NFL Draft Tonight: also, Goodell

We have at least one more NFL draft before the league collapses in a great nuclear inferno, Demaurice Smith riding the pale horse of the grim reaper, swaying through NFL HQ with the merciless scythe of death. According to Roger Goodell, this is what we can expect to happen if the players "win." His piece in the Wall Street Journal now holds the record for strawman argument with the widest audience.

Plague, Famine War... Demaurice Smith? Death-Maurice Smith?

Because it is either that or Goodell has become so detached from why the lockout occurred that he could only be suffering from dementia. Quotes like the following suggest that the commish either has no idea what is going on or (much more likely) did an incredibly poor hack job trying to spin the events of the lockout against the players.

For instance: "For six weeks, there has been a work stoppage in the National Football League as the league has sought to negotiate a new collective-bargaining agreement with the players."

But the league are the ones who decided that the current CBA wasn't good enough, and were incapable of negotiating a new one for a full two years after the decision was made to do away with the agreement at the time. NFL execs walked out of negotiations on at least one occasion, and seemed prepared to let the NFL float in limbo while player's savings dwindled away.

Another: "What would the NFL look like without a collectively bargained compromise?"

Well, Rog, we'll never know that because the players were also seeking a new CBA, and at no point was the idea of playing without one ever put on the table.

Wait, I take it back. If you want to know what the NFL would be like without a CBA, look to the early 90's. As far as I can tell, the league still exists and is even stronger than it was back then. So much for what he says afterward.

And another gem: "Rather than address the challenge of improving the collective-bargaining agreement for the benefit of the game..."

"Improving." Meaning, "you play more games for  a lot less money because we say so."

How about this as a consequence of the players getting what they want: "No minimum player salary. Many players could earn substantially less than today's minimums."

So, the consequence of the greedy, nasty, goblin-like players wanting more money would be that they would arrange a deal where they made less? How in god's name does this make any sense?