attack on the NFL and protesting players by the President, the league did not change the rule. Instead Chris Hogan Jersey , the league reiterated the fact that players have the right to protest, if they choose to do so.
鈥淒uring this past season, we received assurances from both Commissioner Roger Goodell and the Chairman of the Management Council, John Mara, that the right of players to demonstrate would be protected,” the union said in a statement issued last month, after Dolphins owner Stephen Ross said that he would prohibit kneeling (and then backtracked). “We are glad that both the Houston Texans and Miami Dolphins have clarified their positions to be consistent with what was confirmed with our union leadership, and we expect all other NFL teams to maintain the same commitment to protecting those rights.鈥?(The NFL has at no time disputed the notion that Goodell and Mara provided assurances that the right of players to demonstrate would be protected.)
