HOUSE Posted September 12, 2014 Posted September 12, 2014 You know, they need to get this garbage of the sports page. First it was Sam then Rice now Peterson and none of this has anything to do with the game of Football Nothing more then Tabloid junk I suppose ESPN will post 25 stories on Peterson in the next 3 days
PO'14 Posted September 12, 2014 Posted September 12, 2014 (edited) I wouldn't dare make light of this situation, but it's amazing that this happens this week when the Vikes play the Pats.... You didnt know that Kraft and Bellicheat have supreme influential powers? I never realized until you mentioned and yes it does suck balls! Pats could have been up against the ropes early in the season and booya! Wishing that all is well with the boy and that in the near future, Adrian gets his tubes tied, I could see how using 2$ rubbers gets expensive on his low income. Edited September 12, 2014 by PO'14
Dragonborn10 Posted September 12, 2014 Posted September 12, 2014 You know, they need to get this garbage of the sports page. First it was Sam then Rice now Peterson and none of this has anything to do with the game of Football Nothing more then Tabloid junk I suppose ESPN will post 25 stories on Peterson in the next 3 days I get your point but to link Sam, Rice, and Peterson is a bit shall we say - ignorant. One is about a marginal football player doing what no one had the courage to do before. The others appear to be the worst kind of criminals. Just saying you might want to choose your examples a bit more cautiously in the future.
PO'14 Posted September 12, 2014 Posted September 12, 2014 I get your point but to link Sam, Rice, and Peterson is a bit shall we say - ignorant. One is about a marginal football player doing what no one had the courage to do before. The others appear to be the worst kind of criminals. Just saying you might want to choose your examples a bit more cautiously in the future. Its not ignorant. I get his point. Nowhere does the poster talk down about Gays and Lesbians.
stevestojan Posted September 12, 2014 Posted September 12, 2014 Even if it doesn't lead to huge errors, it leads to the perception of huge errors. The NFL really needs to put in place an objective disciplinary system, if they're going to have one at all. And Goodell's not the person to do it, at this point. I hate to agree with Tom.
Dragonborn10 Posted September 12, 2014 Posted September 12, 2014 This is getting out of control. The NFL needs to set a policy and stick with it. Either A) You let them play until the court/legal system is done before suspending a player or B) You suspend them with pay once an indictment comes down, and re-address a suspension after the court/legal system is done. The NFL is trying to be the judge and jury AS SOON as evidence comes out because the public pressure is too great. This invariably leads to huge errors. They need to figure out a way to let the legal system proceed with the process, and then react to the outcome. Goodell a long time ago should have divorced himself from the judge, jury, and executioner role. It has only harmed him. He could have easily let a committee do the dirty work for him. The players wanted that in the CBA and that would have been the perfect time to give up that role. If he wanted that role then he is an egomaniac who deserves what he is getting right now. I totally agree they need a standard. On one hand the players are being treated unfairly. If you get a DUI how many people lose their job or are even suspended in the real world? Virtually none. On the other hand sometimes they are given too much leeway especially if they are good players. I would advocate that any physical altercation or injury, should mandate an immediate action/suspension regardless of due process. Anything other offense, the punishment if any should be reserved for after the legal process runs its course.
stevestojan Posted September 12, 2014 Posted September 12, 2014 If he hit his kid on the ass with a switch, this is insane. But with Goodell needing to save face, you never know what this could turn into. If he beat a child, !@#$ him.
DC Tom Posted September 12, 2014 Posted September 12, 2014 If he hit his kid on the ass with a switch, this is insane. But with Goodell needing to save face, you never know what this could turn into. If he beat a child, !@#$ him. In the real world, there's a difference between "swat," "hit," and "beat." In the modern "zero tolerance" justice system, not so much.
fridge Posted September 12, 2014 Posted September 12, 2014 I get your point but to link Sam, Rice, and Peterson is a bit shall we say - ignorant. One is about a marginal football player doing what no one had the courage to do before. The others appear to be the worst kind of criminals. Just saying you might want to choose your examples a bit more cautiously in the future. You missed his point. He was making a very valid claim, that the social news stories of the NFL is now being overly covered by sports journalists. I don't often watch ESPN, but if I do I might want to see sports highlights or analysis. This doesn't mean I want these stories swept under the rug, but it does mean that there's a degree of sensationalism that takes place when handled by ex coaches and players. To put it bluntly, there's a buttload of crimes constantly committed everyday. There's war crimes and police state madness all over the place -- BUT, I don't tune into ESPN to see it covered for a reason.
BillsFanM.D. Posted September 12, 2014 Posted September 12, 2014 (edited) I don't often watch ESPN, but if I do....I drink dos Equis. Off topic (and I apologize given nature of this thread), but I couldn't resist. Edited September 12, 2014 by BillsFanM.D.
fridge Posted September 12, 2014 Posted September 12, 2014 Off topic (and I apologize given nature of this thread), but I couldn't resist. Haha
stevestojan Posted September 12, 2014 Posted September 12, 2014 In the real world, there's a difference between "swat," "hit," and "beat." In the modern "zero tolerance" justice system, not so much. My dad never hit me once. Which likely explains my first 8 years posting on this site.
birdog1960 Posted September 12, 2014 Posted September 12, 2014 (edited) You missed his point. He was making a very valid claim, that the social news stories of the NFL is now being overly covered by sports journalists. I don't often watch ESPN, but if I do I might want to see sports highlights or analysis. This doesn't mean I want these stories swept under the rug, but it does mean that there's a degree of sensationalism that takes place when handled by ex coaches and players. To put it bluntly, there's a buttload of crimes constantly committed everyday. There's war crimes and police state madness all over the place -- BUT, I don't tune into ESPN to see it covered for a reason. so do you agree with espn's decision to not air a documentary on traumatic brain injuries and hand it off to pbs cuz the nfl asked them to? i don't. seems the threshold for holding all things nfl sacred has changed. that's a good thing. Edited September 12, 2014 by birdog1960
ExiledInIllinois Posted September 12, 2014 Posted September 12, 2014 What's with running back and pumping out the multitude of children? They have got to have some of the shortest careers in The League and are usually out by the time they are 34... Like Forte said: "They are ground down." McGahee Henry Peterson Etc... I wonder if there is a list by position and how many children they are siring...
fridge Posted September 12, 2014 Posted September 12, 2014 so do you agree with espn's decision to not air a documentary on traumatic brain injuries and hand it off to pbs cuz the nfl asked them to? i don't. seems the threshold for holding all thing nfl sacred has passed. that's a good thing. I don't see how this is relevant to my post, but I'll bite. So now we're talking about the audience of ESPN... And according to you these are not people qualified to watch a documentary on PBS? PBS is over-the-air and free.
KD in CA Posted September 12, 2014 Posted September 12, 2014 My dad never hit me once. Which likely explains my first 8 years posting on this site. So who started hitting you?
birdog1960 Posted September 12, 2014 Posted September 12, 2014 I don't see how this is relevant to my post, but I'll bite. So now we're talking about the audience of ESPN... And according to you these are not people qualified to watch a documentary on PBS? PBS is over-the-air and free. never implied that. certainly there's cross over - me for one. but there is a sizable demographic that watches one and not the other.
Recommended Posts