NFL Lockout: Coaches File Brief In Support Of Players' Effort To End The Lockout

by JasonB on May 25, 2011 9:51 PM EDT in Philadelphia Eagles News

MINNEAPOLIS, MN - MAY 17: NFL players' lawyers Jeffrey Kessler, James Quinn and Barbara P. Berens walk with former NFL Players Association executive director DeMaurice Smith after leaving court ordered mediation at the U.S. Courthouse on May 17, 2011 in Minneapolis, Minnesota. . (Photo by Hannah Foslien/Getty Images)

The NFL Coaches Association, without naming any specific coaches, have filed a brief with the 8th circuit court in support of the players' effort to end the lockout. Their argument, which is a compelling one, is that the lockout is putting their already fragile jobs in jeopardy.

"Owners and fans increasingly demand immediate success, and coaches whose teams cannot fulfill such severe expectations face likely dismissal, which means the uprooting of families, economic dislocation, and a significantly less promising career path," lawyers for the NFLCA wrote.

As the brief further explained, every missed day of practice and preparation makes it that much harder for a coach to do all that he can to field a winning team. And in this day's NFL, if you don't win, you don't have a job. This is doubly true for young coaches, who may not get another shot at a head coaching job should they fail in their first attempt.

"To meet management's expectations, coaches need adequate time in the offseason to prepare their players for the season ahead," the filing said. "The lockout has already interfered with the coaches' offseason plans for their players, and each day lost in preparing for the season further diminishes coaches' opportunities to prove themselves and advance their career."

The brief also takes issue with teams slashing coaches' salaries during the lockout, which the coaches' association claims is in violation of their contracts. The NFL was not surprised by the coaches' association's filing.

"The Coaches Association offices with the Players Association in Washington," Aiello wrote in an email to The Associated Press. "So this comes as no surprise."

I would say that it's highly unlikely that this will sway the opinion of the 8th circuit, since they took issue with the jurisdiction of the court, rather than the veracity of the suit. This would have no bearing on the courts' jurisdiction. The 8th circuit is likely to rule that the court has no basis for deciding this case one way or the other. That said, it is interesting to see the coaches showing some solidarity with the players. Typically in a labor dispute the coaches would be seen as part of management and would be expected to side with ownership.

Tweet Comment 16 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

I’m surprised they took I side I would have just tried to stay neutral

"For Who? My teammates. For What? To win" - Aaron Rowand

by Clint Eastwood on May 25, 2011 9:58 PM EDT reply actions

This is HUGE.

The assumption was that, if for no other reason than fear, that the coaches would have been on the owner’s side. The fact that they have come out in support of the players lends credence to the ruling that Judge Nelson made about irreparable harm being done.

I-C-Y-U-H8-ME

by Qwest on May 25, 2011 9:58 PM EDT reply actions

Yeah, but the 8th circuit doesn’t care about that. They see this as a jurisdictional issue. The “irreparable harm” is irrelevant to them.

Follow Bleeding Green Nation on Twitter & Facebook

by JasonB on May 25, 2011 10:08 PM EDT up reply actions

This is true...

…however, it appears that no deal will be done and they will be forced to rule on the jurisdiction of Nelson to lift the injunction. That ruling won’t be based on bias or opinion, it must be supported with case law. If they can’t support it with case law, they have to allow Judge Nelson’s ruling to stand.

I-C-Y-U-H8-ME

by Qwest on May 25, 2011 11:06 PM EDT up reply actions

But you don’t think they have that? They wouldn’t have issued the stay if they didn’t. It’s the same law that Nelson said didn’t apply. They’ll say it applies. The Norris-LaGuardia Act

Follow Bleeding Green Nation on Twitter & Facebook

by JasonB on May 25, 2011 11:31 PM EDT up reply actions

That took some cojones.

AR should have to wear a Flava Flav necklace until he learns how to manage a fucking clock.
Who would have thought the world could go so crazy that Eagles fans would actually have to defend the rights of Giants to say fuck the Eagles. What’s next, cats fucking dogs?

by KByars on May 25, 2011 10:07 PM EDT reply actions

I want this to mean more,

but I am afraid the slashed salary will serve as motive and everyone’s lost prep time will cancel each others out when viewed from a pro-owner viewpoint.

Still, it should at least help in the locker room when this is over.

by ATG. on May 25, 2011 10:12 PM EDT reply actions

Interesting

I hear what your saying Jason but I think the claims made the Coaches as well as players about “irreparable harm” will carry some weight in the same way the claims by the owners that ending the lockout will cause “chaos in the league.”

AKA Detective Electric
"You got fucking Lasik: NY Giants edition."-Udalango

by Mr.electric10 on May 25, 2011 10:18 PM EDT reply actions

I don’t see how it will because it’s not the issue at hand. Whether or not someone is being harmed has no bearing on whether the court has jurisdiction. The 8th circuit is going to say it doesn’t.

Jurisdiction has to be decided before all that other stuff. If you don’t get past jurisdiction, the rest of the arguments are irrelevant. The only reason Nelson ruled based on the “irreparable harm” issue is because she first asserted that the court had jurisdiction. When the 8th circuit decided to stay her ruling, they specifically said it was because they had serious doubts over whether she did have jurisdiction.

Follow Bleeding Green Nation on Twitter & Facebook

by JasonB on May 25, 2011 11:34 PM EDT up reply actions

Exactly

I think this is something most people forget with the 8th circuit’s decision that they didn’t rule against the players saying that the players don’t have a valid argument but rather that the court doesn’t have jurisdiction to decide one way or the other.

by CSJones on May 26, 2011 12:17 AM EDT up reply actions

I wonder this would have had any type of weight in the 8th circuit’s decision to grant a permanent stay. why would they wait this long to file it?

"Get 'Em"

by FlyEagles15 on May 25, 2011 11:50 PM EDT via mobile reply actions

Coming out of the lockout, is there a more experienced, well understood coach that you’d rather have than Andy Reid? I think you could name him 1a and 1b, but at max its only a handful.

I feel its Philadelphia advantage because of his long tenure. While newer coaches are going to suffer the most, the only concern I would have is getting the complicated playbook hammered into players. BB already stated he was simplifying his.

I would like to thank my hands for being so great, for allowing me to type this post.

by corn on the kolb on May 25, 2011 11:52 PM EDT via mobile reply actions

Counterpoint: we also have a New OL coach instituting a new scheme, a New DL coach instituting a new scheme and our old OL coach now is the DC and has to oversee the other side of the ball for the first time in 300 years.

by The Reddgie on May 25, 2011 11:57 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs

Interesting News

What I wonder is, if the players are now non-union.. and the coaches are as pro-owner as we assumed they had to be; How many more odd rules are keeping the coaches (not the owner/organization) from meeting up with the players outside of the teams.. and having a slightly less informal practice? I’m sure there is some stupid rule that prevents it – maybe the one that is keeping them paid still – but if its not a team activity (maybe Reid and Belicheck practice with the others team.. that would be funny), is there a loop hole? probably not.. I just want football and am seeing a sparkle in this report and hoping its the light at the end and not the light on a match.

by Sparki on May 26, 2011 8:15 AM EDT reply actions

and the coaches are NOT as pro-owner as we assumed they had to be

by Sparki on May 26, 2011 8:16 AM EDT up reply actions

does anyone else find the league’s response to this a little bit…disrespectful? Aiello sounds like he is talking like his best friend just stole his girl and he’s bitter about it.

by RogerPodacter on May 26, 2011 9:51 AM EDT reply actions