That first question and answer session is about the most one-sided account I've seen on the whole matter, and quite frankly biased towards the players and against the owners. A poorly written piece with loaded questions, and weak answers that don't delve into the actual problem.
It's been stated before, by other posters, so by no means am I taking this and claiming it to be my own, but the players did this to themselves by agreeing to a Collective Bargaining Agreement with an owner-opt out clause that allowed the owners to opt out if they felt the players were getting the better half of the deal.
Previous representation of the players made serious mistakes in previous negotiations. Sure, currently the players wouldn't mind playing under the rules they played under in 2009, but that's because they made serious mistakes in allowing for an owner opt-out clause, banking on the owners breaking their own banks during an un-capped year, if the owners opted out of that agreement.
The players thought the owners would fight amongst each other last year during a salary-cap free season. Hell, I thought Dan Snyder would go nuts. That, clearly, didn't happen, and much of the players' negotiating pillars were blown out of the water.
Here's the problem I see, from the outside obviously, with the players' arguments. They will give in to the rookie caps on salary, which I don't know why they wouldn't, but they want that money for themselves. I think that's a mistake, and I think if they conceded on that point, and conceded on giving the owners a little more off the proverbial moneypot, while sticking to not allowing an 18-game season, I think both sides could get a deal done.
But by decertifying, the players have guaranteed that this will be handled through the courts, and could be a long, drawn-out process. Had they accepted the "lock out" and stayed at the negotiating table, this all probably would have been figured out by now.