Eight games for Henry

[Kirkendall]

I honestly think Henry is done for the year. He has to apply for reinstatement, and if Goodell decides he hasn't rehabbed sufficiently, he simply won't reinstate him.

You might be right. But if that were to happen, I'd imagine the player's union would jump in -- not to defend Henry, but to set up parameters (and even safeguards) against the Chancellor's executive war powers he's more visible to having.

I think I disagree with you here. The players union gave Goodell the go ahead with actions such as this when he met with them and asked their opinion. Gene Upshaw has backed Goodell's ruling and made it clear that no one has put Henry (and Pacman) in this situation other than Henry (and Pacman).

Can you really hear any other players union chief saying these kinds of things? For the most part, most players in the NFL don't want to be associated with "thugs" and are willing to let Goodell have his way with them. I doubt you'll hear much fuss if Goodell sits Henry for the rest of the year... or even tells both he and Pacman that their NFL careers are over. (I'm not saying the latter will happen... but I do expect Henry to miss all 16 games this season).

Again, you might be right.

At the same time, I don't expect the union, right now, to say much. They would be viewed as obstructionists like our buddy Donald Fuhr. And I do think, right now, the union is supportive of these measures. And, to our benefit, the NFL union is much weaker than their counterparts in other leagues. That's not a bad thing either. We've had tremendous peace between the two parties -- except for the minor tension last season over the CBA that Mike Brown LOVES! And that benefits all of us.

But it's not a matter of fuss. It's a matter of procedure. And if the league prevents Henry from playing game #9, after going through the "education" or some "repatriotism" program, then the union will say something -- as they should. Or they wouldn't be a very good union.

[derekshank]

But it's not a matter of fuss. It's a matter of procedure. And if the league prevents Henry from playing game #9, after going through the "education" or some "repatriotism" program, then the union will say something -- as they should. Or they wouldn't be a very good union.

I guess that depends on who the union represents. Do they represent the likes of Chris Henry and Pacman Jones, or do they represent the 99% of other NFL players who are pissed about the likes of Chris Henry, Pacman Jones, and Tank Johnson giving them a bad reputation?

You're probably right that the union will say "something" for fear of the slippery slope - but I'm willing to bet many of the players and the union will be fairly pleased to see a constant trouble maker out of the league.

[Kirkendall]

But it's not a matter of fuss. It's a matter of procedure. And if the league prevents Henry from playing game #9, after going through the "education" or some "repatriotism" program, then the union will say something -- as they should. Or they wouldn't be a very good union.

I guess that depends on who the union represents. Do they represent the likes of Chris Henry and Pacman Jones, or do they represent the 99% of other NFL players who are pissed about the likes of Chris Henry, Pacman Jones, and Tank Johnson giving them a bad reputation?

You're probably right that the union will say "something" for fear of the slippery slope - but I'm willing to bet many of the players and the union will be fairly pleased to see a constant trouble maker out of the league.

I agree there.