bdaddy’s profile

As I listened to Brumfield, I realized that most of the questions I had crafted in a spiral pocket notebook that I brought with me, questions that I had compiled from my family, were suddenly irrelevant. If he wasn't going to admit that he murdered my mom, as he did in his confession to police, I couldn't ask him questions about that night.

This pisses me off more than anything. Dunn just wanted answers from that night and the coward can't even give him that. What a total, spineless, piece of s**t. Own up to what you did and deal with the repercussions...death penalty or not. At least give this man, whom you've taken everything away by your own choices, some sort of closure by answering the "why's" for him.

posted at 07:32 PM on November 08

You can bring all the other things into it but leave the addiction out of it.

Why, though? Does the media leave the addiction side out of it when a Ricky Williams gets busted for Pot again? Or Pacman and his drinking issues? Or that Denver running back (name escapes me)?

All of those guys classify as having an "addiction", but that doesn't causes anybody to cut them any slack. They're considered "thugs".

posted at 09:15 AM on October 22

He's always been revered as this "class act" by fans and media alike, but some things he's done

- Let his retirement drag on, then when people were complaining said "what are they going to do? Cut me?"
- Refused to help Rodgers his rookie year and said it wasn't his job to make sure he was ready to play
- Had an addition to drugs
- Forced to enter rehab for alcohol
- Would sleep during meetings
- publicly criticize the front office for their moves
- publicly criticized teammate for holding out of camp
- tried to tell the front office who to bring in as coach
- Now (rumored) to be telling OTHER TEAMS his previous team's tendencies

I'm not saying all of those are atrocious, but seriously..if an Owens or a Moss did the above, we would be reading how "classless" they were, and how "selfish" they were. Instead, all we hear from the talking heads is how "he earned that right". Goes to show what a little media-love will do for your public image (ask Bonds).

posted at 09:45 AM on October 21

But I don't think you are really interested in the truth that there are many other possible explanations other than the one you've decided is The Answer

Because my "answer" (that some anonymous guy posting on the thread is making things up or misremembering) is more plausible given what we see in the video.

And why automatically give the benefit of the doubt to the anonymous poster over logic and visual evidence, however short?

You should understand that viewpoint, so I would guess you're just arguing to argue.

posted at 01:36 PM on October 09

You're missing the point. Your claim is that since you don't see the coach warning the kid on that video clip, therefore it couldn't have happened. My point is that given the extremely short duration of that clip, if the coach had warned the kid, you wouldn't see on that clip; therefore, that clip doesn't prove that it didn't happen.

You're missing my point. The claim was the kid was walking in the line mouthing off and shoving people, the coach grabbed the kid, warned him, he kept doing it, then the coach finally shoved him.

My point is, how did all that happen when we see the procession line and the coach is walking in the opposite direction of the kid and we see the exact moment when they intersect (which results in a push). What did the coach do, go through the line once, witness the kid acting up, grab him warn him, then run back around and get back in line at the end, then the video starts rolling as we see the second encounter?

posted at 09:00 PM on October 08

Another in the same vein claims that the kid was misbehaving in the line, the coach grabbed him and warned him, and then shoved him after the kid kept doing it. That is also blatantly false as the video shows none of that.

The video on that site is less than three seconds long. Of course it "shows none of that".

In that "3 seconds" the coach and the player are walking in opposite direction during a victory line. How is the coach going to grab the guy, warn him, then push him after that warning when he hasn't even GOTTEN to the boy yet at the beginning of the "3 seconds". We see that much in the video.

posted at 11:03 PM on October 07

reading the comments below the story posted by those who were at the game puts the incident in a slightly different light.

Yea, except the comments below the story can all be bogus. For example, 1 person saying the victim "got what he deserved", claims the victim received 2 unsportsmanlike penalties during the game for dirty play, which apparently was incorrect (someone else did). Another in the same vein claims that the kid was misbehaving in the line, the coach grabbed him and warned him, and then shoved him after the kid kept doing it. That is also blatantly false as the video shows none of that.

So in fact, you can't trust the comments in that thread at all. For all we know the coach and/or his buddies posted under those aliases claiming those things. All we know for sure is the coach shoved an 11 year old kid. He may have had justification, he may have mistaken the kid for someone else, he may just have taken his loss out on the kid who smiled at him for all we know.

posted at 01:07 PM on October 07

sorry for the doublepost...was trying to edit my italics out and didn't work so well :-)

posted at 10:29 AM on September 26

Plus, no matter how big someone or some people are, nobody can make anybody take some shit in their ass.

Yea, I guess all rapes are consensual. I mean, doesn't the same apply to women? Doesn't matter how big they are if they wanted to stop somebody all they'd have to do is "wiggle like a fish". LOL.

Sounds like you have some bad memories..

Sounds like your being very defensive. Gotta project some "tough" guy persona via the internet because you can't project the same in real-life? Not even 8 people could take me down! LOL.

posted at 10:28 AM on September 26

Plus, no matter how big someone or some people are, nobody can make anybody take some shit in their ass.

Yea, I guess all rapes are consensual. I mean, doesn't the same apply to women? Doesn't matter how big they are if they wanted to stop somebody all they'd have to do is "wiggle like a fish". LOL.

Sounds like you have some bad memories..

Sounds like your being very defensive. Gotta project some "tough" guy persona via the internet because you can't project the same in real-life? Not even 8 people could take me down! LOL.

posted at 10:28 AM on September 26

Similar hazing happened on my high-school football team in the early 90's. A group of guys on the team started hazing the younger guys. It started off innocently enough by 6 or 8 guys grabbing the person after he was in his gym clothes, holding them down, and taping them up like a mummy. It then moved onto where they would grab the guys after they got out of the shower and were still naked, and do the same thing. 1 day it escalated to where they would grab the guy naked, tape him, they 1 of the guys started shoving bar soap up the guys ass. This happened 2 or 3 times before everyone started questioning the guys sexuality openly and apparently he decided to stop doing it. The taping hazing stop shortly after that as well (I guess they were bored now that they had taken it to its extreme?)

Our coaches were all well aware of what was going on and none of them every made a mention of it. I personally never participated (it was always the same 6-8 guys), never actually witnessed first hand the soap thing (only heard about it immediately after as people ran out of the shower), nor was I a victim of it (had a bit of a tough-guy reputation and they were looking for the weaker guys).

I always thought it was "gay" and was one of the ones that told the "soap" guy that I thought it was. I get the "power" angle, but to get to that stage you had to wrestle around with a naked man...I'm sorry, that just didn't seem like heterosexual behavior to me :-)

And for those guys who say "If anybody ever tried this to me, I'd [insert macho-ism here]", let me just remind you that these are FOOTBALL players. In our case it was Lineman and Linebackers. Meaning if 6-8 of the biggest/strongest guys on the team decide they want to do something, there's not much you're going to do about it. Unless you're ready to get a gun and come back with a little revenge killing, you wouldn't be doing much as even 1 of these guys could kick your ass...much less 8 of them working together.

posted at 11:16 AM on September 25

I'm gonna assume that it's because this guy is an idiot and (most) everyone knows that getting into an argument with an idiot is a losing battle.

That didn't stop them from going after John Rocker :-)

Dexter Manley made it through four years of college (didn't graduate) while being illiterate

Dexter Manley sold my friend a bed at Gallery Furniture a few years back. Stay in school kids!

I don't really have anything else to add to the topic, I think dviking has summed it up very eloquently.

posted at 10:37 AM on September 18

nobody was beating Carlos tonight

Not to defend the Astros (as I hate them), but how do you know that? Any thought that they Z may have looked so good because the situation the Astros were in? I mean it would be hard enough to concentrate on the game after the weekend that occurred, but then to know that your home game was taken away from you and you were then forced to play in a "neutral" field (yea, right) when you're actually fighting for a wild-card spot? Couldn't the "flat bats" be an explanation rather than Z simply having un-hitable stuff?

but there weren't any other stadiums with a roof available

Why did the game have to play then? Wouldn't it be better served that it was played at a later date at home, especially considering the playoff implications?

posted at 10:04 AM on September 16

IMO Cutler should be getting some heat too.

agree. On one of the talking head shows they were raving about how Cutler proved Shanahan's trust with him in that game. Would they be saying the same thing if that call was ruled correctly, and it resulted in him coughing up the ball twice in go-ahead opportunities late?

The officials for the San Diego / Denver game should be FIRED and never allowed to officiate an NFL game again

Please. If they fired an official for every mistake, there would be none to officiate. The Dallas game had 2 very bad calls itself that no one is even talking about (missed facemask and bad PI call). Let's fire them too! If they didn't fire Luckett after his mistakes a few years back, I would guess Hochuli would be safe. Especially considering Hochuli is considered one of the NFL's best officials. Norv Turner's comments about how the mistake was "unacceptable" was particularly funny to me, seeing as he has made so many mistakes as a coach. What if every one of his mistakes was "unacceptable"?

The league has officially "graded down" Hochuli over his performance yesterday

What will be funny is when he's still reffing a playoff game despite this markdown, because the others miss so many more calls.

Nope, it was a catch that should have been down. Bailey wrestled it away after the guy was down. It was ridiculous. I watched it over and over on Tivo.

You watched it over and over on Tivo and made a decision. The argument wasn't that if the refs saw it on replay that they would overrule it (they would) it was that the play itself was not reviewable (so they wouldn't have had the opportunity to watch it "over and over on tivo").

posted at 09:55 AM on September 16

Anyway, for such an experienced referee to be so badly out of position in inexcusable. He knows that Cutler is right handed, and as such he needs to be on the right side of Cutler.

His starting position is 10-12 yards back and to "favor" the right hand side for right handed QB's. From what I remember, Cutler was moving to his right when he threw it, so that's how he would end up behind him.

The first play was not a battle for possession

Sure it was. We know the outcome of it because we saw the replay, but "Real time" the play consisted of both guys having the ball and one rolling on top of the other coming up with the ball and the question was whether the guy was down when the other gained control. As Collingsworth pointed out on their NBC show, when they both had their hands on the ball it makes it a battle of possession and it wouldn't have been reviewable anyways (so the fact that we can see in the replay that 1 had possession and he was down is moot since the officials wouldn't be privy to see that anyways).

Make no mistake, I'm saying they got hosed, as is pretty much everyone else. It was a bad call, no doubt about it (both of them were). But bad calls happen. You just hate to see them in such deciding moments (particularly what should have been the last play of the game).

posted at 01:36 PM on September 15