Jump to content

Sean Payton suspended for 2012, Tebow a Jet


Brave-Bird 08

Recommended Posts

@ Goth, re the league's deep concern for player safety, how do you explain their push for an 18-game schedule? Nothing screams hypocrisy more because that's clearly about money no matter how often or how hard Goodell pushes his disingenuous argument that "the fans want it." No, the fans want less preseason football, or preseason football at preseason prices. That does not equate to more regular season football. A 2+16 format would be fine with everyone except those who would lose the associated revenue.

On Bountygate, where was the shock and outrage when Bill Romanowski called for the Niners to play a "stretcher game" against the Saints in the playoffs and the Niners made it happen?

439x.jpg

Oh wait, there was no bounty (as far as we know) so that makes it okay. :rolleyes:

Bill Romanowski has, aside from having played for them ages ago, zero association with the 49ers and that was a clean hit as Pierre Thomas wasn't determined to be defenseless. It's hard to fault the defender for helmet to helmet contact when the point of impact is so low...

7786ad041a1967f1fcc9f0466deceea1.jpg

IUe6Hvh.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 280
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Romanowski is a classless thug, and I've said so for years. But who really cares what nonsense a former player spews?

I think increased concern for player safety goes perfectly with their push for an 18-game schedule. The owners want to play more downs, and to do so they'll need to reduce injuries.

Rhetorically speaking, how is it that the league is suddenly so aware of long-term debilitation? Was there nobody from the early years who showed these symptoms in the '50s or '60s? Maybe they were considered exceptions? Just seems weird that the game has been played since the '20s on the NFL level and it took until now for the league to become concerned.

I don't think that question is rhetorical at all. I think it's a great question, and one that deserves a serious answer.

Our understanding of the brain is evolving all the time. Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy wasn't associated with football until 2002, and that was only because one man suspected a connection. Even today, we're seeing cases of CTE in new places - the first college player diagnosed, the first player diagnosed who never suffered a known concussion, etc.

In order to properly diagnose CTE, you have to biopsy the brain. Hard to diagnose a living person, and until Dr. Omalu started looking for it in former football players, how many of them were volunteering to donate their brains to science?

I also suspect that the rise of the Internet had something to do with this. Nowadays it's much easier to keep tabs on former players, and when they die in similar circumstances the parallels are much easier to draw. Consider also that CTE claims them decades after their careers are over, when they're out of the spotlight. Twenty years ago, these men would have died in relative anonymity (expecially the homeless ones), maybe warranting a paragraph buried in the sports pages. Now, even a small mention can get picked up by anyone in the world. Add to that the fact that we're now watching for symptoms that went unnoticed or ignored, and it should be no surprise that cases are coming out of the woodwork.

So former players were punch drunk and it never dawned on anyone that all those football collisions might be responsible somehow? They weren't trying too hard to connect the dots, were they?

On the 18-game sked, I really don't follow your logic whatsoever. Playing two extra games will do nothing for player safety and you can't put enough lipstick on that pig my friend.

@ See Red, I didn't say it was a dirty hit, only wondering why none of the people who are so self-righteously outraged about the Saints scandal were nowhere to be found when Romanowski (thug or not) was publicly calling for SF to injure opposing players and the 49ers obliged him.

92512B20-6264-4E6C-AAF2-7A1D44E9958B-481-00000047E259721F.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I honestly never heard of Romanowski saying that until now. With the Niners, they played a very physical style all year long, especially when Romo got drilled in week 2 and when we pounded Big Ben all night, etc. It was common for teams to be beaten up after playing the Niners.

san-francisco-giants-cap.jpgsanfranciscob.gifArizonaWildcats4.gifcalirvine.jpg
BEAR DOWN ARIZONA!

2013/14 Tanks Picks Champion

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I honestly never heard of Romanowski saying that until now. With the Niners, they played a very physical style all year long, especially when Romo got drilled in week 2 and when we pounded Big Ben all night, etc. It was common for teams to be beaten up after playing the Niners.

That play was a bummer. If Pierre hadn't been knocked out, at best he scores (if you've seen him play, first guy seldom makes the stop) and at worst it's 1st and goal.

92512B20-6264-4E6C-AAF2-7A1D44E9958B-481-00000047E259721F.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So former players were punch drunk and it never dawned on anyone that all those football collisions might be responsible somehow? They weren't trying too hard to connect the dots, were they?

You'll have to show that there was an awareness of lots of former players being "punch drunk." I believe most of these men would have died in relative anonymity but for the Internet.

On the 18-game sked, I really don't follow your logic whatsoever. Playing two extra games will do nothing for player safety and you can't put enough lipstick on that pig my friend.

I'm not trying to. I don't want an 18-game schedule, nor do I think the owners really want it (they bargained it away quickly enough, just as if it was a cheap poker chip introduced to be lost).

What I'm saying is that it is not logically inconsistent to simultaneously advocate greater player safety and an expanded schedule. Quite the opposite; the first would be necessary to ensure the second. Anyone who would suggest adding two regular-season games would almost be required to also advocate for rule changes to cut down on injuries. The two positions go hand in hand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So former players were punch drunk and it never dawned on anyone that all those football collisions might be responsible somehow? They weren't trying too hard to connect the dots, were they?

You'll have to show that there was an awareness of lots of former players being "punch drunk." I believe most of these men would have died in relative anonymity but for the Internet.

On the 18-game sked, I really don't follow your logic whatsoever. Playing two extra games will do nothing for player safety and you can't put enough lipstick on that pig my friend.

I'm not trying to. I don't want an 18-game schedule, nor do I think the owners really want it (they bargained it away quickly enough, just as if it was a cheap poker chip introduced to be lost).

What I'm saying is that it is not logically inconsistent to simultaneously advocate greater player safety and an expanded schedule. Quite the opposite; the first would be necessary to ensure the second. Anyone who would suggest adding two regular-season games would almost be required to also advocate for rule changes to cut down on injuries. The two positions go hand in hand.

So if for example NASCAR wanted to run the Daytona 750, they'd have to put the drivers in Michelin Man suits and limit the speed to 100 MPH? Yeah, let's do that.

I see what you're saying but if the NFL wants to "protect players" to the point of making an 18-game season feasible, we'll end up with this.

lingerie_football_league_47.jpg

92512B20-6264-4E6C-AAF2-7A1D44E9958B-481-00000047E259721F.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really hope that's not a "feminizing the NFL" joke. Those were old years ago, and have only gotten sillier.

Well, I sure wouldn't want you to think less of me. :D

You're a clever guy, you recognize hyperbole when you see it. (I hope.) My point is that when "player safety" starts fundamentally changing the nature of the NFL game, it'll be the beginning of the end. I'm not judging that, just saying it's the case.

Sorry, gotcha before the edit. The second version was better too, you just need to improve your timing. :P

92512B20-6264-4E6C-AAF2-7A1D44E9958B-481-00000047E259721F.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That was always my downfall as a satirist. :P

I cannot agree that "when 'player safety' starts fundamentally changing the nature of the NFL game, it'll be the beginning of the end." I see that it's your point, I just think your point is wrong. They've been "fundamentally changing" the game for decades, from TV timeouts to 2-point conversions to changing the nature of roughing calls, to adding review, to expanding review, to changing review, to changing the overtime format (but for playoffs only).

Some have been good, some bad, but none of that has killed the game, and I don't see any reason to think that these relatively minor changes will kill the game either. If anything, I see them saving the game, as nothing would kill it more than the TV-star players of today sinking into mental illness and killing themselves by 2020. Video lengthens memories in ways that we didn't have when the current CTE sufferers were playing...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That was always my downfall as a satirist. :P

I cannot agree that "when 'player safety' starts fundamentally changing the nature of the NFL game, it'll be the beginning of the end." I see that it's your point, I just think your point is wrong. They've been "fundamentally changing" the game for decades, from TV timeouts to 2-point conversions to changing the nature of roughing calls, to adding review, to expanding review, to changing review, to changing the overtime format (but for playoffs only).

Some have been good, some bad, but none of that has killed the game, and I don't see any reason to think that these relatively minor changes will kill the game either. If anything, I see them saving the game, as nothing would kill it more than the TV-star players of today sinking into mental illness and killing themselves by 2020. Video lengthens memories in ways that we didn't have when the current CTE sufferers were playing...

You forgot the forward pass. Which if I remember correcy was introduced for player safety.

Wembley-1.png

2011/12 WFL Champions

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Much as I hate to admit it, neither has the Tom Brady "Skirt Rule"...

*Disclaimer: I am not an authoritative expert on stuff...I just do a lot of reading and research and keep in close connect with a bunch of people who are authoritative experts on stuff. 😁

|| dribbble || BehanceΒ ||

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Much as I hate to admit it, neither has the Tom Brady "Skirt Rule"...

So nobody's irritated when a D-lineman brushes against a QB and draws a flag? It's just gone too far, which I suppose was inevitable for one reason. No, not player safety...again, money. When you're tying up $19 million in a guy for one season, you sure don't want him carted off in Week 1.

I guess that's what bothers me most and why I still call it hypocrisy. Wish the league would just come clean and admit that it's basically safety for money's sake. Wait, Goth says that doesn't matter. Well, it does to me.

92512B20-6264-4E6C-AAF2-7A1D44E9958B-481-00000047E259721F.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Much as I hate to admit it, neither has the Tom Brady "Skirt Rule"...

So nobody's irritated when a D-lineman brushes against a QB and draws a flag? It's just gone too far, which I suppose was inevitable for one reason. No, not player safety...again, money. When you're tying up $19 million in a guy for one season, you sure don't want him carted off in Week 1.

It irritates the living s*** out of me that that "rule" was instituted. That right there was an out-and-out overreactionary measure designed to "protect the multi-million-dollar face of the league" there. Wasn't no two ways about it in my eyes. I guarantee had that been Ben Roethlisberger (who had a similar "twist" of fate a season or two ahead of that), or Philip Rivers-or hell, even Eli Manning?the competition committee wouldn't have implemented that. But since it was Golden Boy Brady (and I don't doubt the same would've happened if it were Peyton Manning)...lunge rule gets put in place.

Anyway, I say all that to say this: even with that (and other rules obviously put in play to favor offenses), the game still managed to survive and attract viewership (okay, so maybe the league got lucky no big-name QBs got Kimo von Oelhoffen'd last season?don't think any did, anyway). Of course, in hindsight, some could say that player?okay, quarterback safety?was the motive behind that rule, but then, I also don't recall that even being mentioned as a determining factor for implementing that in the first place. (I could be misremembering, though.)

*Disclaimer: I am not an authoritative expert on stuff...I just do a lot of reading and research and keep in close connect with a bunch of people who are authoritative experts on stuff. 😁

|| dribbble || BehanceΒ ||

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Much as I hate to admit it, neither has the Tom Brady "Skirt Rule"...

So nobody's irritated when a D-lineman brushes against a QB and draws a flag? It's just gone too far, which I suppose was inevitable for one reason. No, not player safety...again, money. When you're tying up $19 million in a guy for one season, you sure don't want him carted off in Week 1.

It irritates the living s*** out of me that that "rule" was instituted. That right there was an out-and-out overreactionary measure designed to "protect the multi-million-dollar face of the league" there. Wasn't no two ways about it in my eyes. I guarantee had that been Ben Roethlisberger (who had a similar "twist" of fate a season or two ahead of that), or Philip Rivers-or hell, even Eli Manning?the competition committee wouldn't have implemented that. But since it was Golden Boy Brady (and I don't doubt the same would've happened if it were Peyton Manning)...lunge rule gets put in place.

Anyway, I say all that to say this: even with that (and other rules obviously put in play to favor offenses), the game still managed to survive and attract viewership (okay, so maybe the league got lucky no big-name QBs got Kimo von Oelhoffen'd last season?don't think any did, anyway). Of course, in hindsight, some could say that player?okay, quarterback safety?was the motive behind that rule, but then, I also don't recall that even being mentioned as a determining factor for implementing that in the first place. (I could be misremembering, though.)

As it irritates me that the playoff OT rule is basically the "poor Brett Favre didn't get a fairy tale ending" rule. It also irritates me when people are deliberately misleading, a la Goodell and the 18-game season. For example, on the new OT, Peter King loves to trot out a stat that the team winning the toss wins in OT over half the time. So what? The only relevant stat in justifying a two-possession OT rule is whether the team winning the toss wins on the first drive, which only happens something like less than 40% of the time. So the TRUTH is, there's no real advantage to winning the toss in OT. Plus, how many playoff games had gone to OT and ended however they ended but this time we have change the rules of the game? That kind of s*** drives me crazy.

92512B20-6264-4E6C-AAF2-7A1D44E9958B-481-00000047E259721F.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Was Bill Parcells ever accused or busted for illegal tactics during his days as a head coach? Parcells always came off as a shady guy when the spotlight was on him, and it didn't help that he would unexpectedly bolt and leave teams high and dry when things were going good. It almost feels like there is no coincidence that "convicted" cheaters, Bill Belichick and now Sean Payton, are Tuna disciples.

6uXNWAo.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not allowing both offenses on the field in a league where the game is ever-increasingly engineered to favor the offense is more and more like ending a baseball game in the top of the tenth inning. If defenses were relevant to the modern NFL beyond getting popped for taking bounty money from a felon, then maybe I could see the merit of sudden death, but they aren't, and such is life, so bring on the in-my-day-nineteen-dickety-garble-garble that BlueSky seems to drive a veritable dump truck full of.

β™« oh yeah, board goes on, long after the thrill of postin' is goneΒ β™«

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not allowing both offenses on the field in a league where the game is ever-increasingly engineered to favor the offense is more and more like ending a baseball game in the top of the tenth inning. If defenses were relevant to the modern NFL beyond getting popped for taking bounty money from a felon, then maybe I could see the merit of sudden death, but they aren't, and such is life, so bring on the in-my-day-nineteen-dickety-garble-garble that BlueSky seems to drive a veritable dump truck full of.

My positions are logical and defensible. You're stooping to personal attacks.

You know, in my day people didn't attack each other on the internet. Of course, there was no internet in nineteen-dickety. Back then when stuff like this happened we'd garble-garble. And maybe some blah blah for good measure.

Yeah, I'm laughing at you, man, because when people shovel out s***t like you just did it only means they've got nothing else. If facts don't serve a role in your decision-making process, sorry, can't help you. But come on back when you've got some actual points to make.

BTW, was saving this for a "Post Pics of Your Ride" thread but what the hell.

titan02.jpg

If you're gonna haul dickety and garble-garble, do it in style. :D

92512B20-6264-4E6C-AAF2-7A1D44E9958B-481-00000047E259721F.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.