- 05:37 PM
- 11/21/09
Oh, he's a lot of fun in these "mic'd up" videos...still love the one where he's farting in the huddle, on the sidelines, pretty much everywhere :-)
That said, it's easy to be fun when you're playing the Lions. I would have liked to have heard his "mic'd up" when he was throwing two pick-sixes against the Steelers in their loss.
posted by bdaddy at 05:49 PM on November 20
What the hell was Bill Belichick thinking last night?
I remember when Barry Switzer did a similar thing against Philly, I believe. To think that Bill made a Barry Switzeresque call?
posted by bdaddy at 09:22 AM on November 16
It goes to show how important an offensive line is. The difference between last year's Cutler and this year's Cutler is immense.
His performance really isn't all that different from last year to this year.
- leads the league in attempts, was 2nd last year
- 4200 yards projected this year vs. 4500 last year
- QB rating is 76 now vs. 86 last year (both mediocre nowadays)
- leading the league in INTs, was 2nd last year
- 4-5 this year, 8-8 last year
- 62% completion perc. this year and last
Yea, it's down a bit, but he no longer has Brandon Marshall and Eddie Royal to throw to or Shanahan calling the plays, so you should expect a drop.
So he's still basically a guy who can throw for a ton of yards if you give him an ungodly amount of attempts, but as far as accuracy, TD/INT ratio, etc...he's always been a mediocre QB. Throw in WINS, even back to college, and he's FAR WORSE than mediocre.
posted by bdaddy at 05:07 PM on November 13
I kindof agree. In fact I use this point when arguing with others who say that rugby players are tougher than football players (because they don't wear pads).
In my mind, if you take away the helmet, the violence goes down to the level it was back in sandlot football when we were younger. Sure there will still be crazy head-to-head crashes or bloody faces or the occasional lunatic who will still run full-speed headlong into a pile of players....but for the most part self-preservation will kick in and you won't have the equivalent of 30mph crashes on every single play like you do today.
dfleming - I don't think it will be any "un-learning" needed...in fact, all it would take is a single head-to-head crash without a facemask to learn you won't be doing that again. Dogs, young and old, only jump out of the back of a truck one time before they learn to never do that again.
posted by bdaddy at 12:45 PM on November 11
Geez, who does one believe here? Isiah Thompson or Magic Johnston?
On PTI today, they were discussing with the author and both she and Wilbon (both of whom were reporting on basketball around the time) both said that they heard the same allegations of Isiah back then and by other sources than the agent who supposedly told Magic. Basically multiple people were supposedly told by Isiah that he thought Magic was gay.
Given Isiah's lack of popularity by pretty much everyone who has ever known him...I'd probably tend to back Magic's version. He seems to be the consensus "snake".
There is no reason to pretend to be friends with someone who you secretly dislike
He supposedly never did. They haven't been close for years. When they would cross paths he would be polite, but that was it. To me that's pretty classy..not snaky.
posted by bdaddy at 08:52 PM on October 22
But Steve, dude. The little (umm, well.........) 22 year old is sorta....plain.
She's way south of plain.
I feel sorry for the kids. In the letter she seems to be mentioning that he told her that 2 of them are the results of a reconciliation from a previous affair. How would you like to be one of these kids who gets to read a letter that implies daddy thinks of you as a bandaid for a bad marriage. Poor guys. And his wife for that matter.
posted by bdaddy at 02:10 PM on October 21
"almost unlimited TV access"
Well, then they might outta think about getting some of that TV access into people's homes. DirectTV doesn't carry versus and I know it's just one satellite carrier, but it happens to be the carrier which has all the sports nuts.
posted by bdaddy at 09:24 AM on October 09
Even if it was around 4 seconds (which as you mention isn't precise) that's 4 seconds to run 40 yards "with a running start". When people talk about athletes running a 4.4, they are starting from a sprinters stance. Start the stopwatch on them once they are at or near full speed as the ballboy was and they'd be well in the 3's.
His speed is no doubt impressive (which I think is all your saying..and I'm certainly not arguing that), just not ridiculously so...and not on par with those guys running on the field.
Like I mention, watch #41 (a 30 year old safety whose fastest days are far behind him) and he is almost even with the kid at the 40 (maybe a yard ahead), and by the other 45 had 3-4 yards on him and pulling away before he gives up on the play despite running at a 30-45 degree angle while the kid is running a straight line. (not to mention having run the opposite direction 40 yards already, reversed direction, dodging his own player, and running with pads, all of which probably nullifies the "3 footballs in hand" thing). If #41 was running in that same straight line he'd torch him...and 41 isn't exactly the fastest player on that field.
I know I'm over-analyzing it as that wasn't the intention of the post, just trying to add some balance to the argument :-)
posted by bdaddy at 09:43 AM on October 07
sorry, just read the article..it was saying 4.4 speed (your title needs fixing). Also mentions the Fitzgerald thing.
I still say no way it's even close to 4.4. Look at #41 at the bottom of the screen, whose likely no 4.4 guy, and he's running at an angle and is pulling away from the kid until he gives up on the play.
The angles are deceiving because nobody on the football field is running a straight line.
posted by bdaddy at 11:11 PM on October 06
No way it was under 4 seconds...he's not the fastest man alive!
And let's not go crazy..he was fast, but he was keeping up with Knox because Knox wasn't running a straight line, has pads on, and had already run 30-40 yards (especially if you consider he ran from the middle-left side of the field and finished on the right...that's a good 30+ yards there.) Even the defenders are running one way, then have to change direction, and they're all running at angles. The ballboy was running straight down the sideline and was able to get a running start in that direction. (In other words, line the boy up in a 40 against anybody on that field and watch him get smoked).
That said, it's really not surprising there's a ball boy with athletic skills. Not sure who this kid is, but athletes kids get these types of jobs on a lot of these teams. Larry Fitzgerald used to be a ball boy with the vikings and I bet he could run pretty good back then as well.
posted by bdaddy at 11:06 PM on October 06
wow..I was way wrong about this. I was sure it was a guy who was just blindly recording people in the adjacent room and *accidentally* happened to get her as one of his targets.
But based on the case sounds like he targeted her, followed her around to different hotels, and worked to get specifically her. The definition of stalking.
posted by bdaddy at 12:14 PM on October 03
I don't censor my language, video games, TV, music or movies....laugh at them when they screw up
But I guess in today's world that makes me a bad parent
That makes the DEFINITION of a bad parent
posted by bdaddy at 06:07 PM on September 30
And people sit around and bitch during contract negotiations that a "millionaire" is arguing over a few extra million. Hope some of these guys are starting to understand why that is.
- avg career is < 4 years so you have a limited time to make enough to last for the rest of your life
- contracts aren't guaranteed and you can be cut at any time
- life expectancy of an NFL player is some 20 years shorter than an avg American
- retirement years generally filled with pain and surgeries
- increased chance of dementia later in life
- historically the NFL does nothing to take care of its former players
So is it so hard to imagine why a guy making 4 million/year may want to squeeze out of the owner an extra million? Especially when that owner is making money hand over fist?
posted by bdaddy at 09:00 AM on September 30
We don't use handguns. We use knives. It's more personal that way.
Leave it to a Yankee to bring a knife to a gun fight :-)
posted by bdaddy at 01:58 PM on September 26
How could Schuerholz be such a good judge of player talent
You give Schuerholz WAY too much credit. Jermain Dye, Grissom, Justice, JD Drew, Adam Wainwright, Ryan Klesko....there's a lot of bad exchanges in there.
Let's not forget the $ he was working with during most of that stretch
Year W% % > Lg. Mean Payroll Payroll Rank
1993 64.20% 29.19% 4
1994 59.65% 49.24% 1
1995 62.50% 38.82% 3
1996 59.26% 45.32% 3
1997 62.35% 29.78% 6
1998 65.43% 43.66% 3
1999 63.58% 46.79% 5
2000 58.64% 52.25% 3
2001 54.32% 40.52% 6
2002 63.13% 37.63% 7
2003 62.35% 49.51% 3
Regarding Cox's inability to win championships...I just never have been sold on that. In baseball, more than any sport, the "best" team doesn't always win. You can have a team that is lights-out all year, wins 100+ games, and if 1 or 2 players bats get cold in October, they have a 1st round exit. Or get a hold of a team with 2 dominant starters and they can take a 5 game set (ahhhh... Arizona).
posted by bdaddy at 11:56 PM on September 23
well he's a 6th degree blackbelt...it's not as bad as say, Jose Canseco, getting out there. He should at least be able to protect himself.
posted by bdaddy at 10:22 PM on September 21
reminds me of "Wings".
Helen: "What's OBSVU mean?"
Joe: "That's Latin for 'really good seat'"
posted by bdaddy at 03:12 PM on September 18
wow. That whole section was bad...what were they thinking? The prices for those have to be like $5, just for those who want the atmosphere, but will be bringing their own TV to watch.
posted by bdaddy at 03:10 PM on September 18
Oh stop! You're just being a p*ssy, man up!
[bdaddy runs back into the game, broken collarbone and all] :-)
posted by bdaddy at 02:14 PM on September 18
I heard a coach call a teammate of mines a p*ssy one time and that actually lit a fire under him that he played great the rest of the game and for the entire season.
I had a coach call me a p*ssy once when I got a stinger during a game. My arm was completely dead/numb so I came out, 2 plays later it went away and I asked to go back in and he told me I need to stop being a p*ssy.
The next season when I BROKE my collarbone during practice I didn't tell anyone about it because I thought the pain may go away in a few minutes and didn't want him to think I was being a p*ssy again. I went through that full practice in excruciating pain, including him having me keep repeating a drill where I led with my broken shoulder into a lineman coming to block me because I wasn't hitting hard enough (because my collarbone was broke!)
At the end of practice, when I couldn't bear the thought of running gassers the way my shoulder hurt, I went to the trainer and told him my shoulder hurt, he felt my clavicle and said "When did you do this?", I said "beginning of practice", and he said "GET IN MY OFFICE RIGHT NOW!".
Long story, but point is...kids don't know what's best for them. They can and are heavily influenced by their coaches. It's their coaches responsibility to take care of them, first and foremost. The coach failed in this instance.
It's clear that the medication produced the side-affect that was listed which caused his body temperature to rise the magnitude it did and caused his death.
No, that's not clear at all. It's clear that it COULD have done that. It's also highly possible the medication had nothing to do with it and the kid overheated because his coach refused to give him water. Point was, the jury couldn't say, beyond a reasonable doubt, that it was the latter. That doesn't mean the latter wasn't the actual cause.
posted by bdaddy at 12:30 PM on September 18
because those other factors are the reason as to why he died.
Those other factors CONTRIBUTED to why he died, not WHY he died. He's not getting 107 temp without being on the field, running hard, with no water breaks. The court case doesn't indicate the coach had NO responsibility in his death, just that he wasn't "criminally" responsible.
coaches run them and if they throw up, they get water and take a break.
That's the difference. In this case, he ran them, they threw up, and did NOT get water (at least this boy did not) and he ran them some more.
I played a lot of football in my life and even had to do drills where I had to roll around peoples vomit, etc...and the one thing that was consistent in my practices is that VOMITING was the indicator to the coaches that the guy was at his breaking point. When players started to vomit, coaches knew to pull back (whether it means let them rest a bit, get some water, etc.). So no one is saying that vomiting doesn't happen, just that when it does start to happen (especially to several kids as is the case here) this coach should have pulled back the reigns.
The only fault I can find is maybe not getting a player who was on medication which could cause problems a much more intensive physical than is normally required.
Far too much emphasis is made on the medication, IMO. Thousands of kids are on this same medication and their bodies don't overheat. Certainly it's not prevalent enough where the parents or even a doctor would order a more intensive physical, as a result of its use. It's one of the listed potential side-affects and the defense jumped all over it, enough to cast a reasonable doubt in the juries minds.
posted by bdaddy at 11:36 AM on September 18
The boy's body temp was between 107 and 109 according to testimony. He did SOMETHING wrong. They just didn't find him liable. I think that was partly because
a) the boy was supposedly feeling bad throughout the day, as reported by even his stepmother
b) the defense introduced that the medication he was on has a side affect of raising body temp
Both of those were probably enough for the jury to conclude at least other factors lead to his death, not just the coaches action.
Regardless, he was at some fault for not providing the kids water while working them too hard (several kids vomited and became sick), and not doing anything once he collapsed (never went within 15 feet of the boy). Just not *criminally* negligent.
Perhaps our school districts have more criteria for selecting a coach then that.
posted by bdaddy at 09:38 AM on September 18
Anyways...I'll leave you guys to it (not sure there will be much left to argue since I was the only one arguing against apparantly :-).
Not sure I've changed my mind, but there were a certainly few posts that are certainly worth mulling over some more. As for some of those other posts, well......
posted by bdaddy at 11:11 PM on September 16
I agree...JM. That is a compelling argument.
You're dodging the question. If you do not feel the word "redskins" is offensive, would you call a Native American a redskin?
No, I wasn't. Having a team name of "redskins" is not the same as me calling someone a "redskin" and directing it to them (which was my point about the Vikings).
Now, I've had Native American semi-friends in the past (I used to do some work on a reservation). I would never had any cause to call them redskins, or direct that to them, but I wouldn't have thought twice about using the term in their presence, if that's what you're asking. So for example, I have cajun friends...and I've used the word coonass in front of them...but I don't really go up to them and say "hey, coonass!"
posted by bdaddy at 11:01 PM on September 16
People have been pointing out the flaws in your reasoning
Actually, most haven't. MOST people have been regurgitating the same thing to me: that the word "redskins" is offensive and I am a racist for not recognizing it as such or being pig headed by not agreeing that it is.
I don't find any of that compelling arguments. A few have attempted to make a case (rumple and spitztengle, for example made pretty thought provoking points), but even they haven't really addressed my real question.
You want to make a compelling argument to me? Explain to me how I should feel the word is offensive if the majority of Native American's don't feel it's offensive. If you can convince me of that, then you've made a compelling argument pointing out the flaws in my reasoning. Telling me I'm acting like a spoiled child is not really making a compelling argument.
Wow, bperk handed you that one on a platter, huh? A chance to play the victim, just what you were angling for.
How would you know what I'm angling for? And yes, I was just waiting for someone to insult me so I could jump on that. Wonder why I didn't do the same when irunfromclones called me a racist? (maybe because he was at least attempting to argue a point, not just passing an offhanded asshole comment).
posted by bdaddy at 09:42 PM on September 16
Then I'm sure you won't mind if I consider you to be a hopeless racist.
No, you're certainly entitled to feel whatever you want. But if 90% of native americans do not feel that word is offensive, then might they not find me racist? (since all I've ever done is agree with them that I didn't find the word offensive?)
posted by bdaddy at 06:04 PM on September 16
Why are we fighting so hard "for" this name?
I could give a crap less if they keep it or change it. I'm not fighting for the name, just adding debate as to why I personally don't see what the deal is.
the Washington Bullets changed their name to Wizards (partly) because of the "violent connotation" of the word bullet
Perfect example, which has nothing to do with race. If this forum was around when this change happened, I would have been on here saying "what's offensive about that?" and "where does it stop?".
posted by bdaddy at 05:59 PM on September 16
You won't accept what the Native Americans believe and feel about this term
No, I certainly will accept what they believe and feel about this term. As I referred to earlier, what I had understood is that 90% believed and felt that there was nothing offensive about the redskins. Now if that poll is outdated, prejudiced, etc...and in actuality 30%, 40%, 70% felt that it was offensive, then by all means i would have a different opinion.
Wow. Fucking unbelievable.
I guess it is...since I certainly do not equate the *n* word to be even remotely similar to the word redskin. That's why I'm abbreviating one of those words..it's too offensive to even type in a forum.
posted by bdaddy at 05:51 PM on September 16
you're going to increasingly ridiculous lengths to defend a racial slur in popular usage. wtf?
I don't know what's "ridiculous lengths" about posting in a forum? But I believe I've stated that I don't necessarily believe it to be a racial slur and why I feel that way, so might that be why I'm defending not automatically yanking it down? I wouldn't be on here defending the n word on the side of some helmet. I don't believe them to be even remotely similar.
posted by bdaddy at 05:36 PM on September 16
I think we're talking about two different things. I didn't see those threads here.
Just in how it relates to racial sensitivity in this nation, which I believe is very on-topic. But you're right, it does risk throwing things very Off-topic, so withdrawn :-)
posted by bdaddy at 05:33 PM on September 16
Please do.
Yea...I mean we don't want people with opposing viewpoints speaking their mind, do we? Then we might actually have to make real counter-arguments, instead of snide, ass-hat remarks with no substance.
No. I already did the math. The sample should have been closer to 2000 to have significant results.
Gallop has been using 1000 sample size groups to show public opinion for years. IIRC they say the margin of error is somewhere in the line of 3-4 % with that sample size. And that's in regards to the entire population, not a subset.
posted by bdaddy at 05:30 PM on September 16
I'm not riled...in fact I have no stake in the matter at all, being non-Native American AND non-Redskin fan.
But based on your thinking, should we take "Will and Grace" off the air because certain Christen groups are against it? There's nothing sacred about the show, so why not change it to avoid pissing people off? My point is...where does it stop? It's a very slippery slope.
I mean we're asking to change the name of the team on the presumption that the term "redskins" is offensive because it implies some sordid past of trading scalps in to bounty hunters...never mind that some professional linguists (like the one I linked to), actually show that the name came from no such sordid past. I mean the whole fact that these small portion of offended people may very well be offended based on false understanding of their own past, is so sad it's almost funny.
We're far too concerned about being politically correct. Heck, I can't even make a comment about the Dolphins without someone inferring that I'm comparing Native Americans to animals. Or criticize the president without being considered racist. Or be against a supreme court justice's nomination without having the hispanic community rail against me. Where's that bunker yerfatma was talking about, as I think I want to take up residence.
posted by bdaddy at 05:13 PM on September 16
I feel pretty comfortable that if we're talking about a team that plays a sport watched by millions of people, the team name should be fairly bland.
So what's bland? So what if, tomorrow, 1000 Minnesotans with Nordic heritage say that the Vikings name is offensive. It suggests a history of raping and pillaging and they don't want it associated with their past.
posted by bdaddy at 04:50 PM on September 16
In a social setting, would you call Native Americans redskins?
In a social setting, would you call Nordish people Vikings? :-)
Nobody is calling anyone "redskins". The TEAM NAME is redskins.
posted by bdaddy at 04:42 PM on September 16
God I'm getting old, but if your standard for decorum is "Anything that pisses off less than 50% of the people addressed so much that they say something", move to a bunker.
OK. So where do you stop? What's your measure for determining whether something is important enough that it needs to be addressed? 1 person offended is enough for you to want to change the name of the hometeam? 50? 1000?
So, because 699 Indians in a poll say that they are not bothered by the name, we must disregard the objections of all others?
768 is not enough of a sample to draw the conclusion
surely I don't need to explain the concept of polling. They randomly interviewed 700+ Native Americans across the US and the result was 90% of them were not offended. There is a margin of error in any polling, of course (unless you believe they happen to grab the wrong 700 people?)
Here's a good article
404 error
Native Americans are not animals, BTW.
Oh, for f**k's sake.
posted by bdaddy at 04:30 PM on September 16
I would say that most reasonable, educated people, when they know where the term "redskins" originates would find it disgusting.
Therein lies the rub, no? Did it derive from
- the perceived color of their skin
- the color of the bloody scalp
- color of warpaint
- a translation of a word the native indians used to use for themselves.
There are different arguments as to that source.
For example, Ives Goddard
posted by bdaddy at 02:31 PM on September 16
LOL.
posted by bdaddy at 02:26 PM on September 16
A registered trademark is a government-granted monopoly on using a term in commerce. When the law is clear that derogatory racial slurs are not acceptable as trademarks, and the fact that Redskins is a slur is beyond dispute, on what grounds should the team keep the mark?
On the grounds that a federal judge ruled it was ok?
btw - the same judge concluded there was insufficient evidence to conclude it is an insult to American Indians, so I disagree with you that it is "beyond dispute" that it is a slur.
posted by bdaddy at 02:22 PM on September 16
What percentage have to find it offensive before their feelings are worthy of consideration?
Well I guess that was my point about the Dolphins/Peta argument. You could find that small a percentage of people (and lets be clear..that was 9% of NATIVE AMERICANS, not 9% of random people) who could find offense to just about anything.
My point about Peta was that if you polled ONLY PETA members and asked if they found using an animal name/mascot as offensive, I'm sure a small % would (considering they wore KKK gear to a Westminster dog show, it's not as inconceivable as a moon made with green cheese)
posted by bdaddy at 02:13 PM on September 16
Really, bdaddy, we have had this discussion before, and these points were addressed. You were there for it. Do you really need a rehash?
Apparently I do, because I don't remember ever participating in such a discussion here.
posted by bdaddy at 02:11 PM on September 16
well they did a poll a few years back and only 9% of native americans found the name offensive.
I'm betting you could find 9% of peta followers who find the Dolphins name offensive.
posted by bdaddy at 02:00 PM on September 16
I guess it maybe isn't that simple, but I see again a player today (Bill's MLB Paul Pozlunski) who has a BROKEN ARM and his coach says he'll be out "several weeks".
Maybe for Urlacher that tiny bone in his wrist is a "integral part of the bone structure" but here's another guy playing the position where the BONE ITSELF is broken (nevermind the bone structure) whose only going to miss a few weeks. Just seems very odd to me. You just rarely hear of someone going on IR for a dislocation.
posted by bdaddy at 10:28 AM on September 16
The Eagles' Hank Baskett just got released. I'm worried about him not having anything to do with his spare time.
Well he has a national tv commercial (DirectTV Sunday Ticket I believe) which shows him dropping a TD pass in slow motion (which I guess is part of the reason he just got released)
posted by bdaddy at 09:20 AM on September 16
I will agree, though...my first thought when I heard the news was similar: "out for the season? For a dislocation? For a dislocated WRIST?"
You just don't hear that very much. Remember when Emmit dislocated his shoulder, but yet...not only didn't miss the season, kept playing the game in which he dislocated it?
The wrist seems so inconsequential for a defensive LB, considering they can (and do) pad those things up like clubs with broken hands, etc.
posted by bdaddy at 05:19 PM on September 15
Well, the *wizard* had them down 2 TD's with 5 minutes left in the game...without a dumbass return man, Bill ends the game looking like a hoody-wearing Ogre, not Gandalf.
As far as I'm aware, Bill wasn't present when the Bills choked away the MNF loss to the Cowboys in similar heartbreaking manner, so if you're asking me personally if the Pats won or the Bills lost, I know which way I'm voting. :-)
posted by bdaddy at 05:03 PM on September 15
and just in the rare event that Cutler gets his act together and the Bears begin to contend, watch how Urlacher makes a remarkable recovery and comes back for the playoffs
Not if they put him on IR, which they're sure to do if he says he's out for the season.
posted by bdaddy at 04:56 PM on September 15
If people are going to nit pick about the day that Romo had even though he had a career high in yardage, I wonder what will be said about Jay Cutler's Bears debut Sunday night against the Packers?
I'd say what I said months ago in this forum when talking about Cutler...he's an AVERAGE QB who put up a lot of yards only because he was in an offense that threw the ball 600 times. His QB rating was mediocre, his TD/INT ratio was mediocre, his decision making is mediocre, and his 28-56 record since college, is WORSE than mediocre.
at that time I said "Roethlisberger, Manning, Rivers, Rodgers, Schaub, Romo...are just a few that are under 30 that I think are as good as, or better than him.", and was pretty much ridiculed for suggesting that.
Based on last night's performance on a team that's not throwing the ball 50 times/game, does the above seem so absurd?
posted by bdaddy at 07:02 PM on September 14
2. Compare Seymour's refusal to report to your being told that due to reorganization, your job will no longer exist. Your boss tells you there is an opening for one with your skills in another branch, but it is on the West Coast. You have one week to decide what you want to do, but if you do not accept the offer, you are out of work. This scenario has been repeated over and over in industry, and a lot of people who earn a lot less than Richard Seymour have had to face it. I have no sympathy for "Poor Richard".
Yea, except by choosing to be out of work, you can no longer work at ANY company for a year. And when you do come back the following year, nobody will know if you still have the same skills to do your job the same. And you only have an average of 4 years total to earn as much money as you can at this job and you can never work in the industry again.
I'm sick of all the "real world" analogies and football. Being a football player and the contracts they work under is not even remotely similar to joe sixpack at the local steel mill. Stop trying to compare the two.
posted by bdaddy at 05:08 PM on September 11
If you go back and watch the replays, Troy had position on the receiver and the receiver pushed him off. How that is a penalty on Troy, is beyond me. The out of bounds penalty was pretty ticky-tack. The runner had not established being out of bounds but was in the air.
Exactly. 2 bad calls (not to mention the non-holding call). All of that kept those drives alive so I think the missed FG's were karma :-)
The only clear penalty on Troy P. was the facemask. And no, those penalties didn't outshine the career game he was having up until that point (6 tackles, 2 pass defense, 1 INT in less than 1 half) so yes...Collingsworth should have been blabbering about him.
posted by bdaddy at 02:28 PM on September 11
Well not sure putting up 300+ yards in passing offense constitutes terrible. 2 very physical teams with 2 of the best rush defenses, forcing both teams to become 1 dimensional. Turned out pretty much how you'd expect that sort of game to turn out (little rushing, lots of QB pressure, turnovers/sacks/injuries, etc.)
posted by bdaddy at 10:05 AM on September 11
Sortof feel bad for Seymour, though I'm no fan of his. People's careers disappear in Oakland. And if he just decides to play out this season and become a free agent afterwords, can't they now franchise tag him? Or is there some rule preventing that?
posted by bdaddy at 10:01 AM on September 11
Sorry to say but the state of the Pirates died on the night that Roberto Clemente passed away.
I think it died when the slowest man in baseball (Sid Bream) beat out a throw from Bonds at home (that game is still my fondest baseball memory)
posted by bdaddy at 11:07 AM on September 09
The game's so violent. Now that they're cutting out the wedge deal on kickoff returns, those guys [are] coming free, and at some point somebody is going to die in football.
I don't understand this point..unless I'm misreading that, he seems to be saying that REMOVING the wedge is going to cause someone to be killed. They are removing it to PREVENT injuries, as previously you had a "wedge buster" who did nothing but hurl himself full speed into a mass of several hundred pounds of blockers. Now that you have 2 man wedges, there's no need for this full speed collision into that mass. I think this rule change helps player safety, not hurt it.
As for Palmer's concern for QBs, I don't care how big/strong/fast a DE/LB is, to actually kill a QB with a hit while he's in the pocket would take astronomical odds. They just can't build up enough speed in a 5-10 yard sprint (especially with the QB standing still, thus minimizing impact).
Now full-sprint down field, with both players traveling in opposite directions (i.e. special teams or a downfield pass of an unprotected receiver), that's equivalent to 30-40mph car crashes.
posted by bdaddy at 11:48 PM on September 08
Not a game is played that this type taunting doesn't go on.
Sure...in game taunting goes on all the time. But Post-game "we kicked your ass, now suck-it!" taunting certainly doesn't go on every game.
posted by bdaddy at 05:39 PM on September 04
Well, we don't know what Hout said to Blount, maybe he insulted Blount or maybe he said good game since that is when both teams were shaking hands.
Oh, come on.
a) you don't get punched for saying "good game". You think Blount just went absolute ape-shit and had to be restrained by his own teammates because the guy said "good game".
b) Hout's own coach grabs him the minute he does it trying to get him out of there. Watch that coaches reaction and tell me Hout was just saying "good game".
There's no doubt it was an insult/taunt. Thinking otherwise is picking nits.
posted by bdaddy at 02:22 PM on September 04
the postgame sucker punch
he'll be remembered for is sucker punching somebody.
To me, it's not a sucker punch (not what I think of for that word, anyways.)
If you taunt a guy, and especially if you lay your hands on them when taunting them, well you need to be prepared for some sort of reaction...physical or otherwise.
I wouldn't walk up to some guy in the street, insult his wife or something, then turn my back. And if I *did* and got punched as a result, I could hardly say I was "sucker punched".
Call me callous, but I kind of smiled when you see Hout trash talk, turn around and you can just start to see a smirk start to cross his face when Blount K.O.'s him.
Not to condone what Blount did, but even Hout's coach felt he stepped over the line...he was literally yanking him away when Bount punched him.
posted by bdaddy at 10:30 AM on September 04
but I don't question Favre's ethics.
true, unless you consider lying, betrayal, egotism, and drug abuse to not be ethical traits.
posted by bdaddy at 09:33 AM on September 02
Brett Favre Mic'd Up
There aren't a lot of guys in the game who can work a team like he does. A lot of talk and most of it is either right on the mark or meant to motivate
That's not what Jet's players will tell ya! :-)