Players Vs. Owners

After only one week of NFL football the Jets lost their starting defensive tackle, the Seahwaks lost their starting guard, the Eagles lost their starting fullback, the Colts lost their starting safety, and the Packers lost their starting running back for the entire season. That's not even including the season ending injuries that happened in training camp around the league. Injuries are a big part of the game and the main reason players hold out. In a sport where every play could be your last and contracts can be voided by ownership at any time why wouldn't you lobby for a higher salary and guaranteed money? On the flip side if you were an owner why would you risk guaranteed money or a long term contract on a player who could have a season ending injury on any given play? The argument is compelling from both sides and sports fans are caught in the middle. Before you go criticizing the greedy, ego maniacal athlete or the penny pinching, overzealous owner remember every case should be reviewed on an individual basis. There is no rule of thumb for negotiations and every situation is different. Whether it's the shut down cornerback or the work horse running back looking for more money there are 2 sides to the story. Building a Super Bowl contender is as much about luck as it is about talent and strategy. The teams that get to the Super Bowl are generally the ones that were able to avoid major injuries during the regular season and not necessarily the ones with the best players. In the end you need a healthy blend of both. The players vs. owners issue is not as black and white as most people make it out to be, but in the end we all have our opinions about who's right and who's wrong don't we?