Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
On Twitter: RedskinsInsider and PostSports  |  Facebook  |  E-mail alerts: Redskins and Sports  |  RSS

Fletcher 'honored' to be a Walter Payton award finalist

Redskins linebacker London Fletcher was introduced at a new conference this morning in Fort Lauderdale as one of three finalists for the Walter Payton Man of the Year Award.

Fletcher was initially one of 32 nominees -- one from each team -- and was chosen as a finalist by a small committee that includes NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell and Connie Payton, the widow of Walter Payton.

The other finalists are Kansas City's Brian Waters and Cleveland's Mike Furrey.

"To be a finalist with Mike and Brian is extemely humbling and I'm honored to be here," Fletcher said at the news conference. "Just to be nominated by the team was a great honor."

The winner will be named on Super Bowl Sunday and will receive a $25,000 donation to the charity of his choice. Fletcher said no one from the league has tipped him off as whether he's won the award and Sunday's announcement will be a complete surprise.

"They haven't told me. Maybe they told the winner," he joked after the news conference.

The 40-year-old award would a huge honor for Fletcher. Johnny Unitas was the first recipient in 1970, and recent honorees include Kurt Warner, Jason Taylor, Drew Brees and Peyton Manning.

"London steps up to the task and is passionate about his community service," said Brittney Payton, the late running back's daughter, citing Fletcher's charitable organization London's Bridge.

Darrell Green was the Redskins' most recent winner (1996). Joe Theismann won the award in 1982.

By Rick Maese  |  February 5, 2010; 9:38 AM ET
 
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Redskins prepare for season with and without a salary cap
Next: Fletcher finds positives in his upbringing

Comments

London Fletcher is FIRST class!

Posted by: brownwood26 | February 5, 2010 9:53 AM | Report abuse

No1ClassyLBintheNFL LONDON!

Posted by: alex35332 | February 5, 2010 10:03 AM | Report abuse

Looks like everybody taking a snow day from RI.

Posted by: PortisPocketsStr8 | February 5, 2010 10:19 AM | Report abuse

rottfrau could take a decade off. That would be an improvement.

Posted by: glawrence007 | February 5, 2010 10:22 AM | Report abuse

Maybe I'm a little biased, but I think London deserves it over Waters and Furrey. Not to discount anything they've done, but come on. Even Superman wears London Fletcher pajamas.

Posted by: Keiser | February 5, 2010 10:24 AM | Report abuse

walter payton played in the 80's. how could johnny U have recieved this award in the 1970?

Posted by: sthai75 | February 5, 2010 10:25 AM | Report abuse

walter payton played in the 80's. how could johnny U have recieved this award in the 1970?

Posted by: sthai75 | February 5, 2010 10:25 AM | Report abuse

guessing they renamed the award.

Either that or a psychic works in the NFL department that picks names for awards.

Posted by: PortisPocketsStr8 | February 5, 2010 10:28 AM | Report abuse

This is a big opportunity to make right many mistakes of the past. I would assume there are a bunch of players on other teams that are on the down side of their careers and have hefty salaries. When these guys get dumped I hope Snyder truly is hands off or else the Redskins will end up as the clearinghouse for fat contract guys who have forgotten what it was to be hungry and compete.

Posted by: RedSkinHead | February 5, 2010 8:22 AM

They've been saying that free agency won't amount to much because 4 yr vets will be RFAs instead of UFAs. But with the uncapped year a lot of older vets are likely to be cut for the cost savings mentioned. Back in the 80s when you had odd things happening with labor relations Bobby Bethard was often ahead of the curve and took advantage.

Posted by: skinfanman | February 5, 2010 10:28 AM | Report abuse

Cindy/JReid,
I can’t find on the web anything that explains what could happen if there actually is a lockout. Does this mean no NFL period until an agreement is reached, or can they use scabs to replace the guys? Can anyone find out what would/could happen?

Posted by: dlhaze1 | February 5, 2010 10:31 AM | Report abuse

walter payton played in the 80's. how could johnny U have recieved this award in the 1970?

Posted by: sthai75 | February 5, 2010 10:25 AM

Just a guess, but maybe they named the "Man of the Year" award after Walter Payton?

Posted by: mack1 | February 5, 2010 10:33 AM | Report abuse

From Wiki:

The Walter Payton Man of the Year award is given annually by the National Football League honoring a player's volunteer and charity work, as well as his excellence on the field. Prior to 1999, it was called simply the NFL Man of the Year Award. Shortly after Chicago Bears running back Walter Payton died (having been the 1977 recipient himself), the award was renamed to honor his legacy as both a great player and a humanitarian. Each year, a winner is selected from 32 nominees from the 32 different teams. A panel of judges, which includes the commissioner of the NFL, Connie Payton (widow of Walter Payton), the previous year's winner and a number of former players, selects the winner of the award. The Man of the Year winner receives a $25,000 donation in his name to a charity of his choice. The other 31 finalists also receive donations in their name of $1,000 each to charities of their choice

Posted by: LongTimeShortTime | February 5, 2010 10:37 AM | Report abuse

Anyone hear the news from the PLayers Association that they are fearing an impending lockout in 2011?

Gentlemen...let the public posturing and doomsday-scenario threats begin...

Posted by: p1funk | February 5, 2010 10:47 AM | Report abuse

http://theredzone.org/BlogDescription.aspx?EntryId=3064

Matt Millen thinks about trying MMA.

He better not start in Detroit, there will be a line waiting to their shot at him.

Posted by: gatorskinz2000 | February 5, 2010 10:52 AM | Report abuse

He better not start in Detroit, there will be a line waiting to their shot at him.

Posted by: gatorskinz2000 | February 5, 2010 10:52 AM | Report abuse

LOL

I also saw that Conseco wants a shot a Herschel Walker.

Posted by: PortisPocketsStr8 | February 5, 2010 11:04 AM | Report abuse

At least if there is a lockout, Keanu Reeves will come back to lead us over Dallas and into the playoffs...

Posted by: Rypien11 | February 5, 2010 11:04 AM | Report abuse

At least if there is a lockout, Keanu Reeves will come back to lead us over Dallas and into the playoffs...

Posted by: Rypien11 | February 5, 2010 11:04 AM

Yeah but watch out for when JC17 crosses the picket line and tells Heyer and BMW to flip over Keanu's truck.

Looking forward to Beckham being our placekicker, though.

Posted by: Keiser | February 5, 2010 11:17 AM | Report abuse

"...can’t find on the web anything that explains what could happen if there actually is a lockout."


One thing that'll happen is that folks will take sides.

As for me, I agree with the players that more coin from the pot 'o gold the owners sit atop should come their way.

To get at it, though, the player should concede to a rookie salary schedule and longer season (2 extra games?), among other things.

Posted by: MistaMoe | February 5, 2010 11:17 AM | Report abuse

As for me, I agree with the players that more coin from the pot 'o gold the owners sit atop should come their way.

To get at it, though, the player should concede to a rookie salary schedule and longer season (2 extra games?), among other things.

Posted by: MistaMoe

I disagree about having a longer season. I think the length of the season is what makes the NFL great. If we add more games then a loss will be less significant and also games at the end of the season will become more meaningless as the playoffs will already be set. I think the the other major sports suffer from seasons that are to long. Nobody cares if a Basketball Team loses one game because there are 80 some more.

I wish the owners would not give more money to the players (they're rich enough), but invest in their fans and lower some prices!

Posted by: rupertpupkin | February 5, 2010 11:29 AM | Report abuse

Yeah but watch out for when JC17 crosses the picket line and tells Heyer and BMW to flip over Keanu's truck.

Looking forward to Beckham being our placekicker, though.

Posted by: Keiser | February 5, 2010 11:17 AM | Report abuse


I don't know...

My bet is that Keanu's truck gets by BMW and Heyer and sacks JC17 in the parking lot before they can even get their hands on it...

Posted by: p1funk | February 5, 2010 11:31 AM | Report abuse

Scab teams again ... wonder if they'll rehire Casserly asst. to Allen to build one of those. He did a good job there.

As to the comment about getting "offensive linemen in a week, and drafting what we want". You dude remind me of Redskins drafts of Christmas past where there was no FA, they had SJ as their quarterback, or a Baugh and always drafted a quarterback in the first round. AND THEY ALWAYS LOST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Get with the program peeps. The Ravens like drafting linemen and linebackers on both sides of the ball. They, like the Redskins have had some success drafting defensive backs. While there record with quarterback is not so great ...

As far as running backs ... if there really is no free agency and they do manage to build a great offensive line I am certain you will find many interested parties in FA land who will dream about 2000 yard rushing years.

Build the lines first.

Posted by: periculum | February 5, 2010 11:36 AM | Report abuse

beeps

Posted by: dlhaze1 | February 5, 2010 11:36 AM | Report abuse

One thing that'll happen is that folks will take sides.

As for me, I agree with the players that more coin from the pot 'o gold the owners sit atop should come their way.

To get at it, though, the player should concede to a rookie salary schedule and longer season (2 extra games?), among other things.

Posted by: MistaMoe | February 5, 2010 11:17 AM | Report abuse


The PA wants people to take sides and they are gambling on the public feeling the same way that Moe does.

Their gambit is that the public isn't going to view the owners in a very favorable light - a bunch of greedy billionaire fatcats about to take away their favorite game over an extra few millions which is chump change in their universe- that's why they're already throwing "lockout" out there...

Posted by: p1funk | February 5, 2010 11:40 AM | Report abuse

One thing that'll happen is that folks will take sides.

As for me, I agree with the players that more coin from the pot 'o gold the owners sit atop should come their way.

To get at it, though, the player should concede to a rookie salary schedule and longer season (2 extra games?), among other things.

Posted by: MistaMoe | February 5, 2010 11:17 AM | Report abuse
____________
I hear you on this, but I'm just not sure that, this time at least, the owners don't have a legitimate point. Most data I've seen shows a decline in net revenue, and I don't think anyone could dispute that owners, now and in the future, will have to pay far more of the development costs of new stadiums, which is big big money. Throw in declining corporate endorsements (see jerry jones' new cowgirl palace that still doesn't have a named sponsor), and maybe the players do have to take a cut of the overall revenue stream. 18% seems a tad harsh, but I have no idea about the real numbers.

2 extra games would be good for the fans, but I don't think it's right to impose that upon the players without raises their salaries by 2 more game checks. it wold be an injury nightmare, though.

Posted by: skinsfan713 | February 5, 2010 11:44 AM | Report abuse

"...can’t find on the web anything that explains what could happen if there actually is a lockout."

One thing that'll happen is that folks will take sides.

As for me, I agree with the players that more coin from the pot 'o gold the owners sit atop should come their way.

To get at it, though, the player should concede to a rookie salary schedule and longer season (2 extra games?), among other things.

Posted by: MistaMoe | February 5, 2010 11:17 AM
-----------------------------------------
I don't know Moe, the players have a really good contract as it is. I think the way you can tell that they have a good deal is by the fact that they were willing to just let the current contract ride for a few more years.

I'm against adding a few more games and i can understand the players being against it. The game is so physically demanding that it is hard to keep players healthy for sixteen regular season games and now they want to extend that. I know the owners are just talking about replacing preseason games with regular season games, but at least in the preseason there is an expanded roster and most of the stars are sitting after a series or two.

As for a rookie salary schedule, I am all for it, but the bulk of the players still active in the NFL are probably playing off their fat rookie contracts, and might have a really biased view of that topic. This, I think, is a bigger sticking point than the extra games.

It's a shame the fans cannot go on strike. The NFL keeps coming up with innovative ways of extracting more cash out of our pockets and the product has essentially remained the same. We should be pissed about that.

Posted by: RedSkinHead | February 5, 2010 11:54 AM | Report abuse

As for a rookie salary schedule, I am all for it, but the bulk of the players still active in the NFL are probably playing off their fat rookie contracts, and might have a really biased view of that topic. This, I think, is a bigger sticking point than the extra games.

Posted by: RedSkinHead | February 5, 2010 11:54 AM | Report abuse


I think this would be one of the easier concessions for the PA to make.

The guys who are playing off their rookie contracts now would not be affected by the change. Plus, they are going to want to hit free agency and get their piece of the pie. They're not going to want to see new rookies come in and eat up a bunch of salary cap space that could otherwise go to their new contract. Add to that the vast majority of vets who don't want to see guys that have not played an NFL snap in their life automatically start making triple their own salaries.

Quite frankly, I think the only people that would really care about this are (1) rookies-to-be who don't have a seat at the negotiating table and (2) agents that make a killing off of fat rookie contracts who also don't have a seat at the negotiating table.

Posted by: p1funk | February 5, 2010 1:03 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company