|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: NFL "issues" Post by StegRock on Jan 24th, 2003, 11:23am http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/football/news/2003/01/23/nflpa_overtime_ap/. Is it gonna' take the Super Bowl going into overtime and having the team who gets the ball first win on their first possession for them to change the format? I, for one, am for both teams getting the opportunity to touch the ball on offense in OT. But, like the article, I really don't like the college format. How about you all? Also, I LOVE seeing the "issue" of "diversity" among NFL head coaches getting the attention it deserves in this piece! Edited to adjust Topic! |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Overtime Post by BarnabyWilde on Jan 24th, 2003, 11:33am I also would like to see a change in the overtime format. Let team A have the ball first. If they score and Team B does not when they get the ball, then A wins. If A scores a touchdown, then B scores a touchdown, then A gets it again. If A kicks a field goal, then B scores a td, then B wins. Simple, but better than what they have now. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Overtime Post by ugley on Jan 24th, 2003, 11:36am I will be interesting to see what the committe comes up with re. kick offs. I don't have any problem with the college format. If I interpreted Upshaws comment in regard to the front office I think he is right on the mark. The best caindidate for the job should get the job regardless. [smiley=footballsmiley.gif] |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Overtime Post by Walker_Boh on Jan 24th, 2003, 10:02pm on 01/24/03 at 11:33:58, BarnabyWilde wrote:
I agree 100%.[smiley=yes.gif] It ridiculous, every time the team I'm rooting for goes into OT, I'm always praying that they win the coin toss, the COIN TOSS! Are you kidding me? What the hell does the flip of a coin have to do with a football game? Let the players decide the outcome and give them both an equal opportunity. I heard the owners might be against it because it could dramatically increase the length of the games, therefore increasing the odds of player injury... Hey, you could get hurt walking down the stairs in your own house[smiley=dog.gif], or slipping on your buddy's driveway[smiley=alcoholic.gif] or reaching for the phone.::) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Overtime Post by StegRock on Jan 24th, 2003, 10:45pm on 01/24/03 at 22:02:10, Walker_Boh wrote:
It also would make for MORE FANTASY STATS! [smiley=lickinmychops.gif] [smiley=thumbsup.gif] |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Overtime Post by Keyshawn Johnson 76yards on Jan 25th, 2003, 1:34pm on 01/24/03 at 22:45:34, StegRock wrote:
It also would make for more injuries. The overtime format is fine as it is for the Regular Season. Though I do agree for an overtime format change for the playoffs. The regular season overtime format should stay exactly how it is. That's my four cents... ;) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Overtime &... Post by StegRock on Jan 25th, 2003, 1:44pm Here is what Tagliabue thinks on a range of "issues of the day" including changing the format of overtime: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/football/news/2003/01/24/commissioner_state_ap/ Here's a summary: New Overtime Format - [smiley=thumbsup.gif] Changing Officiating - [smiley=thumbsdown.gif] Expansion within the next decade - [smiley=thumbsdown.gif] BUT, preferance to L. A. if they built a "sweet-ass" stadium - [smiley=thumbsup.gif] Cold-weather Super Bowl - [smiley=thumbsup.gif] Criticisms of the Cowboys and Jaguars for not looking sufficiently at minority options - [smiley=thumbsdown.gif] Expanding the number of teams that make the playoffs - [smiley=thumbsdown.gif] |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Overtime &... Post by StegRock on Feb 6th, 2003, 1:33pm Here is the latest out of ESPN, especially with regards to how overtime might get revamped by the competition committee set to meet next month in Phoenix, Arizona: http://espn.go.com/nfl/columns/pasquarelli_len/1504220.html. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Overtime &... Post by CoachH on Feb 7th, 2003, 11:56am Here's my take: Regular Season - NO OVERTIME- a tie is a tie- if you can't beat someone in the regulation time then you don't deserve to "get lucky" and should have taken more risks during the game to avoid being tied. If this were used and ties were needed to be broken for playoff spots then something would need to be in place, i.e. - divisional records, 1st downs, something. Playoffs - Alternate possessions- like college/high school except have kickoffs/returns rather than placing the ball |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Overtime &... Post by StegRock on Feb 20th, 2003, 1:16pm Well, some coaches want "Overtime" only to be tweaked a little bit according to this piece from ESPN.com: http://espn.go.com/nfl/news/2003/0220/1511695.html. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Change in Playoff & Overtime format!?!? Post by StegRock on Mar 18th, 2003, 2:05pm What is up with this? A 7-team playoff format likely to be approved. Meanwhile, the overtime issue, which was such a hot topic, is looking like it is going to die. Here is the short of it from CNN/SI: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/football/news/2003/03/18/nfl_playoffs_ap/. Here's the extended Associated Press report from "the Gridiron Newsstand": http://www.silive.com/sportsflash/football/index.ssf?/newsflash/get_story.ssf?/cgi-free/getstory_ssf.cgi?s0271_BC_FBN--ExpandedPlayoffs&&sports&sportsflash-football. And, here's the REAL DEAL, the original report, from "the Gridiron Newsstand": http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/football/story/68093p-63356c.html. 14 teams to be in the playoffs. I really dislike this trend of playoff inflation. Granted, the old 4-team playoffs of baseball might have been a little too hardcore, but basketball and hockey, where like over half the league makes the playoffs, fuckin' yucky. :P [smiley=nono.gif] I do NOT want football to go in that direction. As for the overtime issue, I, for one, would have liked to see them do something. Oh, well! :-/ |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Change in Playoff & Overtime format!?!? Post by StegRock on Mar 25th, 2003, 1:44pm Talk of adding teams to the playoffs is heating up. THANK GOODNESS it does not seem it will be passed this year. In short, the first consideration is to add one team to both of the conference playoffs, raising the number of teams to seven in both and 14 overall. Moreover, Chiefs team owner Lamar Hunt wants two teams to be added, bringing the total to eight teams in both and 16 overall, i.e. HALF OF THE LEAGUE. [smiley=pullleeeeeeeze.gif] Here is the word out of CNN/SI, ESPN and "the Gridiron Newsstand": http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/inside_game/don_banks/news/2003/03/24/banks_insider/; http://espn.go.com/nfl/news/2003/0324/1528933.html; http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/sports/football/nfl/kansas_city_chiefs/5473137.htm. The argument that supporters of adding more teams to the playoffs make that really gets under my skin is the one that contends that the top seeds get a grossly unfair advantage by getting the Week 1 bye. But, on the contrary, isn't that the advantage they have earned? Way back, wasn't that part of the rationale behind structuring the playoffs thusly? I mean I do not really know the answer to that second question. But, that is the "de facto" impression I have always had, and I liked the idea. Does anybody know the "actual" answer? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Change in Playoff & Overtime format!?!? Post by Philly on Mar 25th, 2003, 3:44pm Part of the allure of football is that, with only 16 regular season games, every single one is important. We all know that what a hockey team does October-February is irrelevant as long as they get hot come March. By adding playoff teams, the games become less important. I think it should be left at 6 teams. The system works. As far as overtime is concerned, Philly sports radio was looking for possible changes in a discussion by the mid-day hosts. The best one I heard was that the first team to score 6 points (one TD, 2 FGs, 3 safeties, any combo) in OT wins. That way there wouldn't be a team winning the coin toss, driving 20 yards and kicking a field goal to win. They could kick the field goal, but then they'd still need another 3 points to get their 6 to win. The only drawback was that the team winning the coin toss could still return the kickoff for a TD, thus giving the other team no chance to win. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Change in Playoff & Overtime format!?!? Post by Keyshawn Johnson 76yards on Mar 25th, 2003, 7:04pm Looks like another change will occur... this time has to do with the referees. No longer will they hand pick the "best" refs of the season, instead they'll keep the regular season refs intact and just assign ref teams to the games, not separate individuals who maybe had not officiated a game together during the regular season. http://espn.go.com/nfl/news/2003/0325/1529300.html |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Change in Playoff & Overtime format!?!? Post by BarnabyWilde on Mar 26th, 2003, 3:20pm Looks like the owners are to scared to make the change in the OT rules. Dummies... [smiley=dunce.gif] http://www.sportsline.com/nfl/story/6278702 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Change in Playoff & Overtime format!?!? Post by Walker Boh on Mar 27th, 2003, 8:14am I'm glad they didn't change the playoff format. [smiley=yes.gif] Keeping the officiating crews together makes sense. [smiley=yes.gif] Not changing the OT rules is a mistake. Sudden death sucks. [smiley=thumbsdown.gif] |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Changes in Playoffs, Overtime, On-sides kicks! Post by StegRock on Mar 27th, 2003, 12:20pm Here's kind of the last of the news coming out, for this round at least: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/football/news/2003/03/26/owners_meeting_ap/; http://espn.go.com/nfl/columns/clayton_john/1530103.html. They tweaked the rules for on-sides kicks... within the last five minutes of a game. Any thoughts? I actually kind of like it! [smiley=yes.gif] But, I am SO disappointed with their lack of courage to change the overtime format and their entertaining adding more playoff teams that it is hard for me to give any of them any credit for anything. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Changes in Playoffs, Overtime, On-sides kicks! Post by StegRock on Apr 1st, 2003, 3:03pm Linked to as one of the many "straight to the source" links on "the Gridiron Newsstand", CNN/SI's Peter King gives his take on the overtime issue. Summary of his take - [smiley=thumbsdown.gif] and I, as many of us here on "the Gridiron" do, agree! Here is the piece: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/inside_game/peter_king/news/2003/03/31/mmqb/. It's a great read, especially the meat of the piece regarding the "Overtime Issue". Enjoy! [smiley=lickinmychops.gif] |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Changes in Playoffs, Overtime, On-sides kicks! Post by StegRock on May 19th, 2003, 7:13pm Well, it's currently topping "The REAL Feed"... the NFL owners are at it yet again... going to be talking about expanding the playoffs again come this weekend! [smiley=nono.gif] [smiley=flipoffangrily.gif] |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Changes in Playoffs, Overtime, On-sides kicks! Post by PA Outlaws on May 20th, 2003, 10:45pm I agree with the majority here: don't add any more playoff teams. The problem is I think they will eventually add two more teams. It all boils down to [smiley=money.gif]. That means more games, more people, more TV ratings, etc... |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Changes in Playoffs, Overtime, On-sides kicks! Post by StegRock on May 23rd, 2003, 12:07am GOOD NEWS! They are not changing the playoff format, at least not this year! [smiley=thumbsup.gif] Here is the "good news" gotten by way of "the Gridiron Newsstand": http://nfl.com/news/story/6384362. YEAH! HIP-HIP HURRAY! |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Changes in Playoffs, Overtime, On-sides kicks! Post by StegRock on Mar 30th, 2004, 12:59am Well, here is the latest from "The REAL Feed" on the league's considering adding teams to the playoffs: League considers adding playoff teams (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2004/football/nfl/03/29/bc.fbn.nflmeetings.ap/index.html) SI.com: NFL (30.03.2004 00:13) They say that it's possible. [smiley=scared.gif] ... [smiley=no.gif] It's funny... Jeff and I just brought this issue up earlier in the chatroom. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Changes in Playoffs, Overtime, On-sides kicks! Post by Philly on Mar 30th, 2004, 9:02am I can understand why the team owners want it, but I'm not sure that the league is in favor of it. I know, as a fan, I'm not interested in more teams making the play-offs as that will only make the regular season less important. Imagine how meaningless the Arizona Cardinals victory over the Vikings in 2003 would have been. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Changes in Playoffs, Overtime, On-sides kicks! Post by kidcrash on Mar 30th, 2004, 9:12am The playoffs are watered down enough as it is.I believe half of the teams in the league make the playoffs already,isnt that enough? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Changes in Playoffs, Overtime, On-sides kicks! Post by Philly on Mar 30th, 2004, 9:34am I think the number they have right now is just about right. 12 of the 32 teams make the play-offs under the current system (four division winners + 2 wildcards in each conference). |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL issues - Playoffs, OT, On-sides kicks, Rep Post by StegRock on Mar 30th, 2004, 7:54pm Regarding the future of instant replay, from "The REAL Feed (http://www.fantasyfootballer.com/newsstand.htm)": Replay extended for five years NFL.com (30.03.2004 18:33) NFL owners voted to keep instant replay for at least five more seasons, and they added a twist: A team successful on two challenges in a game will get a third. I, for one, like it! [smiley=thumbsup.gif] |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL issues Post by StegRock on Jul 15th, 2004, 5:00pm Regarding NFL rules and the '04 season, currently from atop "The REAL Feed (http://www.fantasyfootballer.com/newsstand.htm)": Clayton: Cracking down on corners ESPN: NFL (15.07.2004 15:18) Illegal contact enforcement could have huge impactThe hardest thing to figure about the 2004 season is the impact of the NFL's desire to enforce contact or interference penalties after five yards.Some people you talk to tell you the impact will be minimal. Those are the same people who misjudged ... [smiley=hmmmm.gif] |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL issues Post by StegRock on Apr 5th, 2005, 9:59pm Uh-oh... From "The REAL Feed": S.C. doctor to write tell-all book about steroid use in NFL (http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/2005-04-05-doctor-steroids-book_x.htm?csp=34) USATODAY.com Sports - Top Stories (05.04.2005 16:09) The South Carolina doctor linked to possible steroid use by members of the Carolina Panthers is writing a book about the drugs ... |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL issues Post by KillerKingSting on Apr 6th, 2005, 6:14am on 04/05/05 at 21:59:30, StegRock wrote:
HUMmmmmmmmmmmm, I certainly hope that J.Peppers isn't involved - he looked like superman last year and played like him too, and, I just traded for him. Also, he was chuggin Ephedra early on as well. I have a bad feeling about this. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL issues Post by StegRock on May 12th, 2005, 5:25pm Don't know if this is absolutely ideal for this thread, but I did not want to start a whole new thread for it. It regards the dress code for coaches and that formal wear like back in the day is out in favor of sponsor-provided clothing. ::) From "The REAL Feed": NFL becomes the Not (so) Formal League (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2005/football/nfl/wires/05/11/2020.ap.fbn.jim.litke.bjt.0917/index.html) SI.com: NFL (12.05.2005 13:43) This post was brought to you by Girls Gone Wild... [smiley=boobies.gif] [smiley=hooters.gif] [smiley=titflash.gif] Spring break video PLUS "America Uncovered" for only $9.99!!! When you guys are on "the Gridiron", I want you wearin' your "FFPro.com/the Gridiron @FantasyFootballer.com" t-shirts (http://www.fantasyfootballer.com/t-shirt.htm), damn it!!! ;) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL issues Post by StegRock on Dec 29th, 2005, 4:58pm Here we go with the "playoff expansion" talk again. Meanwhile, according to the poll USA Today is conducting, 60% of us are fine with the playoffs the way they are. It does seem, however, as per the article, that this year those who want it are going to have their strongest argument ever! [smiley=nervous.gif] From "The REAL Feed": Chiefs president wants more playoff teams (http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/2005-12-28-playoff-expansion_x.htm?csp=34) USATODAY.com NFL - Top Stories (29.12.2005 11:19) Ten wins. In the NFL, to accomplish that means almost certain inclusion into the playoffs. Not this season. And heading into ... Thoughts, fellas??? Now, this I did not know where to post. It's rules-related, so here it is. But, the real thrust of my posting this is to point out that Joe Horn is a bit out of control these days and really needs a copy of The Death of Common Sense sent to him. His rationale is very childish. [smiley=nownow.gif] (Not at all that one needs to go to college to be smart and live intelligently, but) He's really displaying an particularly uneducated, simpleminded and immature attitude (about this/these days). From "The REAL Feed": Saints' Horn questions NFL again, this time on cellphones (http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/saints/2005-12-28-horn-cellphone_x.htm?csp=34) USATODAY.com NFL - Top Stories (29.12.2005 11:19) Two years after he was fined $30,000 by the NFL for making a choreographed cellphone call to celebrate a touchdown, New Orleans ... |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL issues Post by StegRock on Jan 5th, 2006, 4:43pm [offtopic] on 12/29/05 at 16:58:32, StegRock wrote:
Well, Joe Horn got what he wanted... almost... From "The REAL Feed"... Falcons' Mora fined for using cell phone (AP) (http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=ap-falcons-mora-fine&prov=ap&type=lgns) Yahoo! News: Democratic Party (05.01.2006 15:34) Atlanta Falcons coach Jim Mora has been fined $25,000 by the NFL for using a cell phone on the sidelines during the team's overtime loss to Tampa Bay on Dec. 24. Mora was fined under a rule adopted last March prohibiting the use of cell phones or any other form of communications by coaches or pl... ...I wonder if Joe will bitch now about the $5,000 difference. I won't be surprised if he does. [smiley=no.gif][/offtopic] |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by StegRock on Mar 23rd, 2006, 4:15am I think this is good news... with the exception of, at least, how the piece BEGINS. It reads, "The NFL is satisfied with its officiating..." [smiley=yikes.gif] ... [smiley=no.gif] YIKES! From "The REAL Feed": NFL might tweak offensive holding, false start rules (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2380129&campaign=rss&source=NFLHeadlines) ESPN: NFL (22.03.2006 17:21) Beginning next week at league meetings in Orlando, Fla., the NFL will tweak a few rules, dealing mostly with player safety, offensive holding and false starts. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by StegRock on Mar 28th, 2006, 3:23pm Here we go again with the crackdown... From "The REAL Feed": No Fun League? NFL might rein in TD celebrations (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2387077&campaign=rss&source=NFLHeadlines) ESPN: NFL (28.03.2006 11:18) The NFL's competition committee is proposing a crackdown on rocking the baby, teeing off like Tiger and anything else that might be considered taunting. I, for one, like the players to have the leeway to add "creative expression" to the game and show their emotions/"good vibrations". [smiley=hippy.gif] Mind you, whether or not I like this or that endzone celebration is a matter of taste, both the player's and mine considered together. But, endzone celebrations per se are a fun part of the game and, as long as they aren't overly time-consuming (that would be the one objective attribute I think worth considering), should be left alone. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by StegRock on Mar 29th, 2006, 1:50am Still pushin' to get a team in that PHAT L.A. market... From "The REAL Feed": Tagliabue pushing NFL to put team back in Los Angeles (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2387872&campaign=rss&source=NFLHeadlines) ESPN: NFL (28.03.2006 21:03) Before he retires as commissioner, Paul Tagliabue would like to see the NFL get closer to placing a team back in Los Angeles. This could end up being Tag's last order of business... It would be a great way to go out! |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by bakes781 on Mar 29th, 2006, 10:38am Can't they just follow Bud Selig's lead & name a team LA even if they aren't techincally in LA. ::) I mean they've been doing that with NY all these years. :P |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by DirkDiggler on Mar 29th, 2006, 12:48pm on 03/29/06 at 01:50:19, StegRock wrote:
Funny-- It would be great to get a team to LA, but the NFL is not going to expand. So, that leaves the only option of a team moving. Wonder who it could be? Some team is going to have to not do the 'right' thing..... Ultimately, IF the agreement gets done to get a team in LA, then everyteam has a gun to hold to the other NFL cities to get a new stadium or they are moving. Candidates include: New Orleans, San Diego, and KC. All three teams are trying to get new stadiums....... |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by bakes781 on Mar 29th, 2006, 1:03pm Saints would seem like the obvious choice to move to LA. The only other matter left would be how to rearrange the divisions. I suppose St Louis would be the likely choice to swap divisions. From what I heard it could be another 5 years b4 it gets done. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by StegRock on Mar 29th, 2006, 3:45pm on 03/29/06 at 12:48:37, DirkDiggler wrote:
First of all, I wouldn't rule that out... Things have a way of changing... [smiley=yinandyang.gif] [smiley=zenmaster.gif] Quote:
You're gonna keep stickin' that to me, huh, bro? [smiley=annoyed.gif] Morals and ethics, i.e. discerning and then doing the "right" thing, take priority in my life over economics and politics (personal and otherwise), in the short run, sometimes for better, sometimes for worse, BUT in the long run, in my heart, mind and soul (if there is such a thing) always for the better. The problem is that the "discerning" side of things has become such a convoluted venture in PC liberal America anymore that not only have we become not good at doing it, but aren't even willing to do it for fear that we might "offend" someone,... who's doing the wrong thing, mind you. [smiley=gimmeabreak.gif] Of course, this is not even to mention that the (ethically/morally) "right" course of action in the wake of Katrina may not remain to be the "right" course of action FIVE years from now, when it appears this move is not even likely to take place until. Even just the tacit and perhaps even unwitting implication that I, by just asserting that there is a right and a wrong way to go here, might be (furthermore) asserting that there is only one permanent right course of action, a static righteousness, so to speak, speaks to the other ugly side of the American moral pendulum. Mind you, the more tacit, unwitting and unnoticed the implication is, the more it is proof in the pudding. The modern-day PC (social) liberals are just a reaction to the extreme version of "what's right" espoused by our "religious right", who tend to stubbornly want to hold on to their unchanging truths, fixed maxims, rigid reality and "constant" (in both senses of the term) righteousness. Thing is, though, things are always in flux, i.e., to bring this around full-circle, things have a way of changing. [smiley=yinandyang.gif] [smiley=zenmaster.gif] This is where we could learn a good bit from Eastern thinking (and, eh-hem, why I am here at UH). ... Anyway, the state abbreviation for Louisiana is "LA"... You'd think these executive [smiley=dunce.gif] numbskulls [smiley=skull.gif] could come up with a creative solution here... ;) ... [smiley=joker.gif] |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by StegRock on Mar 29th, 2006, 5:10pm Out with TD celebrations; in with further protecting a QB's knees,... and MUCH MORE in the way of rules adjustments... from "The REAL Feed": NFL votes to rein in TD celebrations, expand replay (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2389062&campaign=rss&source=NFLHeadlines) ESPN: NFL (29.03.2006 17:01) The NFL owners meetings concluded in Orlando on Wednesday afternoon with owners giving big thumbs up to 15 playing rules proposals by the competition committee. Player safety and player conduct headlined the long list of recommendations. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by bakes781 on Mar 29th, 2006, 5:20pm Eventually we're gonna see the NFL putting red jerseys on the QBs like they do in practice & say no tackling of the QB. From now on it's 2 hand touch. ::) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by StegRock on May 12th, 2006, 1:27am At odds over (odd, figuratively and literally) numbers on jerseys... From "The REAL Feed": Bush pleads to stay No. 5 (http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/saints/2006-05-11-bush-jersey_x.htm?csp=34) USA TODAY: Sports (11.05.2006 23:03) Reggie Bush won a Heisman Trophy wearing No. 5. But for the New Orleans Saints' savior of a running back to achieve NFL greatness ... Bush's first pro battle is with the NFL (http://cbs.sportsline.com/nfl/story/9433443/rss) CBS SportsLine.com - Columns by Clark Judge (12.05.2006 01:00) Reggie Bush's beef isn't with commissioner Paul Tagliabue. It's with the NFL as a whole. Clark Judge says the Saints' rookie running back may have to wait for a systemic change before he dons No. 5 again. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by bakes781 on May 12th, 2006, 10:51am If he quibbles this much over a jersey # then how much of a fuss is he gonna put up for a lucrative signing bonus? ::) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by StegRock on May 12th, 2006, 7:27pm So, does anybody think that Reggie's move to get his way with regards to his jersey number by appealing to donating money to the Hurricane Katrina fund is cheesy as hell??? I definitely do. Someone should just give him a dose of reality [smiley=doseofreality.gif] and ask him, "Reggie, why don't you donate the $400,000, anyway? Whatever number your jersey is, it is going to sell. You need it to be #5 to show your generosity. It's not really generosity then." All I know is if a "lesser" dude, a "little guy" like myself, pulled a move like/analogous to that (like to raise money for "the Gridiron"), people would have called "foul" [smiley=flagged.gif] right off the bat. Don't get me wrong... This doesn't address the issue of jersey number assignments and the rationale behind them. I don't know where I stand on that. BUT, I do know that the tack Bush is taking is,... well,... "Bush League"! [smiley=no.gif] |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by StegRock on May 13th, 2006, 5:15pm Still awaiting thoughts/counter-arguments/agreement/consensus on this provocative issue... on 05/12/06 at 19:27:47, StegRock wrote:
The latest from "The REAL Feed"... Bush pushes the envelope... Bush wears No. 5 in Saints camp, but that could change (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2443876&campaign=rss&source=NFLHeadlines) ESPN: NFL (13.05.2006 16:30) At least for this weekend, at the Saints' three-day mini-camp here, former Southern California tailback Reggie Bush is permitted to wear his familiar uniform No. 5. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by KillerKingSting on May 14th, 2006, 9:33am on 05/12/06 at 19:27:47, StegRock wrote:
Ah, in comparison to "having DADDY pick my team for me" - using "Daddy and (possibly) big brother" as a power-end support system and decision maker to DENY a franchise their #1 pickings in the historic NFL draft, to just about FORCE his way to another team (3rd pick overall I BEElieve), and although, Reggie wasn't the #1 pick as Eli or Elway was, we all know, He was the #1 pick, and so, in comparison to THAT, its no biggie at all - I don't find it cheesy and in fact, its awesome that he is donating money which by the way - he does NOT have to do (lets face it - he lost a lot of money by NOT being picked #1 overall - and in fact, Houston is just right down the street from Norleans and so, why doesn't Mario donate ome of that #1 pickle overall "make me sickle" money to the Big Easy, Big whoop dee doo whoppers, he wants #5 - give it to him. Hes a stand up guy with a lot of talent going to a "forever" losing franchise and a beaten worn down town. AND, he isn't singing sour grapes, Hes anything but cheesy. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by StegRock on May 14th, 2006, 12:56pm on 05/14/06 at 09:33:27, KillerKingSting wrote:
So, it is okay to exploit tragedies for personal gain??? I just don't see how one (Bush's desired jersey number) relates to another (the devastation Hurricane Katrina wreaked) at all, and when the rest of us do that in life, we get called out on the carpet for it. Isn't there something innately disingenuous about it? This is the danger of pulling an "apples and oranges" move. ... I know for the last couple "Jerry Lewis Labor Day Muscular Dystrophy Telethons" I've considered doing a drive here where half of your donation to "the Gridiron" over "x" period would go to the telethon on behalf of "the Gridiron". If it was a healthy amount, I considered heading in to one of the outposts (in New York or L.A. or wherever) to give the donation on air like other businesses do. It seems like nothing but a good idea (I've discussed it with a handful of friends here, always to a luke-warm response, one I understand, mind you. But, hey, this is Reggie Bush, right? Not your personal friend Steg, who provides a beloved service...),... but there is a "but" to it,... an uneasy feeling like somehow I'm capitalizing on people's grief, and, mind you, I'm a little guy strapped for cash trying to get off the ground (so the "consider all the money I lost by getting picked #2, not #1" argument falls on totally deaf ears). Now, I understand there is a fundamental difference in degree... He's not looking for money for his own pocket. He's just looking to get the number he wants on his jersey. On the other hand, I have yet to make a dime on "the Gridiron" (or, in this context, should I say, off "the Gridiron"... English is a funny thing). He's financially set. So, there is a difference there too. Both situations have a stinky side to them. While mine seems more money-grubbing, his seems more childish and, mind you, both moves are calculated. It's like the beloved family dog lost its bone and he knows where it is (but actually not even because he claims that he will donate part of the proceeds from the #5 jersey sales) but won't tell, holding the dog to ransom, unless mommy and daddy buy him the new toy he wants. One has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the other. He should just tell mom and dad where the bone is and do the right thing by the dog and let the toy scenario play out, perhaps, fairly enough with it in mind that one good deed may deserve another and he'll get his toy. That's at least adjusting the attitude in the right direction, namely reward for right action, as opposed to this bass-ackwards ransom-style negotiation tack. Of course, when you do a good deed for someone you shouldn't expect anything in return. When people do that, we usually think that's rather ugly. So, what is it about turning it the opposite direction, into a negotiation move that makes it more palatable? It surely shouldn't. It's just the same move except the expectation of fulfillment of the desire is now embedded and necessary, making for a totally bass-ackwards attitude about "doing the right thing by people in life". It's a move that can surely be "understood" and "explained away", but it definitely should NOT be encouraged. ... Needless to say, I don't plan on doing the telethon drive thing (and I don't foresee being argued out of that by our folks here,... the irony) and, yet, somehow, what I'm suggesting here, in context, doesn't seem to exemplify as poor of an "attitude" (in both senses of the word) as nor be as misdirected or misguided of a move as Reggie's. :-/ |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by KillerKingSting on May 14th, 2006, 8:16pm on 05/14/06 at 12:56:45, StegRock wrote:
I don't get this - really???? Its a situation that is already exploited. In fact, I could argue that even YOU are doing the same - exploiting this "issue" (which has to do with the tragedies of Katrina), for sake of discussion here on the grid - for the activity EXPECTATIONS (pay attention) you have for the gridiron. or perhaps, your own personal gain of a debate, which we all know you love (and me too!) really, I am not going that far with this but, if we are to ramble over a #5 jersey in a city that got wiped out by a natural force, and a player who got robbed of the #1 pickle status, and put emphasis on the deed of 400,000$ buckaroos in comparison to a #5 jersey, certainly I could compare then, your posssbile/personal gain(s) to what you consider Reggie is also gaining as well ~> Who knows - if i ponder - and I can ponder with the best of em - I could ponder that, perhaps, you have an alternate goal in mind - one that IF, we (you and me and whoever else entered in this discussion) would/could somehow CONVINCE most on here that this were indeed just a good deed without a cheesy after-taste, just maybe - you could USE this same example to gain for the GRID on down the road - CALL on the peeps who argued FOR the BUSH situation rather than against, call on them using THEIR OWN rationales against them within this discussion, and of course, if they aren't consistent in thought, ..............................................well then [smiley=pinocchio.gif], (by the way, just for record, I am not saying that you would activate such a situation but this is discussion [smiley=golf.gif]) Quote:
And this (above) follow up to it - the repitition of awaiting response would only add more reality to the "possible" perception that your also exploiting Katrina - still in comparison - as Bush's would be considered minor as well - both situations - yours and Bush' would be acceptable in relation to one another in the respect that you bring on it.. Which also leads me to this ~> Quote:
Your EXPECTATION of a response is within the same realm of debate that you are referring to when against Bush. Perhaps you think your doing a "good" deed" with this discussion - maybe teach whoever reads this a bit of a lesson in philosophy - or whatever, or even gain YOURSELF some difference of perception, We all expect - even if it's a SMILE - from a good deed done - its still an expectation, its still human nature and I believe to what degree is that expectation ias the one - if any - should be discussed - and not the natural response of expecting. When I do a good deed in a hospital - and I mean - go OUT OF MY WAY COMPLETELY to help someone out - things that aren't expected of me nor within my job description - then, I expect some level of response from that person in that they are more comfortable within their situation than they were BEFORE I did deed. Same difference. :D |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by MordecaiCourage on May 14th, 2006, 10:35pm FOR WHAT IT'S WORTH...... Cheese or No Cheese...the bottom line here is that he is willing to give. The reason behind it, or the "traps", that are within the situation of him giving really shouldn't matter. It's not my business what another man does with his money. I do believe he is using the situation to try to get his number...but so what. If I'm a victim of Katrina, I don't think I'd care "why"...I'm just happy that someone was willing to help me out. My gut tell's me that we will likely see other charitable gestures from him throughout his tenure in the Big Easy, regardless if he gets his number or not. But...I wouldn't hold your breath on my gut !!!! ;D |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by StegRock on May 14th, 2006, 11:07pm Well, I'm not going to say that my response there is not "in a light", Bill. I obviously framed my take by circumstances that are relevant to my experience... here and, thus, that should "speak to" the reader here. That was not "unplanned", for sure. But, I'm not pulling an "apples and oranges" move like Bush. In fact, I'm drawing an analogy between the situations, and showing that my ethical position (here) is at least somewhat corroborated by my very own decision-making process regarding the telethon idea. I suppose, at worst, it could be suggested that I am exploiting his exploitation of Katrina to make a point. And, I will even go as far as to admit that there is a bit of an ulterior motive to my post, BUT it's just to get people to think, reflect and consider the "bigger picture". That's all. Let's face it! Do you really think such a tack as the one you suggest (I might/could be up to) is likely to lead to encouragement en masse of a muscular dystrophy drive here, no less an inordinate influx donations to one? Moreover, do you think that if I did such a donation drive and threw what my members expressed on this thread back in their faces, that would work? Come on... [smiley=pullleeeeeeeze.gif] Do you think I am that stupid? That double-standard could be thrown right back in my face, for goodness sake. I'm neither that naďve nor that optimistic (anymore), in any event. Again, I am not saying that there isn't more going on, but, really, I am just critiquing Bush and using my very own situation to "bring it home" and, furthermore, to show that there is some "proof in the pudding" behind my take, for whatever that's worth, which could be something in the long run, I suppose. I have denied myself of the move Reggie is making or at least a very comparable one, furthermore, in part because I felt that I would expose myself to the kind of (appropriate) criticism that I am leveling at Bush. But, to draw an analogy between what I am up to on this thread and what (I think) Bush is doing is off base and unfair. It's much more nuanced than that. Indeed, the only thing I stand to "gain" besides the residual effects of possibly getting people to think, reflect and see the "bigger picture", which I am aware of, mind you, but which I also know all too well is wishful thinking and hypothetical at best, is learning what the bounds of acceptability are with respect to these kinds of matters because my moral compass seems to be way right of center and, perhaps, needlessly so... [smiley=goodrevil.gif] |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by StegRock on May 14th, 2006, 11:48pm on 05/14/06 at 22:35:16, MordecaiCourage wrote:
While I don't disagree with you, MC, that he may show further charity to New Orleans in the future and, furthermore, that the NFL's policy with respect to jersey numbers may be unnecessary (anymore at least), if I were a victim of Katrina, I would wonder why he needs to get his jersey number to give anything. Just give... from your heart, no strings attached... He's set it up for the NFL to now be the "bad guy", and that ain't right... whether or not the rule about jersey numbers is a good or necessary one. He shouldn't hold his good will to ransom. Frankly speaking (and I can't believe I have to point this out), Bush's move here is at least potentially tantamount to my saying that I am going to have to stop going in the red and close "the Gridiron" if my wife doesn't make spaghetti for dinner tonight (which wouldn't be any sweat off her brow) and then blame her for the closing of the site if she doesn't. I mean... It is this kind of tack that we all HATE about politics as usual and slime-ball lawyers... In fact, isn't it Bush's agent who cooked up this idea??? Quote:
Right... |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by KillerKingSting on May 15th, 2006, 5:25am on 05/14/06 at 23:07:12, StegRock wrote:
YOUR bigger picture which is YOUR persepctive on this whole thing. And what I am trying to say is that, the BIGGER picture here is that, MY BIGGER PICTURE, MY PERSPECTIVE, a t-shirt with a number painted on it - WHICH he was going to get anyhow - a jersey w/ a number, in comparison to 400,000$????????????????????? huh!!!!!!!!!!!??????????? Lets RECAP what I said in my first comment - IN COMPARISON to ELI and ELWAY who REFUSED to even go to their original drafted NFL teams MUCH LESS DONATE MONEY to them, and IMHO, NOR is much more desolate than either of the teams that drafted ELI or ELWAY, again ~>........................ ?.?.? whats the problem here???? The NFL compares its players via free agency by way of tag with the top 5 player's salaries, so, its only fair to continue this process by way of comparing REGGIE BUSH' conduct to that of his peers, both prior and present................. which by the way, AGAIN, bringing BACK up my original comment in regards to MARIO WILLIAMS who did NOT (IMO) deserve the #1 pickle and who lives in the neighborhood just a couple doors down from NOR (Houston), HE should be the one on the block here - why isn't HE donating money to this cause???????????????????????????????????? - in fact he should thank his lucky stars that he was even considered for that #1 pickle status, AND KATRINA surely could have turned and smashed into Houston just as well as NOR. Basically dude, he isn't asking for anything he just about wasn't going to get anyhow. [smiley=doseofreality.gif] Quote:
This question was already answered before it was even asked. Please read my post again. Quote:
I wiull ignore this question. If you REALLY think I need to answer it, I will oblige next postlet. Once again, I believe your taking this more personally targetted than the BIGGER picture in whichj you kep referring to - that in and of itself is confusing to me (where is the consistency?) since, your whole rationale here is the BIGGER picture. And again, what I am saying is that exactly what Courage said, and I agree with him, the jersey, in comparison to 400,000$, big freakin whoop. Quote:
again, your use of yourself to bring this home is fine when you wish to use it but, if I wish to do so, then????????????????????? Quote:
again, your bigger picture..................but my bigger picture is that its 400,000$ dollars, to people who really really need it, lets not forget, that IN COMPARISON to his PEERS, he is giving much more than 400,000$ dollars. He is bringing Reggie Bush HYPE to the table, he is actually going to the desolate team that drafted him without CRYING and TELLING daddy about it, and playing baseball instead, he is doing much more than just putting 400,000$ on the table here, THATS the bigger picture, and those people need EVERYTHING he has to offer, I salute him! |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by StegRock on May 15th, 2006, 6:01am I've never said he shouldn't give the money. I'm just saying he should give it without any strings attached... And, perhaps, the question further implied is whether or not he'd have done so if there were no jersey-number issue. But, that's it... As for the Eli/Elway allusions,... ?.?.? ... [smiley=shrug.gif] apples and oranges. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by StegRock on May 15th, 2006, 6:05am Oh,... and this, Bill... on 05/15/06 at 05:25:24, KillerKingSting wrote:
You really want to go there?!?!? I'm "bringing it home" as in "relating it to 'the Gridiron'", to which I see a scenario that is analogous,... period. Don't read too in between the lines,... just enough to get it... me right... :-/ |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by KillerKingSting on May 15th, 2006, 6:08am on 05/15/06 at 06:01:09, StegRock wrote:
I understand your point and though my understanding not posted moreso because you wished for a different "side" or "take" to this issue, i see value in what you are referring to, HOWEVER, apples and oranges is you comparing your stuff (bringing it home) to HIS stuff, lets face it, the NFL is a different animal, I mean, guys get paid my salary in ONE day, so, if we are to COMPARE BUSH to others, to be fair, we should compare him to his peers, ELI and ELWAY and MARIO are fair comparisons. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by KillerKingSting on May 15th, 2006, 6:10am on 05/15/06 at 06:05:57, StegRock wrote:
apples and oranges Steve, I just posted why. What I am saying is that, you brought YOUR comparison into this, and all I did was use the same comparison, but in fact, neither IMO is worth comparing, as my above post relates why. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by StegRock on May 15th, 2006, 6:15am on 05/15/06 at 06:08:09, KillerKingSting wrote:
I don't disagree with you with regards to degree. I said this earlier (in my post at 12:56 p.m.). BUT, the "ick" here is the same exact (kind of) "ick" as my telethon scenario. Actually,... though,... I'm coming to learn that maybe it's not "ick" and that it may be a move I shouldn't absolutely rule out... if I can find in myself the stomach for it... [smiley=shrug.gif] Quote:
This I still don't get. Just like the rest of us, these guys have to make "career" and "life" decisions... Their situations had nothing to do with philanthropy... They were, strictly speaking, decisions about their careers and where they wanted to live their lives. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by KillerKingSting on May 15th, 2006, 6:24am on 05/15/06 at 06:15:51, StegRock wrote:
I tell yah what,,,,, I'll BEE the first to BEE critiqued on this then, I just recently received a "present" from a patient I took care of.................after the fact, outside of the hospital setting mind you,............so all is legal and ethical........... but here it is, I will DOUBLE my donations to the GRID this season IF, I get a BEE smiley ;D BRING IT BABE-BEE!!!! Quote:
Ah, nice point actually but, in your point about the nudging of NFL rules in regards to a jersey number, in comparison to the NFL rules in regards to the LAST placed TEAM should be able to DRAFT and USE the BEST player available, its a fair comparison. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by StegRock on May 15th, 2006, 6:53am on 05/15/06 at 06:24:06, KillerKingSting wrote:
While I concur with that "all things equal", it is up to the franchises to make their programs appealing to the top prospects. It's not a rule, per se, that a player has to go where he was drafted. He has the option to sit. Furthermore, I have stated numerous times that I don't know if the NFL rule regarding jersey numbers is right. I'm just saying that I don't think Reggie('s agent) is, that this isn't the way of "effecting change". |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by KillerKingSting on May 15th, 2006, 7:14am on 05/15/06 at 06:53:43, StegRock wrote:
NOR is anything but appealing my friend and hypothetically speaking, if Bush was to get a secret visit from a team's "secret" agent, and was told that, hey!!! Mr. Bush, Mr. Excitement! if all you want is a #5 jersy????????, sit out for a year, we'll pay you WAY more than the Saints are willing to offer (and do so by making up for the loss of a yr's salary as well) and give you your #5 jersey! when we take you in Free Agency, so no, given this hypothetical situation which is certainly in LAW to your rationale of player's choosing their right to their careers, my comparison to Eli and Elway, is right on target! Quote:
EXACTLY, so does Reggie but, in light that he ISN'T! is much more admirable than what you are referring to as his "cheese" |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by StegRock on May 15th, 2006, 7:30am Damn, dude!!! I'm not saying he's not a stand-up guy overall. He very well may be (granted, I don't know him personally and probably never will; I'm guessing you do...???). As a matter of fact, I've been deflecting much of the blame on his agent in my posts. One minute we're talking about rules... One minute we're talking about personal "life" and "career" choices... We're ALL over the place! This is tiring... I think this particular move to get his way is cheese. THIS PARTICULAR MOVE! There might be some lameness to what Elway and Eli did. I can admit that, BUT at least I can see that those were MAJOR career choices, not at all petty, involving where they are going to be living their lives, potentially making their home bases and raising their families, and what they did did not involve a move even remotely analogous to Reggie's (agent's) move here or the telethon move I've contemplated. They did not dangle any money anybody's way to get their way. No bribes were offered. Maybe there is comparable "lameness", but these are not circumstantial analogues, strictly speaking. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by KillerKingSting on May 15th, 2006, 8:08am on 05/15/06 at 07:30:52, StegRock wrote:
come on man,..................really [smiley=coolit.gif], once again, the "personal" aura you continue to conect this with,..............is not where I have been going. Quote:
Great point! in fact, info I didn't know, Quote:
No. Its the BIGGER picture I have been referring to the whole time which is what you were originally referring to - right? If not then, I debate that the "act" of him suggesting that he would donate a 6 figure amount of money to the city for a measley number on a shirt, is not worth it's time in posting - not with 400,000$ on the line. Lets be realistic here, We are PART of the MEDIA - albeit a very small part, minor even, and one could even argue, unsubstantial when it comes to broadcasting the "decision-making process' of players etc etc, STILL, BEEcause you decided to FOCUS your attention on the "CHEESE" portion of what Reggie(s) agent is suggesting, it lends a "negative" view, - in that sense, i believe WE (the unsubstantial media) have a responsibility to ALSO point out the POSITIVE view which is EXACTLY what I was doing. AND talking about the POSITIVE aspect on a player that ALSO made a career decision to actually BEE drafted by NOR and actually PLAY there as well................IS WORTH talking about, whether it's reality or not, the fact that, you could have emphasized instead, what I hypothesized about him sitting out as Elway and Eli did, is where the BIGGER picture comes in play and my comparison comes to frutition and the more important "lesson" to be taught or rather, focused. Its the WHOLE picture here I thought, and, if your saying that lets judge this ONE particular move on it's own and without relation to any other scenario, your asking to NOT look at the BIG picture, are you not? And instead, as I posted above, if not asking for the big picture then, your asking to give insight on something too small and insignificant to even bother with....................... the little picture, that being, what he (his agent) asks for in return for donation. I still say, the comparison of a 6 figure donation in relation to a number on a shirt, BIG DEAL [smiley=gimmeabreak.gif] One last moment for me on this, since it is getting tiring to you, though, I WAS having fun with it, This BEE my last post on this subject. BEE gentle Steg-O-Mania, I was just having fun, ping-ponging outtakes, so ciao ciao for now, P.S. was going to use my BEE smiley but, couldn't find it, [smiley=sherlockholmes.gif] |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by StegRock on May 15th, 2006, 3:10pm on 05/15/06 at 08:08:00, KillerKingSting wrote:
Do remember it was 1:30 a.m. for me... [smiley=yawn.gif] ... [smiley=tired.gif] ... [smiley=sleepers.gif] And, as a philosophy "scholar"/"dude", I have to deal with "disagree"able people/dorks [smiley=nerd.gif] all f'n day (although I am proud to announce that the nightmare semester [smiley=RIF.gif] [smiley=drown.gif] [smiley=howtoput.gif] ended on Friday and somehow the old man survived)... [smiley=wiseman.gif] ... [smiley=zenmaster.gif] Quote:
See "stung"! [smiley=bee.gif] on 05/15/06 at 08:11:53, KillerKingSting wrote:
"TRIPLE," you say, huh??? :-X ... [smiley=greedy.gif] (although that smiley should still be very red) ;) ... [smiley=lickinmychops.gif] Really??? :-/ |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by StegRock on May 16th, 2006, 4:01pm It does not appear that Bush is going to get his way... The LATEST on the Bush jersey situation currently tops "The REAL Feed": With No. 5 unsettled, Bush has No. 25 in the cards (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2447010&campaign=rss&source=NFLHeadlines) ESPN: NFL (16.05.2006 15:06) The NFL has not denied Reggie Bush's request to wear No. 5 this upcoming season, but early indications are that the New Orleans Saints draft pick will not get his way. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by Philly on May 16th, 2006, 4:38pm John Elway and Eli Manning didn't refuse to sign with the teams that originally drafted them because of any lifestyle choices or desires to raise families in a specific location... [smiley=pullleeeeeeeze.gif] they didn't want to go to teams that they perceived were "losers"... in other words, they weren't man enough to take on the challenge of righting a perceived sinking ship. [smiley=drown.gif] They're players whose egos were already so inflated that they felt they were bigger than the game (than the league) and could call their own shots despite having never played a down of professional football. I have no respect for players like that, but that's another argument altogether. In this sense, Reggie Bush is pulling the same stunt. He's coming into the league and saying "I want to wear #5 and I don't care if there's a rule against it -- I'm Reggie Bush -- I'm important enough that the NFL should change their rules." Reggie Bush hasn't even signed an NFL contract yet (and will likely be a holdout because he'll demand #1 money despite not being the #1 pick) and he's already trying to buy a rule change? The fact that the money is donated to a charity does add an insidious element to it all... like Steg said... holding the innocent people (who really need the money to help get their lives back on track) ransom. I would have felt completely differently about this if Bush hadn't dangled the carrot over the Katrina victims collective heads -- using them to achieve a completely selfish outcome. I also disagree with the notion that Mario Williams is wrong for not offering money to help the dislocated Katrina victims in Houston. He has absolutely no obligation to do so. And not doing so shouldn't taint the way people look at him. If he decides to give some of his salary to charity, more power to him. We'll hold him in even higher regard, but to insinuate that he is equally guilty for not offering $400k of his salary is asinine. What he decides to do with his money is up to him and him alone. No one has any right to suggest what he should do with it. As for the resolution to the whole #5 jersey issue... Bush should be allowed to wear #5 because a precedent has been set. Look at Atlanta... they've got a running back wearing #7! [smiley=hellyeafunny.gif] |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by KillerKingSting on May 16th, 2006, 5:28pm on 05/16/06 at 16:38:35, Philly wrote:
agreed! [smiley=bee.gif] Quote:
Wrong. Its no where near the comparison you just brought to the table. To suggest so is..............................................asinine [smiley=yes.gif] Quote:
Really? He said that..............or YOU did? Theres a BIG difference between YOUR PERCEPTION of what HE is thinking in contrast to what HE is REALLY thinking. [smiley=yes.gif] FACT. Quote:
Thats funny. I could have sworn I heard yesterday that he is telling his agent that under NO circumstances is he to become a holdout. You seem to BEE speaking for a man that in fact, can speak for himself. Let him do so please. [smiley=doseofreality.gif] Quote:
Enough said on this - WHICH by the way, is the MOST IMPORTANT ASPECT of this conversation - hands down. I'm glad you can sit back, in your size 40 waist pants and suit, eating your way into my cardiologist office for a roto-rooter job in 10 year's time, while the peeps of NOR are suffering like no other, and yet, you have the (like Eli, like Elway) inflated ego, the food on table, the access to computer to shoot your mouth off about what someone else is doing to help other's in need.................all for a stupid number on a shirt........get real. [smiley=gimmeabreak.gif] Quote:
How overly dramatic. May I have another please? [smiley=clap.gif] Quote:
And neither does Reggie Bush. In fact, if he did nothing at all - just wore whatever shirt was given to him and NO contributions,.............we wouldn't even be talking about this now would we????............but is that scenario actually BETTER for the people of NOR?? [smiley=no.gif] Quote:
Not really. He doesn't deserve the #1 pickle - MOST people who are NOT asinine KNOW that - (looks like I can count you out of that one eh?), And as I said, Houston is right next door - geographically speaking,............its not that far fetched as you are TRYING to persuade. Quote:
I have the RIGHT, as you so dramatically have done todau as well, to do and say as I please, :D ciao ciao now, ;D |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by StegRock on May 16th, 2006, 6:44pm on 05/16/06 at 16:38:35, Philly wrote:
Well,... I'm not going to say that I totally disagree with you. I do think that Elway went about things quite differently and more appropriately than the way the Manning family did. I'll get to that below. Nevertheless, I'm sure what you stated was a factor in both cases. But, it's not like Denver and New York were franchises on the rise, either. Denver circa 1982 was at a low point as were the Giants two years ago. Wasn't San Diego just a season removed from having made the playoffs? I'd say the Giants were just as worse off. But, there were other factors like coaching staff and perceived opportunity, etc., etc. And, in any event, their perceptions of these respective franchises as losers I agree had to be a factor. That said, I think to just dismiss personal life choices is to miss a huge part of the picture. I don't know about Eli. His situation did seem to be all about the "football career" side of things. But, most players come into the draft single and with few to no attachments. Elway entered the league with a very serious girlfriend, who became his wife and mother of his children. Family was on his mind. He was a west-coast/wild west type guy who wanted to lay roots in a seaport city all the way across the nation in Baltimore, Maryland like he had a whole in his head. Ultimately, he was going to exercise an option available to him as a player drafted into the league, namely sit out. I mean to us fans this is the "Super Friends" draft. For them, this is their career, their lives. Ask yourselves, "How flexible am I with my life and just picking up (my family) and moving to wherever?" I understand that as professional athletes they've accepted certain realities that the rest of us will likely never even have to confront. But, that doesn't mean the basic life issues aren't still there. It's just that the equation is a bit more complicated in a way that the average Joe's isn't. Quote:
AGREED! This is the kind of virtually inevitable residual effect when just one dude decides to go about something the wrong/selfish way, i.e. in a way which doesn't consider the "bigger picture". The mud ends up getting splashed all over a bunch of bystanders. It's proof in the pudding of a not well-thought-out course of action. Mind you, I don't think Reggie intended his course of action to splash mud on Mario this way. He probably dislikes that it has, which is proof in the pudding that it wasn't well-thought-through and was, therefore, an inadvisable course of action. I think that is why Reggie has seemed to back down from it all and is planning on moving ahead with #25 (and has made his declaration about wanting to avoid a hold-out at all costs). His conscience is kicking in. Mind you, none of this means that the rule is good, no less necessary. It's just the method that I (and Philly) are putting into question. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by KillerKingSting on May 16th, 2006, 7:01pm Quote:
Quote:
Ebveryone keeps talking about the BIG PIC. Its right ontop of this statement - hand downs - no other argument has territory nor NEAR REALITY importance than what is displayed right above. You all are turning this into a ransom (for the sake of Philly's cheese steak sandwich digesting bowels, PLU-LEEZE!), when there are MUCH MORE important implications to the reality which the peeps of NOR are going through, all for your philosophical BS,.....................to let other's suffer in lue of THIS?????, Its dehumanizing. Furthermore, Mario. he played at N. CAR. State. Not too long ago, they too were victims of a cane -if it happens again, lets eee if he puts up or not. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by StegRock on May 16th, 2006, 8:53pm on 05/16/06 at 19:01:46, KillerKingSting wrote:
Who's getting "personal" with this? ?.?.? And,... now the mud is splashing on me... I'm now letting the people of New Orleans suffer... ?.?.? ... :-/ ... Anyway,... the $1,000,000, or should I say, $400,000 question,... so now that it appears that Reggie is not going to get his coveted #5 on his jersey, will he still donate the $400,000 to the Katrina victims??? (Just a question...) [smiley=shrug.gif] |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by KillerKingSting on May 16th, 2006, 10:16pm Every single post I make on this subject screams the BIG PIC - not the personal one [smiley=pullleeeeeeeze.gif] - take it as you may, at least I can recognize your right to that (Reggie says this, says that, thinks this, thinks that,) the only mud you see, IMO, is the one that reflects off of your "personal" beliefs on this subject and the unrelentless staoic inflexibility of the pride that is associated and displayed for the IDEALISTIC-PHILOSOPHICAL emphasis on what is happening, rather than the MORE IMPORTANT HUMAN-PHYSICAL TRUTH of it all. Thats all I am saying, peace babe-bee! [smiley=bee.gif] |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by KillerKingSting on May 16th, 2006, 10:37pm on 05/16/06 at 20:53:31, StegRock wrote:
Wouldn't you agree that by taking the side that you did,; by brining it to the media; advertising the "negative-philosophical" portion of the deed, you somehow - be it as it may - personally have taken responsibility for just that? Anyhow, I do apologize for bunching you with Philly's statement, it wasn't fair of me to do so. [smiley=letsmakeup.gif] ... Quote:
I would hope so,,,,,,,,,,,,but i have heard it wasn't 400,000$ that he was donating, it was 25% of his jersey sales,....his #5 jersey sales, |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by steelkings on May 17th, 2006, 7:07am |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by StegRock on May 17th, 2006, 7:15am on 05/17/06 at 07:07:26, steelkings wrote:
[smiley=laugh.gif] [smiley=hellyeafunny.gif] [smiley=LMFAO.gif] [smiley=sinister.gif] [smiley=rollinwithlaughter.gif] Oh,... sk,... that WAS funny!!! I haven't gotten a good laugh here like that in a while!!! Thanks!!! That was GREAT!!! |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by MordecaiCourage on May 17th, 2006, 4:11pm on 05/17/06 at 07:07:26, steelkings wrote:
Yes sk.......that was good indeed [smiley=zenmaster.gif] [smiley=bow.gif] |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by StegRock on May 17th, 2006, 8:37pm I'm still laughing at this... That look Spock has there, and I can hear exactly how he'd say that... And, in response to this,... [smiley=rollinwithlaughter.gif] Don't ever let anybody tell ya Steg can't laugh at himself... That's what makes it so funny!!! [smiley=hellyeafunny.gif] |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by Philly on May 18th, 2006, 3:07pm Hey Bill... We're debating the actions and intents of Reggie Bush here. Ultimately, none of us know what exactly his intents are so we can only speculate -- something that people do about people in the public eye all the time. Obviously we are going to have different opinions about the issue -- that's natural. I was even trying to have a little fun with the issue by bringing Michael Vick back into it (see end of my first original post). But you've decided, instead, to make personal attacks on me which I certainly don't appreciate and don't feel were warranted. Saying that I'm sitting back and getting fat on life while poor people don't have enough to eat is pretty low. You don't know me and have no right to make judgments like that. Enjoy the rest of this debate with others because I'm not going to play your game here. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by KillerKingSting on May 18th, 2006, 3:56pm Dude, I was only joking about the cheese steak sandwiches - i mean really! come on here! I have no idea of your waist size or whatever, but hey! you did mention that anyone (that would be me!) who thinks this or that is asinine - did you not??? Really.........whats the difference? between personal attacks on someone's mental aspects and their physical? Is this YOUR rule of debate? Its ok one way but, not another? I like it better down stairs on the grid - everyone seems to get rattled (including myself at times) in these debates and takes it personally - but they can dish it - just not take it (including myself sometimes though, I thought I have grown from that since the first year - ala-Vick- debates), anyhow, nothing personal taken from this (even if you meant it so), but I'm staying downstairs where I BEElong on the grid, I'm through playing with rules that are made one way, not the other, and pop up in a personal whim, whenever anyone gets upset. Though, I understand it, its just not worth my time nor efforts, peace babe-bee!! |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by StegRock on May 18th, 2006, 6:13pm Let me start this off with a... on 05/18/06 at 15:56:42, KillerKingSting wrote:
This thread has gone from "NFL 'issues'" to just "Issues"... Of course, you like it better down on the "Insane Gang" league board. That's your league('s board). You're [smiley=king.gif] down there and those discussions are a) not participated in by the community here at large, b) among just the "home team" and c) unmoderated (by a higher authority on the site), so it's pretty much anything goes. (From what I gather, though, (tendentious alert) things can get a bit ugly down there as well... But,... whatever...) So, of course, you are going to feel at home and "like" it more down there. It's always more comfortable playing to a smaller, more agreeable crowd. The code of conduct up on the main boards, of course, is different. This, "I'm through playing with rules that are made one way, not the other," just doesn't make sense,... which speaks to one area of those codes (what does that even mean?). Clarity, focus, objective and common use of language, patience (in responding), etc., are of utmost importance when dealing with a group who may not be in the loop of your lingo and may, moreover, disagree with your position. Unclear presentation of ideas leads to conflation, especially in "argumentation". Also, speaking from personal experience and circumstance is one thing... Ad hominem quips are another... Arguments made in a more public forum, such as our three main boards, than your league's board (again, moreover, where you are the head honcho) need to hold together more tightly. I mean... You wrote... Quote:
The lack of clarity of the presentation of your thinking aside,... how Reggie is going about his thing and how I am are TOTALLY different. Now, how Reggie is going about his thing and how I would have if I did a telethon move are VERY SIMILAR. THAT was my point. But, you somehow (mis)interpretted my point as just being about people going for "personal gain". I have no problem with "personal gain". That's absurd. It's the "how" that's in question, not the "what". Then, you wrote... Quote:
Mind you, I'm again not 100% sure what that says, BUT the insinuation is VERY insulting and VERY personal (I let it go, though). How is it that I'm "exploiting" Katrina by pushing for responses to this discussion? And, what do I REALLY, SUBSTANTIVELY have to gain? Really, it's just hearts and minds (or heart-and-minds [smiley=zenmaster.gif])... You, then, wrote some spiel in response to what I said about "expectations", getting me wrong. To be exact, and this is MY FAULT for not being absolutely clear because I did not surmise that someone would take it in the direction you did, my point is that people should not expect anything extraordinary or even commensurate in return. The expectation of a smile in return for a good deed that was "completely gone out of the way for" is just fine (some posts to help keep the merry-go-round spinning on a beloved forum, and maybe a little scratch so that the admin's nipples don't get ripped off). An expectation of just an appropriate response (of gratitude) is surely a reasonable expectation. That wasn't what I was saying. I would have to be a dipshit if so. That's why I didn't anticipate your critique,... which inadvertently assumes that I'm a dipshit. You wrote... Quote:
I actually didn't at all just ask for a different take. I asked for whatever was the case. If it's different, then it's different. But, I didn't ask for disagreement, for disagreement's sake at least. You wrote... Quote:
YIKES! You, then, took us into left field (though now I better understand that you thought you were showing us the "bigger picture") with this comment... Quote:
It is needless to say that this is "apples and oranges" in the context of this conversation (though not how you were taking it as will be borne out below)... FURTHERMORE, in any event, BOTH John and Eli DID give it up for Katrina... http://www.redcross.org/article/0,1072,0_272_4559,00.html; http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/09/04/mannings.relief/; http://www.nflplayers.com/news/news_release.aspx?id=4239; http://www.nfl.com/news/story/8866900. Those are events that happened,... both time AND money spent,... not a pledge of 25% of future earnings. Mind you, they're also doing the stand-up thing by keeping the numbers to themselves (not that I think they have to, but I can recognize the "higher road" when I see it). You wrote... Quote:
Presented as if "fact", but, in fact, wrong! You wrote... Quote:
That's EXACTLY what I want to do. There's A LOT there to chew on (philosophically/ethically), a "bigger (ethical) picture", so to speak, or maybe I should say/have said a "deeper (ethical) context" (to investigate and try to understand (the side of which, some of us at least think, is a bit ill)). You wrote... Quote:
Now, we're just at square one again. You wrote... Quote:
It's not against the rules for a player to sit out so as to avoid going to a team he doesn't want to. It may be a cheesy move, mind you, moreover, a risky move most players cannot afford to make, but, whatever, in fact, it's in the rules! In any event, this (specific part of the debate at least) is totally off-point. Then, in response to something I wrote regarding Elway, you wrote... Quote:
Now, we're just spiraling out of control!!! Just cutting-and-pasting totally out of context... You wrote... Quote:
But, it was obviously determined posts before that our "bigger pictures" are different. What you are pulling is a good old "bait and switch"... "Steg, you keep talkin' 'bigger picture', right? ... Well, let me tell you... Here it is..." "But, wait a minute, Bill, I don't see that as the 'bigger picture'..." "But, Steg, you are the one who wanted to talk about the 'bigger picture', and THIS is the 'bigger picture', so THIS is what you are referring to and want to be talking about. It's the 'bigger picture' I AM talking about..." Steg thinks, "Oh,... brother," and throws his hands up in the air... You wrote... Quote:
Now, the stuff out in left field IS the bigger picture. YIKES! ... And, all the time, the fact is that Elway and Manning HAVE given to Katrina. They're just not announcing the numbers. Quote:
This is indicative of where you went awry, and I apologize if it was I who caused you to do so by using the term "bigger picture". Ultimately, this discussion is NOT about the "bigger picture" of Reggie Bush, "the man". It is about this ONE situation... and the "bigger picture" of (business) ethics as it relates to it. This was NEVER about judging Bush's whole character. I don't know enough about him to do that. Incidentally, that's perhaps another reason why this might have seemed to be about his overall character. We really do NOT know the guy. So, this one story could be taken to be "the story". But, that's how things (unfortunately) go with discussions about famous people (as Jeff pointed out). This was supposed to be a discussion of this particular situation. This was NOT to be an indictment of Reggie Bush's overall character, which is how you were evidently taking it. The term "bigger picture" was brought up only in relation to this particular situation. It never entered my mind that it would get construed any other way. I mean... If you want to keep deferring to bigger and bigger pictures, you end up at discussions about God, ontology, epistemology, physics, metaphysics, etc. I always take it that the "bigger picture" is still bound by (the) circumstance (at hand). You wrote... Quote:
Again, you have privy to the "facts" of the matter; we don't, just like your "bigger picture" trumps mine and your "perception of what Reggie is thinking" trumps Jeff's... You wrote... Quote:
That's just fucked... and while surely appropriate (trash-talk) down on a league board, not really up on the main three. This last quote, though absolutely innocuous (especially compared to everything else), is a STRIKING example of the lax tack you take in arguing your position, which, again, is fine on a league board (I suppose), but doesn't cut it up on boards frequented by a larger audience and is going to lead to ill-will... You wrote... Quote:
YOU are the one who was using the amount $400,000 THROUGHOUT your posts. I, just going with what you've been saying ALL ALONG, use it in my post, and NOW you decide to tighten it up and correct it BY CORRECTING ME!!! WTF!!! That's just indicative of your not paying particularly close attention to what's going on in the discussion and scrutinizing others' posts to a much higher degree and holding them to a much higher standard than your own. ... If you cannot see the difference in, at least, the objective presentation of your arguments with the others who chimed in, I don't what to say. Your posts are,... well,... (a bit) tangly (for dudes not as accustomed as your league members are to your mode of communication). In closing,... I took my time, almost two hours, to patiently write this. I will not be around for a while. My wife and I are heading out to run some errands. So, I won't even be home for a while to read a response. I HOPE that at least the amount of time I put into this goes into reading through it with care before responding to it without. Bill, frankly speaking, your saying that you don't like/can't handle it or whatever up here on the main boards with the greater community of "the Gridiron" and that you are just going to stay down on your league's board with its limited audience where it's cozy and you are in control is at least as much of a, if not more of a, statement about yourself than anybody else, no less everybody else up here hangin' on the main boards duking it out, but then letting things drop when points of agreement and disagreement have been firmly established. Now,... let me give this post an apropos ending... |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by sexydexy on May 18th, 2006, 7:27pm This thread went from "relevant" to "inane" pretty damn fast. A new record! [smiley=alcoholic.gif] |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Back to Bush Post by Drew Rosenhaus on May 19th, 2006, 12:12am I have been following this conversation as best as I can over the past couple of Gridiron visits - I haven't been able to catch everything so if I bring something up in this post that has already been covered - mea culpa. I think this is a pretty simple issue with the Reggie Bush number - we are dealing with a sports-specific phenomenon. That being the Mojo of a number. I capitalize Mojo because that's my dog's name, it's cool and I can. I digress. Sports has, I would argue, the greatest collection of superstitions, habits, beliefs in our society. And the number you wear on your back DOES plays a big part in that (for some people). You see it all the time. A big-time player goes from one team to another and the inevitable question arises - is the big-time player going to have access to his current number? In some cases, yes. The number is unused. In some cases, however, the number is currently residing on another's back. Now, here's the really silly part. The big-time player, in order to secure the number, now must pay a "ransom" to get the number to reside on his back. A Rolex, 25 grand, a Hummer, whatever. In all cases, the price paid for the right to wear a number (A NUMBER!) would do substantial good in the community. How crazy is that? Let's see, you can help build a house for a deserving family or you can wear 44. Hmmmmm ... I'll take 44. Yet, it does happen and to the best of my knowledge, no one has ever complained about these transactions - even here on the Grid (again, if I am wrong, please see the beginning of this rant). (Before I start this paragraph please understand - I do not consider myself an athlete. I am NOT a softball "warrior" who complains after every weekend 20-18 win/loss, with beer in hand, that I should have made the "Bigs".) Even I, a very poor excuse for an athlete, have a thing for my number 8. Wore it as far back as I can remember Yaz roaming the outfield. Now, back to Bush. His situation is a little different, if not kind of dumb. The NFL doesn't allow RBs to wear 5. Why? Not sure - they just don't. All Bush is doing is offering money back to the city (through the NFL) instead of a specific player. Granted, he is also trying to change this "rule" as well. He's not dumb - the NFL isn't going to suddenly change their rules simply because of his request (a rookie request, no less). So, he is offering a good-will gesture through the league to the city in hopes that it might sway the situation. If Bush was an ass, he could have just bitched about the number problem, without mentioning ANY money. Besides, from what I have read, changing the rule is not the crux of this debate. It's the "I'll give money for my number" question. And this goes back to my earlier point - if no one complains about the ransom paid from player to player, then you have to ignore this as well. Further, if you look at the situation from the aspect of the Mojo of the number, Bush is actually offering a better deal than anyone else who has paid for a ransom for a number. His money would actually do some good in the community - and if the numbers KKS mentions (25% from jersey sales) is right - that is some sizeable good in the community. MYM |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by StegRock on May 19th, 2006, 12:34am on 05/18/06 at 19:27:16, sexydexy wrote:
With my use of "Spock", I'm obviously in tune with what you are saying, sd... I don't know if I'd go quite as far as "inane". "Off-topic" and "spiraling out of control", though, for sure. This is an object lesson in life and (mis)communication, though, and in that sense I think it is actually MORE important than "NFL issues", though that is the stated topic of the thread. What's going on here is the kind of stuff that needs to be confronted if one is to live the only life worth living. Socrates said, "The unexamined life isn't worth living." I add to that "...lest we go through life in an 'Emersonian sleep-walk'." |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Back to Bush Post by StegRock on May 19th, 2006, 1:29am on 05/19/06 at 00:12:50, Drew Rosenhaus wrote:
Those situations, Markie, are not parallel. When a player "buys" a number from another player, he is doing just that "buying the number". It's your run-of-the-mill cash-for-goods purchase. Let's for argument's sake say that he could wear #5, but someone else had it. What would be analogous would be if he said to that player, "I will donate money to Katrina victims (only) if you give me the number." Now, that puts that other player on the spot in a way that's,... well,... icky... or at least unnecessary. The fact that a philanthropy is involved is what makes it so. It passes the moral buck onto the other guy. What if, just what if, the philanthropy the guy was offering to donate money to was one that the guy with the number didn't like. Now, he's just fucked. BUT, that's taking it to an extreme. That said, the moral acceptance of this Bush scenario does open the door to all that... and much more ickiness (which I get to below). If you really want to be altruistic, JUST GO AHEAD AND DONATE THE DOUGH!!! And, then, contrary to what you state, Markie, just bitch about the rule. It seems like a questionable one. In any event, why does he have to go "through the league" to make a "good-will gesture"? This "offering a good-will gesture through the league" is something I'm going to need you to tease out for me, Markie, especially as it regards this particular scenario (I can see how John Elway explicitly went "through the league" to offer help to Katrina victims, but how Bush is is unclear to me). I don't get it... Why not just do it? Why does it have to go "through anybody else"? ... Ah,... I know why... Because he wants his #5 on his jersey. This is my whole "bigger picture" point (with respect to this particular circumstance). Attaching the donation to his jersey number minimizes the "good will" part of it. That's precisely why it's an inadvisable ethical move. Let charity be charity and NFL rules be NFL rules. The twain should never meet. When they do,... uh-oh... When rules of a game become about responding morally to social issues, trouble is on the horizon. Worst yet, it's packaged in a way that seems (as this thread goes to show) acceptable,... even ethical and welcomed. There are on-the-field rules we all think are dumb. Many people don't like instant replay, the soft rules for protecting quarterbacks and no-celebration rules. What if some player or group of players claimed to be willing to donate $400,000 (each) to Katrina victims, but only if the NFL abolished instant replay until they came up with a good system, reversed all these pansy-ass "protect the quarterback" rules, and got rid of all the no-celebration rules (or (you fill in the blank)). Those would not necessarily be bad changes, mind you. They might even be for the good of the game. But, NO ONE here will say that that is the right way to effect such change (or will you?). It's a totally inappropriate way to go about it. Now, you might say, "Don't be ridiculous! That scenario you give is over-the-top." But, is it really? That is the can of worms being opened. That would be the path we're setting out on here, and that's precisely why NO ONE will blame the NFL for not fulfilling Bush's "strong-arm request" and this will all go away rather quietly, the way it already is (except here). |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by StegRock on May 19th, 2006, 3:07am Just a heads up,... to all you nitwits like myself,... I have appended (what I think to be) critical additional content to my mile-long post (five) above. "Enjoy!" |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by KillerKingSting on May 19th, 2006, 10:00am on 05/18/06 at 18:13:52, StegRock wrote:
Well well well,....looks like someone else can speak for me besides myself................No, actually I like it better down there because, its not so serious - not because I am the KING of the hill,.... its really that simple. ::) Quote:
Oh give me a break! Someone calls you asinine and thats appropiate conduct!!!!???? WTF. And Whatever! :D I tell yah what, you take what you consider critique for yourself, and I'll do the same for myself. Quote:
Practice what you preach. This should go for everyone - not just me and if your saying that everyone else is CLEAR and I am not, that they have patience and I do not, your way out in left field dudem as far as I am concerned. and YES, talking from experience, I have been through 4 hurricanes, not Katrina size, but, certainly devastating and certainly suffered from them,and also have LIVED in NOR for 5 years from age 9-14,........thats experience enough for me, you? You wrote... Quote:
your opinion but nevertheless, I disagree in fact, I thought you were the one who wasn't clear but I won't take 2 hours to write this nor try and prove it - I meant what I said, THIS isn't worth my effort nor time anylonger in fact, at the end of this post you'll see EXACTLY what I mean :D ... Quote:
Wrong, you SOMEHOW (mis) interpretted my point...........NOR was better off receiving those funds than if not as compared to what he was asking for in return AND when I said he was going to get it anyhow - all i meant was a jersey with a number on it - sure maybe he wasn't going to get that EXACT same number but again, you SOMEHOW (mis) interpretted my point which was .......ITS JUST A JERSEY,,,.... ITS JUST A NUMBER,,,,,,,, if I were a peep in NOR, I could care LESS!!! about either as compared to the luxurious 25% sales of his #5 frikkin shirt Quote:
How are you not???? Its part of the VERY SUBJECT you brought up. And I believe you made statement on if you were one of the peeps of NOR of the victims of Katrina, you wouldn't want that money, its using the victims of Katrina to make your philosophical point IMO What do you have to gain? This is your baby - the grid - you want it ACTIVE during the inactive times - don't you? so if your telling me you could care LESS about the activity on the GRID or LACK of - I have totally misunderstood you for quite sometime now.....so YOU tell ME, what you actually gain Steg? Quote:
Fair enough on this part - I agree - bad example - and I will actually lead this back to another comment you made below on my part of me thinking you wanted a debate on this,........I bwas basically reaching here - just trying to give you some stuff and mind you - you certainly could have called me on it before now and most likely, I would have said the same as I am saying now Quote:
Doesn't matter, I agree with my take over yours - period hands down. Originally I was going to ignore your post but then, you came back on and seemed to almost EXPECT a response - seems funny I say this for what I asked you above - about the importance of ACTIVITY or CORRESPODENCE on YOUR GRID - if its NOT that important to you (if you GAIN nothing from this) then, why even bother a SECOND time for response? Surely you won't get rich doing this - THATS absurd but, you gain nevertheless, in other ways (maybe we have a difference in opinion on what actually GAIN is ......to you its money???? - I don't know - but to me its much more than that). Quote:
dude. to me, you took this way into left field when the importance of the topic you wanted to stress was the "shouldn't expect anything in return" stuff, and nevertheless, used Reggie's name - because he is popular - (lets face it - if it were some dick joe and harry that mattered to NO-ONE - no one would have been interested in your philosophical statement now would they have? - I doubt it seriously - but, thats just my opinion and to me, thats just your exploitation of Reggie Bush and the Katrina Victims as well - as they were also a big part of the DRAW to this all). Presented as if "fact", but, in fact, wrong! You wrote... Quote:
I find it ill that someone would exploit THIS situation w/ Bush and the Katrina victims to make their philosophical point. Quote:
I thought it was very relevant and still do. Quote:
LOLOLOL, this is f'n funny man - you lend me WAAAAAAAAAAAAAY too much credit -no,...I wasn't pulling anything. Whatever. [smiley=laugh.gif] You wrote... Quote:
Yah but did they give to the teams that drafted them? Nope. Reggie did just by going to the place in which he was drafted - unlike either of those 2. Quote:
First off. YOU can't cause ME to do anything. There seems to be a helluva lotta "he said - he is thinking - Reggie said, Reggie is thinking - I caused you" crap going on here and mind you probably innocently so, but still, I can SPEAK and take action for myself, and take any critique for myself as well. Now for ANY apology (just an "insert word here IMO) at this point - thats really quite hilarious. . Quote:
Then how are you NOT exploiting Katrina, the victims, or Bush by what you just said????? Talk about not being CLEAR. Whoa! .. Quote:
Did you not use him, the victims of Katrina, and the disaster that happened in conjunction with "your bigger ethical" pic to do so,.......sincerely man, throw that at someone else, I ain't buying. Quote:
Maybe a bit but, my main theme was the victims of Katrina were better off by going agianst your philosophical bigger picture. Its that simple. Quote:
Simple. I dealt with the HUMANITY REALITY of the situation. You dealt with the IDEALISTIC portion of it. Quote:
Yup. Hands down, I agree with myself even more now that you mention it as well. Quote:
I'll fix this Steg. Watch fown beloooooooooooow :D Quote:
Sorry, I thought you brought that up - my bad! sincerely! Quote:
Hey, I didn't MEAN it in that way, again, my bad I apologize for that miscue. Quote:
Oh thats BS. I am not perfect and neither is anyone else BUT, I have never certainly portrayed myself as perfection. I have the right, just as anyone does to call them on what they say - as they do (you are doing - hoorah!) at me right now. Big Deal! I'm fine with it. ... Quote:
Understood. My finale at the bottom. And if you can't understand it, I don't know what to say. In closing,... I took my time, almost two hours, to patiently write this. I will not be around for a while. My wife and I are heading out to run some errands. So, I won't even be home for a while to read a response. I HOPE that at least the amount of time I put into this goes into reading through it with care before responding to it without. Quote:
Thanks AGAIN for speaking for me, sheesh! Quote:
Steve, THIS isn't worth my time anylonger. I am going to contemplate my league's whereabouts (yes, I may move). Simply put, I am not enjoying myself on the Grid and haven't been for some time now. Though, I sincerely tried - its just not happening for me. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by steelkings on May 19th, 2006, 11:54am |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by steelkings on May 19th, 2006, 12:06pm Quote:
KKS, Its always tough this time of year! When you are buzzin around at Gridiron during the winter football months I'm sure its a little more comfortable. Right now while its hot I'm sure you BEE suffering. That suit I'm sure doesn't breath well. I posted a look for everyone so they would also understand. Purhaps Steg will crank down the A/C for you. Bee cool ! SK http://www.grnrngr.com/monsters/pics/stingk02.JPG |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by Philly on May 19th, 2006, 1:00pm on 05/16/06 at 16:38:35, Philly wrote:
Bill... I wasn't calling you asinine. I was calling any insinuation regarding Mario Williams in comparison to Reggie Bush asinine. Even if that had been directed specifically towards you as a person, saying that you were "being ridiculous" is fairly mild as far as personal attacks go. (And I think if I had used the word ridiculous -- a synonym for asinine -- instead of asinine, then it wouldn't have been an issue at all. But, as I said, it was directed to a statement of yours, not you as a person. If you recall our endless Michael Vick debate, we repeatedly went back and forth and thoroughly trashed each others opinions and statements and were able to do so without making personal attacks. If I recall, we both had fun with that argument. If you felt that I was going after you personally with the "asinine" remark, then I apologize. That clearly is not what was intended. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by KillerKingSting on May 19th, 2006, 3:46pm Philly, heres the REAL funny part. And I am sincere when I relate this. But I haven't gone through years and years of schooling as you have Steg and - perhaps - others that are on this site - have gone through. Therefore, when the word "asinine" came about - I had to look it up. Sure I have heard the word and prpobably could use it comfortably in a sentence - though creativetely so w/out being able to be EXACT in what I say (heh, thats why I have really never used it) but, heres the damage I received when I took my 50 yr old websters to find out what exactly it meant (ironic since, I own a computer and probably could have looked it up via that route instead), asinine = marked by an INEXUSABLE FAILURE TO EXERCISE INTELLIGENCE or sound judgement................so, if sound judgement is synomonous with intelligence and intelligence ISN'T a dig on someone's mental capabilities, I'm totally ignorant here. You bring up a great point about the word ridiculous however, and once again, MAYBE innocently so, you have spoken for ME (saying I would not have reacted the same way), If the word ridiculous is so synomonous with the word asinine, then why isn't it used more frequently in that context? I would probably guess that perhaps, the majority public view of that synergistic relationship between ridiculous and asinine, isn't widely accepted as you may be trying to persuade and if I am wrong here then, why not use the word ridiculous instead.............really, it seems to have (as you seemed to mentioned yourself) a "lighter" punch to one's INTEELIGENCE in general. To tell me that I am NOT supposed to take that as a personal attack on my intelligence, doesn't make sense. Nevertheless, although I did, still, I tried to make light of it - the "Philly cheese steak digesting bowel" thing - at leat to me - was creative and proposturous at the same time. In reality of it all - you called me on my intelligence and I called you on a sureal hypothetical expereince (for all i know bro, you could be a vegetarian which would have totally blown up in my face - and to ass insult to injury - you also could have a 28 waist and be quite fit! - brother - i haven't the slightest clue! I was just having FUN with it rather than - INSULTING your INTELLIGENCE), It doesn't make me feel good to hurt other's feelings - in fact, my whole life speaks that way (I am a NURSE - I phyiscally, mentally, spiritually and emoitionally HELP people all the time - not only is it my occupation but, in this business - it has to be your passion as well and it is mine! - I truly love people! thats all), Yes, that asinine statement was directly directed at ME. Of course it was - - I was the only one to even mention it as far as I know? But more importantly here - I didn't mean to hurt your feelings - or anyone else's - above all - thats most important to me besides the what I consider the REALISM of this whole debate - the monetary gain for the peeps of NOR. IIn summary, you took your chance at downplaying your insult to me and now, I have done the same to you. I accept yours because, I don't think your an intenionally "mean" person and there are plenty of times you've proven that here on the grid by helping others out. Accept mine or not - you certaintly have that right. But still, I am not going to accept the fact that your direct insult to me was any less "personally insulting" than what you and - perhaps others - think mine was to you. So yes, maybe Steg, I do speak another lingo and am just not cut out for (what I consider and have experienced) "your" "one way" rules "up" here on the 3 threads. [smiley=idontknow.gif] |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by KillerKingSting on May 19th, 2006, 3:54pm on 05/19/06 at 12:06:58, steelkings wrote:
Thanks Steel. But fact is fact. When looking back on things, and in relation to relating to others on here - I just haven't bveen able to relate to what I consider to be a "tight-knit" thread of peeps - I try! in fact, I certainly have WAY better things to do with my time than to spend it "up" here and trying to "add" to the concenscous thought - but usually I am totally mis-thought of,.............I really don't take it as all that important but, sometimes theres a better fit in life than what we are already in -thats all, I am saying man, thanks again, your time and thoughts are greatly appreciated! |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by sexydexy on May 19th, 2006, 6:46pm Yo Bill, More often than not, I find myself not really fitting in here either because a) I think philosophy is bullshit (sorry if that offends, but that's the truth, to me) and b) when it comes to simple arguments, I like to keep it simple and not overanalyze. The one thing this site is heavy on is psychoanalysis. That's for sure. But, at the same time, I wouldn't say that it isn't amusing sometimes. It is kinda funny when you think about it how far we spiral from football here and delve into things that aren't even within the realm of football or fantasy football. I think once the season starts up, things will be back to normal. But, since the league might be moving elsewhere, I'll probably move with it. That said, let's just play nice. Maybe we could all (myself included) benefit from a nice hot cup of shut the fuck up! [smiley=laugh.gif] |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by StegRock on May 19th, 2006, 8:34pm on 05/19/06 at 18:46:46, sexydexy wrote:
No offense taken, brother,... but I hope that doesn't mean I can't ask you... What is it that you think that philosophy is since you deem it bullshit? Mind you, please make sure it's clear in your mind that my asking you this question does NOT at all mean that I've taken offense. It's just a question... I'm curious to know what this thing that you are convinced is bullshit is... Quote:
I don't think psychoanalysis is what goes on here as much as psycho-analysis... [smiley=rollinwithlaughter.gif] I jest not... I mean deep analysis and reflection on things (to an insane level), not necessarily just psychology, that get at the pith of matters. Mind you, also,... you do know that Bill is a BIG part of that, right? Just want to be clear on that. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by MordecaiCourage on May 19th, 2006, 10:34pm on 05/19/06 at 18:46:46, sexydexy wrote:
I am going to throw a bone in here from out of left field ...... I personally love the spiral from the realm of fantasy football!! I enjoy all the contributions you gridironers post. I think the manner in which we all write, and the individual creativity of each writers posts give a very telling description of who each of you are.....and since I will likely never meet any of you personally, I can at least feel like I know the "type" of person you all are when I read "your" own words. In my opinion, this is a great forum because of the departure from the "norm". We should enjoy the uniqueness of each individual who posts here. I enjoy the phylosophical side of Steg as well as the BEE talk of KKS. These differences are what makes this site enjoyable and interesting to me. Not that anyone asked or anything ;D |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by Philly on May 19th, 2006, 11:58pm Honestly, I could do without all the philosophy here too... it's not my thing. But I just choose not to participate in those discussions -- primarily because they are so far over my head and I have read so little of the pertinent philosophical texts and authors that I'd be embarrassing myself anyway. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by Philly on May 20th, 2006, 12:12am on 05/19/06 at 15:46:01, KillerKingSting wrote:
I've never seen that definition of asinine -- although I have to admit that I probably haven't looked up the word. I always took it to mean roughly the same as ridiculous or silly or ludicrous. And why didn't I use any of those words instead? I guess it's just a quirk of mine. I like to show off my vocabulary when I can. It's also the same reason why you'll never see me use any profanity. I like to think that I can use more creative words than the canned obscenities that many people fall back on all the time. But, like you said, I'm not here to insult people or hurt them. I've tried to help people here plenty of times, including you when you had questions regarding different fantasy articles you were thinking of writing. Quote:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by StegRock on May 20th, 2006, 5:41am on 05/19/06 at 10:00:21, KillerKingSting wrote:
But, it's okay for you to do so... Quote:
Mind you, I don't even really know what that last one means. All I was saying was that neither of us know him personally, so why is it that YOU seem so married to defending him, "the person", so tooth-and-nail? I want, as I've stated numerous times now, just to discuss this specific situation. I mean... It was your (mis)interpretation of what was "in my head" regarding/what "I meant" by "bigger picture", interpretting it as "whole picture", that is at the core of much of this acrimony. Your posts are laced with these kinds of double-standards... Just an observation (of something you do that you're not even aware of; discussed more below)... Quote:
You don't get my telethon comparison. I don't get your Elway-Eli-Williams comparison. I'm arguing it out, though. I've made very cogent arguments both for my comparison and against yours. You're just stating and re-stating it. But, there is no argument there. You are just screaming at me. Bottom line, you haven't said anything that makes me take pause, mainly just because you aren't really developing your arguments. By and large, you are just repeating the same things over and over. Here is an argument you did sort of develop (in all of 43 words after "let's face it"): Quote:
Frankly, this illustrates nothing. Sure, Reggie Bush, John Elway, Eli Manning and Mario Williams are all NFL players. That doesn't mean that if any of them beat their wives it isn't comparable to my beating mine just because they are NFL players and I am not. The bottom line, my "telethon" circumstance is absolutely isomorphic to Bush's "jersey number" situation. The only difference is in degree. I'm not dealing in six-digit figures. He is. So what! If John beats his wife with a bat, but I don't, it doesn't NOT make us both wife beaters and comparable. Of course, we both are and our wife-beating can be compared. However, I think comparing Bush's willingness to donate to Katrina victims contingent on his getting the jersey number he wants to Elway's or Manning's threatening to sit out so as to avoid playing for particular teams or Williams's being drafted by Houston and not offering to donate money (yet and in public) is unfounded and erroneous (and, yes, by saying this, Bill, I'm saying that "you" are "in error" regarding this... I hope you can handle that). Mind you, I haven't heard... does Williams have a jersey-number issue, too? ... Oh, you're just condemning him for not doing what Bush is NOT doing, either, namely making a donation with no strings attached. ?.?.? If you don't see your comparison as a stretch while definitively seeing mine as one, this discussion is hopelessly deadlocked. (LET ME MAKE THIS CLEAR, THOUGH... IN YOUR SENSE OF THE "bigger picture", THE JUDGMENT OF OVERALL CHARACTER, I DO UNDERSTAND HOW WHAT ELWAY AND ELI DID MATTERS!!! IT DEFINITELY WOULD MATTER!!! YOU'D HAVE TO FACTOR THAT STUFF IN. IT WOULD BE NEGLIGENT NOT TO!!!) Oh, well... In any event, I covered all of this in a much more pithy manner when I wrote... on 05/15/06 at 06:15:51, StegRock wrote:
We were actually close to putting this behind us at that point. We were understanding each other and, for the most part, backing off and at least agreeing to disagree. But, things continued and you evidently forgot this "point" of the discussion we had reached. In any event, though, on the other hand, I haven't caused you to pause, either, so fuck it. We disagree. I can handle that. on 05/15/06 at 08:08:00, KillerKingSting wrote:
This is so all-over-the-place it's hard to even start dissecting it. In fact, at this point on the thread, I had given up and was going to let it drop. If you look back, you'll see how things went. I never responded specifically to this post of yours. I went and posted a "fact-based" news report regarding the jersey-number situation with no commentary. Jeff kind of stirred things back up [smiley=stirthepot.gif] with his response (and, I suppose, the "history" you two have). Anyway, in response to this quote of yours above, why would I emphasize anything but the news item itself? This is an "NFL 'issues'" thread, not a "Reggie Bush Promo" thread, which, mind you, if you want, you are welcome to start right here on "the Sidelines". There you can have a virtual "Reggie Bush Love Festival" and, you know what, I'll probably agree with just about everything you say aside from things related to this specific move of his. Again, this is all steeped in the (mis)interpretation of what I meant by "bigger picture", i.e., again, I did NOT mean "whole picture". This is not about portraying him in a positive or negative light. It's about thinking through this particular "questionable" move of his, which I could, based on my own "telethon" circumstance right here, really relate to, which I, then, related to this situation and, then, finally related to you guys. Reggie Bush and EVERYTHING he's (ever) done is not what was at issue here. All that was was this one specific situation. I mean if we are going to talk about/if the topic is going to be about my wife-beating, the fact that I gave money to Katrina victims is moot. It may not be moot to the "whole picture" of Steve Stegeman, the man, who may do lots of good things, but it and all those other good things are NOT relevant to my wife-beating and the "bigger picture" as regards my wife-beating, namely the consequences and the bruises on my wife's body. Maybe, in the "sentencing" phase, those other good deeds would come back into play, BUT we are not even convicting anybody here. We are just talking about this one particularly icky circumstance, which Reggie Bush happens to be in the middle of. It could have been anybody, though. If need be, cross out the name (continued in next post...) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by StegRock on May 20th, 2006, 5:43am (...continuation from immediately prior post...) on 05/16/06 at 17:28:57, KillerKingSting wrote:
How about just wearing whatever shirt is given him AND still making a donation??? Wouldn't that be a better scenario for the people of New Orleans than making the donation contingent on an NFL ruling??? Wouldn't that more expeditiously take care of the "MORE IMPORTANT HUMAN-PHYSICAL TRUTH" of the matter??? on 05/16/06 at 22:37:00, KillerKingSting wrote:
This is just twisted rhetoric. Now, the suffering of the people in New Orleans comes down to where you come down on this situation. What if I say that I will donate $1,000 to Katrina victims only if you stay here on "the Gridiron" and keep your league board here? If you decide to leave, however, based on circumstances you deem untenable, does that make YOU responsible for MY not donating? And, now that you are bound to stay, does that mean I can just treat you like shit... because if you leave I'll cancel the check to the Katrina victims and you'll be blamed? Don't you see the mess such a move makes??? Quote:
Really...??? Huh...??? Interesting... Nothing tendentious there, right??? Huh...??? Quote:
on 05/16/06 at 16:38:35, Philly wrote:
This is the use of "asinine", whatever it means, that's got your panties all in a bunch... [smiley=pullleeeeeeeze.gif] Oh, brother... ::) When in a disagreement, "unpleasantries" with respect to assertions, opinions, insinuations, intimations, perceptions, etc., are going to be expressed. Those are the bases of the disagreement, after all. Jeff actually took great care in wording that in a way that would not be offensive. On the other hand, you are quite direct with your quips about Jeff and me. You have been very direct in calling me an exploiter. You have stated it a number of times in your posts, and you are not at all delicate about it, surely not the way Jeff exhibits there. To take offense to Jeff's use of "asinine" there is just a function of hyper-sensitivity on your part as far as I can tell. In any event, mind you, I haven't called you anything, not even indirectly really, and you've teed off on me pretty well here. You started in quite early when you wrote... on 05/14/06 at 20:16:07, KillerKingSting wrote:
You even emphasize "YOU". In any event, Jeff's apology reads very sincere. You even, in a response laced with piety, mind you, twist that decent gesture of his, tear it apart and turn it back around against him, minimizing his apology and, therefore, in effect not really "accepting" his apology. You point out that what he mainly has done is (not apologize but) downplay his insulting you (which I totally don't agree with; I think his post was totally stand-up), which you admit you too have done. But, then, follow that with... on 05/19/06 at 15:46:01, KillerKingSting wrote:
What a slap in the face. You didn't even offer him an apology. As a matter of fact, after tearing his apology to pieces, you go on to talk about how your insults are "light", "creative" and "preposterous"... on 05/19/06 at 15:46:01, KillerKingSting wrote:
How droll... "Mental aspects", "physical aspects", you make insults about the former sound worse than the latter when the fact of the matter is that it depends on the person. If someone is insecure about his "physical aspects", but secure about his "mental aspects", then insults about "physical aspects" are going to sting more than insults about "mental aspects", and vice-versa. Moreover, it's not the "what"; it's the "how" that matters. If I say to you, "That was stupid of you to justify his actions," (by the way, my Oxford Dictionary's definition of "asinine": 1) stupid; 2) of or concerning asses; like an ass) versus "You fat, fucking loser, sitting there eating while people are starving," I think most reasonable people would assess that the latter is WAY MORE offensive than the former. Again, that's not what you said. The point is that your distinction is erroneous (you are in error... uh-oh). Regarding the piety, you wrote... on 05/19/06 at 15:46:01, KillerKingSting wrote:
Now, we're deferring to occupation to "prove" humanity... Show it. Don't tell us about it. You notice none of the rest of us are going there here. Jeff is a family man... So what... I gave up years of my life supporting my mom... So what... Are you saying all nurses are good humans??? I'm sure not... You are saying that you are a good nurse and, therefore, given the nature of the business, a good person. You are surely not saying that being a good nurse makes you a better person than the rest of us, though, right??? So, what's the point? You went in this direction in response to your saying, "It doesn't make me feel good to hurt other's feelings." Well, throwing someone's apology back in his face potentially hurts feelings. Making jokes amidst a heated discussion about someone's physical attributes potentially hurts feelings. Calling someone an exploiter, who gives so much (as a site admin to you specifically), potentially hurts feelings. Don't tell us how being a nurse makes you more disposed towards being a good person than the rest of us non-nurses. Give me substance, not rhetoric. (I could add something "light", "creative" and NOT "preposterous" here that would cut like a knife, but I will refrain.) I digress... I got a load out of your pointed horn-tooting here... on 05/14/06 at 20:16:07, KillerKingSting wrote:
Given that you're dealing with a "philosophy 'scholar'",... there's a lot going on there... worthy of psychoanalysis (of sk's sort) in all kinds of ways... Anyway,... Mind you, I'm just following your lead here, Bill. The fact of the matter is that this was a heated debate, and you have to have thick skin when it comes to attacks on your position,... opinions, assertions, etc. Again, those are what the disagreements lie in. So, they are going to be attacked and, in the process, in some sense you are getting attacked. The hope is that while harsh, it remains objective,... but that is a tight rope to walk. To refer to an "insinuation" relevant to a debate as "asinine" is reasonable. But to go out of your way to be "creative" and say, "I'm glad you can sit back, in your size 40 waist pants and suit, eating your way into my cardiologist office for a roto-rooter job in 10 year's time while the peeps of NOR are suffering like no other," and "you have the inflated ego, the food on table, the access to computer to shoot your mouth off about what someone else is doing to help other's in need," (I'll cut you slack on the Philly cheesesteak comment as I can honestly see how wit played into that one), none of which has anything to do with squat as far as the substance of the debate goes (and, if it does in your mind, that's just fucked) is downright nasty. Those comments are WAY nastier than Jeff's use of the word "asinine"... Mind you, though, the punch-line,... you called him asinine right back... on 05/16/06 at 17:28:57, KillerKingSting wrote:
So, what are you cryin' about? ... Oh, but he said it first, right? Gimme a fuckin' break! [smiley=gimmeabreak.gif] At any rate, the point in a heated debate like this isn't to whine about (your idea) being called asinine or whatever. The goal is to show that it isn't. From what I can tell, at every crucial step here you've failed to do that. You do not address others' points, moreover, where they counter yours, with any specificity and care. It just seems like you think that if you just incessantly browbeat me with your core opinions on the matter and sprinkle in a few diversions and rather careless responses, you're going to beat them into me. Just because your feelings were hurt by your "insinuation's" being called "asinine" doesn't mean it isn't. On the other hand, there is no reason to have your feelings hurt. It's not you that is asinine. It's that particular assertion. Smart people can say and do dumb things. That doesn't make them dumb. Moving right along... Quote:
What? So,... like fifth-grade show-and-tell I've got to lay out all the tragedies I've endured in my life. What, are we gonna have a piss-me-a-river crying contest or a cry-me-a-river pissing contest? Come on! We all know hard times... How does this serve the debate other than to put yourself in some sort of higher pious position that neither Jeff nor I (in all likelihood) can relate to (that's what your money's on)? The point is to relate personal experiences that give us insight into the (particular) issue at hand (which, granted, we now know was a bit of a mess with our miscommunication about "bigger picture" and "whole picture"). The point is NOT for someone to mention personal experiences that put him on an apparent moral higher ground than the others involved in the discussion. Regarding the discussion,... are we to take it that this puts you in a better position to evaluate Reggie Bush's tack here? I think quite the contrary. I think it skews your take on this issue, and this thread is evidence of your sensitivity. What this tells me more than anything is that this is personal for you. The whole time I was thinking, "Man,... Bill's got it hard for Bush. [smiley=beaver.gif] He must have the first pick of his 'Insane Gang' draft." Now, I'm seeing YOUR "bigger picture". The thing, though, is, aside from the already established fact that we did not mean the same thing by "bigger picture", your "bigger picture" here is not, as you want to claim, the objective "bigger picture", in any case. It's very much YOUR picture. Now, I get that. My choice of the term "bigger picture" wasn't a good one evidently. I should have probably gone with "deeper context" or "deeper considerations". Again, though, it seems like your personal bias here isn't going to allow any room for the deeper considerations I find important. Quote:
We disagree. Right! Let's stop the back-and-forth on those areas where we just disagree. ... Now, you lost me for a bit after the "but"... You say that you're whipping this stuff out in less than two hours... Well, there you have it... I guess you take that as a good thing. Meanwhile, that's not even enough time to reflect on, no less write something responding to, what I'm writing... Quote:
Uh-oh! [smiley=dramaqueen.gif] Self-important alert!!! He's going to suggest/threaten that he is leaving the site and taking his "Insane Gang" league with him like the "hot-head" DBFFL and SBFFL did back in the day, the QFL as well. Mind you, neither of the first two leagues are even in existence anymore, and the QFL no longer has their own web site, which was something they would have needed to maintain to remain in the FFLA (Fantasy Football League Alliance). Quote:
?.?.? What's the point again? I'm not following... Are you saying you've heard he's now agreed to give 25% of his jersey sales to Katrina victims regardless of what number's on it??? If that's not it, I don't understand... [smiley=idontknow.gif] (continued in next post...) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by StegRock on May 20th, 2006, 5:44am (...continuation from immediately prior post...) on 05/14/06 at 20:16:07, KillerKingSting wrote:
Quote:
Wow! This, your incessant, mean-spirited reference to my "exploitation of Katrina and Reggie" after I explicitly indicated that I didn't like it, and then that "LACK of" jab, a brand of jab your writing (which is not intended to hurt any feelings, right?) is laced with, mind you, coming from a dude who took offense to an insinuation of his being called asinine... [smiley=gimmeabreak.gif] Anyway,... you want to go on calling what I am doing "exploitation" of the masses and poor Reggie, you go right ahead. Our disagreement, then, is not substantive. It's now just semantics. On your own terms, I am exploiting Katrina no more than Reggie or anybody else. So, what the fuck ever... I'm encouraging discussion on a news item, period... What do I stand to gain? Why do you even ask this question? Of course, I gain something... As you suggest, I agree... Monetary gain is definitely not the only kind of gain. It's not even the most important kind of gain in my book. What Reggie gains from his "exploitation" (your use of the term, not mine) of Katrina victims isn't money, either. But, moving right along, the move you are trying to pull here is so transparent, it's patronizing... But, let me entertain you for a moment... What I gain,... perhaps some deeper reflection on matters which could cause people to better understand the underlying (co-op) philosophy behind my efforts here; a little discussion to keep things moving during the offseason... That's not a whole lot "concrete". A lot of hopeful speculation and hypotheses and a belief in progressing little-by-little and that's about it. But, all that is just so you can go, "Aha... See... You're gaining, and, therefore, you are exploiting!"? Again, a) no different than Reggie, so, whatever, we're either all exploiting or we're all not, however you want it fed to you, and b) if you think that what I stand to gain and how it relates to my encouraging a critical discussion of and deep ethical reflection on this particular news item constitute "exploitation of Katrina and poor Reggie", what the fuck ever... There's obviously no reasoning with you. Hell, Bill, why stop there? You're not one to pull punches, clearly (or hurt feelings, not so clearly ?.?.?). Why not point out how I am exploiting YOU and EVERY MEMBER here by "gaining" from each of your posts, how I am exploiting all my writers and everybody else here who volunteers their efforts??? That is, of course, on my site where I have yet to have a year not three solid digits in the red. To do so would surely be consistent with your loose usage of the word "exploitation". Again, mind you, you, "Mr. I Don't Want To Hurt Anybody's Feelings And The Fact That I'm A Nurse Shows That", wrote all this after I explicitly stated that I found your comments about "exploitation" VERY insulting and personal. That seemed to just cause you, "Mr. I Don't Want To Hurt Anybody's Feelings And The Fact That I'm A Nurse Shows That", to drive the knife in deeper and go on about my "exploitation" in this post EXPONENTIALLY more than any of your prior posts. Boy,... I can see how you don't like to hurt others' feelings. It's "clear"... ::) Quote:
GREAT! We disagree. Now, let's just agree to disagree, and it's over. Quote:
Don't see how the first part of that (before "and nevertheless") flows into the second part (after "and nevertheless"). But, anyway, I didn't "use" his name, per se. I referenced the article. They, by printing it, made it newsworthy. I just wanted to discuss it. It didn't matter "who" it was about. It happens to be about your boy Reggie and a situation he put himself in. Ultimately, nobody is responsible for Reggie's actions and "context" except Reggie,... right? Nobody controls you. Nobody controls me. Nobody controls Reggie. He's famous. That puts him in the spotlight and his actions under a microscope. He gets compensated for that. ... Aw, fuck... [smiley=frustrated.gif] Jeff already explained this. I don't want to have to again. Do you not understand that famous people are subject to a level of scrutiny that the rest of us aren't? (I thought "I" was the "idealist".) ... In any event, I'm not so sure that if I brought this up for discussion "in general", in relation to just anyone (but then it wouldn't be an "NFL issue") or to my "telethon" idea, that it wouldn't have received a ton of attention. As a matter of fact, if I had brought it up regarding my "telethon" idea, I am almost certain it would have garnered a lot of attention and responses (and, ironically, I think I would have been dissuaded from doing it, which is what I sensed and why I decided not to pursue the idea). The point, though, is that this couldn't happen to just any Tom, Dick or Harry... At least, it couldn't happen to just any Tom, Dick or Harry and be newsworthy... At least, it couldn't happen to just any Tom, Dick or Harry and be an "NFL Issue"... Reggie and the agent Reggie chose (yes, given how you've pushed and that you wouldn't even take this bone I threw you, I'm now backing off deflecting responsibility away from Reggie and putting it on his agent as he chose his agent) made it all that. Your words... Quote:
... Quote:
(Here's your psychoanalysis, sd...) Just because you don't know you are doing it doesn't mean you aren't. We do things all the time we're not aware of, habits and behaviors we've acquired for better or worse along the way, some of them simple, some of them quite elaborate. Whether or not you know it, that's what you're doing. I'm just recognizing its manifestation. You don't recognize your set of double-standards, either, and you probably don't realize the passive-aggressive tendencies you exhibit, most notably, by your threatening to leave the site along with your "Insane Gang" in response to this tiff. on 05/16/06 at 19:01:46, KillerKingSting wrote:
Quote:
Oh, come on... (I'm sorry if this hurts your feelings, but...) This is juvenile. Neither Denver or Baltimore circa 1982/83 nor San Diego or New York circa 2003/04 had endured a catasrophe, no less one the size of Katrina. There is NO circumstantial comparison! However, Elway and Manning stepped it up for a city in need when they were in need... Nothing in return and no numbers announced! Nothing really to gain, might I add, especially compared to Reggie, who stands not just to gain his jersey number, but also the hearts and minds of the fans he in some way needs the support of. However, to put it bluntly, Reggie has yet to donate anything from what I gather. But, hold on... Let's tease your reasoning out a little bit. New York circa 2001/02 surely endured a most horrific tragedy. Did Jeremy Shockey donate money? Maybe he did, maybe he didn't... But, he should have... The whole 2002 draft class for both the Giants and Jets should have, right? So should the whole 2002 draft class of the Washington Redskins, right? And, that's just the football players. A-Rod, given how much he is fleecing the city of New York, should be bankrolling all 9/11 victims,... and Katrina victims for that matter. Can't you see how "out of control" this line of reasoning can get? (And, note that just by answering "no" to that question doesn't mean you've shown that this line of reasoning can't get out of control.) Quote:
Your "theme" was that "the victims of Katrina were better off by going against my philosophical bigger picture". I didn't know they were paying attention... But, anyway, my philosophical bigger picture suggests that Reggie should just give the $400,000 or whatever now or as soon as possible and, most importantly, with NO strings attached. My philosophical picture suggests that if he wants to give, he should just do it! Making it contingent on an NFL ruling at least has to make you wonder if he really wants to do it OR get his #5. And, AGAIN, I'm NOT saying the latter is the case. I'm just saying that this particular tack has to make you wonder and, in that sense, it was/is an inadvisable tack. That's all. This could be something that Reggie could learn and grow from or it could be something he just rationalizes and justifies and walks away (wearing #25, mind you) no better of a man from. Quote:
I don't know what that means other than just labeling your position in a more palatable way than mine. I don't think yours was the "human reality" position or mine was the "idealistic" position and vice-versa. We were just working with different definitions of "bigger picture", period. My point there is not an opportunity for you to give your position a better (in my mind and I think yours) label than mine. It wasn't an opportunity to label either of our positions. In any case, the labels "human reality" position and "idealistic" position don't get us anywhere. The simple acknowledgment that we were working with different definitions of "bigger picture" actually does. It actually could make the difference to get us beyond this... It's really the key to all of the problems we're having here... Quote:
Dude, how could you think I brought that up? Are you paying that little attention? Your prior posts are laced with the $400,000 figure. Again, this is a trivial point... BUT, I think it is indicative of a, dare I say it, "bigger picture"... of (the way) you (have gone about things on this thread). Okay, now, alas, the big announcement... Quote:
And, then, down on his league board... on 05/19/06 at 15:02:25, KillerKingSting wrote:
Right after I spend 40 minutes of my life between 1:00 a.m. and 1:40 a.m. doing something specific and special, but very small in the relative spectrum of things I need to do, just for you, and you write this... on 05/15/06 at 08:11:53, KillerKingSting wrote:
How droll! How empty are the words! The paradox,... this very move itself is rather "Reggie 'Bush League'-like"... ... I'm sure you'll find a forum admin who will go out of his way just for you for little bullshit like smiley bees [smiley=bee.gif] like I have... within an hour of your bringing it up, no less. More likely, if you ask, he'll probably laugh his ass off (behind your back, mind you, while you never get your bee). This is not to mention all the other cool special perks of "the Gridiron", which you likely won't find anywhere else, like, most notably, your league's champion's name in lights on our index page... ... "Greatly appreciated!" Give me a break! Show it! Don't tell me about how being a nurse makes you a caring person who doesn't like to hurt people's feelings! You're too good at hurting people's feelings... Why give it up? Bottom line, I don't need dudes who can be so easily shaken and so quickly forget the "bigger picture" here and turn against me. I don't need dudes with such short-term memories (I mean... this is extreme). I don't need dudes who take my efforts so quickly for granted. You called me just a year ago after a duel [smiley=duel.gif] you were having then telling me you were considering leaving the site and moving your guys. Is this going to be an annual event? If so, please spare me... I don't need unstable dudes, who are always a tiff away from threatening to leave. I need committed dudes, who will hang in there through thick and thin for the long haul. Just the fact that you even think you can find a better home than "the Gridiron" and someone who will give you the personal attention I have and be willing to support your project with plans of incorporating it to a greater degree as it matures so easily and even entertain the idea of leaving (based on measly disagreements on the boards) belies the very appreciation you claim to have of the site and my efforts. Shit... It's proof in the pudding of your lack of appreciation and commitment. So, in that sense, as per your own words and actions, you're no loss... in the "bigger picture". Quite the contrary, your departure would represent a small, albeit regretful, setback. I don't need this passive-aggressive bullshit. I hope your defense of this football player Reggie Bush at the expense of your friendship with real-live, phone-call-away Steve Stegeman was worth it. I'm sure he'll care about and give you sound advice regarding your "Insane Gang", help you get through the rough times with it, and afford you some phone calls. If not, I'm sure the admin of whatever site you move on to will fill the bill... as you expect. [smiley=wavinbye.gif] |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by StegRock on May 20th, 2006, 6:45am The question here is going to become... How much is Reggie donating to survivors of Hurricane[smiley=storm.gif]Steg??? [smiley=yikes.gif] ... ;) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by MordecaiCourage on May 20th, 2006, 10:19pm Somebody ...please be the bigger man here and stop this disagreement. Maybe your argument can continue in private messages or something!! Both you guys are wasting your time with this issue because you are on complete opposite sides of the spectrum and neither is willing to budge. However....you are both very much alike in a way too. You both wear your feelings on your sleeves and neither of you have a problem expressing yourselves about it. One of you, or both of you have already said "let's agree to disagree". How 'bout you BOTH live up to that and let's move on. P L E A S E ! ! ! BTW...please do not reply back with mind your own business MC.... because your public posts have made it every gridironers business, and it is becoming a bit tiresome at the moment. That's about as nice as you'll hear this old [smiley=fireman.gif] put it. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by StegRock on May 20th, 2006, 10:45pm Whatever... Your other post... [smiley=thumbsup.gif] This post... [smiley=annoyed.gif] Don't get me wrong... I understand whence you are coming, MC, and the "thought" is well-taken,... but... :-/ "Nothing forced! Let everything run its course!" It's not like it will really go on forever. I don't think I nor Bill (I hope I can speak for you on this one) need others forcing their moral compasses on us here. I know mine works just fine... :) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by KillerKingSting on May 21st, 2006, 1:44am Steg, first off, you've mentioned my communication "differences" here - my lingo mind you, take a bit of your own freakin medicine dude, your posts are WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY too freakin long - so much so, they are practically too intense to read and digest IMO. Although I could read and digest them, your remarks have not impressed me as of yet, and so, taking the time to digest your novella, would probably bring me no more closer than my latter opinion just posted. Secondly, you've mentioned Reggie Bush' exploitation of the victims of Katrina. You've also mentioned plenty of times here on the grid that when we talk about players in the NFL, we are talking about REAL people. So, if you have the balls to call Bush on his exploitation, why shouldn't you be called on what I think yours is. He is no more LESS a REAL person than yourself and THATS why I am targetting you - as you did Bush - simple. I could care less about your telethon relevance. Its petty IMO as to what REALLY was on the table. In fact, all your doing (because you mentioned your feelings were hurt and your paranioa in conjunction - hence - I was baiting people?????)) is trying to establish your validity through what I have hit as obvious truth or at least, truth enough to make you write your novellas (2 hours?????? WTF!). That is certainly my opinion and I am sticking to it. Again, your inability, at least here on this subject, to be able to deal with REALITY instead of your IDEOLOGY, hence "why can't we just deal with the philosophical portion of it rather than, bringing BUSH into etc etc etc (if thats not exactly what you said - who cares! its close enough for me!), I'll tell you why! BEECAUSE, the REALITY - NOT THE PERFECT STEG-WORLD - includes Reggie Bush in this - its posted under NFL ISSUES first off and second off - one of the most hyped up players to come out of the draft in 25 years ala Gayle freakin Sayres (spelling - sorry), is DIRECTLY INVOLVED in this - only HYPING up your IDEALISTIC presentation. This is your grid - you may do as you please obviously, but, your not creative enough IMO to deal with whats real and therefore, what you are trying to present here -is irrevelant to me. And for what I consider your hypothetical example of "why not Reggie just donating money w/out a number or a shirt - wouldn't THAT be the better situation......... again, this speaks MAJOR VOLUMES of the simple fact that - and at least on THIS particular subject - you haven't been able to connect the ability that this isn't a hypothetical situation with Bush or the Katrina Victims, ITS A FREAKIN REAL ONE and ONE that already had it's course of action therefore, you being STUCK on the IDEALISTIC world, the perfect philosophical STEG-MADE world,, a world that isn't able to DEAL with the REALITY of things, but instead, would rather the VICTIMS of Katrina SUFFER in lue of a shirt with a number on it, all for YOUR PERFECT hypothetical example, is forgetting the HUMAN portion of it all - as we as human beings are not perfect therefore dealing with non-perfect situations and making the BEST of em, is what is the most important and most productive course of action to have been taken. Whether or not Bush could have done this or could have done that, sure it has relevance, but, not as much as YOU or anyone else BEING CREATIVE enough to DEAL with the HERE AND NOW of the situation and the reaility of the choices involved, none of which mind you, involved YOUR PERFECT hypothetical exmaple provided. Ironic enough, this post is too long ;) I am now (and even before this) am a living example of hipocrisy. ;D Stain me with your idealistic CRAP if it pleases you. ::) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by KillerKingSting on May 21st, 2006, 1:58am on 05/20/06 at 00:12:11, Philly wrote:
Philly, I appreciate your input here! It lends some understanding to everything. I sincerely did NOT know about your weight problem man. I work in bariatrics, the banding of the stomach for morbidly obese people (no, I am not saying that about you , please don't take it that way), I would not intentioanlly make you feel that way at all. In fact, if I knew, I would have "personally" taken my time out to make you feel better about "that" inparticularly. Your a really GREAT guy IMO. I like your posts and am always on the lookout for them, your very informative and very intelligent and a real all-around joy to be around on the grid and in fact, i admit, I sure have missed you a lot since your partial exile to working on another site.! As far as the Sumo wrestler thing - I never even caught on to that - I am not as aware as most make me out to be though, I certainly can appreciate the lending of mental powers in area, its simply not the case. I am a very creative, intuitive person - even book smart when I apply myself, however, ceratinly not as emotionally smart or as "aware" as I view others to be. Hence the fact that I didn't catch that sumo-smiley thing. STEG, explain why you would call MC on his last post of "butting" in but, yet you "butt" in on my post to Philly, and the lack of an APOLOGY on my part (an apology is waranted IMO if I MEANT to do wrong doing - or harmful doing - which in this case - I really didn't - despite your ":unwarranted" view in this area. Though, Philly, if it makes things good between you and I, an apology is a small price to pay for your feelings - and therefore, I am sorry. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by KillerKingSting on May 21st, 2006, 2:08am on 05/20/06 at 22:19:49, MordecaiCourage wrote:
Steg, I can app[reciate your view on this and fine, you may speak for me if you wish though, you wouldn't be right in doing so, I happen to LIKE MC's post - it has REAL revelance, it deals with REAL important issues, and I agree with him. I keep saying that this is my last post on this stuff. In respect to you MC, it is and I appreciate your interest throughout! Thank you! As far as me moving my league, I'll get a league vote (not to be for public view) - as I know that some others already wanted me too - no names mentioned but, I also want to comment on what someone else posted on, (could have been you MC or Steel), on the variance of the posters and thats what makes it interesting. I will say this : I did not get overly ruffled with this until Philly did (and rightfully so in his thoughts), I was having FUN actually and enjoyed the debate - the differences, if we all can't just come to an agreement that, we are all good people and whatever the case of debate on this grid, we are not intentionally trying to hurt other's feelings, then, doing this, and having fun with it, and making it interesting for everyone else, is and will be irrevelant in it's time to contribute. As is the case now IMO. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by KillerKingSting on May 21st, 2006, 3:46am I haven't given Steg his due respect in light that the LONG DRAWN OUT POSTS of his, also conveys that he CARES - otherwise, I;m sure, he wouldn't even bother. That should account for something as, with philly, and/or others on here, he is a great guy and a caring one as well. That should be emphasized. Now out of respect to you Steg, I will carry this out for a bit longer and TRY to answer all your quotes, though, no promises in that direction but, my efforts should be realized as me CARING for what your thoughts are as well brother! MC, I am sorry, I mean no disrespect to you for this long drawn out convo, please understand, on 05/20/06 at 05:41:11, StegRock wrote:
?????huh???? who said its OK? I am just taking up for my rights to speak for myself, if you don't , thats entirely up to you? I am assuming this is the follow up to what you are referring to??? "below" Quote:
You have MISSED a HUGE TWO LETTER WORD there - IF. IF means = IF. It doesn't mean I AM - speaking for you. Next? [smiley=hellyeafunny.gif] Quote:
Quote:
IF IF IF I would have pondered - HUGE MIS-INTERPRETATION on your part. [smiley=hellyeafunny.gif] Quote:
Its petty. Quote:
No problem. Quote:
Not IMO you haven't. Your saying in my interpretation, "lets cut the cheese cake so that none of the cheese comes with MY slice." BUSH/KATRINA is no where in comparison to your telethon comparison - and the "cheese" comes with the cake - thats REALITY. Quote:
I am hoping that it hits home for you one of these times. Quote:
I am sorry you feel that way. It isn't my intention - I am trying to make a point that you are either ignoring or just plain not getting. And your lack of understanding my point leads to reptition - take SOME responsibility for this 2-way debate otherwise, the screaming that you feel, is your inability to openly see other's points of view without putting yours first and foremost. Quote:
I just made this point right above and this solidifies my take on it IMO. Quote:
Talk nothing of the amount of words used in response - that simply and openly would be hipprocrisy due to your latest most drawn out postings. Quote:
So what??? Exactly, So what if the peeps of NOR need those 6 figure numbers - thats a big part of my take on this - its REALITY and your saying - so what?????? Quote:
I understand the degree with which you are referring to. Again, IMO its petty in comparison. Quote:
Great! Your able to compare a needle to an ice pick. Thats relevant? I don't think so. Scientists all the time test animals that have - in comparison - similiar physical attributes to human beings. The results from these tesings are hoped to be comparable to human results. But in REALITY - if they were to use those same tests on human beings, those human beings would - in most cases - be fucked in terms of getting the same reults back. We can set anologous examples all day long - big whoop. You can come back with one against this one - I can with one against the one you potentially provided - which speaks volumes for what MC said in his latest post, Its not going to get any of us anywhere and I applaud him for being THAT aware and TRYING to help us realize that as well. . [smiley=bee.gif] Quote:
What the FUCK man. One moment I am baiting and plotting like this ever-so clever debate master (close to what you referred me as ) and the next, I can't handle your BS? Heh! Like W-H-A-T-E-V-E-R! Quote:
Absolutely I see the MARIO comparison as a stretch. In fact, I thought of it as kind of funny when I posted it. Just trying to BEE creative however, in comparison to a needle and an Ice Pick.........................it has similiar relevance. Mario should have STEPPED DOWN as the #1 pickle [smiley=laugh.gif] (please, I am trying to BEE funny here ) Quote:
I understand your points and respect them, but, I have my own mind - and I think, in understanding your points, I can better respond to any future points you make, by way of, projecting how you might feel and or think in a particular situation, my main emphasis NOW in this is that, its working together and bringing 2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9 etc etc number of minds together to get the most out of a situation. I definitely understand where you are coming from. Let me try and explain myself better - though it only seems to get me moreso in trouble - whatever - I will try - Corporate america stinks man. I am up to my ass in paper work at WORK - when I should spending MORE time with patients - CORPORATE america (the IDEALISTIC VIEW) has me pumping my ink pen on the dottted lines while REAL people suffer as a result. Its the emphasis on IDEALISM that has in reality, punched my gut over and over - and not only mine - but others in need, its why I argue what I do - otherwise, WTF - I give up. REALISM. HUMANITY. Its difficult to seperate - like the cheese cake. The FIRST response that came from YOU on the REGGIE Bush matter was not the REALISM and HUMNAITY portion of the potenital results and upgrades for the peeps of NOR but rather, the INHUMAN part - if you will - the CORPORATE AMERICA portion, The CORPORATE GRIDIRON response, - is first,........get that done first and the REALITY of what is actually on the table, might be able to be dealt with later? Quote:
Yeah, I didn't make myself clear on that - but nevertheless, though you did not mean it - it sheds negativity on him regardless. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by KillerKingSting on May 21st, 2006, 5:11am Quote:
COOL IT! YOUR MIS-INTERPRETATION of my taking "offense" is blown out of proportion,.....I mentioned, I had fun with it, and just tried to fire back with what I thought of as creative and by the way - I'm sure I mentioned "some offense" taken but, certainly not to the point in which I was going to stop posting because of it and even moreso, not taken stringly in any sense. It was in fact, PHILLY who had taken it strongly. Get your facts straight. The personal reference to you has been explained in many posts and my personal take on it also. In lue of your feelings though, I'll drop it - not even a second thought - I didn't know - even though you said you posted "hurt-feelings" in this manner - and I am assuming it WAS CLEAR that your feelings were hurt and posted so (as I will not research this) - otherwise, I am not claiming psycho-ability here to read minds (and we all know internet is lacking is the display of emotional senses). Hurt feelings I did not intend. I take back what I said in that reference. Quote:
Neeldes and Ice picks. I ask this question because, what Reggie stood to GAIN for what he was giving in return - was in COMPARISON - (needles and Ice Picks) to what you stood to gain - right? Very little IMO both ways - both to you and to him. Although, if it were so important to you the philosophical difference in this in comparison to the realism of it - then, I could be justified in veiwing you in the same sense in what you stood to gain. Quote:
Needle to an Ice Pick. This can go on forever, -----don't you see the awareness of MC's post in this light? Quote:
A.K.A. CORPORATE AMERICA IMO. Big fat asses (figure of speech) sitting high on the hog, in jobs that are made up for people that someone deemed important enough to just MAKE UP A JOB becasue in reality, they have been found USELESS in more REAL substantial settings,, sitting back debating the ethical BS of a situation rather than, the REALISM of it. Paper pushing junkies that make everyone's jobs in america that much more difficult and these people, are the ones that are NOT in the trenches to SEE the realism that goes on but rather, can speculate on it, judge it, put it in their perfect world, and say, we are to be it, despite not knowing what the fusk they are talking about - or rather, close to it. Thats what I view YOUR take on this to be. Its not a DIG on you. I am sorry if I am NOW portraying it to be. But nevertheless, its how I FEEL. And MY FEELINGS count as well. Thats all. Its not that yours don't. But mine are equally as important and IMO justified. I live THIS. Tell me NOT that I don't and so you then tell me nOT that I haven't the intellilect to make comparison to -as you so well put it - a MORE important ETHICAL IMPLICATION though, on whats REALLY happeneing and the REAL CONSEQUENCES (hence, 25% of Bush' shirt earnings). Quote:
Dude, I can't control how you feel. Thats your take. Your right. I will control what I say and feel though. If you take one thought and mix it in conjunction with another and use them to HURT your own feelings, thats your right AND YOUR DOING. But not MY doing. Its YOUR take. Once again, NOW that your feelings are most certainly known to have been hurt about what I said then, I back off my view on that in respect to you. Now, "Mr. I don't intentionally mean to hurt anyone's feelings",.......your certainly going about this so - in such a way - that you don't believe what I say. That again, is yOUR PROBLEM my friend, find a way to deal with it because, I know what I am, I know what I do, I KNOW what compassion I bring into the world, I live it everyday I go to work, I certainly don't need any justification on YOUR part, in that area - just so we are straight on that - ok! ;D Quote:
Talk about an important ethical implication to be learned here. Look above. Quote:
Awww shucks, do you not understand that by you comparing your telethon situation to his NFL situation lends you (IN THE NEEDLE & ICE PICK WAY) the same type of scrutiny???? aww shucks and FUCKS goober, try again ;D Quote:
CORPORATE FUCKIN STEG-MERICA at its best. Sincerely bro, I don't give a fuck what you think of me,,,,, this isn't me trying to hurt your feelings, its realism, its me saying that, you have a right to your BS as I do mine, I respect and understand your right and thoughts, but nevertheless, disagree with them, and it affects ME personally, notta. No, I know what I am doing. And I feel sympathy for you - who THINKS he knows what I am doing. Quote:
Dude, you know NOT what you are saying. READ MY ORIGINAL POST on this. It states - FOR QUITE SOME TIME! Quote:
Dude, you couldn't hurt my feelings if you tried. SERIOUSLY , don't waste your time brother - its a lock out, you have NO affect on who I am - and who I am NOW - and have sinced grownfrom what you FIRST experienced with me, is much stronger than you "are seemingly" apologizing for - your a fucking riot man - as I have mentioned don't give me too much credit lend your fucking self the same touch - don't think you can puncture me so easily. [smiley=laugh.gif] Quote:
Yah, what you just seemingly though was much in the same light. [smiley=hellyeafunny.gif] Quote:
Wrong and Who cares! There are other comparisons. You don't get the say-all on what I should compare and what I shouldn't. Quote:
I don't think its out of control, I find your examples partially relevant. Aww shucks, and you thought I might say no, [smiley=awwgee.gif] . Quote:
I still think as I have posted. In a perfect world, Reggie Bush should have just donated the money. In the REAL world, he didn't. Quote:
Whatever Steg. Your paranioa has surfaced again in this very last remark. Someone else most have said that to me and I had it in my kind but because my main talks were with you, I attributed it to you - and then, I read that it is 25% and yes, its a moot point. ::) Quote:
Prime example of what this whole Bush thing is all about, But you have obviously and selfishly IMO, placed YOUR 40 minutes above the monetary donation I gave (through my hard blue collar work), above all. Its your 40 minutes that counts. Nothing else! Its the most important thing. The REALITY of my donation, was NOT the BEE, it was that I wanted to give something to you fgor all your efforts, if you came back to me and said (I can;t find a BEE), I most likely would have givemn you the money anyhow, Take the BEE, put it in your pipe, and smoke it. Really. The "effort" behind it has meaning to me, but not the bee itself, not that much meaning. And to do the needles and Ice Picks thing - the donation as compared to the Bee..................Please, no comparison for what I do and work for my money. Quote:
Hey, which part OF, I DON'T NEED TO PROVE TO YOU - ANYTHING ABOUT WHO I AM. ???????? Believe me, I have others who CONFIRM that every day I work brother - its that simple. Quote:
So be it. Youyr take on this, as selfish as it is, and has been displayed as such for quite sometime now, is to also be taken as vote. Just to show you I care,,,,awwwwww Quote:
Like I said man, I can't control the way you feel, in fact, after throughly reading this, I could care less anymore. Your a load to deal with, both emotionally, mentally, and otherwise. This is certainly my last post as I think I have read enough........had I read this one first, there wouldn't have beeen any of the other prior ones I took time on tonight. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by sexydexy on May 21st, 2006, 5:34am In regards to why I called philosophy bullshit: It's not so much classical philosophers that get me but more the modern ones like Foucault. Yuck. Seems like in our society today, the whole concept of "life" is thought about too much without ever really living it. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by DirkDiggler on May 21st, 2006, 8:27am I could take the time to interject my thoughts on this entire bunch of crap from all the posts above, but I really do feel like getting in the middle of it. I can say that it truly a bunch of BS. However, I will respond to one quote: Quote:
[smiley=wave.gif] See ya and best of luck to you. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by BarnabyWilde on May 21st, 2006, 7:05pm What?!?! No more posts with the word BEE in it, or crazy 2nd grade banter? Darn. Makes me wish Bouve was back with his man-love for Ricky Williams. ;) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by StegRock on May 21st, 2006, 8:05pm on 05/21/06 at 05:34:46, sexydexy wrote:
You're going to love this, sd,... from a philosophy graduate student, no less... I AGREE (at least with the essence of what you're saying). [smiley=yes.gif] Your distinctions would surely need to be teased out quite a bit more, though. What is it that is meant by classical philosophers? (That's a rhetorical question. I mean... I'm not really looking to push you on this, bro. It's just that your commentary is sweeping and, therefore, comes off just a bit presumptous. I know I wouldn't want to be pushed on political science questions, and I have an undergraduate degree in it (granted, from 12 years ago).) There's a TON in between the classical philosophers and Michel Foucault and a whole nother tradition going on on the other side of the planet. For that matter, there are numerous traditions within the ancient Greco-Roman "classical" tradition. Foucault is just one dude, a dude I've never even read, mind you, so don't know squat about. That said, of course, I know what you're talking about. The whole modern branch of study of analytical metaphysics is a nightmare, delving ever more deeply into the "UNreal". Not that he's all bad, but Descartes really was the turning point... if you want to pinpoint one. Anyway, you are surely onto something with your general observation. [smiley=thumbsup.gif] (I would just backoff on going as far as making the sweeping and pretentious claim that philosophy is bullshit a) because it's unnecessary, and b) because you probably don't have the ammo to back such a maverick claim up with people who do know what they're talking about. I mean, case in point,... reflecting this back on myself,... I am very suspicious of the direction the field of computer science is going in these days... and taking us, but I wouldn't just go calling the "whole field" bullshit just for the simple fact that I really don't know the details. But, I would feel comfortable saying that I think that it is going in the wrong direction and taking us to some degree along with it.) What you're intuition is onto... There is a crucial distinction between studying philosophy and doing philosophy, between writing about philosophy and writing philosophy, between giving lip-service to philosophy and developing and living according to (one's) philosophy, between philosophy as just a mind fuck and philosophy for self-cultivation, and WAY TOO MUCH emphasis has been given to the former of those conjuncts in the late tradition... That's why "philosophy" as a "discipline" has been dying for years. But, there is a core of people these days, like myself, in graduate studies in philosophy who are trying to change the tide. We believe philosophy is of and for the people, not just for a stuffy bunch hiding up in their ivory towers to pontificate (to each other) about. It's not an easy row to hoe, though, both in the academic world... and, as is evidenced by the reaction I often provoke in discussions like these, with (the) real people (I'm trying to bring it (back) to... in a real environment of sorts and in relatively small doses, mind you). Philosophy, which is the most fundamental pursuit of man, involving the cultivation of his reason and the understanding of emotions, that which make us the species we are, and confronts the key questions about being, nature - human and organic, reason, ethics, religion, etc., answers to which we crave, (and, therefore, is a "discipline" everybody wants to act like they know all about) has been hijacked by these stuffed-shirt, nerdy academicians. In fact, again, the mission of bringing it back to the people is part of what I am up to here. Though I welcome the prospect of being a philosophy professor someday, I try to live my philosophy and look forward to bringing my philosophy and education therein to the other aspects of my life, including my professional pursuits. In any event, you're not totally off-base with your claim, sd. I would just temper the language and not be unnecessarily closed-minded about it, cutting off a possible path of understanding that is open to you as long as you haven't closed it off and, then, are open to it. ... Now, this all brings me to Jeff's post here... on 05/19/06 at 23:58:31, Philly wrote:
(Read in a playful tone, not a sarcastic one... Really, this is going to be totally positive...) What are you talking about, Jeff? You are taking part in one right here right now... Again, it's the "how" of the discussion, not (just) the "what". This discussion, in which I've barely brought in any philosophy proper, per se, and at least only as cosmetics, in any event (I think I mentioned Socrates and Emerson once each and neither instance spoke to the heart of the debate), is steeped in philosophy as in philosophical concerns and reflection (as Bill even points out,... as being a negative that is). ... In any event,... your major wasn't, your field isn't philosophy. So what! Don't sell yourself short, man! You're a thinking man,... a deep-thinking man. I KNOW that! It's obvious. That's not to say the skill doesn't need cultivation and honing, and you couldn't improve your critical thinking skills (everybody can, INCLUDING ME; it's an ongoing life project; it's the cross we have to bear as rational animals; I just happen to be steeping myself in it)... The way you do it is by participating in/fighting through these philosophical discussions... as you do! |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by sexydexy on May 21st, 2006, 11:55pm You wouldn't be far off in the computer science/bullshit argument as far as a college degree either. Computer science can't teach creativity and that's what it takes when making software albeit not so much in other parts of IT. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by DUKE0313 on May 22nd, 2006, 7:29am What the heck has happened here???? ?.?.? A guy takes a break for awhile and comes back to find such a mess. I don' wanna leave the GRIDIRON... I like it here!!! [smiley=bawling.gif] Killer, Can't you and Steg get together and work this out like gentlemen? You and I have had MANY, MANY disagreements over the years, but we've always managed to talk it over and settle our differences cordially. I've gotta get back to work now...you boys play nice! |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by DirkDiggler on May 22nd, 2006, 4:44pm on 05/22/06 at 07:29:24, DUKE0313 wrote:
Duke-- You don't have to leave. ;D Stay awhile, have a beer, and relax...... [smiley=alcoholic.gif] |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by StegRock on May 22nd, 2006, 4:53pm Dukester,... I don't know... However, seein' your post (along with the relatively reasonable exchange sd and I, who have had our little tiffs in the past, have had amidst this) is making me feel bad... :-[ Anyway, just for the record,... especially since people have been asking me this behind the scenes,... it wasn't (really) me who deleted the "Insane Gang" board... Bill did. During the wee hours of Saturday into Sunday and early Sunday morning (EST), by going thread-by-thread he widdled it down from the roughly 190 topics and 5,100 posts to just 60 or so topics and 191 (I remember that exactly) posts. From what I could tell, he did it from front in, deleting all the most recent posts and working backwards, AND from rear in, deleting all the oldest posts and working forward (I think... He might have just done the former). Anyway, what was left was this awkward bunch of threads that started sometime mid 2004 and with the most recent post being, I believe, in October of 2005. When I came in on Sunday afternoon (EST) and saw what he did, I went ahead and saved him the rest of the work and deleted this now awkwardly left board. HOWEVER, just in case there was any critical information on those threads he left, I made sure to download them all, first, one-by-one (time-consuming tedium if I may say) since there weren't that many left. I did this so I would know each and every one was individually okay and accessible locally on my computer. I, then, also backed up the whole site through my control panel at Hostica. So,... as for restoration of the board, that's all I can guarantee. I could put in a trouble-ticket, and if I did so soon, there might be a glimmer of hope of restoring the whole board. BUT, PLEASE UNDERSTAND that that would be a BIG-time bitch for me! I don't know what the thread numbers were for all the ones Bill deleted. First, what I would have to do is either download all the threads, which would be the safest thing for me to do, but takes forever (like two hours and I have to be near the computer the whole time because the download process times out every so often), or individually download all the threads that have been created or added to over the past "x" days according to what date Hostica might have a backup for me. Then, I would ask the Hostica techs to restore the whole threads folder to the nearest backup to two days ago they have (if they have anything that is), and then I would have to go in and restore all that was created in between (another time-consuming nightmare). Point being, the prospect of complete restoration isn't good... on multiple fronts. If Hostica doesn't have anything, then that's that for that, and I have a sneaking suspicion they won't because of the aforementioned global backup I made (the irony). Frankly speaking, I'd rather be spared of the task, in any case. Anyway, I just wanted to get that all out on the table, so you all know the bigger picture,... nay,... the whole picture, ;) here, mind you, not that I think this is necessarily the best direction for us to go in. I just feel bad when I visit my site and the first post I read is Duke's. :'( Even though the way Bill acted here was reminscent of the SBFFL's and DBFFL's unequivocal, very hurtful stormy departures, Duke's sentiment,... again, along with the reasonable exchanges sd and I have had here,... and the silence from the rest of the "Insane Gangbangers" are very different than when the SBFFL, DBFFL, and even the QFL to some degree, went "storming" out of here back in the day. That kind of gives me hope. In any event, even as Bill stated on his post down on the old "Insane Gang" league board, which I quoted somewhere up above, wherever the "Insane Gang" winds up, each of you as individuals are surely still welcome to be a part of "the Gridiron", including Bill. Anyway,... [smiley=stilldunno.gif] |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by StegRock on May 22nd, 2006, 5:02pm Sorry, guys,... I got to digress from the digression [smiley=uh.gif] and quickly use this thread for its "intended purpose" again. From "The REAL Feed": New commish, NFL in L.A. on agenda at owners' meeting (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/story?columnist=clayton_john&id=2453590&campaign=rss&source=NFLHeadlines) ESPN: NFL (22.05.2006 16:01) Among the hot topics at the owners spring meeting are replacing the commissioner and determining a stadium home in L.A. Mind yous, there is info in this article about the Reggie Bush jersey number issue, so this post is not entirely off the beaten track... [smiley=stars.gif] ... [smiley=rollinwithlaughter.gif] |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by steelkings on May 23rd, 2006, 6:47am I have a sticky note on my CPU reminding me of my own special rules for engagement in heated debates on this web site. 1. Do not involve yourself in topics or discussions that contain the word philosophy. 2. Use the causion of a duck in a Florida retention pond when encountering words with silent letters! This brings me to the ugly question regaurding the quote below Quote:
Is that the dude who made the swinging clock ? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by StegRock on May 23rd, 2006, 6:51am on 05/23/06 at 06:47:03, steelkings wrote:
Oh, brother... [smiley=gimmeabreak.gif] |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by StegRock on May 23rd, 2006, 8:10pm Back to the thread "topic" again, but related to this digression of ours... From "The REAL Feed": Reggie Bush won't get his No. 5 this year (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/football/nfl/wires/05/23/2020.ap.fbn.saints.bush.number.0387/index.html) SI.com: NFL (23.05.2006 19:03) Not saying he won't be, but now it will be interesting to see how he shows his "generosity" with "this" now off the table... |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by MordecaiCourage on May 23rd, 2006, 11:08pm I still say he does something. Probably not anything that resembles his offer though. You are right about one thing though...what would keep him from doing the same thing with his proceeds from jersey sales no matter what number he wears? This really is interesting now that I think about it. [smiley=thinking.gif] |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by StegRock on May 25th, 2006, 5:29am Reggie claims he's going to follow through on his pledge regardless of what number he wears... We'll wait and see, but that is a good preliminary indication, for sure... [smiley=thumbsup.gif] From "The REAL Feed": Reggie Bush Can't Wear 5 (http://www.pfcritics.com/news101/ReggieBushCantWear5.php) Pro Football Critics (25.05.2006 04:00) Although it was for a good cause, the NFL has declined Reggis Bush's request to wear number five next season for the New Orleans Saints. He was No. 5 in college at USC, but Atlanta general manager Rich McKay recommended against his request."Nobody is comfortable that an exception be made to the ... |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by Callie on May 28th, 2006, 10:22am This explains a lot: Representatives fail to serve best interests of Reggie Bush (http://www.signonsandiego.com/sports/nfl/20060528-9999-1s28trotter.html) Union-Tribune(5/28/06) It's now starting to look as if Team Bush is equally negligent when it comes to protecting the client's best interests. Scroll down to this part: The saddest part of this situation is that the two people who should have been looking out for Bush's best interests - his parents - are the ones who helped create much of this mess. They not only surrendered too much control to Ornstein, who forged a relationship with Bush after hiring him as an intern last summer, but also allegedly violated NCAA rules by taking improper benefits from a man seeking to form a business partnership with their son. The veracity of the claim can be debated from now until the NCAA concludes its investigation, but if various witnesses are to be believed, stepdad LaMar Griffin was walking around with his hand extended in every direction, eager and willing to take handouts tied to Bush's celebrity. This isn't about the number 5 mess, but I figured this was the best place to post this. It all kind of hangs together.... |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by StegRock on Jun 20th, 2006, 12:40am Here's an unpleasant story related to the whole "jersey-number" aspect of this issue... From "The REAL Feed": Otto Rips Bently's Request (http://football.about.com/b/a/257718.htm) About.com: Football (19.06.2006 19:39) Last month, a request by the Saints' Reggie Bush for deviation from the NFL's uniform numbering system was denied by the league. Lost in the hype surrounding Bush's quest... It involves a [smiley=warrior.gif] Raider [smiley=skull.gif] Great, Callie... [smiley=nownow.gif] Who'd a thunk? ;) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by Callie on Jun 20th, 2006, 11:53am Here's a good article on the quest for jersey numbers: As Reggie Bush can attest, the NFL can put the squeeze on a player's hopes of wearing a certain jersey number (http://www.signonsandiego.com/sports/nfl/20060618-9999-mz1s18number.html) SignOnSanDiego.com (06/18/06) Edgerrin James, Charles Woodson, LeCharles Bentley and LaDainian Tomlinson were among a sizable group of players that also favored tweaking the system, because a positive vote would move them one step closer to being able to wear numbers that have special significance to them. and Under the league's current system, players must select numbers based on their position. The ranges include: 1-9 for quarterbacks, kickers and punters; 10-19 for quarterbacks, kickers, punters and receivers; 20-49 for running backs and defensive backs; 50-59 for centers and linebackers; 60-79 for guards, offensive tackles and defensive linemen; 80-89 for receivers and tight ends; and 90-99 for defensive linemen and linebackers. A numbering system has been in place in the NFL since 1952, with the current format taking effect in 1973. The goal at the time was to make player identification easier for spectators and officials, who were having issues with things like deciphering eligible receivers and illegal formations. --- In the age of the DVR, do you really think it's a good idea for the officials to have to deal with an inconsistent numbering system? As for Jim Otto and his comments on the number OO, ask an old Chiefs fan what he thinks of Otto's sense of diplomacy. ;D |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by MordecaiCourage on Jun 20th, 2006, 12:42pm on 06/20/06 at 00:40:23, StegRock wrote:
Wow...that is pretty arrogant of Jim Otto. As great as he might have been, he is not who we old-school Houston Oiler fans think of when we see the "00" http://re2.mm-a1.yimg.com/image/242506347 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by StegRock on Apr 1st, 2008, 8:35pm The league is entertaining and passing lots of rules pertaining to "head",... [smiley=bj.gif] I mean,... [smiley=blush.gif] ... ;) "the head"... [smiley=helmethead.gif] according to "The REAL Feed": Passed... [smiley=victory.gif] D pulls even with O... NFL approves helmet headsets for defense (http://www.sportsnetwork.com/merge/tsnform.aspx?c=sportsnetwork&page=nfl/news/news.aspx?id=4142136) The Sports Network: NFL (01.04.2008 17:19) Under review... [smiley=uponreview.gif] A hairy situation... Hairy situation: Players decry buttoned-up rule change (http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/2008-03-31-meetings-notebook_N.htm?csp=34) USA TODAY: Sports (01.04.2008 00:19) Chiefs coach Herm Edwards is a realist. He knows a league proposal regarding players' hair to be voted on this week at the NFL's ... |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by StegRock on Apr 8th, 2008, 2:00am It looks like the proverbial "they" are hearing the grumblings... [smiley=thumbsup.gif] The NFL Network may be coming more affordably... according to this LOCAL source currently topping "The REAL Feed": Owners argue for NFL Network (http://www.thestate.com/sports/story/368914.html) The State: Sports (08.04.2008 01:16) The NFL Network should be available to cable subscribers in South Carolina and for a similar price as 24-hour golf programming, the owner of Carolina Panthers will argue today in the S.C. Legislature.Mark Richardson, who owns the Panthers, will appear before a House Labor, Commerce and Industry ... |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by StegRock on Apr 9th, 2008, 4:49pm Grumblings and infighting in the NFLPA... according to this picture painted on "The REAL Feed": Players divided in bid to oust NFLPA chief Upshaw (http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/2008-04-08-nflpa_N.htm?csp=34) USA TODAY: Sports (08.04.2008 20:28) Acknowledging a push by veteran Baltimore Ravens kicker Matt Stover to replace NFL Players Association executive director Gene ... Stover's message: Kick out Upshaw (http://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/football/bal-sp.nflpa09apr09,0,5110863.story?track=rss) SunSpot.net - Sports (09.04.2008 07:10) Report: Raven's e-mail calls for new union chief Matt Stover , the Ravens' veteran place-kicker and the team's representative to the NFL Players Association, has urged his fellow reps that longtime executive director Gene Up... NFL | NFLPA president Kevin Mawae opposes effort to replace Gene Upshaw (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/seahawks/2004336096_nfl09.html?syndication=rss) The Seattle Times: Seahawks (09.04.2008 07:19) Acknowledging an effort by Baltimore Ravens kicker Matt Stover to oust Gene Upshaw, the NFL Players Association executive director, by March... |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by StegRock on Jun 27th, 2008, 7:51pm I didn't even know that this was an issue... ?.?.? From "The REAL Feed": NFL commissioner dismisses fears Bills will relocate (http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Football/NFL/2008/06/27/6009421-cp.html) SLAM! Sports NFL (27.06.2008 18:31) NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell dismissed fears the Buffalo Bills will relocate to Toronto, adding he believes the franchise's future is more secure with the additional revenue it generates from playing an annual game north of the border. If anybody knows about the details on this and could fill me in, I'd appreciate it! I've had no clue there was an issue of the Bills leaving town. [smiley=idontknow.gif] |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by StegRock on Jul 1st, 2008, 3:39am A-men!!! Currently topping "The REAL Feed": Goodell: NFL rookie pay scale 'ridiculous' (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/football/nfl/wires/06/27/2020.ap.fbn.goodell.rookie.pay.2nd.ld.writethru.0712/index.html) SI.com: NFL (27.06.2008 21:31) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by StegRock on Jul 8th, 2008, 4:48pm The NFL gettin' the fuzz [smiley=policeman.gif] in on this sting [smiley=bee.gif]operation... [smiley=hellyeafunny.gif] From "The REAL Feed": NFL hires Pennsylvania police chief for strategic security job (http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Football/NFL/2008/07/08/6099541-ap.html) SLAM! Sports NFL (08.07.2008 14:31) NEW YORK - The NFL hired Pennsylvania's police chief to make sure there are no more signal-stealing scandals like the one involving the New England Patriots last season. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by StegRock on Jul 21st, 2008, 12:58am Do NFL preseason rosters need expanding??? This is the question of this piece rolling off "The REAL Feed": Kirwan: Is 80 really enough? (http://www.nfl.com/news/story?id=09000d5d8095a544&template=with-video&confirm=true) NFL.com (20.07.2008 00:16) As training camps open, players are bound to go down with injuries. However, with fewer options on rosters, depth could become an issue. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by StegRock on Aug 21st, 2008, 10:27am Upshaw passes... From "The REAL Feed": NFLPA director Upshaw, 63, dies of cancer (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3545830&campaign=rss&source=NFLHeadlines) ESPN: NFL (21.08.2008 09:10) Hall of Fame football player and longtime NFL Players Association executive director Gene Upshaw has died, Clear Channel Online reported. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by Philly on Aug 21st, 2008, 10:54am on 08/21/08 at 10:27:08, StegRock wrote:
This came as a bit of a surprise to me. I developed a bit of a friendship (not an active one, mind you) with him through some work I did with the NFLPA. I know he was facing some rough times with members of the union questioning his leadership of late. I wish his family the very best during this difficult time and hope that the fine folks at the NFLPA are able to cope with his loss. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by StegRock on Sep 3rd, 2008, 11:52pm NFL intent on taking its product international,... but this time keeping it a little closer to home,... and it's a potential move endorsed by Dan Marino. From "The REAL Feed": Marino thinks NFL a fit for Toronto (http://www.globesports.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080903.wspt-nfl-marino-03/GSStory/GlobeSportsFootball/?page=rss&id=RTGAM.20080903.wspt-nfl-marino-03) The Globe And Mail: Sports (03.09.2008 23:22) No doubt Toronto could handle an NFL team,' former Dolphins star says |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by StegRock on Sep 12th, 2008, 3:29am The search is on... From "The REAL Feed": NFLPA starts identifying Upshaw replacements (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3582963&campaign=rss&source=NFLHeadlines) ESPN: NFL (11.09.2008 21:31) The NFL Players' Association plans to hire a national search firm, the first step in the process to select a new executive director after Gene Upshaw died last month. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by StegRock on Sep 15th, 2008, 8:03pm Fall out from the Chargers-Broncos game this weekend... from "The REAL Feed": NFL to look into changing inadvertent whistle rule (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3589407&campaign=rss&source=NFLHeadlines) ESPN: NFL (15.09.2008 15:49) The NFL will look into the inadvertent whistle rule that required officials to give the ball back to Denver in the final seconds of Sunday's game with San Diego. You guys know how diehard of a Broncos fan I am. [smiley=broncofan.gif] However, after the first-quarter replay-booth debacle and then the ATROCIOUS call on the Cutler fumble, which should have effectively ended the game in a victory for San Diego, even I was sort of rooting for them to get into field-range on their last 30-second drive to, at least, have a chance to win. This one didn't feel good,... like a win, at all. This comes from a guy who counts EVERY stroke on the golf course [smiley=golf.gif] during a personal outing, mind you, but,... really, we didN'T win that game. :-/ |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by StegRock on Sep 16th, 2008, 2:10am on 09/15/08 at 20:03:49, StegRock wrote:
The introductory paragraph/sentence of this article reads, "Ed Hochuli's acknowledgement that he erred on a call late in Sunday's San Diego Chargers-Denver Broncos game will mean lower grades for one of the NFL's highest-profile referees." Why is the problem here framed in terms of Hochuli's acknowledgement? Why is it that the "acknowledgement" is seen as the problem (at least, that's the way the sentence is worded)? That's not AT ALL where he went wrong. He got the call wrong. That he acknowledged his error, moreover on the spot on national TV during the game, was actually a STAND-UP move. YET, we get all morally indignant and act all surprised when people lie to get out of trouble. [smiley=gimmeabreak.gif] What an ethical mess we have in America... It's a knot unlikely to be easily untied. :-/ |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by StegRock on Sep 19th, 2008, 2:16am on 09/16/08 at 02:10:00, StegRock wrote:
Vis-a-vis my complaint above, I am happy to see the "positive" turn the media rhetoric toward Hochuli has taken over the last couple days, specifically as regards his taking responsibility. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by StegRock on Oct 5th, 2008, 3:22pm Al Davis [smiley=raider.gif] IS an NFL "issue"... according to "The REAL Feed": Goodell ready to act on Raiders 'unfortunate' situation (http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/2008-10-05-goodell-comments_N.htm?csp=34) USA TODAY: Sports (05.10.2008 14:52) NFL commissioner Roger Goodell has not received a grievance from former Raiders coach Lane Kiffin in the wake of his bitter split ... |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by StegRock on Oct 25th, 2008, 4:46am Uh-oh... Could this be the beginning of a doping scandal of MLB proportions? From "The REAL Feed": Report: Several NFL players violate steroid policy (http://www.sportsnetwork.com/merge/tsnform.aspx?c=sportsnetwork&page=nfl/news/news.aspx?id=4187062) The Sports Network: NFL (24.10.2008 16:34) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by StegRock on Oct 28th, 2008, 6:57pm Follow-up coverage of the steroids non-scandal... on "The REAL Feed": Steroids in the NFL, but no steroid scandals (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/football/nfl/wires/10/28/2020.ap.fbn.tim.dahlberg.102808.0816/index.html) SI.com: NFL (28.10.2008 02:52) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by StegRock on Oct 31st, 2008, 12:45am Pro Bowl [smiley=footballsmiley.gif] in Hawaii [smiley=palmtree.gif] under discussion... according to "The REAL Feed": NFL in Pro Bowl negotiations with Hawaii officials (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3674139&campaign=rss&source=NFLHeadlines) ESPN: NFL (30.10.2008 23:10) Hawaii tourism officials say they are in negotiations to extend the state's contract to host the Pro Bowl. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by StegRock on Oct 31st, 2008, 11:49pm This would be good for NFL fans... From "The REAL Feed": Air it out: Senators want more NFL games on TV (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/football/nfl/wires/10/29/2080.ap.fbn.nfl.tv.2nd.ld.writethru.310/index.html) SI.com: NFL (29.10.2008 14:34) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by StegRock on Nov 2nd, 2008, 4:52am on 10/25/08 at 19:02:45, StegRock wrote:
Food for thought... [smiley=pizza.gif] If Mike Singletary were given such a contract, would that be seen as a violation of the league's minority-hiring rule??? Uh-oh,... conundrum... [smiley=stars.gif] I mean,... (I suppose) it wouldn't be. [smiley=uh.gif] But, does that really seem right? ?.?.? Now, it's beyond assurance of consideration and receiving interviews; ethnicity gives you a very REAL advantage in contract negotiations (at least, vis-a-vis flexibility and the possibilities). Is that the spirit, or that's the spirit!?!? [smiley=shrug.gif] Oh, the tangled webs we and God Law weave... |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by StegRock on Nov 20th, 2008, 4:39pm Another Thursday goes by without football in the Steggie household... :'( From "The REAL Feed": FCC deadline in Comcast, NFL dispute pushed back (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/football/nfl/wires/11/20/2080.ap.fbn.fcc.nfl.comcast.dispute.0351/index.html) SI.com: NFL (20.11.2008 14:13) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by StegRock on Nov 28th, 2008, 1:59pm I'm a traditionalist when it comes to this kind of stuff,... BUT I'm starting to think this needs to happen. From a LOCAL source on "The REAL Feed (http://www.fantasyfootballer.com/newsstand.htm)": Rob Parker: No more Lions in showcase (http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081128/OPINION03/811280369/1126/rss14) Detroit Lions (28.11.2008 01:28) DETROIT -- Enough already. The NFL should take away the Thanksgiving Day game from the Lions. And next season wouldn't be too soon. I'm afraid to say... [smiley=turkey.gif] - [smiley=lion.gif] = Better([smiley=turkey.gif] + [smiley=footballsmiley.gif]) ... [smiley=yes.gif] |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by StegRock on Dec 28th, 2008, 11:27pm And this is coming from a Broncos fan... :-/ on 09/15/08 at 20:03:49, StegRock wrote:
Tonight justice was served! [smiley=yes.gif] |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by StegRock on Dec 30th, 2008, 2:54am Personally, this bums me out... From "The REAL Feed": AP source: 2010 Pro Bowl will be in Miami (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/football/nfl/wires/12/29/2020.ap.fbn.pro.bowl.miami.0214/index.html) SI.com: NFL (29.12.2008 16:43) First, I guess Super Bowl participants are going to be playing in it, which would suck. Second, and more importantly, there is my ties to Hawaii, where they LOVE football, and my understanding of the reality that this was the only piece of the NFL pie they got. It was a way for them to feel part of things. But, also, I rather liked the anticlimactic end to the season it provided. Not everything needs to be Americano high drama. It was a way to wind down after all the Super Bowl hubbub and a time to reflect on a season gone by. It is like that late-night cup of hot chocolate before going to bed. In any event, they love football in Hawaii, and I think it is an unnecessary move to take the Pro Bowl away from them. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by StegRock on Dec 30th, 2008, 6:09pm on 12/30/08 at 02:54:36, StegRock wrote:
Confirmed... :-/ on "The REAL Feed": NFL confirms 2010 Pro Bowl will be in Miami (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/football/nfl/wires/12/30/2020.ap.fbn.pro.bowl.miami.0321/index.html) SI.com: NFL (30.12.2008 17:12) I think this just stinks! [smiley=thumbsdown.gif] |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by StegRock on Feb 25th, 2009, 4:02pm News that is neither good nor bad,... but "telling"... [smiley=no.gif] From "The REAL Feed": NFL commish Goodell takes 20 percent pay cut (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/football/nfl/02/25/goodell.ap/index.html?eref=si_nfl) SI.com: NFL (25.02.2009 13:31) NEW YORK (AP) -- NFL commissioner Roger Goodell has taken a 20 percent pay cut and the league staff has been trimmed by 15 percent because of a reeling economy. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by StegRock on Feb 26th, 2009, 4:42pm An "issue" for ALL Americans... NFL execs take pay cuts... NFL players...??? From this LOCAL source on "The REAL Feed": NFL free agency: Weak economic climate not conducive to big-dollar deals (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2009/feb/25/nfl-free-agency-weak-economic-climate-not-to-big/?partner=RSS) Rocky Mountain News: Broncos & NFL (25.02.2009 23:22) Free agency should begin fast and furious, as usual, Thursday night. But it might then become slow and painful to those players not involved in the initial signing spree. If new Broncos coach Josh McDaniels is to be believed, Denver won't be shy about spending owner Pat Bowlen's money in hopes of... |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by StegRock on Feb 27th, 2009, 3:37am What a clusterfuck... The NFL just couldn't leave well enough alone... From "The REAL Feed": Hawaii says no to NFL's proposal for state to host Pro Bowl in 2011, 2012 (http://www.nfl.com/probowl/story?id=09000d5d80ef56c1&template=without-video-with-comments&confirm=true) NFL.com (26.02.2009 21:32) The Hawaii Tourism Authority board has rejected the NFL's proposal to return the Pro Bowl to the islands in 2011 and '12. I hope dickin' around with the Pro Bowl wasn't the first of more bad "executive" decisions to come as the league and the players' union plan to head into negotiations in 2010. :-/ |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by StegRock on Mar 1st, 2009, 6:59pm Players missing at sea... according to "The REAL Feed": 2 NFL players aboard boat missing off Florida (http://www.iht.com/articles/2009/03/01/sports/lions1.php) IHT: Sports (01.03.2009 15:58) Detroit Lions defensive end Corey Smith and Oakland Raiders linebacker Marquis Cooper were among four boaters missing Sunday off Florida's Gulf Coast, the Coast Guard and Smith's agent said. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by StegRock on Mar 2nd, 2009, 7:39pm There's still hope for a return of the Pro Bowl to Hawaii... according to "The REAL Feed": Hawaii to vote again on bringing back Pro Bowl (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3947104&campaign=rss&source=NFLHeadlines) ESPN: NFL (02.03.2009 18:16) Hawaii will vote again on a proposal to bring the Pro Bowl back to the state. It still doesn't makes sense, though, to have it the week before the Super Bowl. There will be no participants from the league's two top teams. How dumb!?!? [smiley=gimmeabreak.gif] Sometimes there is a wisdom to the way things have been being done. This is one of those cases notwithstanding the change in real-world circumstances. Hopefully the NFL will wake up and see the light of day... on the beaches of Waikiki! [smiley=fingerscrossed.gif] |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by StegRock on Mar 8th, 2009, 4:13pm Goodell himself under investigation... according to "The REAL Feed": Attorney seeking oversight on Goodell's rulings (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/football/nfl/03/08/nfl.suspensions.ap/index.html?eref=si_nfl) SI.com: NFL (08.03.2009 12:43) Sports attorney David Cornwell is challenging the NFL's right to discipline players by proposing to appoint an independent arbitrator to review -- and have the power to change -- rulings made by the commissioner. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by StegRock on Mar 13th, 2009, 9:20pm This still hasn't quite yet gone away... From "The REAL Feed": Ex-Patriots video assistant meets Goodell, Specter (http://dwb.fresnobee.com/24hour/sports/football/nfl/story/3881115p-13542129c.html) Fresno Bee: Football (13.03.2009 10:55) NEW YORK (AP) Former Patriots video assistant Matt Walsh disclosed no new rules violations in the Spygate scandal during his meeting with NFL commissioner Roger Goodell or in the tapes that the league released Tuesday. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by StegRock on Mar 16th, 2009, 3:41pm New NFLPA head has been elected, and, boy, how much do we football fans hope things come 2010 can get worked out without hitch... [smiley=pray.gif] Currently atop "The REAL Feed": Smith eager to talk with Goodell about collective bargaining agreement (http://www.nfl.com/news/story?id=09000d5d80f4941d&template=without-video&confirm=true) NFL.com (16.03.2009 14:16) DeMaurice Smith, the NFLPA's new executive director, says he will reach out to NFL commissioner Roger Goodell as soon as possible to begin negotiating a new collective bargaining agreement. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by StegRock on Mar 19th, 2009, 2:12am "Officially" dealin', if you will, ;) with the Hochuli situation... in the rulebook. [smiley=RIF.gif] From "The REAL Feed": Competition committee aims to change 'Hochuli rule,' others (http://www.nfl.com/news/story?id=09000d5d80f545c6&template=with-video-with-comments&confirm=true) NFL.com (18.03.2009 21:31) The NFL will look into changing instant-replay rules in hopes of avoiding a repeat of the blown call that helped cost the San Diego Chargers a game last season. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by StegRock on Mar 22nd, 2009, 8:38pm OT not getting overhauled this year... Currently atop "The REAL Feed": Overtime won't be hot topic at league meetings; player safety will (http://www.nfl.com/news/story?id=09000d5d80f64e17&template=without-video-with-comments&confirm=true) NFL.com (22.03.2009 18:52) Overtime isn't likely to be discussed at the league meetings that began Sunday after the NFL competition committee came up with no proposals to change it. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by StegRock on Mar 24th, 2009, 4:02pm And, safety did rule the day at the NFL owners' meeting... Currently atop "The REAL Feed": NFL owners pass four player safety rules for 2009 season (http://www.nfl.com/news/story?id=09000d5d80f6c090&template=without-video-with-comments&confirm=true) NFL.com (24.03.2009 13:52) NFL owners have passed four player safety rules for next season. One of them is the elimination of blindside helmet-to-helmet blocks. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by StegRock on Mar 25th, 2009, 6:48pm From "The REAL Feed", more stuff voted on... Owners approve changes to replay review, draft order (http://www.nfl.com/news/story?id=09000d5d80f71fc8&template=without-video-with-comments&confirm=true) NFL.com (25.03.2009 17:16) Ed Hochuli and other NFL referees can rest easier after team owners passed a rule Wednesday allowing video replays on a loose ball that could be either a fumble or an incomplete pass. ... and to be voted on... if the commish has his say... Goodell wants NFL season to be 17 or 18 games (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/football/nfl/03/25/season.ap/index.html?eref=si_nfl) SI.com: NFL (25.03.2009 16:52) DANA POINT, Calif. (AP) -- Roger Goodell wants the NFL regular season to expand to 17 or 18 games. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by StegRock on Apr 21st, 2009, 1:28am This is something that needs to get done... [smiley=yes.gif] From "The REAL Feed": Rookie Salary Reform (http://kan.scout.com/2/858410.html) Scout.com > NFL > National Football League Team (20.04.2009 23:28) There's some thought out there that most NFL teams are afraid to trade into the top of the draft this year. So what happens if the Chiefs can't find a trade partner? Scott Pioli and company will draft somebody third overall. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by StegRock on Apr 24th, 2009, 10:22pm Considering elongating the season... From "The REAL Feed": Commissioner Goodell outlines proposal for lengthened regular season (http://www.nfl.com/news/story?id=09000d5d80ff474f&template=without-video-with-comments&confirm=true) NFL.com (24.04.2009 17:16) NFL team owners are expected to receive a proposal, perhaps as soon as next month,that would eliminate two preseason games and push the Super Bowl back to Presidents Day weekend. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by StegRock on Apr 29th, 2009, 1:34am Here is a VERY real NFL issue... Currently atop "The REAL Feed": Analysis: If Brady earns less than Stafford, system is broken (http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/2009-04-28-salary-issue_N.htm?csp=34) USA TODAY: Sports (29.04.2009 00:34) Before the first day of the NFL draft, Indianapolis Colts president Bill Polian was asked if he would trade a middle-of-the-first-round ... This is particularly poignant at the moment given the economic state of the union. :-/ |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by StegRock on May 3rd, 2009, 4:37pm If I were an NFL exec, I wouldn't go here... with the league's crown jewel... From "The REAL Feed": Report: Super Bowl could be staged in London (http://www.sportsnetwork.com/merge/tsnform.aspx?c=sportsnetwork&page=nfl/news/news.aspx?id=4229882) The Sports Network: NFL (03.05.2009 10:40) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by StegRock on May 12th, 2009, 9:26pm A handful of league-oriented issues rolling [smiley=rollin.gif] off "The REAL Feed": Delaware now 4th state to allow sports betting (http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/news/story?id=4162225&campaign=rss&source=NFLHeadlines) ESPN: NFL (12.05.2009 20:34) Delaware became the fourth state to allow sports betting on Tuesday. Altered pension plans could gut NFL coaching staffs (http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/2009-05-12-coaches-pensions_N.htm?csp=34) USA TODAY: Sports (12.05.2009 20:34) Bill Polian has a strong hunch, but still isn't 100% sure whether the prolific Indianapolis Colts offense will begin breaking ... Smith finalizes contract as NFLPA's new executive director (http://www.nfl.com/news/story?id=09000d5d8104643e&template=without-video-with-comments&confirm=true) NFL.com (12.05.2009 15:17) New NFL Players Association executivedirector DeMaurice Smith says his contract has been completed. NFL considering sending another regular-season game overseas in 2010 (http://www.nfl.com/news/story?id=09000d5d8104650e&template=without-video-with-comments&confirm=true) NFL.com (12.05.2009 15:17) The NFL is considering adding a second regular-season game overseas in time for the 2010 season. League commissioner Roger Goodell said Tuesday that the success of the games at London's Wembley Stadium the past two seasons has fueled the discussions. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by StegRock on May 13th, 2009, 4:13pm A couple more league concerns rolling [smiley=rollin.gif] off "The REAL Feed": Ross Tucker: Secret surgery shines light on NFL problem (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writers/ross_tucker/05/13/walker/index.html?eref=si_nfl) SI.com: NFL (13.05.2009 13:34) Due to mistrust issues with team doctors, many players seek out their own medical advice. One player recently went a bit too far, says SI.com's Ross Tucker. Players union head vague on StarCaps issues (http://min.scout.com/2/864631.html) Scout.com > NCAA > Division I-A Football (13.05.2009 08:51) New NFL Players Association boss DeMaurice Smith visited with Vikings players and media on Tuesday, but he didn⤙t get into specifics on the pending StarCaps case with Pat and Kevin Williams. Most questions were responded to with more questions. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by StegRock on May 18th, 2009, 3:05am The [smiley=borg.gif] league, the [smiley=helmethead.gif] players, the [smiley=sophisticate.gif] owners, the [smiley=flagged.gif] referees, and now the [smiley=coach.gif] coaches "embroiling"... [smiley=fumin.gif] Who's the next group we got to worry about pleasing...??? Eh-hem,... the [smiley=towelwave.gif] FANS! I'm sure while all the aforementioned are gettin' handouts... [smiley=money.gif], we [smiley=bawling.gif] will get handed the... [smiley=tp.gif] See yous in 2010... :-/ But, I digress... Currently from atop "The REAL Feed": Official: Colts coaches retired due to pension plan changes (http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/2009-05-18-coaches-plan_N.htm?csp=34) USA TODAY: Sports (18.05.2009 00:25) The executive director of the NFL coaches association is upset with the way the league has handled a change in assistant coaches' ... |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by StegRock on May 18th, 2009, 5:06pm A full plate for Goodell, et al. From "The REAL Feed": Site of 2013 Super Bowl, longer regular season among meeting topics (http://www.nfl.com/news/story?id=09000d5d81061e02&template=without-video-with-comments&confirm=true) NFL.com (18.05.2009 14:53) The owners could vote on a proposal to expand the regular season to 17 or 18games at their NFL Spring Meeting. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by StegRock on May 19th, 2009, 5:58pm The Super Bowl to return to the Big Easy in '13, and the league to stay with CBS and FOX through '14... according to "The REAL Feed": NFL awards New Orleans 2013 Super Bowl bid (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/football/nfl/05/19/superbowl-2013.ap/index.html?eref=si_nfl) SI.com: NFL (19.05.2009 17:25) FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. (AP) -- New Orleans is a Super Bowl city again. NFL extends CBS, FOX deals through '14 season (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/football/nfl/05/19/nfl-tv.ap/index.html?eref=si_nfl) SI.com: NFL (19.05.2009 16:52) NEW YORK (AP) -- The National Football League has extended its deals with broadcast partners CBS and FOX through the 2014 season. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by StegRock on May 21st, 2009, 12:37am A couple NFL issues rolling [smiley=rollin.gif] off "The REAL Feed"... The NFL to instiutionalize quotas... :-/ NFL might expand 'Rooney Rule' to GM openings (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/football/nfl/05/20/rooney.ap/index.html?eref=si_nfl) SI.com: NFL (20.05.2009 14:19) FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. (AP) -- NFL teams looking to hire general managers may soon be required to interview at least one minority candidate. Rooney is surely a good man, and he and the NFL, I'm sure, mean well,... but whenever you make a rule out of stuff like this,... well,... I just don't know... THEN, there's the BIG [smiley=elephant.gif] in the room... NFLPA set to start CBA talks with NFL on June 1, won't do deal without look at NFL's books (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=4181186&campaign=rss&source=NFLHeadlines) ESPN: NFL (19.05.2009 21:31) Negotiations toward an extension of the collective bargaining agreement between the league and its players will begin on June 1, NFL executive vice president of labor/legal counsel Jeff Pash said here Tuesday. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by StegRock on May 23rd, 2009, 10:16pm The Redskins may have been naughty [smiley=nownow.gif] in their acquisition of Haynesworth... according to this LOCAL report rolling [smiley=rollin.gif] off "The REAL Feed": Report: NFL investigating Redskins (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/24/report-nfl-investigating-redskins/) The Washington Times: Sports (23.05.2009 19:13) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by StegRock on May 28th, 2009, 5:49am Union coming to the defense of suspended players... according to "The REAL Feed": Players union to appeal ruling on suspensions (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/football/nfl/05/28/suspensions.appeal.ap/index.html?eref=si_nfl) SI.com: NFL (28.05.2009 01:43) MINNEAPOLIS (AP) -- The NFL Players Association plans to appeal a judge's ruling in the case of five players facing suspensions over positive drug tests. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by StegRock on May 31st, 2009, 9:24pm Oldies not supporting the youngins... From "The REAL Feed": Ex-NFL players upset at NFL Players Association seeking support (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=4219904&campaign=rss&source=NFLHeadlines) ESPN: NFL (31.05.2009 17:01) Retired football players angry with the NFL Players Association over disability and pension benefits say the executive director of the union may be ahead of himself in seeking their support during upcoming contract talks with the league. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by StegRock on Jun 2nd, 2009, 1:53pm Uh-oh... [smiley=deal.gif] ... [smiley=ontheclock.gif] From "The REAL Feed": Goodell: No timetable with NFLPA on labor deal (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/football/nfl/06/01/goodell.ap/index.html?eref=si_nfl) SI.com: NFL (01.06.2009 14:55) EAST RUTHERFORD, N.J. (AP) -- Headed into contact talks with the players' union, NFL commissioner Roger Goodell says there is no timetable to reach a new agreement. NO TIMETABLE!!! [smiley=annoyed.gif] How about the start of the 2011 season??? :-/ |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by StegRock on Jun 3rd, 2009, 6:32pm PLEASE go smoothly (on both of these fronts, actually)... Currently atop "The REAL Feed": Talks aimed at avoiding work stoppage begin (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/football/nfl/06/03/nfl-labor.ap/index.html?eref=si_nfl) SI.com: NFL (03.06.2009 16:39) NEW YORK (AP) -- The NFL and its players' union started Wednesday on a long road that they hope can avoid a work stoppage in 2011, when the current labor contract expires. Also, a fantasy-relevant situation... Yahoo sues NFLPA for right to use player data for fantasy games (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=4228642&campaign=rss&source=NFLHeadlines) ESPN: NFL (03.06.2009 17:07) Yahoo Inc. is suing the NFL Players Association to try to ensure it won't be sued for using player statistics, photos and other data for its popular online fantasy football game. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by StegRock on Jun 21st, 2009, 2:54am Neither good news nor bad news yet, but definitely an issue... Currently atop "The REAL Feed": Recession hasn't sacked Pack, but officials wary (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/football/nfl/06/21/pack.economy.ap/index.html?eref=si_nfl) SI.com: NFL (21.06.2009 00:44) GREEN BAY, Wis. (AP) -- The Green Bay Packers haven't been sacked by the recession despite a rough season on the field and significant financial challenges off it, but officials remain wary of the future. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by StegRock on Jun 26th, 2009, 4:30pm Various NFL issues, most notably an intriguing financial one... that regards the Packers' "public" profitability vis-a-vis revisiting the collective bargaining agreement... as well as the Raiders' Al "going [smiley=bat.gif] batty" Davis... From "The REAL Feed": Ross Tucker: Packers aren't doing NFL any favors (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writers/ross_tucker/06/26/mail/index.html?eref=si_nfl) SI.com: NFL (26.06.2009 11:48) The Packers turned a profit in '08. Ross Tucker explains how this actually hurts the NFL and answers questions about Oakland, DUIs and more in his mailbag. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by StegRock on Jun 27th, 2009, 4:28pm The league lookin' for more... [smiley=money.gif].[smiley=twocents.gif] according to what's currently atop "The REAL Feed": NFL wants Supreme Court to hear antitrust case over team merchandise (http://www.nfl.com/news/story?id=09000d5d81107036&template=without-video-with-comments&confirm=true) NFL.com (27.06.2009 15:27) The NFL is going to the Supreme Court in search of a bigger victory in an antitrust tussle over team merchandise than it already won from a lower court. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by StegRock on Jun 28th, 2009, 9:08pm The Toronto Bills, if you will... Currently atop "The REAL Feed": Bills owner not eager to add extra regular-season games in Toronto (http://www.nfl.com/news/story?id=09000d5d8110afc9&template=without-video-with-comments&confirm=true) NFL.com (28.06.2009 18:14) Buffalo Bills owner Ralph Wilson is in nohurry to have his team play more than one regular-season game in Toronto. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by StegRock on Jul 2nd, 2009, 3:37pm All kinds of "issues" here with these two stories off "The REAL Feed"... Currently atop the Feed, from a LOCAL source: Got a No. 4 Minnesota Vikings Brett Favre jersey? It isn't officially licensed, NFL says (http://www.twincities.com/vikings/ci_12741355) St. Paul Pioneer Press: Football (02.07.2009 14:13) Then, from the OFFICIAL NFL source: Florida judge won't release video of Stallworth crash that killed pedestrian (http://www.nfl.com/news/story?id=09000d5d8111aaf4&template=without-video&confirm=true) NFL.com (02.07.2009 13:43) A judge refused Thursday to release surveillance video depicting the moment that a car driven by Cleveland Browns wide receiver Donte' Stallworth struck and killed a pedestrian in a drunk-driving crash. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by StegRock on Jul 3rd, 2009, 2:52pm Just a handful of sundry NFL issues that are intriguing to think about and, in any case, fun to read about... from "The REAL Feed": Ross Tucker: Why rookies have no excuse for misbehavior (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writers/ross_tucker/07/03/mail/index.html?eref=si_nfl) SI.com: NFL (03.07.2009 10:19) The fame and fortune that comes with playing in the NFL can be too much for some rookies. But Ross Tucker says new pros now have no excuse for misbehavior. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by StegRock on Jul 14th, 2009, 10:44pm According to "The REAL Feed",... equipment manufacturer found at fault in Stringer case: Riddell Inc. failed to warn Korey Stringer on helmet, pads before his death, judge says (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=4324917&campaign=rss&source=NFLHeadlines) ESPN: NFL (13.07.2009 15:30) The family of former Minnesota Vikings offensive lineman Korey Stringer won an important legal victory Monday against the manufacturer of the helmets and shoulder pads he wore when he died nearly eight years ago from complications of heatstroke. And, people coming together to do what they can to help avert an NFL strike: Union chief, current and former players plan meetings with Congress (http://www.nfl.com/news/story?id=09000d5d8114a68f&template=without-video-with-comments&confirm=true) NFL.com (14.07.2009 15:47) As NFL owners and players resume talks on a new collective bargaining agreement, the union's new executive director and 20 current and retired players plan to meet with members of Congress on Wednesday in hopes of building political support to head off a lockout. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by StegRock on Jul 15th, 2009, 10:52pm Seeking "government aid"... From "The REAL Feed": NFL players meet with Congress members to round up political support (http://www.nfl.com/news/story?id=09000d5d8114e677&template=without-video-with-comments&confirm=true) NFL.com (15.07.2009 15:19) NFL players blitzed Capitol Hill on Wednesday to lobby members of Congress, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, for political support in a possible labor showdown with team owners. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by StegRock on Jul 24th, 2009, 3:37pm on 05/12/09 at 21:26:58, StegRock wrote:
The NFL is fighting this, and I, for one, am pleased to see their/they're (the grammarian in me loves it when these two structures collide with/elide one another; you can choose which grammar you want to go with; but, I digress... within the digression) doing so. Gambling is not the way out of fiscal difficulties(/IRRESPONSIBILITY). In fact, gambling facilitated via our "market" economy is at the heart of the American fiscal crisis at present... BUT, I digress... Currently from atop "The REAL Feed": NFL part of joint lawsuit opposing Delaware's plan for sports betting (http://www.nfl.com/news/story?id=09000d5d81173abc&template=without-video-with-comments&confirm=true) NFL.com (24.07.2009 14:41) The NFL joined the three other major pro sports leagues and the NCAA in suing Delaware on Friday, seeking to block the state from implementing sports betting. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by StegRock on Aug 5th, 2009, 11:05am Problem players [smiley=alcoholic.gif] are seemingly always an issue,... at least for the present commissioning regime... From "The REAL Feed": Donte' Stallworth of Cleveland Browns to meet with Roger Goodell, source says (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=4378481&campaign=rss&source=NFLHeadlines) ESPN: NFL (05.08.2009 09:10) Browns wide receiver Donte' Stallworth, currently under indefinite suspension by the NFL, will meet with commissioner Roger Goodell on Wednesday afternoon in Manhattan, according to a source with knowledge of the meeting. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by StegRock on Aug 5th, 2009, 6:56pm News about tweets and retirees rolls off "The REAL Feed": Some teams crack down on tweets (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/football/nfl/08/05/tweeting.ap/index.html?eref=si_nfl) SI.com: NFL (05.08.2009 16:18) DAVIE, Florida (AP) -- The only tweets during the Miami Dolphins scrimmage Saturday will come from the officials' whistles. Retired players' benefits will not be reduced in 2010 (http://www.nfl.com/news/story?id=09000d5d811adfbf&template=without-video-with-comments&confirm=true) NFL.com (05.08.2009 14:51) In a letter to the NFL Alumni Board of Directors, Commissioner Roger Goodell refuted recent statements by the NFL Players Association leadership and confirmed that pension and disability benefits for retired players would not be reduced in an uncapped year. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by StegRock on Aug 14th, 2009, 10:48pm Sports betting not yet a given in Delaware... according to "The REAL Feed": Leagues granted hearing to stop Delaware sports betting (http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/news/story?id=4400341&campaign=rss&source=NFLHeadlines) ESPN: NFL (14.08.2009 18:08) An appeals court ruling gives leagues last chance to halt sports betting before Sept. 1 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by StegRock on Aug 18th, 2009, 5:45pm The Raiders themselves are an issue for the NFL... From "The REAL Feed": NFL investigating circumstances of alleged Raiders coaches fight (http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/raiders/2009-08-18-raiders-coaches_N.htm?csp=34) USA TODAY: NFL (18.08.2009 12:48) The NFL is investigating reports that Oakland Raiders coach Tom Cable got into an altercation that sent one of his assistants ... |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by StegRock on Sep 5th, 2009, 1:28am (This post has been recovered and reposted due to recently experienced technical difficulties. We apologize for any confusion or inconvenience.) Ruling on how to deal with Dallas's GIANT scoreboard issue... from "The REAL Feed": NFL rules on Dallas' over-field scoreboard (http://www.upi.com/Sports_News/2009/08/28/NFL-rules-on-Dallas-over-field-scoreboard/UPI-25891251476574/) United Press International: Sports (28.08.2009 11:22) NEW YORK, Aug. 28 (UPI) -- The NFL Competition Committee said a football hitting the scoreboard over the Dallas Cowboys' new field will result in an immediate stoppage of the play. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by StegRock on Sep 16th, 2009, 11:07pm This issue finally off the table... according to this LOCAL source rolling [smiley=rollin.gif] off "The REAL Feed": NFL fines Jets, Tannenbaum and Mangini (http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/football/jets/2009/09/16/2009-09-16_nfl_fines_jets.html) New York Daily News: Sports - Football (16.09.2009 16:27) The NFL came down hard on the Jets for failing to disclose Brett Favre's arm injury last season, fining the team $75,000 and fining GM Mike Tanne... |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by StegRock on Sep 22nd, 2009, 6:25pm It's all about the money... [smiley=money.gif].[smiley=twocents.gif] one way or the other... From "The REAL Feed": NFL gambling in Delaware: Sure bet (http://nfl.fanhouse.com/2009/09/21/for-delaware-nfl-gambling-a-sure-bet/?eref=si_nfl) SI.com: NFL (22.09.2009 13:16) NFL Has No Business Being in Jacksonville (http://www.sportsfilter.com/news/13518/nfl-has-no-business-being-jacksonville) SportsFilter (22.09.2009 13:34) Times are tough for the Jacksonville Jaguars, both on and off the field. The 0-2 team drew 46,520 fans for the home opener Sunday, almost 20,000 below capacity, and most of them were long gone by the final play of the game the Arizona Cardinals led 31-3 before two late Jag TDs. Local columnist Ge... |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by StegRock on Oct 11th, 2009, 11:29am Raiders' situation [smiley=boxer.gif] back in the news... From "The REAL Feed": Ousted Oakland Raiders assistant coach Randy Hanson offers details of alleged punch by coach Tom Cable (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=4550855&campaign=rss&source=NFLHeadlines) ESPN: NFL (11.10.2009 07:48) Randy Hanson says Tom Cable hit him with a cheap shot and that he had "no reason to believe he wouldn't have killed me" if others hadn't pulled Cable away. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by StegRock on Oct 13th, 2009, 7:11pm Mind you, I'm no fan of Rush Limbaugh, my conservatism aside... But, this cold [smiley=cold.gif] shoulder the NFL is giving him in relation to his bid to buy the Rams seems really lame... From "The REAL Feed": Irsay 'couldn't consider' voting for Rush as owner (http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/story/12357627/rss) CBS SportsLine.com NFL News (13.10.2009 15:25) Rush Limbaugh's bid to buy the St. Louis Rams ran into opposition within the NFL on Tuesday. Colts owner Jim Irsay vowed to vote against him and commissioner Roger Goodell said the conservative commentator's 'divisive' comments would not be tolerated from any NFL insider. Goodell casts doubt on Limbaugh bid (http://www.upi.com/Sports_News/2009/10/13/Goodell-casts-doubt-on-Limbaugh-bid/UPI-68031255466031/) United Press International: Sports (13.10.2009 15:33) BOSTON, Miss., Oct. 13 (UPI) -- Rush Limbaugh's "divisive comments" may put him out of the running as owner of the St. Louis Rams, NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell said Tuesday. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by StegRock on Oct 14th, 2009, 10:33pm Well, this problem resolved itself... From "The REAL Feed": Controversial Limbaugh dropped from group seeking to buy Rams (http://www.nfl.com/news/story?id=09000d5d8136a530&template=with-video-with-comments&confirm=true) NFL.com (14.10.2009 19:08) Conservative radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh has been dropped from a group that's seeking to buy the St. Louis Rams. Don't get me wrong (in my post right above)... I understand how his comments about Donovan McNabb made while he was working at ESPN make this a sticky situation for the NFL. But, make no mistakes... That is because he was wrong. If he were right, then all of this would be just more proof in the pudding of what a bunch of impotent self-loathers we are becoming in America! :-/ |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by StegRock on Oct 23rd, 2009, 1:36am The NFL going global,... neither good nor bad,... but an issue for sure... Currently atop "The REAL Feed": Globalization of NFL is good, and bad (http://www.miamiherald.com/sports/football/story/1296202.html) Miami Herald: Sports (23.10.2009 00:00) Old England samples New England on Sunday as the NFL's ever-increasing foray into international markets continues with the latest game in London. Brits get Patriots-Tampa Bay, meaning they'll see the best that American football has to offer, other than the Buccaneers. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by StegRock on Oct 23rd, 2009, 7:15pm Well, well... Take this sceptics... From "The REAL Feed": NFL commissioner Roger Goodell says league hopes to play multiple games in Britain (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=4588350&campaign=rss&source=NFLHeadlines) ESPN: NFL (23.10.2009 10:34) NFL commissioner Roger Goodell says the league hopes to start playing multiple regular season games in Britain in the next few years. He also says putting an NFL franchise in London is of "tremendous interest. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by StegRock on Nov 1st, 2009, 12:06pm Cable seeming more and more like a typical Raider thug... From "The REAL Feed": Oakland Raiders head coach Tom Cable abused them, women say (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=4613549&campaign=rss&source=NFLHeadlines) ESPN: NFL (01.11.2009 08:16) Two women, including his former wife and a recent girlfriend, say that Oakland Raiders coach Tom Cable has a history of violent behavior toward women. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by StegRock on Nov 9th, 2009, 6:10pm An on-the-field situation on this thread for once... Currently atop "The REAL Feed": NFL will look into altercation in Falcons-Redskins game (http://www.nfl.com/news/story?id=09000d5d814124e5&template=with-video-with-comments&confirm=true) NFL.com (09.11.2009 16:33) The NFL is looking into Sunday's altercationbetween Washington Redskins cornerback DeAngelo Hall and members ofthe Falcons near the Atlanta bench. Oh,... and, then, there are the thugs in Oakland, thugery which comes right from the top... [smiley=raider.gif] From "The REAL Feed": Sources: NFL evaluating Oakland Raiders' Tom Cable for counseling (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=4638636&campaign=rss&source=NFLHeadlines) ESPN: NFL (09.11.2009 16:23) Sources say the league is evaluating whether Tom Cable needs counseling after recent allegations against him. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by StegRock on Nov 15th, 2009, 12:44pm This LOCAL source rolling [smiley=rollin.gif] off "The REAL Feed" reports that Cable [smiley=raider.gif] is likely off the hook with the league: Source: NFL unlikely to discipline Raiders' Cable (http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/sports/pro/football&sa=NFL&eid=4657147) KABC: Sports (15.11.2009 11:35) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by StegRock on Nov 17th, 2009, 2:03am This has now become a full-fledged NFL issue... From "The REAL Feed": AP: NFLPA investigating allegations of mistreatment of Browns players (http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/browns/2009-11-16-nflpa-mangini_N.htm?csp=34&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+UsatodaycomSports-TopStories+%28Sports+-+Top+Stories%29) USA TODAY: Sports (16.11.2009 17:55) The NFL Players Association is trying to set up a meeting with Cleveland Browns players this week to talk about coach Eric Mangini's ... |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by StegRock on Dec 1st, 2009, 9:43pm Proposition of expanding season causes concerns... From "The REAL Feed": Players concerned about expanding NFL season (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=4704309&campaign=rss&source=NFLHeadlines) ESPN: NFL (01.12.2009 15:15) The NFL is looking at expanding from 16 games to 17 or possibly 18. At a time when there is heightened concern over injuries -- particularly concussions -- that hardly sounds like a good idea to the men in the trenches. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by StegRock on Dec 3rd, 2009, 12:03am Concussion legislation comes down from on high... From "The REAL Feed": Goodell issues memo changing return-to-play rules for concussions (http://www.nfl.com/news/story?id=09000d5d814a9ecd&template=with-video-with-comments&confirm=true) NFL.com (02.12.2009 20:56) NFL teams now have new, stricter instructions for when players should be allowed to return to games or practices after head injuries -- guidelines that go into effect this week. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by StegRock on Dec 9th, 2009, 11:14pm Not really an NFL issue here. It's just the whacky world that is Raider Nation... [smiley=skull.gif] But, I started the conversation here, so I might as well end it here... From "The REAL Feed": Cable's accuser, Hanson, rejoins Raiders in personnel department (http://www.nfl.com/news/story?id=09000d5d814d860a&template=with-video-with-comments&confirm=true) NFL.com (09.12.2009 19:10) Randy Hanson, who accused Oakland Raiders head coach Tom Cable of assault after a training-camp scuffle, has returned to work in the team's personnel department. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by StegRock on Dec 11th, 2009, 10:26pm Say it isn't so?!?! [smiley=flagged.gif] Speculation from "The REAL Feed": FanHouse: Did refs help keep Saints undefeated? (http://nfl.fanhouse.com/2009/12/10/zebra-report-about-that-saints-win/?ncid=txtlnkusspor00000002&xid=si_nfl) SI.com: NFL (11.12.2009 12:12) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by StegRock on Dec 16th, 2009, 10:49pm I'm personally unimpressed... but not surprised... From "The REAL Feed": NFL to permit Vegas advertisements on telecasts (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/football/nfl/12/16/vegas.ap/index.html?xid=si_nfl) SI.com: NFL (16.12.2009 16:52) NEW YORK (AP) -- The NFL no longer will block advertising on its telecasts by destinations such as Las Vegas. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by StegRock on Dec 17th, 2009, 5:37pm Will the NFL ever allow it??? I think they should. I think it is time to cease the bias! From "The REAL Feed": Jets, Giants will submit bid to host 2014 Super Bowl in new stadium (http://www.nfl.com/news/story?id=09000d5d81509c00&template=with-video-with-comments&confirm=true) NFL.com (17.12.2009 14:44) The Giants and Jets want to bring the Super Bowl to their new stadium in New Jersey in 2014. After receiving approval from a league committee to bid on an NFL title game, the teams announced Thursday that they will submit a proposal to host what would be a cold-weather title game in four years. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by StegRock on Feb 5th, 2010, 9:46pm Here's the latest... from off "The REAL Feed": Goodell: NFL OK with OT, still eyes longer season (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/football/nfl/02/05/overtime.ap/index.html?xid=si_nfl) SI.com: NFL (05.02.2010 12:08) FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. (AP) -- The NFL said again Friday that it likes the league's oft-debated overtime rule. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by StegRock on Feb 7th, 2010, 4:18pm "Great," I guess... From "The REAL Feed": Goodell says player salaries will keep growing (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/football/nfl/super-bowl/02/07/goodell.ap/index.html?xid=si_nfl) SI.com: NFL (07.02.2010 12:40) MIAMI (AP) -- NFL commissioner Roger Goodell predicts players' salaries will still grow under a new labor agreement, even if their share of revenue is reduced as owners have proposed. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by StegRock on Feb 16th, 2010, 3:13pm Moving forward toward 2011, important questions answered... From "The REAL Feed": New rules of free agency (http://min.scout.com/2/946799.html) Scout.com > NFL > National Football League Team (16.02.2010 07:56) The NFL released a detailed explanation of the new rules governing free agency in an uncapped year. It⤙s a good summary of the restrictions the Vikings and some other teams will be facing in the final year of the collective bargaining agreement. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by StegRock on Mar 18th, 2010, 11:56am OT remains an NFL issue... From "The REAL Feed": NFL owners to vote on changing OT rules (http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/football/2010/03/17/2010-03-17_nfl_owners_to_vote_on_changing_ot_rules.html) New York Daily News: Sports - Football (17.03.2010 15:23) As Woody Johnson knows all too well, the NFL had no problem settling the new-stadium spat between the Jets and Giants with a coin flip. But when ... |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by StegRock on Mar 24th, 2010, 12:35am The "fix" is "in"... ;) for the postseason, at least... From "The REAL Feed": NFL owners approve OT changes for postseason (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/football/nfl/03/23/overtime/index.html?xid=si_nfl) SI.com: NFL (23.03.2010 13:18) NFL owners approve a modified sudden death overtime proposal for the playoffs. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by StegRock on Aug 25th, 2010, 6:24pm I really think this is kinda, sorta bad news,... but I'll put it here. From "The REAL Feed": Roger Goodell: NFL targets 2012 for 18-game season (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=5497448&campaign=rss&source=NFLHeadlines) ESPN: NFL (25.08.2010 16:08) NFL owners have shown widespread support for going to an 18-game schedule but want to implement the change as part of a new labor agreement. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by StegRock on Sep 8th, 2010, 7:07pm [offtopic]From "The REAL Feed": Saints RB Bush knows nothing about losing 2005 Heisman (http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d81a5ab8e/article/saints-rb-bush-knows-nothing-about-losing-2005-heisman) NFL.com (08.09.2010 15:18) New Orleans Saints running back Reggie Bush said Wednesday that he hasn't heard anything from the Heisman Trophy Trust about being stripped of the award he won at USC in 2005. He also didn't give any indication that he would voluntarily give it back -- for now. on 05/21/06 at 05:11:35, KillerKingSting wrote:
Interesting looking back at this almost a half-decade later... Not that I think USC and Bush deserve to be besmirched the way they are (my thoughts on the matter are more nuanced than that), but Bush has surely proven to be just an okay NFL player with fairly marginal relevance for fantasy football and now there is this less-than-aboveboard circumstance. Was it really worth it, ending a sort of friendship all to get the back of some flavor-of-the-month NFL player with whom you'll never have a meaningful moment in your life? [smiley=bee.gif]Or, maybe I was wrong. Maybe you two girlfriends were chewing the fat [smiley=phone.gif] all night long about Kim Kardashian back in the day. [smiley=rollinwithlaughter.gif] ... [smiley=silence.gif] ... :-/ ... :( ... :'([/offtopic] |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by StegRock on Oct 13th, 2010, 1:09am I think this should be reviewed... From a LOCAL source on "The REAL Feed": NFL notebook: Catch rule to be reviewed (http://www.thestate.com/2010/10/13/1510230/nfl-notebook-catch-rule-to-be.html#RSS=sports) The State: Sports (12.10.2010 21:31) Calvin Johnson's no-catch might become a catch in the future.The NFL expects to review the rule that cost the Lions' star receiver a potential winning touchdown in a season-opening loss to Chicago. After Johnson went to the turf with possession, he placed the ball on the ground as ... |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by StegRock on Jan 4th, 2011, 10:04am Losing team's hosting playoff game to cause some rethinking about the playoff format... From this LOCAL source on "The REAL Feed": Let the playoff debate begin (http://www.timesleader.com/sports/football/Let_the_playoff_debate_begin_01-03-2011.html#) TimesLeader.com: Football (04.01.2011 06:48) Never has the NFL truism "winning the division is our first goal" been more accurate. Just ask the Seattle Seahawks. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by StegRock on Jan 7th, 2011, 1:38pm Postseason seeding on the docket... according to "The REAL Feed": FanHouse: NFL will consider seed format changes (http://nfl.fanhouse.com/2011/01/06/nfl-will-consider-changing-playoff-seeding-rules-in-offseason/?ncid=txtlnkusspor00000002&xid=si_nfl) SI.com: NFL (07.01.2011 00:15) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by StegRock on Jan 12th, 2011, 1:04pm The 18-game hangup and the tuck rule, issues for the NFL moving forward... according to "The REAL Feed": NFL players say owners' 18-game schedule the major sticking point (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=6012764&campaign=rss&source=NFLHeadlines) ESPN: NFL (11.01.2011 16:53) NFL union executive committee members Scott Fujita and Domonique Foxworth say concerns about injuries make the league's push to switch to an 18-game regular season a major sticking point in negotiations for a new collective bargaining agreement. Pereira: Reverse the 'tuck rule (http://profootball.scout.com/2/1038728.html) Scout.com > NFL > National Football League Team (11.01.2011 16:14) It's no consolation to Oakland Raiders fans, but former NFL head of officiating Mike Pereira thinks it's time to change the infamous tuck rule. He cites a play in the Chiefs-Ravens game as the basis for his revised opinion. [smiley=flagged.gif] |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by StegRock on Jan 24th, 2011, 6:49pm Expletive-laiden or not, "HERE, HERE" [smiley=cheers.gif] to someone speaking some common sense... From "The REAL Feed": Jets' Cromartie rips NFL, union over CBA talks (http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/sports/pro/football&sa=NFL&eid=6055011) KABC: Sports (24.01.2011 17:35) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by StegRock on Feb 1st, 2011, 8:20pm Another sound voice among the players... regarding the CBB (Collective Bargaining Bullshit),... eh-hem,... CBA... from "The REAL Feed": Hines Ward of Pittsburgh Steelers says too much money in play to ruin NFL season (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=6080855&campaign=rss&source=NFLHeadlines) ESPN: NFL (01.02.2011 16:32) Pittsburgh Steelers receiver Hines Ward says the NFL and players "make way too much money" to be putting next season in danger because of labor problems. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by StegRock on Feb 3rd, 2011, 11:19am On this score... AGREED! From "The REAL Feed": AP poll: Lukewarm support for 18-game season (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=6086002&campaign=rss&source=NFLHeadlines) ESPN: NFL (03.02.2011 09:11) Even though Americans like watching football far more than any other sport, they don't necessarily want a longer NFL season. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by StegRock on Feb 4th, 2011, 6:54pm The latest on the looming collective-bargaining nightmare... from "The REAL Feed": Union, agents considering boycott of combine, draft activities (http://www.nfl.com/superbowl/story/09000d5d81e1f3d7/article/union-agents-considering-boycott-of-combine-draft-activities) NFL.com (04.02.2011 15:37) Top union officials and player agents are discussing the possibility of withholding players from the NFL Scouting Combine and 2011 NFL Draft activities, sources said Friday, with the league's collective bargaining agreement expiring March 3. Time is now to seize 'window of opportunity' on new CBA (http://www.nfl.com/superbowl/story/09000d5d81e1ff14/article/time-is-now-to-seize-window-of-opportunity-on-new-cba) NFL.com (04.02.2011 17:43) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by StegRock on Mar 4th, 2011, 9:27pm Hope!?!? From "The REAL Feed": NFL, NFLPA agree on seven-day extension (http://www.sportsnetwork.com/merge/tsnform.aspx?c=sportsnetwork&page=nfl/news/news.aspx?id=4386283) The Sports Network: NFL (04.03.2011 16:31) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by StegRock on Mar 9th, 2011, 2:25pm It is always the unintended consequences that hurt the most, and, yes, by that I am trying to point to the fact that, while at the end of the day all of the NFLers will "win", players and owners alike, the little guys lose. From "The REAL Feed": As NFL labor talks drag on, small businesses wait and worry (http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/2011-03-09-nfl-labor-small-businesses_N.htm?csp=34sports&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+UsatodaycomSports-TopStories+%28Sports+-+Top+Stories%29) USA TODAY: Sports (09.03.2011 11:26) Ricky's Sports Theatre & Grill has been an Oakland Raiders fan hangout since the team's first season in 1960. There are pictures throughout ... Look, I am all for the free-market. But, there is something undeniably ugly when a bunch of "haves", millionaires that is, squabble over, mainly, cash,... moreover, at the expense of the little guy. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by StegRock on Mar 22nd, 2011, 7:22pm I don't know how I feel about this new rule about kickoffs that has passed. From "The REAL Feed": Kickoffs moved to 35-yard line; touchbacks to stay at 20 (http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d81ee38c1/article/nfl-moves-kickoffs-to-35yard-line-touchbacks-unchanged) NFL.com (22.03.2011 13:32) NFL kickoffs will take place at the 35-yard line -- not the 30 -- under a modified kickoff proposal passed by the league's owners on Tuesday, according to a league source. The proposal keeps touchbacks at the 20 and continues to allow the two-man blocking wedge. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by StegRock on Apr 27th, 2011, 10:40pm Don't know if this is good news or bad news... All I know is that tomorrow is going to be a mess! From "The REAL Feed": Judge denies NFL's request to freeze lockout (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=6439599&campaign=rss&source=NFLHeadlines) ESPN: NFL (27.04.2011 20:39) The federal judge who lifted the NFL lockout has denied the league's request to put her ruling on hold. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by StegRock on May 19th, 2011, 6:20pm Amidst the mad(dening)ness, this (a sane voice in the crowd?) seemed to be worth posting here. From "The REAL Feed": Giants owner John Mara warns of chaos if players' strategy succeeds (http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/2011-05-19-john-mara-essay_N.htm?csp=34sports&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+UsatodaycomNfl-TopStories+%28Sports+-+NFL+-+Top+Stories%29) USA TODAY: NFL (19.05.2011 16:03) New York Giants co-owner John Mara is warning that the players' strategy in the labor impasse, if successful, would lead to NFL chaos. Mara wrote ... |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by StegRock on Jun 10th, 2011, 11:47am Oh, no, not again... This time from the other side... From "The REAL Feed": Hawaii governor says $4 million 'bribe' for Pro Bowl is wasteful (http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d820403ff/article/hawaii-governor-says-4-million-bribe-for-pro-bowl-is-wasteful) NFL.com (10.06.2011 09:37) Hawaii Gov. Neil Abercrombie said Thursday it's "so stupid" that the cash-strapped state pays millions to play host to the Pro Bowl when the money could be used for education. F'n Democrat! Notice that there is NO mention of how much the Pro Bowl brings into the economy... and, yes, the government by way of sales tax and ultimately income tax. Just overgeneralized bleeding-heart liberalism about, of course, the poor children... as if pouring more money into education has proven to be the answer to our educational woes... NOT! It will just end up being more money this guy's cronies in education administration will be lining their wallets with. And, so goes round the merry-go-round of obfuscationist leftist politics, that is to say, shell games. >:( |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by DOLFAN on Jun 13th, 2011, 7:13am This is the latest update/tidbit that I found. It is from the great guys at PFW: http://www.profootballweekly.com/2011/06/09/report-of-lockout-ending-is-premature-but-signs-of More info around July4th would be great!!! I read in another article that the "framework" for a deal would take about 2 weeks to put together. I'm not getting my hopes up, but I'll take this as good news...considering there is "no news." |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by DOLFAN on Jun 15th, 2011, 8:57pm I found something else. This is actually one of the "main topics" for the players. Take a peak and be informed. http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/Jeff-Pash-Owners-have-offered-90percent-cash-guarantee.html |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by DOLFAN on Jul 7th, 2011, 3:49pm I found another nugget about the lockout. This article says July 15th is the drop dead day to not lose any preseason games. Take a look and update yourself: http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/sports/steelers/s_745570.html I'm hoping for a deal this weekend or early next week!!!! |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by StegRock on Jul 8th, 2011, 2:13pm There will be no injunction; lockout declared legal... according to "The REAL Feed": 8th U.S. Circuit Court rules in favor of NFL, says lockout legal (http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d820ab605/article/8th-us-circuit-court-rules-in-favor-of-nfl-says-lockout-legal) NFL.com (08.07.2011 11:46) The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has thrown out a judge's order lifting the NFL lockout, handing theleague a key victory. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by StegRock on Jul 22nd, 2011, 11:40am Let's get current on the lockout situation... From "The REAL Feed": NFL owners ratify new CBA proposal (http://www.sportsnetwork.com/merge/tsnform.aspx?c=sportsnetwork&page=nfl/news/news.aspx?id=4421922) The Sports Network: NFL (21.07.2011 23:23) Next, hearkening to my rants on the "Politics thread", you tell me the overabundance of lawyers (needing jobs), especially UNION lawyers as in this case, isn't ruining our country. They waste no time tainting the thinking of their constituency, that is, the players by immediately predisposing them against the owners' agreement. Remember the longer this drags out, can be dragged out, the more billable hours they can put in for. Anyway, get this union lawyer rabble-rousing right out of the gate of the owners' vote... NFLPA shows displeasure with league in email to player reps (http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d820e6ed4/article/nflpa-shows-displeasure-with-league-in-email-to-player-reps?module=HP11_hot_topics) NFL.com (21.07.2011 23:17) The NFLPA sent an email out to player representatives Thursday night, in the hours following the owners' 31-0 vote to ratify a settlement proposal that would end the four-month-old lockout, detailing the issues it had with the potential deal. Then, in response the Pied Piper lawyer-led lemmings respond, marching in lockstep... NFL players sound off on Twitter (http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/football/2011/07/21/2011-07-21_nfl_players_sound_off_on_twitter_in_reaction_to_owners_announcement_of_new_cba_p.html) New York Daily News: Sports - Football (21.07.2011 23:20) NFL players had plenty to say after the owners announced they had voted to ratify the proposed collective bargaining agreement. Jets CB Antonio Cromartie, Saints RB Heath Evans, Redskins DE Vonnie Holliday and many more took to Twitter to sound off. Let's just say the players were displeased.... |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by StegRock on Aug 10th, 2011, 1:41pm Don't know if this is good or bad news for the NFL... From "The REAL Feed": Logistical hurdles cleared, NFL to begin game-day drug testing (http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d82157504/article/logistical-hurdles-cleared-nfl-to-begin-gameday-drug-testing) NFL.com (10.08.2011 06:25) The NFL is adding game-day testing for performance-enhancing substances -- but not recreational drugs -- this season under the new collective bargaining agreement. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by StegRock on Sep 12th, 2011, 2:18pm This is one team putting its foot down, but really this is a league and, indeed, life issue... From "The REAL Feed": Patriots put Twitter ban on Ochocinco? (http://nfl.si.com/2011/09/12/huddle-up-ochocinco-on-twitter-ban/?xid=si_nfl) SI.com: NFL (12.09.2011 11:50) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by StegRock on Sep 30th, 2011, 11:29am HGH banned and needs to be tested for... according to the U.S. Congress per "The REAL Feed": Congress wants NFL, union to start HGH testing (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/football/nfl/09/29/congress.nfl.ap/index.html?xid=si_nfl) SI.com: NFL (29.09.2011 18:19) Congress is stepping up its efforts to push the NFL and its players toward an agreement on testing for human growth hormone. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by StegRock on Oct 22nd, 2011, 7:53pm Still looking for a way to expand overseas. From "The REAL Feed": Goodell: Regular teams in London would help NFL expand there (http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d8235ad58/article/goodell-teams-playing-regularly-in-london-would-help-growth) NFL.com (22.10.2011 12:49) Commissioner Roger Goodell says the NFL is considering a plan to have a few teams play regularly in Britain to build an overseas fan base. This would be part of the league'sevaluation about whether a team could be permanently based in London. My position on this is well documented (on this thread). I am not for it. However, the best run that can be made at it I think would lie in some kind of a "sister city" setup. Teams would play one or two of their home games in their international sister city/country. That would (perhaps) get the people of the city/country vested in the team. It would facilitate some kind of real connection. That said, stateside, would teams, their fans and the local businesses who rely on game day really be up for giving up two of their home games? Almost definitely not! Such an idea as I am proposing would basically require extending the season by two games to 18, which brings in a whole nother issue that, again, I am not in support of. The globalization of the NFL just seems like a hopeless venture. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by StegRock on Mar 21st, 2012, 11:19pm What's currently on the plate... according to "The REAL Feed": Owners will decide whether to change overtime, IR rules (http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d827c3ea6/article/nfl-owners-to-decide-on-possible-changes-to-replay-ot-ir) NFL.com (21.03.2012 16:37) The NFL's Competition Committee announced during a conference call Wednesday that it will introduce multiple rule-changes and by-law proposals to ownership at league meetings next week in Palm Beach, Fla. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by StegRock on Apr 26th, 2012, 4:29pm The Pro Bowl has an existential crisis. The unfortunate bottom line is that NFL players have gotten too glitzy for the Pro Bowl. [smiley=soapboxer.gif] One infusion of a couple million dollars, and I would be set for life (and still, on my accord, working/contributing to society, mind you). Yet, like lemmings at the altar of self-interest, we even go about defending players' not signing their franchise tags and holding out for long-term contracts under the ridiculous assumption of long-term security [as if something like $10,000,000 (yes, look at all those 0's) is not enough of a lifetime insurance policy]. [smiley=gimmeabreak.gif] As much as attention needs to be devoted to concussions, [smiley=stars.gif] attention needs to be devoted to balancing checkbooks (and, maybe, [smiley=fingerscrossed.gif] rendering money-sucking sports agents irrelevant; NFL players have gone to college for goodness sake [smiley=frustrated.gif]). (Well, what is going on on college campuses is a whole nother issue.) It is not so much greed, per se, that is the problem. It is that we justify choices in terms of, "Well, he is just looking out for himself and doing what is best for himself." Such a mindset undermines sacrifice. It is an unwillingness to sacrifice that is destroying our country. Nobody wants, has been brought up anymore to do it. Our problem is not so much ambition and greed. It is unwillingness to sacrifice and, frankly speaking, laziness. But, I digress... From "The REAL Feed": NFL, union in discussions about Pro Bowl (http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d8289d693/article/nfl-union-in-discussions-about-pro-bowl) NFL.com (26.04.2012 10:27) Could the future of the Pro Bowl be in jeopardy? NFL spokesman Greg Aiello said no determination has been made regarding the future of the game following a report the game itself is in jeopardy. Thing is, the game still generates stats, and, as such, is potentially fantasy-relevant, which means, perhaps, fantasy football is in a position to give back to the real game upon which it is based. If the NFL and the fantasy football powers-that-be out there were imaginative enough, maybe they could figure out a way to play off the fantasy angle. Of course, that does not serve to change the reality that the game is not worth it to the player's anymore (and, of course, to hell with the fans, especially those in Hawaii, where, mind you, there is a great love of American football, which has to a great measure been engendered by the history of the Pro Bowl in Hawaii). |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by StegRock on May 3rd, 2012, 4:28am Goodell's scales of justice drop another bomb on participants in the very "unsaintly" behavior of putting bounties on opponents... From "The REAL Feed": Four players suspended for Saints 'bounty' roles (http://www.star-telegram.com/2012/05/02/3931441/four-players-suspended-for-saints.html) Star-Telegram: Dallas Cowboys (03.05.2012 00:01) Hoping to close the book on bounties, the NFL suspended New Orleans Saints defensive captain Jonathan Vilma without pay for all of next season Wednesday and gave shorter bans to three other players for their leading roles in the team's cash-for-hits system that is alleged to have knocked key oppo... Then, go figure... The player's union, that is, a union takes (yet) a(nother) silly self-contradictory position on a matter. What's new, though, right? More union irrationality... More from "The REAL Feed": Brennan: NFLPA wrong to defend Bountygate Saints (http://www.usatoday.com/sports/columnist/brennan/story/2012-05-02/nflpa-wrong-for-fighting-saints-suspensions/54709582/1?csp=34sports&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+UsatodaycomSports-TopStories+%28Sports+-+Top+Stories%29) USA TODAY: Sports (02.05.2012 20:09) Once again, Roger Goodell has done exactly the right thing in the Bountygate scandal. The same can't be said for the NFL players union. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by StegRock on May 26th, 2012, 8:49pm Currently atop "The REAL Feed" a growing issue for the league, one that weighs morality and ethics against practicality: Column: Time to do away with sports betting stigma (http://www.seattlepi.com/sports/article/Column-Time-to-do-away-with-sports-betting-stigma-3587926.php) Seattle Post-Intelligencer: Sports (26.05.2012 19:43) Column: Time to do away with sports betting stigma Turns out what they really want in the Garden State is to be able to bet 100 bucks on the Jets in the sports book at the Meadowlands race track before strolling over to the stadium for the Sept. 9 home opener against Buffalo. Probably not... This is a kind of dilemma that has troubled me for a long time (vis-a-vis other issues besides gambling, like abortion, intoxicants, etc., etc.). What is the argument against habitually legalizing bad activities and behavior patterns and, thus, matter-of-factly endorsing them as a society and culture when they do in fact hurt people? It hit me some time ago now... [smiley=gotanidea.gif] Remember that the law is NOT the basis of ethics and morality, nor should it be. It is just making the best out of inappropriate behavior and contributing to social order. As long as one does not make law his or her standard for ethics, we can be okay. But, the danger does lurk. [smiley=Freddie.gif] |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by DirkDiggler on Jul 27th, 2012, 10:22pm I would rather have people have the ability to bet legally and fairly rather than have them go to a bookmaker who may give even less favorable odds. Hell, over 50% of Americans gambled last year.....by playing the lottery. Why not allow them to place a wager on football where the odds are probably better? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by StegRock on Aug 15th, 2012, 3:39pm I am mainly posting this because of an erudite comment made by a "Troy Cook" at NFL.com about this article. Marketing, the downfall of western civilization... [smiley=no.gif] From "The REAL Feed": New footballs cause concern among NFL quarterbacks (http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap2000000050495/article/new-footballs-cause-concern-among-nfl-quarterbacks) NFL.com (15.08.2012 12:54) College and high school football teams use synthetic laces in their footballs but many NFL quarterbacks are voicing their disapproval of the ball change being tested in Week 2 of the preseason. Make sure to scroll down and read Troy's comment... [smiley=checkin.gif] |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by StegRock on Aug 21st, 2012, 5:27pm Two reports... one, a stride made in the (I think, ill-advised) move to export the NFL; the second, one of the BEST pieces I have seen on the referee [smiley=referee.gif] lockout, pointed and poignant,... and ALL "From "The REAL Feed": London calling for Jaguars (http://www.sportinglife.com/nfl/news/article/3692/8008274/london-calling-for-jaguars) Sporting Life: NFL (21.08.2012 16:07) Jacksonville have made a four-year commitment to be the "home" team in the NFL's games hosted in London from next season. Nobody asked me, but ... (http://www.sportsnetwork.com/merge/tsnform.aspx?c=sportsnetwork&page=nfl/news/news.aspx?id=4522857) The Sports Network: NFL (21.08.2012 10:02) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by StegRock on Sep 1st, 2012, 4:00pm Looks like there may be some funky calls Week 1... [smiley=flagged.gif] From "The REAL Feed": NFL, referees break off talks; replacements likely for Week 1 (http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap1000000057512/article/nfl-referees-break-off-talks-replacements-likely-for-week-1) NFL.com (01.09.2012 15:35) The latest round of negotiations between the NFL and it's officials have ended without an agreement, increasing the likelihood that replacement officials will be on the field Week 1. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by StegRock on Sep 27th, 2012, 6:18pm So, another union victory... This time that U.S. union that represents those poor, poor NFL referees. [smiley=flagged.gif] And, we lemmings just cheer on... Listening to those liberal-leaning morons over at ESPN talk about this is sickening... :P It is like they would like to line up to suck off Ed Hoculi. [smiley=gettinridden.gif] Wasn't it old muscly Ed who made that MNF-Seahawks-over-Packers-esque HORRIBLE call that cost the Chargers a game against the Broncos a few years ago??? And, as I recall, there was actually another really bad call toward the end of that game that went against the Chargers. Hoculi ended up getting ridiculed BIG-time, receiving death threats and having to publicly apologize. We have become a bunch of short-attention-span, instant-gratification idiots! Screw the bigger picture! Give me what I want now... [smiley=crybaby.gif] Indeed, it is my fellow conservatives that have made me the most sick in this instance. Way to go! Way to be consistent with and uphold our ideals! You are no better than the liberals! No entitlements, but don't take away mine! We are a bunch of candy-asses! Sacrifice is a meaningless word! Look, I have my qualms with NFL ownership. But, a union of "very well-off" part-timers! Give me an f'n break! If that is not an example of unionization run amok, then nothing is! We deserve the screw job on the horizon. Regretfully, though, our young children DON'T!!! [smiley=fumin.gif] |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by StegRock on Mar 15th, 2013, 7:01am Infamous "tuck rule" in jeopardy... according to this LOCAL source on "The REAL Feed": NFL could eliminate tuck rule (http://www.seattlepi.com/sports/article/NFL-could-eliminate-tuck-rule-4355408.php) Seattle Post-Intelligencer: Sports (14.03.2013 17:07) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by StegRock on Jun 11th, 2013, 5:44pm Draft could be moved out of New York in the near future... according to "The REAL Feed": Draft close to becoming traveling tour? (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/nfl/news/20130611/nfl-draft-changes/?xid=si_nfl) SI.com: NFL (11.06.2013 11:04) The recent two-week shift of the 2014 NFL Draft that was necessitated by a scheduling conflict at New York's Radio City Music Hall could wind up being just the beginning of the changes coming to one of the league's glamor events in ensuing years. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by StegRock on Sep 29th, 2013, 2:17pm Reducing the preseason has been under serious consideration for some time, but, while the proposal of expanding the regular season has lost steam, attention has now turned to expanding the postseason... according to "The REAL Feed": Sources: NFL considering expanded playoffs (http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/9743015/nfl-considering-expanded-postseason-format-3-game-preseason-sources-say) ESPN: NFL (29.09.2013 10:33) The NFL is urgently discussing a new scheduling formula that would include a three-game preseason and could also feature an expanded postseason field from 12 to 14 teams, sources league sources told ESPN NFL Insider Chris Mortensen. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by StegRock on Oct 9th, 2013, 3:54pm I am not posting this because of the change to futuristic uniforms. I am posting it because within this short article there is a stat about the TV ratings of the Pro Bowl that is news to me... and makes me wonder "what's been the problem then"! From "The REAL Feed": NFL unveils 'vibrant' new uniforms for Pro Bowl (http://nfl.si.com/2013/10/08/nfl-pro-bowl-uniforms-2014/?xid=si_nfl) SI.com: NFL (08.10.2013 09:38) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by StegRock on Oct 23rd, 2013, 5:51pm Anecdotal, but surely worth considering... in these lawyer-driven wimpy times in which we now live... From "The REAL Feed": We Chose This Profession (http://mmqb.si.com/2013/10/23/richard-sherman-seahawks-concussions-in-the-nfl/?xid=si_nfl) SI.com: NFL (23.10.2013 09:05) Football is a violent way to make a living, but players know that. If you don't like it, stop watching. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by Travistotle on Sep 9th, 2014, 4:36pm http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/11488363/jason-whitlock-latest-ray-rice-developments I am really sick and tired of the constant Ray Rice talk -- on the internet, on the TV, and on the radio it's everywhere. The article I linked to above, by Jason Whitlock, is an exercise in self-aggrandizement concealed by angry rhetoric. Would sportswriters and talking heads PLEASE stop acting as if they were, or could be, social commentators? We don't want to hear your opinions on the justice system, on racism in America, on sexism, on the crisis in the Ukraine. Political pundits on CNN, MSNBC, and Fox are already spouting off on such things and, generally, making fools of themselves doing so; if they don't know what they're talking about, it's even less likely that you do. And we don't watch you for your opinions on those matters; if we wanted to treat ourselves to an exercise in bad (or altogether missing) logic, false principles, and empty rhetoric, we'd switch the channel to the aforementioned stations. Tocqueville was right: the tyranny peculiar to democracy, to be dreaded and guarded against, is the moral and intellectual despotism of the majority. It's a veritable moral crusade out there. Perhaps this is nowhere more apparent than in the Donald Sterling affair -- if you are ever caught sinning, you will be forced out of sports. Oh, wait -- it's not "sinning" that causes consternation, it's violating the precious few moral idols (shibboleths, in fact) of 21st century America(n intellectual "elite"): feminism, multiculturalism, gay rights. Don't misunderstand me: domestic violence, racism, and gay-bashing are wrong and to be condemned. But the backlash, the intense focus, and the shrieking calls for immediate retribution of the harshest degree clearly illustrate the political motivation of this crusade. This, as well as the more-than moral -- i.e, intellectual -- nature of this crusade, is also illustrated by the fact that "sins" against these moral idols include much more than domestic violence, racism, and gay-bashing. For, in fact, "discrimination" -- i.e., any identification of a difference between men and women or between one race and another or between gays and heterosexuals -- is searched out, spotlighted, castigated, and punished by all political means possible. One can no longer talk about (TALK ABOUT!) -- much less act towards others in a way consonant with -- men and women having different strengths, sensibilities, and roles; blacks, whites, etc. having different skin colors or propensities; marriage and child-rearing being rightly reserved for heterosexuals; homosexuality as a perverted sexuality. No, one must affirm that all are the same: none are to be distinguished, much less held as better or worse suited to certain roles, much less (in the case of the homosexuality issue) held as unhealthy or healthy physiological or psychological conditions disqualifying one or fitting one for certain roles. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: NFL "issues" Post by Travistotle on Sep 11th, 2014, 5:55pm http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/11506638/paul-george-indiana-pacers-sorry-insensitive-tweets As if we needed further evidence of the crusading nature of this whole witch-hunt, an NBA player gets slammed by his own GM, and is being investigated by the NBA, for suggesting (via tweets he made on the Ray Rice subject) that we be consistent in rooting out all violence, that we realize that the victim seems to have if not triggered at least helped escalate the situation (in fact, in the video it seems clear that the victim hits Ray Rice outside the elevator and perhaps strikes him again in the elevator), and that we pay attention to what the victim in this situation wants (Ray Rice's wife has deplored all of the publicity and excoriating). Mind you, this NBA player made it crystal clear that violence against women is to be condemned. My gosh. [smiley=no.gif] |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Fantasyfootballer.com's Gridiron » Powered by YaBB 1 Gold - SP 1.1! YaBB © 2000-2002, Xnull. All Rights Reserved. |