DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum 18 Game Schedule/Collective Bargaining Update

I received a e-mail from Roger Goodell. Not sure how I got on his mailing list...it comes from NFL.com, so I guess I am registered in there.

***************************************************



With one of the most exciting regular seasons now completed and the playoffs about to begin, let me first thank you and all NFL fans for your incredible support. Many fans have been asking me where we stand on signing a new collective bargaining agreement with the players union. Let me update you and be clear at the outset:

I know we can and will reach an agreement.

My goal as Commissioner now is to help our teams and players find a solution that is fair to everyone and ensures that football becomes more popular, accessible, and fun. We want the next decade to be the best yet for our fans, and I’m ready to work day and night to make that happen.

We've come a long way. Compare where we are today with 10 years ago. From player accountability to player safety, more and better television coverage, upgrading the in-stadium experience, innovations like the RedZone channel, the Draft in prime time and playing the Pro Bowl before the Super Bowl, we are focused on doing what’s best for the players, teams, and fans. My priority is and always will be the game and the fans who love our game.

The NFL is great because fans care deeply about it. Economic conditions, however, have changed dramatically inside and outside the NFL since 2006 when we negotiated the last CBA. A 10 percent unemployment rate hurts us all. Fans have limited budgets and rightly want the most for their money. I get it.

Yes, NFL players deserve to be paid well. Unfortunately, economic realities are forcing everyone to make tough choices and the NFL is no different.

These are not easy negotiations, but the outcome can be positive. If both sides give a little, everyone, including fans, will get a lot and the game will improve through innovation.

Even in difficult economic times, a new CBA presents us with the opportunity to secure the future of our game. You may ask how will the NFL look under this vision?

A significant change would be to resolve fan complaints about preseason by modifying our 20-game format. Fans tell us they don’t like the quality of the preseason games, and we’re listening. An enhanced season of 18 regular season and two preseason games would not add a single game for the players collectively, but would give fans more meaningful, high-quality football.

Our emphasis on player health and safety is absolutely essential to the future of our game. We are strictly enforcing rules that protect players from unnecessarily dangerous play, especially involving hits to the head. We are changing the “play through it” culture to a “player-first” culture to ensure that if a player has a head injury, he doesn’t play again until his health is certain. We are also addressing the potential wear-and-tear on players in the way they train in-season and off-season.

It’s not just the health of players that concerns us. We must ensure the health of the league. That includes a new system that properly compensates proven veterans and retired players by shifting some of the outrageous sums paid to many unproven rookies. Earlier this year, Sports Illustrated published a list of the 50 highest-paid American athletes that included five 2009 NFL rookies. Every other athlete on the list was a proven veteran. In 2009, NFL clubs contracted $1.2 billion to 256 drafted rookies with $585 million guaranteed before they had stepped on an NFL field.

Don’t get me wrong: top draft choices will continue to be highly paid. All we’re asking for is a return to common sense in paying our rookies. Other leagues have done this and we can too.

These improvements and more will lead to better football, plain and simple. A forward looking CBA that is fair to players and clubs will lead to a great future for the NFL and our fans.

My job is to represent the game — the fans, teams, players, coaches and business partners. Protecting the integrity of the game and ensuring it thrives is a responsibility I take very seriously.

This is about more than a labor agreement. It’s about the future of the NFL. We have to improve and will be relentless in our quest. The commitment to our fans is to make the NFL experience even better in the years ahead. With a responsible CBA, we will fulfill that vision.

Happy New Year and enjoy the playoffs.



– Roger Goodell

That letter was released to public on Jan 2...

Concerning this...

"Our emphasis on player health and safety is absolutely essential to the future of our game. We are strictly enforcing rules that protect players from unnecessarily dangerous play, especially involving hits to the head."


I do not understand why the NFL refuses to address the make up of material used for the shell of the helmets...the rock hard plastic that has been around since the early 1950s.

Fix the helmets ROGER... web page ...and stop screwing with the game.

Agreed. And getting clobbered by Suggs or Harrison is a far cry from a rookie loading it up. I see a net rise in trauma and wear and tear with two more "real" games. What I read sounds like the Big G is definitely leaning management. Get honest and more concerned at the table about what the other side wants, at least for talking points. The new proposals funnel a bunch of extra cash in a variety of ways to the owners. I agree with some sensible controls on rookie pay, especially busts. But you can handle a golden egg laying goose too much and kill it. Done some negotiating; this doesn't feel like they are worlds apart. Actually, I am surprised with the money sloshing around the table that it is this blown up. There are vital issues here, for players, fans, owners, coaches, and the GAME. But this isn't skull-crushing Ragnarok from what I am seeing. Settling this is like tackling, IMO; the biggest half is starting out WANTING to do this. Notice little or no talk about keeping it affordable for fans and keeping the attendance at games within reach of fans.

Ragnarok was the twilight of the gods in Norse mythology. The world tree, which supported the entire universe, would die, ending the gods' immortality, and destroying Midgard (Earth) and Asgard (Home of the gods).

Yeah, I loved mythology as a kid.

Finally something in a post written by Bard that I actually understood.

Quote:

---

But this isn't skull-crushing Ragnarok from what I am seeing.

Quote:

---

Whew! I was worried I'd be able to get through an entire post of yours and understand every word. Thank God that didn't happen!

---

---

In Norse mythology, Ragnarök (pronounced UK: /ˈræɡnərɜːk/,[2] US: /ˈræɡnərɒk/ or /ˈræɡnərək/;[3] Old Norse [rɑɡnɑrøk] "final destiny of the gods"[4]) is a series of future events, including a great battle foretold to ultimately result in the death of a number of major figures (including the gods Odin, Thor, Týr, Freyr, Heimdall, and the jötunn Loki), the occurrence of various natural disasters, and the subsequent submersion of the world in water. Afterward, the world will resurface anew and fertile, the surviving and reborn gods will meet, and the world will be repopulated by two human survivors. Ragnarök is an important event in the Norse canon, and has been the subject of scholarly discourse and theory.




This isn't that.

WAY over my head.

JC

I think this is the most appropriate place for this.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/201...ball-extension/

I think this is very promising in terms of the CBA talks. Or maybe it isn't...

Players: 18-game proposal the holdup

WASHINGTON -- Concerns about injuries and insurance make the league's push to switch to an 18-game regular season a major sticking point in negotiations for a new collective bargaining agreement, according to two NFL players who are members of the union's executive committee.

The NFL wants to add two games to the current 16-game format for the regular season, and eliminate two of four preseason games, saying fans would prefer that and more revenue could be generated.

"To me, right now, as things stand, 18 games, the way it's being proposed, is completely unacceptable. ... I see more and more players get injured every season," Cleveland Browns linebacker Scott Fujita said Tuesday on a media conference call arranged by the union.


"There are so many things now -- with player health and safety, and the future of us and our families -- that aren't even being considered. And for us, it's disappointing," Fujita said. "It feels like a slap in the face."

Union spokesman George Atallah said Tuesday that 352 active players went on injured reserve at some point during this season, each missing an average of 9½ games.

NFL spokesman Greg Aiello said "a few hundred" players out of the nearly 2,600 that go through the system each season -- 80 with each of 32 teams entering camp -- go on injured reserve.

"That number would include undrafted rookies put on IR for the season and players with relatively minor injuries who then reach injury settlements with their teams and are released," Aiello wrote in an e-mail. "We do not know how the union calculated games lost."

Both Fujita and Baltimore Ravens cornerback Domonique Foxworth, the other player participating in Tuesday's call, went on IR in 2010.

"We put our bodies on the line and produce a lot of revenue and we get five years of post-retirement health insurance," said Foxworth, who missed all season after tearing his right knee during an orientation practice the day before training camp. "And then they want to tack on two more games ... which is just going to multiply the injuries and the ailments that we're going to see after we go into our 40s, 50s, 60s -- 70s, if we're lucky. ... We're not willing to budge on health and safety, and we'd like to gain some more ground in ways we can protect former players and current players."

Right around the time the call was beginning, the NFL announced the launch of www.NFLHealthandSafety.com, a website the league touted as "providing information on the various ways" it's addressing those issues.

The league's lead negotiator, Jeff Pash, said last month "it is realistically an easier agreement to reach in the context of an 18-game regular season."



But Fujita said Tuesday: "The 18-game discussion is not even worth having at this point, because there's nothing on the table from their end that makes any one player consider playing 18 games."

The current CBA expires in March and the union long has said it expects NFL owners to impose a lockout, affecting the 2011 season. The NFL has not missed games because of labor problems since 1987, when the players went on strike.

Asked if he thinks a lockout is inevitable this time, Fujita replied: "It certainly looks that way to me."

Among other issues discussed on Tuesday's call:

• Fujita took a swipe at Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones for his comments during an interview with CBS last month. In a portion of the interview posted on the Internet, Jones is asked whether he thinks a lockout "might be disastrous for the game?" Jones' response: "No, I do not. But I know that the sentiment is not to have a lockout."

Fujita's take: "For him to say something like that, to me, is one of the more irresponsible things I've heard through this whole process."

Fujita said he gets the sense owners might not be unified, because some want to get a deal done, while others -- and he cited Jones as an example -- "are fine with letting this thing run down to at least the 11th hour and try to squeeze the players into accepting a deal that's not fair to us."

• Atallah said the union expects a decision from a special master "sometime before the Super Bowl" in the players' complaint that the NFL structured network TV contracts to guarantee revenue even if there's a lockout -- while not maximizing revenue from other seasons when the league would have to share that income with players.

"We're arguing that those contracts were made explicitly in an effort to gain leverage over the players," Atallah said.

Said Fujita: "Does it sound like 'lockout insurance'? Absolutely. Does it sound like a war chest to me? Absolutely," he said, adding that it seems as though the networks are "funding the lockout."

• Fujita and Foxworth both are against the league's desire for some sort of rookie wage scale.

"It seems like the league is asking the union to bail them out because of some of their bad decisions and draft choices," Fujita said. "That's not our responsibility. We weren't the ones twisting their arms when they signed guys like ... JaMarcus Russell to those huge contracts."

Noted Foxworth: "They pay a lot of people a lot of money to scout, so the teams who keep ending up with busts might want to do a better job of selecting scouts and general managers."


Copyright 2011 by The Associated Press

Tell us what you really feel, Scott. Wow....that sure dampens the optimism that there's not going to be a lockout. I was under the impression that the players were ok with an 18 game schedule. I definitely am not....16 games is a long enough season and why mess with the record books again.

Gold star! Well done!

Friendly translation, Ddubia, without the purple patch of prose: The two sides need each other. If they want to settle, they will. There is enough $$$ that they can. They should get this done before a lockout. What is the fun of a guaranteed monopoly if you can't bully employees? Strike ball is possible. But each side should be not only willing, but also eager to settle to lock up the bucks.

I'd certainly rather watch 16 out of 16 scheduled regular season games next year than 0 out of 18.

The 18-game proposal doesn't seem to have much widespread support outside the owners' camp (even most of the hacks at ESPN are against it, surprisingly). It will be interesting to see if the league budges when push comes to shove.

I meant it was surprising in the sense that ESPN would stand to increase its revenue with two additional regular season games rather than pre-season.

Quote:

---

I think the commish is right when he says the fans want more games.

---

I have no problem staying at 16 games. It's paying full price for the two preseason games that I object to and don't want. Make buying tickets for the preseason games optional for season ticket holders and they can stay at 16 games forever.

18 games will lead to more injuries and more diluted football at the end of the season, IMO. I assume that the owners figure they'll make more money (which they don't want to share with the players) at 18 games. It has nothing whatsoever to do with satisfying the fans.

J/C...

I'm sure this has been thought of and said before, but tell me how this wouldn't cure the problems for both sides?...

Cut two preseason games, move the start of the season up a week to where it should be at the start of September, give every team two bye weeks, play your 18 game schedule and end in the time-frame that you currently do.

Everybody gets paid, quality of play stays the same if not improves with more rest time in the season, and we all get to watch NFL football - makes sense to me.

As I understand it, the problem with that from the players' side has to do with the additional risk of injury associated with two additional regular season game. Not saying I agree with it, but it is clear that there's a very large difference in the tone and personnel of the third and fourth preseason games and virtually any regular season game.

Also, one thing I'm not clear on is if the players get bigger gameday checks for regular season over preseason games. Anybody know? If not, I could see why they wouldn't want to swap two practice runs for the real deal. Not that that necessarily makes it right, of course.

I see the additional 2 games being played outside of the USA, or at least that being the long term plan of the NFL. The 2 bye weeks would fall after their 'International games'

This plan would offer a solution to the various comments about not wanting to lose one of your current 8 home games to a game staged abroad. This would leave the home fan with their current 8 regular season games and down a pre-season game (which it seems like alot would be okay with!?) More money for the NFL and worldwide exposure, with possible host Countries being Germany, Canada, Mexico, England, Australia and maybe even Japan hosting games.

The union is almost certainly not going to approve 2 international games per team. That's a tremendous amount of play on fields/stadiums that are not controlled by the NFL, and I doubt that we'll see that. It's one thing to have 1 game played overseas by 2 teams in a season. It's another to have 2 per team, taking into account travel, security, and all of the other expenses.

Plus, owners are not going to give up a home game every single year. It's OK to do so for a year and probably be compensated by the rest of the league for doing so .... it's another thing just to give up that money entirely.

Would the players union have to agree or would the decision be made by the NFL? Not sure how the field/stadium being controlled by the NFL makes any difference? doesn't CBS get used for concerts etc?

Not sure what the current setup is with regards to the International game. I attended the 49ers 'home game' against Denver in London this year. 85,000 attended and I paid £80 or approx $130 for my ticket. There were lots of pregame entertainment, tailgating etc, I assume the 49ers get the revenue from the 'home game' but again I don't know how that works! I can't imagine owners wanting to play in other Countries if they don't make enough money to offset their loss of 'losing' a home game.

I am certain that the union would protest any such move to create 2 international games for each team each year. They would definitely want more money .... probably lots more. Face it, it would be an enormous inconvenience to drag the entire team overseas twice a year.

I could be wrong, but I just don't see it happening.

I do believe that the plan is definitely for at least one of the extra games for each team to be an international game... with the demise of NFL Europe, this is their new plan for exporting the NFL to international markets to try to continue their growth.

I'm not sure how the revenue side would work, but as for the questions on player pay... technically, their pay would not change.
They are contracted on a Per Year basis.... thus, the amount they are owed over the course of the season does not change. If anything, the per-game checks would be a little smaller as they don't get regular game checks during preseason as they are still collecting their Training Camp per diem, which is also why you can cut a player at any time up until the first day of the season without having to be accountable for any of that year's salary.

I guess I just don't understand the need for "growth."

The NFL is a company like any other... they want revenues to go up, not stay stagnant. The best way for profits to be larger is for the amount of income to be greater.

Did you think they do this because they dig football or something??

Income, I understand. Expanding the number of teams, nope.

Just clicking. I think there is a misconception among owners that the popularity of football is unlimited. there is such a thing as too much. 18 games is too much. I think they had it right at 14, honestly.

the NFL, in its current state, is the most popular, most profitable league in the country. It's doing better than it ever has at any time. If it ain't broke, dont' fix it. Greed will end up screwing the owners, if not now, eventually.

I was bored and saw eric wrights ustream. Him and Josh Cribbs talked about how the NFL owners still get 14 billion from Time Warner even if there isn't a season. The average NFL players lifespan in the league is 3.5 years. You only recieve medical insurance if you play 4 years. You only recieve a pension if you play for 5 years. They both also talked about how the NFL is basically asking players to take less money to pay for custodians and other stuff at stadiums. That's not even including the NFL fining guys but promoting and selling DVDs of hits on their website. Yet the NFL makes it seem like the players are just being greedy.

The way I see it is they get paid well.

This is capitalism. The owners take the financial risk. The workers take certain physical risk. If you want this business to grow and prosper the owners need to earn a return PLUS growth investment capital.

I see both sides but lean towards the owners.

Posted by: Dave Kolonich
on Saturday, January 15, 2011 at 9:57:00 AM


The Silent Debate

Lost in all the bi-annual coaching change speculation is the 800-lb. gorilla in the room. Or maybe 800 billion dollar gorilla is more appropriate in this case.

Once all the talk regarding Pat Shurmur dies down in Cleveland, the bigger story on the horizon remains the fate of an actual 2011 NFL season. As of now, progress between the NFL Players’ Association and league owners has been reduced to a public relations battle – as each side is clearly preparing for an epic offseason staring contest.

While the owners have claimed significant financial losses over the past several years, their evidence has yet to be presented for public viewing. In not doing so, the NFLPA has been unable to organize any tangible arguments on their behalf.

However, some players are now beginning to entrench themselves for the upcoming battle.

Perhaps the most vocal of these player representatives has been the Browns’ Scott Fujita. In the past days, Fujita shared his thoughts with New Orleans’ WDSU.

Below is the link to WDSU, along with Fujita’s letter stating his concerns regarding a lockout….

WDSU – New Orleans – Fujita Warns of Dire NFL Lockout Consequences

We're approaching the end of the current league year in the NFL, and if a new Collective Bargaining Agreement isn't reached by midnight March 4, the players could be locked out. Translation: We can't even show up for work. The players have suggested having a "lock-in," where we would basically hunker down in a hotel somewhere for as long as needed and hammer out a new CBA before the clock strikes midnight. We have received no response from the league about this.

What all this means is that our families will lose their health coverage, injured players will no longer get treated by our doctors and trainers, and games could be cancelled. Do I expect anyone to feel sorry for us? Absolutely not. The real issue is what's at stake for everyone involved in the business of football and the undeniable impact that a lack of football will reap. Each NFL city is expected to lose about $150,000,000. Trust me, the city of Cleveland can't afford that. And as for the city of New Orleans, whose economy is so dependent on the service industry and visitors staying in their hotels and eating in their restaurants, it's just not fair to them. Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones recently claimed a lockout wouldn't be all that devastating. For someone with his level of influence, that's one of the most irresponsible things I've heard yet. This is much bigger than some gripe the owners have with the players.

So what's the gripe? In a nutshell, the owners are demanding that the players play two more games each year AND take an 18% pay-cut. And when we ask why, they tell us it's none of our business. The players are willing to be reasonable about this, and if we knew the NFL had fallen on hard times and that sacrifices were a must, then that's a different story. But as we all know, the league is doing just fine. Revenues are as high as they've ever been and the fan-base is growing every year. This season, TV ratings for regular season NFL games blew the World Series out of the water. The NFL has negotiated TV deals that will pay them $4.5 billion in 2011... even if NO games are played. So when we ask them to explain how the "current economic model is broken," I think that's a pretty justifiable question.

And this season, when it comes to player safety, the NFL suddenly pretended to be the flag-bearers for our health and well-being. This comes after years of denying even the possibility of a link between the game of football, concussions, and long-term traumatic brain injury. And despite the raised level of awareness concerning our post-career health realities, they still want two more games and haven't even suggested any improvements in post-career care. Their hypocrisy infuriates me. Right now we get just five years of coverage after leaving this game. Five. And that's only if you're lucky enough to become vested. In the meantime, more and more of our brothers fall victim to ALS, dementia and depression, among other afflictions. My heart screams for these men. Add to that the hip and knee replacements that are sure to come up 10, 15, 20 years after we stop playing. And through the whole PR battle that's currently being waged, in what some are calling a battle of greed between "millionaires and billionaires," the players have asked for nothing. Ultimately, we just want to be taken care of after we leave this game. My message to the NFL: You say you care about us...Now please, prove it. For the sake of guys like Andre Waters, O.J. Brigance, Orlando Thomas, Earl Campbell and Mike Webster...prove it.

So what can you do? Visit NFLLockout.com to submit your petition to block this lockout and to find out how you can participate with "Let us Play Day" on Tuesday, January 28.

And if you're feeling really ambitious, a letter to your local Congressional leader could potentially go a long way. I know a lot of people would prefer that Washington just stay out of this; that it's none of their business. But when whole communities of people will be adversely affected by this lockout, my feeling is that they absolutely have an obligation to take an interest in what's at stake here.

Listen, I know there's a lot of posturing out there right now, and I recognize that this email could be viewed in the same light. But everyone in this email chain are friends and family, and as things start to get cloudy these next few months, I wanted you to hear the truth from me. And trust me, I "get" that this is just a game. But I've lived and worked in communities that I'm convinced can't afford to lose football. And there are people very dear to me whose current health and well-being may have been negatively influenced by this game. These are the issues I care about. These are the issues that light my fire.

Thanks for taking the time to read. I wish you all the best for the new year.

Scott




It’s refreshing to see this kind of honest and eloquent dialogue – especially when you view the victims of a potential lockout as primarily the fans and economic base of NFL cities. Clearly, if this lockout drags into the Spring and Summer months, there will be a lot of revenue lost – both within NFL cities and extending to the billion dollar TV contracts that fuel the league. In this sense, an NFL lockout doesn’t help anyone.

However, if you pay attention to Fujita’s thoughts on player safety and health, it’s obvious that the NFLPA is fighting a lost battle. Merely because of the paradox that results in trying to protect the combatants of an inherently violent game, any concessions given by the owners will have to paid back in the form of more games - or at the least by reducing player salaries.

For example, extending health benefits for vested NFL players beyond the five-year mark that Fujita states is a major indicator of why the owners are pushing for two extra games per season. After all, the body and mind of a typical NFL veteran can only degenerate over time – which proves extremely costly to someone – presumably the owners in this case.

Of course, two bits of common sense have to be stated here. First, what Fujita is asking for in this instance is nothing extraordinary. If the league is suddenly concerned about the safety of its players – which probably more reflects the societal shift towards recognizing the severe impact of brain injuries than genuine caring – then obviously adding two games to the schedule is among the more ironic developments in league history.

But then again, common sense also dictates that two more regular season games equates to bigger attendance gates and a larger chunk of the league’s overall television revenue.

In this sense, the current battle is being framed as “quality of player life” versus “quality of revenue.” And in the capitalistic frenzy that is the NFL, it would appear that only one winner will emerge.

However, a point that is being lost here is the actual “quality of games.” While the league will clearly benefit by adding two games per year, it’s worth asking what the effect of an 18-game schedule will actually have on the league's product.

Beyond the vital issue of player safety, another two games could result in some dismal television ratings and half-empty stadiums. Just imagine a scenario where a 2-14 team is playing out the stretch in a cold-weather city. Despite the passion of fans around the league, the prospects of selling out another two games for a team whose season is clearly lost are pretty slim. Conversely, a playoff-bound team could be facing a situation where they want to rest up key players for close to a month – which creates a series of virtual lame-duck games.

In either scenario, an extended season does virtually nothing for an NFL city – much in the way that Fujita suggests financial ruin during a lockout. No better evidence can be found than during this past December, where the likes of the Bengals, Buccaneers and Jaguars struggled to fill their stadiums. Adding another two games to the season will only compound the financial woes these cities already face.

But of course – as the tone of Fujita’s letter suggests – this is an issue that isn’t up for debate at the present time. Then again, it appears that nothing is currently being debated.

obr

Quote:

---

Then it gets to be like hockey where half the league gets in....and that's crap.

---

That may be the only chance the Browns ever have of making the playoffs.

I think they should eliminate a preseason game and add 2 more teams from each division to the playoffs. This might be the only way the Browns ever make the playoffs playing in the AFCN.

A four point swing in each game this year would have had us at 11-5 and the #6 Seed.... that's our Defense forcing one FG instead of giving up a TD, or our Offense punching it in instead of settling for a FG - one or the other, just once per game.

Better players or a weaker schedule (both of which we should have next year) and we'd have had it.

Sadly, yes, that will be the popular opinion.

I understand that the offense will change, but I have looked far and wide, and I have not seen anywhere where it states that we will absolutely be going 4-3 next year. We might, but most are just assuming we will because Holmgren used it in the past.

I personally don't think we will need more players to make the switch than if we stay with the 3-4. This defense is made up of old worn out players with no speed. Even if we kept Ryan, the turn over needed to be big. The Dline was putrid except Rubin. The LBs except for Fujita, and maybe Gocong were all mediocre at best. The only part I see as even decent were the DBs, and even they need some upgrade.

If this team were full of young players brought in for a certain scheme, I would agree that the change would be tough. But if you look at the roster, the defense would have been decent about 6 years ago when most of the players were under 30.

Mangini brought in a bunch of over the hill players to instill a culture. That part worked, but their talent was lacking. Smarts are one thing, but young talent is what matters when building a team.

As much as I disliked Edwards, and to some point Winslow. The fact remains that in this day and age, a coach MUST be able to deal with this type of player in order to have a winning team. As much as I hate Edwards, he is making key plays for the Jets. Winslow is also a consistent contributer for the Bucs.

Mangini had a philosophy, but the situation here in Cleveland was not a good place for him to try and achieve it. He built a nice core, but I would argue that the best parts of that core came from Heckerts draft and FA period. That is unless you feel guys like Barton, Bowens, St Clair, and Coleman are the core.

I think some of it comes from the names that I have heard mentioned for coordinator (WannStach and Jauron as the leading candidates ... ) most every one has been a 4-3 coach. Heckert knows 4-3 personnel better (at least I would assume) and so does Holmgren .. and so does Shurmur ... at least they all have significantly more experience in the 4-3 than 3-4.