Kelly the Dog Posted January 2, 2012 Posted January 2, 2012 Frankly if Stevie takes the route of arguing that it should be a fine not a penalty then he is more of a child than I thought. Once the rule was laid down why on earth would he look for loopholes to get in trouble and get attention on espn/pft/threads on here, without technically getting a penalty. I love his energy, and passion but frankly it screams "I'm not touching you" or a variety of 8 year old games. I hope we keep him but I hope it's a Wakeup call and he grows up. Ummmmm... because players celebrate TDs in all kinds of ways, every single week of the season, and what he did before was not a penalty. If you asked me, before this game, would Steve Johnson get a penalty for excessive celebration for lifting his shirt with Happy New Year on it, I would have said, "No way, unless they changed the rule. They let him do the Why So Serious thing" It doesnt seem excessive, you are not taunting the other team or another player, you are not dancing all around interminably, you're wishing everyone a Happy new Year because you're a media slut."
GG Posted January 2, 2012 Posted January 2, 2012 I don't see how he handled this the wrong way and I like Stevie and I would like him to be re-signed. Did you see G. Wilson and D. Bryd talking to him after the penalty? I would guess they weren't very happy with Steve's actions. Steve needs to keep maturing, hopefully he does it as a Bill. Nobody is arguing that what Stevie today did was stupid. The question is whether Gailey's one game benching is appropriate for the offense and whether it was more harmful to him trying to control the players. The players also weren't happy that they didn't play with a full roster for the whole game. I think that Bills completely tanking the last 45 minutes spoke volumes about Gailey's effectiveness as a coach.
papazoid Posted January 2, 2012 Posted January 2, 2012 imagine how he would act when he actually gets paid guaranteed money... selfish moron.
Wayne Cubed Posted January 2, 2012 Posted January 2, 2012 (edited) Who are those ego players on the saints, pack, NE, colts, etc.... You know the teams that win. I see a lot on the jets, cowboys etc... You know the ones you can count on a roller coaster with. So Rogers doing the "Belt Move" had nothing to do with his ego? Matthews with his "predator" move has nothing to do with his ego? give me a break. They made freaking commercials for both those moves, that surely got the players more $$, I'm sure every player wishes they could come up with "the move" that boosts their ego and their wallet! Edit: I do enjoy the Matthews commercial, not so much the Rodgers one Edited January 2, 2012 by Wayne333
RuntheDamnBall Posted January 2, 2012 Posted January 2, 2012 So Rogers doing the "Belt Move" had nothing to do with his ego? Matthews with his "predator" move has nothing to do with his ego? give me a break. They made freaking commercials for both those moves, that surely got the players more $$, I'm sure every player wishes they could come up with "the move" that boosts their ego and their wallet This.
Offside Number 76 Posted January 2, 2012 Posted January 2, 2012 Wow. 9 pages. I'll bet everything that needed to be said is in the first 2-3.
Lurker Posted January 2, 2012 Posted January 2, 2012 His reputation is that he treats his players with respect and he is a straight shooter. Maybe he was a straigth shooter with those stars in Dallas and they didn't like it. "As much as he hates hearing about it, Aikman knows he is the reason coach Chan Gailey was fired..."
Kelly the Dog Posted January 2, 2012 Posted January 2, 2012 Here is Stevie's own words in explanation. He doesn't try to make excuses. I predict 100 posters will have 101 different reads on it. It's pretty interesting. http://www.buffalobills.com/media-center/videos/Stevie-Johnson-on-Getting-Benched/79b33c49-eb77-46a2-9d51-6210d5cb0bb4
San Jose Bills Fan Posted January 2, 2012 Posted January 2, 2012 Wow. 9 pages. I'll bet everything that needed to be said is in the first 2-3. That's often the case. Not always, but often.
NoSaint Posted January 2, 2012 Posted January 2, 2012 Ummmmm... because players celebrate TDs in all kinds of ways, every single week of the season, and what he did before was not a penalty. If you asked me, before this game, would Steve Johnson get a penalty for excessive celebration for lifting his shirt with Happy New Year on it, I would have said, "No way, unless they changed the rule. They let him do the Why So Serious thing" It doesnt seem excessive, you are not taunting the other team or another player, you are not dancing all around interminably, you're wishing everyone a Happy new Year because you're a media slut." It's still a fine and he knew it. Best case is he still knew he was breaking NFL rules. After his track record and chans warning you'd think he would err on the side of caution and not take that route. Like I said - it's a bit like a kid being told to keep his hands to himself and then pulling the I'm not touching you routine. Even if he followed the letter of the NFL law, why would you even go there. So Rogers doing the "Belt Move" had nothing to do with his ego? Matthews with his "predator" move has nothing to do with his ego? give me a break. They made freaking commercials for both those moves, that surely got the players more $$, I'm sure every player wishes they could come up with "the move" that boosts their ego and their wallet! Edit: I do enjoy the Matthews commercial, not so much the Rodgers one Which one of those is either a fine or penalty? Both well inside the NFL rules. Stevie knew that by breaking the rules he'd get a spot on sportscenter. He thought he found the loophole to chans ultimatum. It's silly and childish. Celebrate but don't go outside the rules.
Kelly the Dog Posted January 2, 2012 Posted January 2, 2012 It's still a fine and he knew it. Best case is he still knew he was breaking NFL rules. After his track record and chans warning you'd think he would err on the side of caution and not take that route. Like I said - it's a bit like a kid being told to keep his hands to himself and then pulling the I'm not touching you routine. Even if he followed the letter of the NFL law, why would you even go there. Which one of those is either a fine or penalty? Both well inside the NFL rules. Stevie knew that by breaking the rules he'd get a spot on sportscenter. He thought he found the loophole to chans ultimatum. It's silly and childish. Celebrate but don't go outside the rules. The first thing Chan said in his post conference was that he was disappointed in the rules, that Stevie did it last year and it was ok, and now he does the same thing and it's not. He understood that, and didn't think he should have gotten a penalty. But he had laid down the rule and the rule was if you get a penalty you're out. Why would Stevie think it was outside the rules, meaning get a penalty. Again, you alter your uniform they fine you, they do not give you a penalty.
stevewin Posted January 2, 2012 Posted January 2, 2012 Ummmmm... because players celebrate TDs in all kinds of ways, every single week of the season, and what he did before was not a penalty. If you asked me, before this game, would Steve Johnson get a penalty for excessive celebration for lifting his shirt with Happy New Year on it, I would have said, "No way, unless they changed the rule. They let him do the Why So Serious thing" It doesnt seem excessive, you are not taunting the other team or another player, you are not dancing all around interminably, you're wishing everyone a Happy new Year because you're a media slut." How many of those players were penalized/fined multiple times prior and told explicitly to cut the **** out and not do it again? As I've said earlier in the thread and is stated by others above - the obvious thing is just don't do anything - don't try to gauge semantics and interpretations and consistencies - just don't go there at all! When your priority is to get attention despite warnings and potential negative consequences for the team, your priorities (and maturity) is screwed up big time. I have no problem if he stays - but he has to adjust his attitude and become more mature.
NoSaint Posted January 2, 2012 Posted January 2, 2012 (edited) The first thing Chan said in his post conference was that he was disappointed in the rules, that Stevie did it last year and it was ok, and now he does the same thing and it's not. He understood that, and didn't think he should have gotten a penalty. But he had laid down the rule and the rule was if you get a penalty you're out. Why would Stevie think it was outside the rules, meaning get a penalty. Again, you alter your uniform they fine you, they do not give you a penalty. Again, why tempt fate with anything at this point? I loved hearing he stayed active, and cheered his team. I want him back. Why in the world do you do something outside league rules to even draw a fine given that you know the refs will be watching you? It's simply immature. Argue the rule all you want. Awesome, good for him - it shouldn't be a flag but why do it given your history? Edited January 2, 2012 by NoSaint
RuntheDamnBall Posted January 2, 2012 Posted January 2, 2012 Again, why tempt fate with anything at this point? I loved hearing he stayed active, and cheered his team. I want him back. Why in the world do you do something outside league rules to even draw a fine given that you know the refs will be watching you? It's simply immature. Argue the rule all you want. Awesome, good for him - it shouldn't be a flag but why do it given your history? By that logic, why tackle Tom Brady as it's sure to result in a penalty?
Kelly the Dog Posted January 2, 2012 Posted January 2, 2012 (edited) Again, why tempt fate with anything at this point? That is ultimately true. I personally wish he acted like Barry Sanders. I don't think it was a smart thing to do at all, and wish he would never do any endzone celebrations of any kind. I think of those things like most people, it's selfish and showboating and unnecessary. Again, I hated hated hated the Plaxico thing and bitched endlessly about how stupid that and he was. My feeling on this one, however, is that there was a VERY good reason why he thought it was ok and not breaking Chan's or the league's rules. It's a rationale not an excuse. he flat should not have done it at all. Edited January 2, 2012 by Kelly the Dog
stevewin Posted January 2, 2012 Posted January 2, 2012 The first thing Chan said in his post conference was that he was disappointed in the rules, that Stevie did it last year and it was ok, and now he does the same thing and it's not. He understood that, and didn't think he should have gotten a penalty. But he had laid down the rule and the rule was if you get a penalty you're out. Why would Stevie think it was outside the rules, meaning get a penalty. Again, you alter your uniform they fine you, they do not give you a penalty. Chan also said the following - which to me is the bottom line: “I got tired of it the first time it happened,” Gailey said. “But you hope people learn from situations. There isn’t anybody who hasn’t made mistakes, but you’ve got to learn from your mistakes. And everybody falls in that category — me too. “He is not a bad guy; he’s not. He’s a good guy, but he uses some bad judgment at times and if you do that enough and it hurts the team, you’ve got to do something.”
Hapless Bills Fan Posted January 2, 2012 Posted January 2, 2012 Nobody is arguing that what Stevie today did was stupid. The question is whether Gailey's one game benching is appropriate for the offense and whether it was more harmful to him trying to control the players. The players also weren't happy that they didn't play with a full roster for the whole game. I think that Bills completely tanking the last 45 minutes spoke volumes about Gailey's effectiveness as a coach. Chan had no alternative, he had warned the team that the next excessive celebration penalty would result in a benching. Is that what you're questioning - whether Chan should have set that rule out to the team? Once you warn, you need to follow through, don't you agree? I don't think you can turn into a street lawyer and say "well, I said that, but the penalty was lame so I won't apply it in this instance".
BRH Posted January 2, 2012 Posted January 2, 2012 It's hard to know. I was absolutely livid with Stevie for the Plaxico thing for several different reasons. He obviously thought before the game, if I score, this is what I am going to do. I'm sure he knew he would be fined, but didn't care and that is his right as a person. But if he thought for one second what the league would have thought about it, he would have realized they, um, probably do not want one of their players, in the endzone, revisiting and bringing to light an incident where another star player used a handgun and shot himself and went to jail for it. It was criminally stupid on Johnson's part because he obviously didn't think of what the NFL would think. He thought it was amusing (I didn't), and he had already pantomimed a cannon going off and mocked the Minutemen, which I think he also got fined for but no penalty (I am not sure about that, there may have been a penalty because he fell on the ground, which they explicitly say you cannot do. That's why the Jet thing was so utterly stupid and wrong and selfish, because he should have known you couldnt roll in the endzone. Then Chan laid down the law and said no more excessive celebrations. I would bet ANYTHING that Stevie thought to himself in the days before the game, what can I do that is not going to get a penalty, but will still get the desired result, which for him is obviously the attention. Which 90% of skill players in the league want. And then he thought to himself, I know, I will just do the thing on the shirt again, and wish everyone a Happy new Year, everyone will think that's a cool nice gesture. I would bet anything that was his thinking, what can I do that will not get a penalty, and since he didnt get one before, and it was a simple kind message, there is no way he would be breaking Chan's rule. It was unnecessary, but I don't think it was all that crazy. I would bet anything he thought about if it was going to get a penalty and then thought no way. I really don't disagree with anything you say. My problem is that he was thinking this week about what he could do to get attention without getting a flag, and he came up with the t-shirt thing, To me, you score two or three touchdowns and get 150 yards receiving, you'll get all the attention you need. But that's just me.
Wayne Cubed Posted January 2, 2012 Posted January 2, 2012 That is ultimately true. I personally wish he acted like Barry Sanders. I don't think it was a smart thing to do at all, and wish he would never do any endzone celebrations of any kind. I think of those things like most people, it's selfish and showboating and unnecessary. Again, I hated hated hated the Plaxico thing and bitched endlessly about how stupid that and he was. My feeling on this one, however, is that there was a VERY good reason why he thought it was ok and not breaking Chan's or the league's rules. It's a rationale not an excuse. he flat should not have done it at all. If I'm a player and see the Rodgers and Matthews commercials how do you not want to come up with a good celebration that lands me a commercial. Cause let's face it, football end up being a very short part of a players lives and they are thinking long term. Most think entertainment business.
Kelly the Dog Posted January 2, 2012 Posted January 2, 2012 Chan also said the following - which to me is the bottom line: Absolutely. Chan hates it. And he should. The point is, Chan would not have benched him if he did it and got no penalty. He would not have cared. He wouldn't have said a word about it, he would have said, "Great job" He wouldn't have "liked" it because he doesn't like any of it, but it would not have pissed him off one bit because he would have thought that's not against the NFL rules and not a penalty and he didn't break my rules.
Recommended Posts