Replacement Players = Dumb Idea

Burgundy Blog is right, most of the players would come back to play after only a few games, almost all would be there by the end of the season. Not only that but the clip you posted with the athletes from 20+ years ago are not the same quality of athletes that would compete today if there were "scrubs." There are TONS of ex college athletes that stay in phenomenal shape after that would play, and that is exactly what the NFL would become comprised of. ACTUAL football players, not just random softball players as you put it. NFL would absolutely survive and i would watch the Redskins every sunday still

Good post. Good points. I enjoy debating this topic because the side I oppose--yours--has some good points.

And yet I disagree, at least on a philosophical level. It can scarcely be argued that by replacing the supposed "best" 18- or 1900 players in the country, the quality of play, at least initially, will decline. I mean it's obviously not gonna improve. But for one thing, many NFL people would agree that the bottom two-thirds of every NFL roster is essentially indistinguishable (with regard to talent) from the somewhat arbitrarily marginalized tier immediately below it. The on-field consequence of dismissing those guys would be almost imperceptible. In the top third  I'll concede that the truly exceptional star players of today would be sorely missed, for a period.

But if we're talking about permanently banishing the dissatisfied current NFLPA (or whatever it calls itself while decertified) as a stable means of avoiding this miserable labor strife in the future, then a more important projection is the medium- to long-term result. And my firm belief is that, under the very and exact terms proposed by the owners last night, to which De Smith and half the hot-headed current players on Twitter have so loudly and vehemently objected... the players of tomorrow and even the as-yet-unborn Hall of Fame-bound superstars of the 2030s and '40s would still be CLAMORING to become professional football players. In other words, even the worst deal the owners have offered to date, if ratified, would continue to draw the nation's finest young athletes and produce the nation's most awesome sport because it would STILL offer a rarely-matched potential for fame, fortune, and success. That is my conviction, and if I'm right--which is obviously not automatic, thus the controversy--but IF I'm right, then almost by definition the current NFLPA is dragging this out in bad faith by asking for too much.

Moreover, the pool of amateur talent in 2011 is exponentially better  and deeper than it was in the '80s and early '90s. Thus the evolution of bigger, stronger athletes; harder hits; and faster pace. The vastness of this talent pool would quicken the immediate "rebound period" all the more.

Think young players would turn away from football or more casually pursue a different career for lack of whatever specific hairs the current NFLPA is splitting as we speak? Gimme a break. Legions of good young football players would still be developed. Legions!

Exhibit A: Leonard Hankerson's tweet from last night.

"The players trippin man, I'm ready to get to work, smh"

Shaking my head, indeed.

Even the worst deal De Smith could have brokered would STILL produce an elite product within three seasons of the current players' disappearance. Oh, and don't think 95% of them wouldn't realize their bluff had been called and jump the picket line RAPIDLY, anyway.

Great football needs great players. But it doesn't need TODAY'S. Great players will materialize and perform for far less than what De Smith insists his clients are entitled to.

Barring a major paradigm shift in society's goals and interests, I believe the NFL would barely miss a beat.