Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 60
  1. #31
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Frederick, MD
    Posts
    31,932
    Blog Entries
    3

    Re: New Post: Ripping Goodell for fining Ed Reed



    Quote Originally Posted by steelerhater View Post
    This is ridiculus. In 1978, Darryl Stingley was paralyzed by a hit in a preseason game. In 1985, Joe Theisman had his leg broken in one of the most gruesome fashions seen. In 1991, Mike Utley was paralyzed by making a tackle. I remember watching pregame shows in the '70's and early '80's discussing how many retired players had trouble getting out of bed in the morning and that the life-expectancy on an NFL player was about 10-15 years less than normal. Anyone who claims that they didn't know this sport was dangerous has no business in a court room. They don't have the basic intelligence to make any kind of argument.


    I don't get the claim that guys didn't know that football could be detrimental to long term and short term health.
    Milk is for babies. When you grow up, you have to drink beer.

    -Arnold Schwarzenegger



    Check out Fatherhood Rules - a blog site dedicated to sports, food, music, movies, and politics.
    http://fatherhoodrules.com




  2. #32
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Balmer Merlin Hon
    Posts
    3,690
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: New Post: Ripping Goodell for fining Ed Reed

    Quote Originally Posted by steelerhater View Post
    Just wondering, did you just start watching football in the last few years? It doesn't sound like you'd be much of a fan of the way the game used to be played.
    In all likelihood I started watching football before you were born. Teach your grandmother to suck eggs.

    FTR I appreciate a good solid hit as well as the next person. I just don't kid myself about what a career's worth of those hits add up to. And I care far more for the health of the guys who make the plays I love to watch than I do for the financial health of whatever sons of bitches own the teams. Too bad some folks would rather suck up to them.




  3. #33
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Frederick, MD
    Posts
    31,932
    Blog Entries
    3

    Re: New Post: Ripping Goodell for fining Ed Reed

    Loba -

    Just curious, but regardless of the owner's bank accounts...don't you think that players are extremely well compensated?
    Milk is for babies. When you grow up, you have to drink beer.

    -Arnold Schwarzenegger



    Check out Fatherhood Rules - a blog site dedicated to sports, food, music, movies, and politics.
    http://fatherhoodrules.com




  4. #34

    Re: New Post: Ripping Goodell for fining Ed Reed

    Quote Originally Posted by lobachevsky View Post
    I care far more for the health of the guys who make the plays I love to watch than I do for the financial health of whatever sons of bitches own the teams. Too bad some folks would rather suck up to them.

    "Sons-of-bitches"??????????????????????????

    If it weren't for the investment and bold decision-making by many of these "Sons-of-bitches", we wouldn't have an NFL. George Halas, the team owners during WWII who carried on the game despite losses and depleted manpower, Art Modell, Al Davis, the Rooneys etc made the NFL what it is today.
    In a 2003 BBC poll that asked Brits to name the "Greatest American Ever", Mr. T came in fourth, behind ML King (3rd), Abe Lincoln (2nd) and Homer Simpson (1st).




  5. #35
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Balmer Merlin Hon
    Posts
    3,690
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: New Post: Ripping Goodell for fining Ed Reed

    Quote Originally Posted by wickedsolo View Post
    I don't get the claim that guys didn't know that football could be detrimental to long term and short term health.
    Let me try an analogy, OK?

    Consider airline pilots & cabin crew. Not as glamorous a profession as it was in my youth, but still with some cachet--you get to see lots of different places, etc. And like entertainers (in which class sports professionals belong) they enrich the lives of the people who pay them to do their jobs.

    These people are at risk for death or injury in a plane crash that can happen on any flight. It's a fairly small but real risk. They know (or can find out) the odds, and they accept this as part of their profession.

    Are you aware that whenever you fly you're subjecting yourself to an increased dose of ionizing radiation from cosmic rays? It's not something that anyone goes out of their way to advertise, but you can dig up the details on the net. This is another risk that pilots & crew take, & it is one they can't really avoid--they get dosed on every flight.

    As it turns out, the annual increase in radiation dosage is well below the safety threshold for even these most frequent flyers, so flight crew (& even more so passengers) incur minuscule additional risk.

    But what if it wasn't such a small risk?

    What if, say, 10 years of flying several times a week increased their risk of cancer by, say, 10%? Or decreased their life-spans by an average of, oh, say, 10 years?

    What if for years there had been anecdotal evidence that such a risk existed, but no one knew how great it was?

    Once they found out the magnitude of the risk, wouldn't they be withing their rights to demand that the airline* do whatever it reasonably could to reduce their exposure of the people who are absolutely essential for the airline* to continue to operate & make a profit?

    What if, instead, the airline* had known the approximate level of risk for years, & not said anything to anyone, including most specifically its employees--meanwhile expanding its operations, booking crew members for even more hours per year in the air, & arranging flights so that they traveled even higher up (increasing the dosage).

    Wouldn't flight crew (& if necessary their heirs & descendants) have a case that the airline* had endangered their health & shortened their lives in the pursuit of profit? Particularly by pretending that the risk didn't exist & therefore taking no actions (that would cut into profit) to mitigate them?

    Think about that, OK?


    * NB for this analogy to be accurate, there is only one major airline, call it the National Flying League or some such--all other operators are at best regional puddle-jumpers that pay badly & don't service the really desirable destinations.




  6. #36
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Balmer Merlin Hon
    Posts
    3,690
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: New Post: Ripping Goodell for fining Ed Reed

    Quote Originally Posted by Mista T View Post
    "Sons-of-bitches"??????????????????????????

    If it weren't for the investment and bold decision-making by many of these "Sons-of-bitches", we wouldn't have an NFL. George Halas, the team owners during WWII who carried on the game despite losses and depleted manpower, Art Modell, Al Davis, the Rooneys etc made the NFL what it is today.
    Not all of them are/were sons of bitches. Some were/are traitors to their class.

    IMHO all NFL teams should be publicly traded companies a la the Packers. Otherwise they're nothing but billionaires' toys, & anyone who professes allegiance to their owners is simply foolish. Jeebus cripes, didn't the Bob Irsay years teach you folks anything???




  7. #37
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Houston, TX Y'all
    Posts
    27,535
    Few points ....

    The occasional and minute exposure to radiation on an airplane does not rise to the level of almost a constant threat of severe injury a football players is subjected to. IMO, a very poor analogy.

    Second, the know risks of concussion and the alleged "cover up" is still being dealt with in the courts. So any claim that issue is settled is inaccurate and shows a bias towards the plaintiffs. And to that point, since when is the NFL and its ownership group responsible for concussion science, a science that's still in its infancy?

    Third, there's hundreds of other injuries an NFL player could possibly get and are well known before a player suits up. Those injuries are well known risks that go back all the way to pee wee football.
    WARNING: This post may contain material offensive to those who lack wit, humor, common sense and/or supporting factual or anecdotal evidence. All statements and assertions contained herein may be subject to literary devices not limited to: irony, metaphor, allusion and dripping sarcasm.




  8. #38
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Northern Ireland, UK
    Posts
    2,812

    Re: New Post: Ripping Goodell for fining Ed Reed

    What exactly are yous arguing here? Aren't yous both saying goddell has no other choice than to do this, just arguing over why he has no other choice? Or have I mis understood




  9. #39
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Houston, TX Y'all
    Posts
    27,535
    Quote Originally Posted by arnie_uk View Post
    What exactly are yous arguing here? Aren't yous both saying goddell has no other choice than to do this, just arguing over why he has no other choice? Or have I mis understood
    I'm not going to guess Loba's position. He seems to want to blame the owners simply because they're rich.

    But yes, that's my stance. I don't think Goodell has a choice. Tags set him up to fail and he really can't react any other way on these issues.

    His fine to Reed though was a horrible call. That much I think we all agree was simply dumb.
    WARNING: This post may contain material offensive to those who lack wit, humor, common sense and/or supporting factual or anecdotal evidence. All statements and assertions contained herein may be subject to literary devices not limited to: irony, metaphor, allusion and dripping sarcasm.




  10. #40
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Northern Ireland, UK
    Posts
    2,812

    Re: New Post: Ripping Goodell for fining Ed Reed

    Quote Originally Posted by HoustonRaven View Post
    I'm not going to guess Loba's position. He seems to want to blame the owners simply because they're rich.

    But yes, that's my stance. I don't think Goodell has a choice. Tags set him up to fail and he really can't react any other way on these issues.

    His fine to Reed though was a horrible call. That much I think we all agree was simply dumb.
    I'd agree with you. His hands are tied, because if he doesn't seem pro active there is no hope in hell in winning future law suits let alone the ones currently open against the nfl.

    I hate it but its just the way it is. You could argue they might be making some of the changes to make the nfl more offensive friendly anyway, but they sure as hell Wouldn't be going to the extremes they are without these lawsuits.




  11. #41
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    The Dirty Burnie
    Posts
    282

    Re: New Post: Ripping Goodell for fining Ed Reed

    Quote Originally Posted by steelerhater View Post
    This is ridiculus. In 1978, Darryl Stingley was paralyzed by a hit in a preseason game. In 1985, Joe Theisman had his leg broken in one of the most gruesome fashions seen. In 1991, Mike Utley was paralyzed by making a tackle. I remember watching pregame shows in the '70's and early '80's discussing how many retired players had trouble getting out of bed in the morning and that the life-expectancy on an NFL player was about 10-15 years less than normal. Anyone who claims that they didn't know this sport was dangerous has no business in a court room. They don't have the basic intelligence to make any kind of argument.
    Couldn't agree more. The players have known the sport is dangerous since the first time they strapped on a helmet. Any argument to the contrary is ridiculous.




  12. #42

    Re: New Post: Ripping Goodell for fining Ed Reed

    Quote Originally Posted by lobachevsky View Post
    Not all of them are/were sons of bitches. Some were/are traitors to their class.

    IMHO all NFL teams should be publicly traded companies a la the Packers. Otherwise they're nothing but billionaires' toys, & anyone who professes allegiance to their owners is simply foolish. Jeebus cripes, didn't the Bob Irsay years teach you folks anything???
    In a 2003 BBC poll that asked Brits to name the "Greatest American Ever", Mr. T came in fourth, behind ML King (3rd), Abe Lincoln (2nd) and Homer Simpson (1st).




  13. #43
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Salt Lake City, Utah
    Posts
    814

    Re: New Post: Ripping Goodell for fining Ed Reed

    My take is this.....look back at the steeler game when Pollard "pulled up" knowing if he hit Leftwich on the sideline he would have been flagged and fined. Instead Leftwich runs for a TD!! this is directly related to how the league fines Ed Reed and others when they try to do the right thing. I gaurantee next time Pollard will take the fine instead of giving up the TD....just sayin.




  14. #44

    Re: New Post: Ripping Goodell for fining Ed Reed

    Quote Originally Posted by lobachevsky View Post
    Let me try an analogy, OK?

    Consider airline pilots & cabin crew. Not as glamorous a profession as it was in my youth, but still with some cachet--you get to see lots of different places, etc. And like entertainers (in which class sports professionals belong) they enrich the lives of the people who pay them to do their jobs.

    These people are at risk for death or injury in a plane crash that can happen on any flight. It's a fairly small but real risk. They know (or can find out) the odds, and they accept this as part of their profession.

    Are you aware that whenever you fly you're subjecting yourself to an increased dose of ionizing radiation from cosmic rays? It's not something that anyone goes out of their way to advertise, but you can dig up the details on the net. This is another risk that pilots & crew take, & it is one they can't really avoid--they get dosed on every flight.

    As it turns out, the annual increase in radiation dosage is well below the safety threshold for even these most frequent flyers, so flight crew (& even more so passengers) incur minuscule additional risk.

    But what if it wasn't such a small risk?

    What if, say, 10 years of flying several times a week increased their risk of cancer by, say, 10%? Or decreased their life-spans by an average of, oh, say, 10 years?

    What if for years there had been anecdotal evidence that such a risk existed, but no one knew how great it was?

    Once they found out the magnitude of the risk, wouldn't they be withing their rights to demand that the airline* do whatever it reasonably could to reduce their exposure of the people who are absolutely essential for the airline* to continue to operate & make a profit?

    What if, instead, the airline* had known the approximate level of risk for years, & not said anything to anyone, including most specifically its employees--meanwhile expanding its operations, booking crew members for even more hours per year in the air, & arranging flights so that they traveled even higher up (increasing the dosage).

    Wouldn't flight crew (& if necessary their heirs & descendants) have a case that the airline* had endangered their health & shortened their lives in the pursuit of profit? Particularly by pretending that the risk didn't exist & therefore taking no actions (that would cut into profit) to mitigate them?

    Think about that, OK?


    * NB for this analogy to be accurate, there is only one major airline, call it the National Flying League or some such--all other operators are at best regional puddle-jumpers that pay badly & don't service the really desirable destinations.
    This is your analogy? A what if? Sorry, but this is apples to oranges. NFL players know and accept the risk, which they are well compensated for.

    So, if you really have been watching football since before I was born, then you've been "kissing up" to the owners longer than most of us, as you keep buying their product. You also realize that many owners love the game and actually played it at some level, right?




  15. #45
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Frederick, MD
    Posts
    31,932
    Blog Entries
    3

    Re: New Post: Ripping Goodell for fining Ed Reed

    Quote Originally Posted by lobachevsky View Post
    Let me try an analogy, OK?

    Consider airline pilots & cabin crew. Not as glamorous a profession as it was in my youth, but still with some cachet--you get to see lots of different places, etc. And like entertainers (in which class sports professionals belong) they enrich the lives of the people who pay them to do their jobs.

    These people are at risk for death or injury in a plane crash that can happen on any flight. It's a fairly small but real risk. They know (or can find out) the odds, and they accept this as part of their profession.

    Are you aware that whenever you fly you're subjecting yourself to an increased dose of ionizing radiation from cosmic rays? It's not something that anyone goes out of their way to advertise, but you can dig up the details on the net. This is another risk that pilots & crew take, & it is one they can't really avoid--they get dosed on every flight.

    As it turns out, the annual increase in radiation dosage is well below the safety threshold for even these most frequent flyers, so flight crew (& even more so passengers) incur minuscule additional risk.

    But what if it wasn't such a small risk?

    What if, say, 10 years of flying several times a week increased their risk of cancer by, say, 10%? Or decreased their life-spans by an average of, oh, say, 10 years?

    What if for years there had been anecdotal evidence that such a risk existed, but no one knew how great it was?

    Once they found out the magnitude of the risk, wouldn't they be withing their rights to demand that the airline* do whatever it reasonably could to reduce their exposure of the people who are absolutely essential for the airline* to continue to operate & make a profit?

    What if, instead, the airline* had known the approximate level of risk for years, & not said anything to anyone, including most specifically its employees--meanwhile expanding its operations, booking crew members for even more hours per year in the air, & arranging flights so that they traveled even higher up (increasing the dosage).

    Wouldn't flight crew (& if necessary their heirs & descendants) have a case that the airline* had endangered their health & shortened their lives in the pursuit of profit? Particularly by pretending that the risk didn't exist & therefore taking no actions (that would cut into profit) to mitigate them?

    Think about that, OK?


    * NB for this analogy to be accurate, there is only one major airline, call it the National Flying League or some such--all other operators are at best regional puddle-jumpers that pay badly & don't service the really desirable destinations.

    I shan't speak for everyone, but I probably would have taken your analogy a bit more seriously had you not been so condescending.
    Milk is for babies. When you grow up, you have to drink beer.

    -Arnold Schwarzenegger



    Check out Fatherhood Rules - a blog site dedicated to sports, food, music, movies, and politics.
    http://fatherhoodrules.com




Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Russell Street Report Website Design by D3Corp Ocean City Maryland