Teddy KGB Posted March 6, 2020 Posted March 6, 2020 10 minutes ago, Royale with Cheese said: That's the keyword....excessive. Randy Moss smoked excessively and no one could run with him.
Royale with Cheese Posted March 6, 2020 Posted March 6, 2020 2 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said: There's a long way from "majority" to "90%". The NCAA reported in 2009 26.7% of football players admitted using in the previous 7 months. A few years ago, an NFL GM put it at 30% in the league. Bennett came in as the outlier at "89%". Do you also think these college kids are being honest when being questioned LOL? I've been asked before and every damn time when I was in college. I didn't want this to get back to my coaches. Who spends more times with the players, especially in social settings outside of the field? The GM or the players? Bennett played for 5 teams which is a lot of other players he's interacted with. Eben Britton estimates that it could be as high as 75% in 2016. He's heard rumors it could be as high as 80%. Ricky Williams said it's AT LEAST 70%. Lomas Brown said 90% of the players smoked when he played in the 80's. In 2012, 70% of the college players at the combine admitted they smoked. Shaun Smith of the Chiefs admitted smoking 2 blunts before every game. Do you know how big a blunt is? Calvin Johnson admitted he smoked during his 9 year career. Chris Long admitted he smoked during his career. Percy Harvin admitted he smoked in his career. So Bennett is the "outlier"? LOL 10 minutes ago, Teddy KGB said: Randy Moss smoked excessively and no one could run with him. It's because it doesn't effect you if you aren't an idiot about it.
Kirby Jackson Posted March 6, 2020 Posted March 6, 2020 (edited) 23 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said: I don't think it's good for business. And the NFLPA has wanted this. Since there is no evidence that the NFL was going to stop testing before this final CBA proposal was leaked a little while ago, then why do you keep insisting that this is what the owners have wanted all along? Again, if that was true they could have stopped at any time if they were truly concerned that the league has a "bunch of addicts" and hate the idea of losing talent (the number of suspensions per year ruin both arguments anyway). Why didn't they? Why now? And as for players "spin"....come on! The "handing out opioids like candy" (and Toradol, etc) is an OLD story that have gained zero traction over the past few years. None. Bringing that old trope up again would fall on deaf ears in the public (as they already have). The public doesn't care. They will reply: "you don't have to take the opioids". You overestimate the general fan's tolerance for millionaires playing games whine about not being able to get high when they want to because they test at work. Plus, it's hard to take active players' battle cry of "player safety" when we see them trying to or just incidentally nearly ending their colleagues' careers with cheap shots, late hits, head shots. And their union with a history of fighting testing for PEDs. They have little credibility as aggrieved parties. There's a long way from "majority" to "90%". The NCAA reported in 2009 26.7% of football players admitted using in the previous 7 months. A few years ago, an NFL GM put it at 30% in the league. Bennett came in as the outlier at "89%". They didn’t stop because they would have showed weakness. They would have admitted being wrong. Again, everything I’ve predicted on the topic for years is coming true. The CBA is a natural clean break. It downplays it. Instead of making it THE story it’s a piece of the story. I don’t know why you believe that the owners want it? You just said it wasn’t good for business. That’s the entire point. Both sides know that so it’s going away. In terms of the spin they’d absolutely play that hand of the league pushed back!! Again, that’s the point. That hand will NEVER get played because the league is in agreement with the players. They both want the same thing!! Also, referencing an NCAA poll from 2009 is laughable on the marijuana subject. That’s like asking people how often they drank during prohibition. The world in 2020 is NOTHING like 2009 on the subject. Edited March 6, 2020 by Kirby Jackson 1
Chaos Posted March 6, 2020 Posted March 6, 2020 Did not read the whole thread. Does this mean Josh Gordon’s problems are expunged?
Over 29 years of fanhood Posted March 6, 2020 Posted March 6, 2020 does anyone know Why is the Wizzinator stock is crashing today ? I do not see the carona virus connec... ...oh.... I see
Mr. WEO Posted March 6, 2020 Posted March 6, 2020 26 minutes ago, Royale with Cheese said: Do you also think these college kids are being honest when being questioned LOL? I've been asked before and every damn time when I was in college. I didn't want this to get back to my coaches. Who spends more times with the players, especially in social settings outside of the field? The GM or the players? Bennett played for 5 teams which is a lot of other players he's interacted with. Eben Britton estimates that it could be as high as 75% in 2016. He's heard rumors it could be as high as 80%. Ricky Williams said it's AT LEAST 70%. Lomas Brown said 90% of the players smoked when he played in the 80's. In 2012, 70% of the college players at the combine admitted they smoked. Shaun Smith of the Chiefs admitted smoking 2 blunts before every game. Do you know how big a blunt is? Calvin Johnson admitted he smoked during his 9 year career. Chris Long admitted he smoked during his career. Percy Harvin admitted he smoked in his career. So Bennett is the "outlier"? LOL It's because it doesn't effect you if you aren't an idiot about it. Asking players who smoke pot how many other players smoke pot is a waste of time. Lots of guys smoke. But citing guys who say other guys do it isn't helping you. 25 minutes ago, Kirby Jackson said: They didn’t stop because they would have showed weakness. They would have admitted being wrong. Again, everything I’ve predicted on the topic for years is coming true. The CBA is a natural clean break. It downplays it. Instead of making it THE story it’s a piece of the story. I don’t know why you believe that the owners want it? You just said it wasn’t good for business. That’s the entire point. Both sides know that so it’s going away. In terms of the spin they’d absolutely play that hand of the league pushed back!! Again, that’s the point. That hand will NEVER get played because the league is in agreement with the players. They both want the same thing!! Also, referencing an NCAA poll from 2009 is laughable on the marijuana subject. That’s like asking people how often they drank during prohibition. The world in 2020 is NOTHING like 2009 on the subject. So this month they decided to "show weakness"? Come on. You weren't wrong in predicting the demise of NFL testing. However, your reasons for why fly in the face of events that have happened and those that did not did not take place in the past. It's simple. The owners came to a conclusion that giving in on testing was nothing compared to having the union cave on an extra game. The extra game was everything to the owners in this CBA. It's what they have always wanted since the last CBA and something the players uniformly were against. The fact that they never stopped testing "because they thought it was wrong for their brand" should tell you that that wasn't their concern. They have been waiting to show this "weakness" as soon as the negotiations began months ago--and only then. The players didn't think testing was "going away" a year ago. Owners figured "a lot of these guys love getting high so much, I bet they will agree to an extra game if we stop testing (after first teasing that we will only stop suspending, of course). So let's give them this little nothing and i bet they will give us everything..." You have to let that "hand" of player safety go. The league would correctly see that as a sad bluff that has already been played by the players when those stories broke. It was a story for a few months. Then it was a complete dud. No one cares about the opioids the players take anymore. That's a long empty hand. Yes, the data is old in that NCAA study. There is not a more recent one, so citing it is far less laughable than layers who smoke making up %'s ("89%"! lol). Do I think 90% of the Bills smoke weed on the regular? Absolutely not.
Teddy KGB Posted March 6, 2020 Posted March 6, 2020 3 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said: Asking players who smoke pot how many other players smoke pot is a waste of time. Lots of guys smoke. But citing guys who say other guys do it isn't helping you. So this month they decided to "show weakness"? Come on. You weren't wrong in predicting the demise of NFL testing. However, your reasons for why fly in the face of events that have happened and those that did not did not take place in the past. It's simple. The owners came to a conclusion that giving in on testing was nothing compared to having the union cave on an extra game. The extra game was everything to the owners in this CBA. It's what they have always wanted since the last CBA and something the players uniformly were against. The fact that they never stopped testing "because they thought it was wrong for their brand" should tell you that that wasn't their concern. They have been waiting to show this "weakness" as soon as the negotiations began months ago--and only then. The players didn't think testing was "going away" a year ago. Owners figured "a lot of these guys love getting high so much, I bet they will agree to an extra game if we stop testing (after first teasing that we will only stop suspending, of course). So let's give them this little nothing and i bet they will give us everything..." You have to let that "hand" of player safety go. The league would correctly see that as a sad bluff that has already been played by the players when those stories broke. It was a story for a few months. Then it was a complete dud. No one cares about the opioids the players take anymore. That's a long empty hand. Yes, the data is old in that NCAA study. There is not a more recent one, so citing it is far less laughable than layers who smoke making up %'s ("89%"! lol). Do I think 90% of the Bills smoke weed on the regular? Absolutely not. why are you angry that people smoke pot ? what’s the endgame here ?
reddogblitz Posted March 6, 2020 Posted March 6, 2020 This will seriously give Seattle, Detroit, LA x 2, San Francisco, Chicago, and Denver a leg up on FA signing. We need to get it legalized in NY to have a chance.
Mr. WEO Posted March 6, 2020 Posted March 6, 2020 19 minutes ago, Teddy KGB said: why are you angry that people smoke pot ? what’s the endgame here ? You had to make a very long trip around all of these posts and come to that conclusion. It's like you cut out random letters and reassembled them to find "I-a-m-a-n-g-r-y-t-h-a-t-p-e-o-p-le-s-m-o-k-e-p-o-t" Of course this discussion has nothing to do with it. It's about how the owners got something for nothing. Keep up man!
Royale with Cheese Posted March 6, 2020 Posted March 6, 2020 23 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said: Asking players who smoke pot how many other players smoke pot is a waste of time. Lots of guys smoke. But citing guys who say other guys do it isn't helping you. So asking players who hang around other players is wasting time but yet you put an old NCAA study and one opinion on an NFL GM isn’t?? I love how you think your opinion has more value than players who hang around other players. You were so adamant that the owners wouldn’t budge...you were wrong. So you’re next step is to be very adamantly against what other players opinions are on the percentage of who use. 11 minutes ago, reddogblitz said: This will seriously give Seattle, Detroit, LA x 2, San Francisco, Chicago, and Denver a leg up on FA signing. We need to get it legalized in NY to have a chance. Sarcasm?
Teddy KGB Posted March 6, 2020 Posted March 6, 2020 (edited) 25 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said: You had to make a very long trip around all of these posts and come to that conclusion. It's like you cut out random letters and reassembled them to find "I-a-m-a-n-g-r-y-t-h-a-t-p-e-o-p-le-s-m-o-k-e-p-o-t" Of course this discussion has nothing to do with it. It's about how the owners got something for nothing. Keep up man! Sign me up for 3 extra games, everything is better when your stoned ??. You seem angry, Whats the title of the thread again ? Edited March 6, 2020 by Teddy KGB
reddogblitz Posted March 6, 2020 Posted March 6, 2020 (edited) 40 minutes ago, Royale with Cheese said: Sarcasm? No, I'm serious. If I'm a weed smoking player which by some estimates is 70%+ and I have a chance to go to Seattle or Buffalo all things being equal, I go Seattle. Buffalo is in a redneck state. Why take a chance? Roll with it. Edited March 6, 2020 by reddogblitz
Royale with Cheese Posted March 6, 2020 Posted March 6, 2020 10 minutes ago, reddogblitz said: No, I'm serious. If I'm a weed smoking player which by some estimates is 70%+ and I have a chance to go to Seattle or Buffalo all things being equal, I go Seattle. Buffalo is in a redneck state. Why take a chance? Roll with it. Georgia is a redneck state and not legal here. I haven’t had any issue getting weed since the late 90’s. Do you think Percy Harvin didn’t smoke when he was in Buffalo? 1
reddogblitz Posted March 6, 2020 Posted March 6, 2020 2 minutes ago, Royale with Cheese said: Georgia is a redneck state and not legal here. I haven’t had any issue getting weed since the late 90’s. Do you think Percy Harvin didn’t smoke when he was in Buffalo? True. But I live in a cool state and it's way better/easier to buy as I can just drive down to the store and buy it cheaper and know what I'm getting. And it's all really good. Haven't got skunked yet in 8 years. Do you think players will take this into account in deciding where to play? Or not? Then the Beast wouldn't have to sit in a car in a parking lot with unregistered hand guns in the trunk to get it. Just mosey down to the store ...
Royale with Cheese Posted March 6, 2020 Posted March 6, 2020 5 minutes ago, reddogblitz said: True. But I live in a cool state and it's way better/easier to buy as I can just drive down to the store and buy it cheaper and know what I'm getting. And it's all really good. Haven't got skunked yet in 8 years. Do you think players will take this into account in deciding where to play? Or not? Then the Beast wouldn't have to sit in a car in a parking lot with unregistered hand guns in the trunk to get it. Just mosey down to the store ... It’s not going to matter.
reddogblitz Posted March 7, 2020 Posted March 7, 2020 1 hour ago, Royale with Cheese said: It’s not going to matter. It's going to matter.
Mr. WEO Posted March 7, 2020 Posted March 7, 2020 (edited) 2 hours ago, Royale with Cheese said: So asking players who hang around other players is wasting time but yet you put an old NCAA study and one opinion on an NFL GM isn’t?? I love how you think your opinion has more value than players who hang around other players. You were so adamant that the owners wouldn’t budge...you were wrong. So you’re next step is to be very adamantly against what other players opinions are on the percentage of who use. Sarcasm? I cited the only study. It’s 10 years old, I get that. But players who smoke saying, essentially, every player smokes Isn’t convincing. There’s a bit of bias in that sample don’t you suspect? Why would they say anything else if they want to be seen as the norm? mine is just an opinion. I don’t believe 90% of Bills players fir example, are smoking weed regularly. The owners had all the opportunity in the world to stop testing at any time, yet they refused to. I assumed they didn’t want to...because there is no other conclusion you can come to. I was wrong. They were saving it to bait the players into agreeing to the CBA including a 17th game.. Do you really believe any player can know the habits of 100% of his colleagues in the rest of the league so he can conclude that 90% are smoking weed? Edited March 7, 2020 by Mr. WEO
Royale with Cheese Posted March 7, 2020 Posted March 7, 2020 47 minutes ago, reddogblitz said: It's going to matter. You’re right. You can’t get weed in the states where it’s not legal. 1
Recommended Posts