Edwards saga underlies NFLPA's need to reach new collective barganing agreement

Recently there has been much ado made about remarks made by Minnesota Vikings' defensive end Ray Edwards, who has publicly said that it was not fair that NFL commissioner Roger Goodell is making three times his salary when he(Goodell) was not putting his body on the line on a regular basis like Edwards has. While that point may be debateable, I believe that the bigger issue here is that the NFL Players Association has let down its members. Had the NFLPA been able to reach a new CBA(collective bargaining agreement) with the owners, Edwards might not have been tagged as a restricted free agent and thus could have sought what he believed to be his fair market value. (For those of you who aren't aware, Edwards has been labeled a restricted free agent because the current agreement calls for the league to operate in an uncapped season in 2010, an under that stipulation Edwards does not qualify to be a restricted free agent.) It appears the Players Association, however, is waiting for the owners to be the ones who offer the first olive branch before any type of agreement be reached. Normally this is standard practice for a union to stonewall until ownership gives some type of concessions. However, if the stonewalling leads to players receiving lesser contracts in 2010, regardless of the reason, shouldn't that be enough of a reason for the NFLPA to negotiate? My suggestion to the Players Association: look at what the owners have currently proposed, and counter offer with a middle ground fast. Otherwise another, more high profile player than Ray Edwards could end up on the short end of the stick turning this whole situation into a publicity nightmare.