#5361  
Old 03-20-2012, 09:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AceD View Post
This point will probably end up getting hit too hard eventually, but there's truth to it: The Broncos' D had to compensate for being Tebow's D. Yes, he had some exciting comebacks. But he never pulled away either. If Manning is capable of giving them an early lead or a 2-score lead heading into crunch time, they'll naturally do better and be able to be more aggressive.
Yeah, Manning will make their D better just by virtue of moving the chains and field position. But still, you can make the same argument if he joined one of the other teams. My point is, when Manning was making his choice, it's hard not to point out that Denver was the weakest of the defenses he was considering. That's not to say they're terrible. It's not to say they can't get better. But again, he'd have the same effect on any team, it's just that Denver needs to improve more.
Reply With Quote
  #5362  
Old 03-20-2012, 09:27 PM
I don't the teams' defenses was what Manning was taking into consideration. I really think it was John Elway that made the difference; they have a lot in common, Elway was a winner late in his career and I think Manning is hoping to replicate that with Elway as a mentor.
Reply With Quote
  #5363  
Old 03-21-2012, 12:28 PM
Sucks to be the Saints.

Sean Payton - out for 2012

Former coordinator Greg Williams - out indefinitely.

Assistant head coach Joe Vitt - 6 games

GM Mickey Loomis - 8 games

Fine - $500,000 and two second round draft picks, one in 2012 and one in 2013.
Reply With Quote
  #5364  
Old 03-21-2012, 12:47 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeo4 View Post
Sucks to be the Saints.
Indeed. Also sucks to be Mark Sanchez, who's head will be called for by Tebow-lovers every day.

On the bright side, no one mentions Jesus more than Tebow and Rex do, so maybe they'll get along.

Just such a terrible move. There's no angle from which it makes sense, which probably means we should have predicted that the Jets would do this.
Reply With Quote
  #5365  
Old 03-21-2012, 03:05 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AceD View Post
Indeed. Also sucks to be Mark Sanchez, who's head will be called for by Tebow-lovers every day.

On the bright side, no one mentions Jesus more than Tebow and Rex do, so maybe they'll get along.

Just such a terrible move. There's no angle from which it makes sense, which probably means we should have predicted that the Jets would do this.
Well in terms of personal opinions etc it could get bad for the Sanchez, but with the amount of support Sanchez has from Rex i doubt it owuld get too out of controll. Tebow will really just be used for wildcat.

Oh, and get shit on Saints.
Reply With Quote
  #5366  
Old 03-22-2012, 11:59 PM
If I were Sanchez I would demand a trade or be released. There is no way the Jets should have picked up Tebow. It is going to be a hello for Sanchez. If I were him, I would rather sit for a year behind a Manning or Brady, Brees, Rodgers, ect and be a starter in 2013 than deal with all that Tebow crap.

The Jet GM was on the radio today saying they are going to have a package for him (Tebow). Who the heck has a 2 string qb that has a package of plays?

The local news broke away from local programming to show his fucking jet landing. Seriously?

This is all about one thing. Money. Already you can go on the website and buy Tebow Jet shit. 24 hrs later and it is up!!!!

So they try to get Manning and fail. Deny they tried and give Sanchez more money and time. Then go out and get Tebow. They just want Snachez to fail? never mind the fact that they did not address any of their needs in free agency. No o line help. No good rbs. No other WRs. No rusher the passers. They get a 2nd string qb. Stupid fucking team

I am a giant fan, so I laugh at the jets and what they do. they want headlines. giants want wins
Reply With Quote
  #5367  
Old 03-23-2012, 01:51 PM
Many people questioned the Sanchez extension, because it sort of countered the whole "the Jets need to light a fire under Sanchez's ass." I found it to be quite odd myself, and now with them getting Tebow, it's clear that extension was sort of a "don't be butthurt over us looking at Peyton, we still luv u Mark."

I see the Tebow trade as a good thing. It obviously sparks an immediate QB controversy, but look...this is what Sanchez needs. He may have the contract...but this also sends a clear message that it's time to buck up. If Sanchez responds and plays out of his mind, then it works in the Jets favour...he becomes the Sanchize QB they always "thought" he could be.

The kid's been able to get away with being mediocre. He's entering Year 4 now, and the Jets are on record saying he didn't improve last year. They don't want him to fail, this is exactly why they brought Tebow in. They want him to take the next step. Sometimes you gotta bring in a name that will immediately attract a QB controversy.

At the same time I can see this experiment being a complete clusterfuck. Of course, the history of the Jets point to that outcome...but I tells ya, this is good for Sanchez. He's in the driver's seat. If he improves and does what he needs to do, boom, all is well. But the Jets also realize that Mark may not be who they thought he was, and won't let him off the hook this time.
Reply With Quote
  #5368  
Old 03-26-2012, 12:10 PM
All I have to say is fuck you John Mara you're wrong and so is the NFL for the cap penalties

Feel's weird to be on the same side as the Cowboys in this but wrong to take away cap space for a rule that was never in place.

Next after after that is a collusion lawsuit from the NFLPA good luck with that
Reply With Quote
  #5369  
Old 03-26-2012, 01:25 PM
You know full well the owners had an agreement not to screw around and the Cowboys and Skins did. They were the only two teams to do that. That is what you get.
Reply With Quote
  #5370  
Old 03-26-2012, 11:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erroneous View Post
You know full well the owners had an agreement not to screw around and the Cowboys and Skins did. They were the only two teams to do that. That is what you get.
The whole ting reeks and you know it. The owners could be in for a serious problem if found guilty of collusion.
Reply With Quote
  #5371  
Old 03-27-2012, 06:20 AM
It was humorous to read through the first page of this thread....ahhhhh the Philly days when T.O. wasn't an assclown (to his own team). Dick.
Reply With Quote
  #5372  
Old 03-27-2012, 08:25 AM
Being a Jets fan, i'm not looking forward to this Tebow circus one bit. Instead of getting more weapons for Sanchez to develop with, they do whatever they can to get the biggest headline in the paper.

UGH....and I was hoping they would be taken seriously this season.
Reply With Quote
  #5373  
Old 03-27-2012, 09:34 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erroneous View Post
You know full well the owners had an agreement not to screw around and the Cowboys and Skins did. They were the only two teams to do that. That is what you get.
He's wrong there was no cap that year there was no agreement and there was no rule that either of those 2 teams broke the NFL are wrong and they forced the NFLPA to agree to it or the cap would be way lower.

The only thing of which the Redskins and Cowboys are guilty is failing to honor a shady gentleman's agreement between 32 billionaires who don't want to pay their employees any more than they have to. What the NFL, Mara and the other owners did, effectively imposing a salary cap when none had been agreed to by the players in their collective bargaining agreement, was patently wrong. To punish the teams that didn't go along with the wrong, and to so strenuously defend the punishment as though it were right, is the height of arrogance.

Mara by the way is effectively admitting collusion giving the NFLPA ammunition for a new fight the league does not want. The union had to drop all pending litigation against the league as part of the Brady settlement last year when the lockout ended. That included the collusion charges they filed against the league for the suspicions they had about this kind of 2010 activity. Mara admitting that could well qualify as new evidence that could allow the union to file new charges.

Because the NFLPA is named in the Redskins' and Cowboys' complaint, it has the option of obtaining discovery on collusion should it wish to pursue action against the league. The union is upset that the league backed it into a corner here, effectively forcing it to agree to the penalties against the Cowboys and Redskins under the threat of a reduction in this year's salary cap, and would love an opening from which to attack on this.

Mara who is the chairman of the NFL Management Council, (the group that imposed these penalties), and he's the owner of a team that plays the Cowboys and Redskins twice each year and competes with them for the same division title. That's not to say Mara did this on purpose to get one over on two division rivals. But one of the first things we're taught in any journalism class is to avoid even the appearance of impropriety -- to steer clear of any activity that could ever allow anyone to accuse us of engaging in a conflict of interest. That is clearly not a concern Mara has in this case, but he should. There's a chance he should have recused himself from this whole thing, and even if he hadn't, he's not doing himself or his excellent reputation any favors by being the aggressive face of the penalties.

Oh and what about Jacksonville and Tampa Bay for spending 40 million below everyone else for that purpose
Reply With Quote
  #5374  
Old 03-27-2012, 09:36 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by adamjohnson View Post
The whole ting reeks and you know it. The owners could be in for a serious problem if found guilty of collusion.
John Mara's comments is admitting collusion if the Redskins and Cowboys win (and I think they should) it gives the NFL a fight they don't want which the NFLPA had to drop with the Brady lawsuit
Reply With Quote
  #5375  
Old 03-28-2012, 02:14 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by adamjohnson View Post
The whole ting reeks and you know it. The owners could be in for a serious problem if found guilty of collusion.
of course it was collusion.
Reply With Quote
  #5376  
Old 03-28-2012, 02:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by horrorfreak13 View Post
He's wrong there was no cap that year there was no agreement and there was no rule that either of those 2 teams broke the NFL are wrong and they forced the NFLPA to agree to it or the cap would be way lower.

The only thing of which the Redskins and Cowboys are guilty is failing to honor a shady gentleman's agreement between 32 billionaires who don't want to pay their employees any more than they have to. What the NFL, Mara and the other owners did, effectively imposing a salary cap when none had been agreed to by the players in their collective bargaining agreement, was patently wrong. To punish the teams that didn't go along with the wrong, and to so strenuously defend the punishment as though it were right, is the height of arrogance.

Mara by the way is effectively admitting collusion giving the NFLPA ammunition for a new fight the league does not want. The union had to drop all pending litigation against the league as part of the Brady settlement last year when the lockout ended. That included the collusion charges they filed against the league for the suspicions they had about this kind of 2010 activity. Mara admitting that could well qualify as new evidence that could allow the union to file new charges.

Because the NFLPA is named in the Redskins' and Cowboys' complaint, it has the option of obtaining discovery on collusion should it wish to pursue action against the league. The union is upset that the league backed it into a corner here, effectively forcing it to agree to the penalties against the Cowboys and Redskins under the threat of a reduction in this year's salary cap, and would love an opening from which to attack on this.

Mara who is the chairman of the NFL Management Council, (the group that imposed these penalties), and he's the owner of a team that plays the Cowboys and Redskins twice each year and competes with them for the same division title. That's not to say Mara did this on purpose to get one over on two division rivals. But one of the first things we're taught in any journalism class is to avoid even the appearance of impropriety -- to steer clear of any activity that could ever allow anyone to accuse us of engaging in a conflict of interest. That is clearly not a concern Mara has in this case, but he should. There's a chance he should have recused himself from this whole thing, and even if he hadn't, he's not doing himself or his excellent reputation any favors by being the aggressive face of the penalties.

Oh and what about Jacksonville and Tampa Bay for spending 40 million below everyone else for that purpose
Eveything you say is 100% right. Two teams had to be assholes and try to gain an advantage over everyone else. They knew is was wrong and they did it anyway. They should man up and pay the price. There is a lot of colludiing going on in sports. This is not new. If they both file suit and prove it, it would be bad for them and the league. This has nothing to do with Mara or the Giants or who the teams that were fined or what division they play in. This is about the owners as a collective.
Reply With Quote
  #5377  
Old 03-28-2012, 09:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erroneous View Post
Eveything you say is 100% right. Two teams had to be assholes and try to gain an advantage over everyone else. They knew is was wrong and they did it anyway. They should man up and pay the price. There is a lot of colludiing going on in sports. This is not new. If they both file suit and prove it, it would be bad for them and the league. This has nothing to do with Mara or the Giants or who the teams that were fined or what division they play in. This is about the owners as a collective.

The fact remains this: Let's say there was a gentlemen's agreement to spend a certain amount (already in illegal territory, but ok) but lets say they had one...

Every contract must be approved by the league.

I repeat, Roger Goodell approved every contract they're now saying was against the rules.

If it was "against the rules" and not simply an unwritten understanding, the contracts would not have been approved. Their very approval revokes the right for them to challenge it, because they themselves signed off on it.

There's no way in hell the league wins this if it goes to court. Jerry Jones and Dan Snyder will dismantle the NFL and still have billions if they want.

Jerry doesnt need the NFL. He could make his own NFL. He doesnt need football period. He owns the majority of that stadium from his own pocket. He could jsut have concerts there all year long and be a billionaire.
Reply With Quote
  #5378  
Old 03-29-2012, 10:26 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by adamjohnson View Post
The fact remains this: Let's say there was a gentlemen's agreement to spend a certain amount (already in illegal territory, but ok) but lets say they had one...

Every contract must be approved by the league.

I repeat, Roger Goodell approved every contract they're now saying was against the rules.

If it was "against the rules" and not simply an unwritten understanding, the contracts would not have been approved. Their very approval revokes the right for them to challenge it, because they themselves signed off on it.

There's no way in hell the league wins this if it goes to court. Jerry Jones and Dan Snyder will dismantle the NFL and still have billions if they want.

Jerry doesnt need the NFL. He could make his own NFL. He doesnt need football period. He owns the majority of that stadium from his own pocket. He could jsut have concerts there all year long and be a billionaire.
And all of those contracts were approved by the NFL if there was a problem all the league had to do was reject them

Concidence a gag order is on John Mara and on the owners on this since he pretty much his comments admitted collusion

Again no written agreement all of those contracts were improved if there was a problem with them all the league had to do was reject them and they didn't
Reply With Quote
  #5379  
Old 03-29-2012, 10:37 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erroneous View Post
Eveything you say is 100% right. Two teams had to be assholes and try to gain an advantage over everyone else. They knew is was wrong and they did it anyway. They should man up and pay the price. There is a lot of colludiing going on in sports. This is not new. If they both file suit and prove it, it would be bad for them and the league. This has nothing to do with Mara or the Giants or who the teams that were fined or what division they play in. This is about the owners as a collective.
Mara is the chairmain of the NFL Managment Council who approved and pushed for the penalties

When both teams win and I don't see how the league wins this the NFLPA has a case for collusion since they were forced to agree to the penalties to begin with.
Reply With Quote
  #5380  
Old 03-30-2012, 10:37 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by horrorfreak13 View Post
Mara is the chairmain of the NFL Managment Council who approved and pushed for the penalties

When both teams win and I don't see how the league wins this the NFLPA has a case for collusion since they were forced to agree to the penalties to begin with.
I can't see them winning. They are going to take their medicine and should shut the fuck up about it. If they follow through on this, it will open the door for other stuff and the league is it not going to let the players have a chance of a similar suit. it is all about ego with those two dumb fuck owners. Believe you me, in the long run the Skins will be better off.
Reply With Quote
  #5381  
Old 03-30-2012, 10:49 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erroneous View Post
I can't see them winning. They are going to take their medicine and should shut the fuck up about it. If they follow through on this, it will open the door for other stuff and the league is it not going to let the players have a chance of a similar suit. it is all about ego with those two dumb fuck owners. Believe you me, in the long run the Skins will be better off.
Those two dumb fuck owners didnt break any rules.
Reply With Quote
  #5382  
Old 03-30-2012, 02:06 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by adamjohnson View Post
Those two dumb fuck owners didnt break any rules.
secret rules. double secret probation rules.
Reply With Quote
  #5383  
Old 03-31-2012, 02:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erroneous View Post
I can't see them winning. They are going to take their medicine and should shut the fuck up about it. If they follow through on this, it will open the door for other stuff and the league is it not going to let the players have a chance of a similar suit. it is all about ego with those two dumb fuck owners. Believe you me, in the long run the Skins will be better off.
I can see them winning because they didn't do anything wrong and "those two dumb fuck owners" didn't break any rules at all

The league didn't have a problem with those contracts when they approved them and the Bears did the same thing with Juilus Peppers and fuck all happenned to them.

All the league had to do was not approve those contracts or make them rework them to begin with and this wouldnt have happenned

This bullshit is why we haven't signed our best defensive player London Fletcher yet
Reply With Quote
  #5384  
Old 04-03-2012, 10:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by horrorfreak13 View Post
This bullshit is why we haven't signed our best defensive player London Fletcher yet
Because John Mara privately talked to him about going free agent next year and sign with the giants. payback for taking cofield
Reply With Quote
  #5385  
Old 04-05-2012, 05:44 PM
Holy shit @ the leaked Saints audio!!!
Reply With Quote
  #5386  
Old 04-08-2012, 11:48 AM
Apparently, the Vikings are willing to trade down for the number 3 pick. Should anybody trade up for this? If so, who?
Reply With Quote
  #5387  
Old 04-09-2012, 02:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeo4 View Post
Apparently, the Vikings are willing to trade down for the number 3 pick. Should anybody trade up for this? If so, who?
No because nobody is pretty much worth trading up for at this point not Tannehill
Reply With Quote
  #5388  
Old 04-09-2012, 08:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by horrorfreak13 View Post
No because nobody is pretty much worth trading up for at this point not Tannehill
i think that is based on needs. if you are a team that really wants someone and is in the 20's it could easily happen. depends on the cost.
Reply With Quote
  #5389  
Old 04-15-2012, 12:56 AM
Supposedly the Browns want to trade down from the number 4 pick and a lot of people think that is stupid as hell. Myself included.

Doesn't the route for the Browns to rebuild seem really obvious? Take Trent Richardson with your 4th overall pick, then take Kendall Wright with your second first round pick and give Colt McCoy two elite offensive weapons. If he's the guy moving forward then you've got your nucleus which should stay put for a long time (after all it's what Dalton has plus an Adrian Peterson style back) and if McCoy is not your guy you'll be destroyed again by the division and wind up back with a high draft pick, where you can pick your quarterback of the future to go along with those two guys.

What do you guys think?

Last edited by Gordon; 04-15-2012 at 12:58 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #5390  
Old 04-15-2012, 12:16 PM
The Browns don't seem to think Richardson is worth a 4 pick. It's understandable, given the state of the NFL now: you don't need an elite running back to win. Yeah, you have to be able to run the ball, but look at the past few Super Bowls and the running backs involved:

2009: Cardinals/Steelers
2010: Saints/Colts
2011: Packers/Steelers
2012: Giants/Patriots

None of those teams had elite running backs. In fact, sometimes they were among the worst running teams in the entire league (Cardinals/Steelers, I believe, were the two worst). I don't think too many people think a running back is important enough to use a top 5 pick on. If the Browns don't think any other player (such as a Justin Blackmon) is worth the pick, maybe they can trade down to a team who wants one of two players who are highly regarded: Ryan Tannehill or Matt Kalil.

One of those two guys will be available at 4, and the Browns don't seem interested in either of them. Maybe they move back to the middle of the first round and pick up some extra picks in the process.

EDIT: also, Gordon, you mentioned they should give 2 weapons to McCoy if they believe he's the man going forward. Well, they don't. They were all-in on RG3 and failed. They obviously don't have the confidence in McCoy that he's their qb of the future. Apparently, they also don't like Tannehill too much. At least not for the 4th pick.

Last edited by Darth Kenshin; 04-15-2012 at 12:19 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #5391  
Old 04-15-2012, 01:06 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth Kenshin View Post
The Browns don't seem to think Richardson is worth a 4 pick. It's understandable, given the state of the NFL now: you don't need an elite running back to win. Yeah, you have to be able to run the ball, but look at the past few Super Bowls and the running backs involved:

2009: Cardinals/Steelers
2010: Saints/Colts
2011: Packers/Steelers
2012: Giants/Patriots

None of those teams had elite running backs. In fact, sometimes they were among the worst running teams in the entire league (Cardinals/Steelers, I believe, were the two worst). I don't think too many people think a running back is important enough to use a top 5 pick on. If the Browns don't think any other player (such as a Justin Blackmon) is worth the pick, maybe they can trade down to a team who wants one of two players who are highly regarded: Ryan Tannehill or Matt Kalil.

One of those two guys will be available at 4, and the Browns don't seem interested in either of them. Maybe they move back to the middle of the first round and pick up some extra picks in the process.

EDIT: also, Gordon, you mentioned they should give 2 weapons to McCoy if they believe he's the man going forward. Well, they don't. They were all-in on RG3 and failed. They obviously don't have the confidence in McCoy that he's their qb of the future. Apparently, they also don't like Tannehill too much. At least not for the 4th pick.
I'm quite aware that they don't think McCoy is the guy moving forward - neither do I - but I think you have clearly misunderstood. The general consensus is that while he has not performed well, they haven't given him anything to work with, so there is no way to know his potential. If you give him two weapons you have an easy route. Either he proves to be a solid quarterback, now that he has something to work with, or he fails miserably and puts you in a position next year to draft a good QB which will have weapons to work with. The problem with Tannehill is that he needs a couple years to develop; what sense does it make to draft a developmental project when you have absolutely nothing to work with right now? The best possible thing to do is build your team up so that you have something to plug a QB into (e.g. what the Redskins have been doing). Now the two options for building your team are either moving back in the draft, or staying put. There are according to everyone five elite players in this draft (Luck, RGIII, Richardson, Kalil, Claiborne). My question to you is this: What the hell are you really going to do with a mid-first rounder and a second-rounder when you need to develop now? Take the elite player. It's all about creating a team you can then plug an air attack into.

Last edited by Gordon; 04-15-2012 at 01:09 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #5392  
Old 04-15-2012, 03:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gordon View Post
My question to you is this: What the hell are you really going to do with a mid-first rounder and a second-rounder when you need to develop now? Take the elite player. It's all about creating a team you can then plug an air attack into.
You clearly missed my point. There is no one the Browns deem worthy of their pick. The "elite" players, as you mentioned, are Luck, RG3, Kalil, and Richardson (I wouldn't put Claiborne on that level, but if you want to, that's fine). Luck and RG3 definitely won't be there. The Browns already have a franchise left tackle, so they're not interested in Kalil if he's available. I already mentioned why they don't want to take Richardson, so I won't repeat that. As for Claiborne, they already have a solid defense, so I can see why they'd hesitate to take him.

So if they're not sold on the guys worth picking at 4, can trade down, acquire extra picks, and still get guys that can improve their team, why wouldn't they do it? Let's say Kalil is available. Or let's say some GM ranks Justin Blackmon as an elite player and is willing to make a huge offer (like Atlanta did for Julio Jones last year). Why not trade with a team who really values that player, get a solid guy in the middle of the first round (say, Floyd) and get extra picks in the process? Makes perfect sense to me.
Reply With Quote
  #5393  
Old 04-16-2012, 04:56 PM
I subscribe to the way the gaints think.
Keep your own players. build from the draft. rush the passer. pass.

Keys to winning.

Used to be run the ball and stop the run. If you dont have an elite (eli) ha ha passer you are not winning.
Reply With Quote
  #5394  
Old 04-16-2012, 07:46 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erroneous View Post
If you dont have an elite (eli) ha ha passer you are not winning.
True. I already broke down the running backs for the last few Super Bowls to show that a great running back isn't necessary. By contrast, look at the qbs:

2008: Brady vs. E. Manning
2009: Warner vs. Roethlisberger
2010: Brees vs. Manning
2011: Rodgers vs. Roethlisberger
2012: Brady vs. E. Manning

Some great names there. Not surprising that several of them (Eli, Brady, Big Ben) show up more than once.
Reply With Quote
  #5395  
Old 04-24-2012, 10:59 AM
Great career Weapon X...one of my favorite Eagles of all time.

Reply With Quote
  #5396  
Old 05-04-2012, 09:47 AM
RIP JR Seau

Mark my words I said it in this thread before. The NFL knows they are going to have to pay up for all these head injuries and that is why they had a lockout. They tried to steal and stock away as much cash as possible to hedge when they lose later.

The NFL needs to stop hitting and start tackling. All the players say the same shit that they have been taught this way their whole lives. Then change it now. Start in the pee wee leagues and stop teaching to hit and tackle. Then keep it going through high school and college to the pros. In 15 years, hitting will be gone and we have tackling and less head injuries. But the league knows they are in for a world of pain.
Reply With Quote
  #5397  
Old 05-05-2012, 11:33 AM
I've been a "pee wee" football coach for about 5 years now, and played up through high school for the same school district. We've always been taught/taught kids to "tackle" right from the beginning of the season, starting with form and slowly moving towards actual contact with pads. It's just funny how obviously other programs and areas of the country definitely try to teach their kids to land the "highlight" reel hit from the time they are children.

I probably say "keep your head up" at least 200 times a season (referring to kids natural instinct to lower their helmet and lead with the crown).
Reply With Quote
  #5398  
Old 05-22-2012, 08:06 PM
yeah, the cowboys and redskins lost their appeal today.
Reply With Quote
  #5399  
Old 06-21-2012, 02:59 PM
Quote:
Brandon Jacobs made good on a promise to repay a young fan who emptied out his piggy bank in an effort to keep the running back with the New York Giants.

According to The Sacramento Bee, Jacobs, a free-agent signee of the San Francisco 49ers, took 6-year-old Joseph Armento and his 4-year-old brother to Jump On In bounce house in Boonton, N.J., on Wednesday as a gesture of gratitude for Armento's desire to keep the running back with the Giants.

After the boys' mother, Julie, explained to Joseph why Jacobs signed with the 49ers, Joseph recently sent $3.36 to Jacobs with the hope of keeping him in Giants blue.

Jacobs was so touched by the gesture that he vowed to take Joseph to Chuck E. Cheese with his son, Brayden, when he returned to New Jersey to gather some of his belongings.

"He told me he really wanted to get out there with the kids," Julie Armento told The Bee. "He really wanted to enjoy it, and he did. It was amazing."

Jacobs played alongside the three boys for a couple of hours.

"It was just us in the whole place, and we were just going room to room -- just bouncing and flipping all over the place, hitting each other with balls, sweating, our shirts filthy," Jacobs told The Bee. "We were just dirty, stinky boys, you know?"

Jacobs was released by the Giants on March 9 after the two sides could not agree on terms of a restructured contract. He signed with the 49ers as a free agent after spending seven seasons with the Giants and winning two Super Bowls.

Joseph Armento did not get his wish of keeping his favorite running back in blue, but Jacobs gave one of his biggest fans a signed Giants helmet and memories he won't soon forget.

In turn, Jacobs said Armento's loyalty has motivated him.

"I'm at a point in my career when people have stopped believing in me and not believing that I can still play," Jacobs said. "But that's not the case. Joe believes in me, gave me a lot of confidence and a lot of want-to. And I'm ready to go. I can't wait until the season starts."

Jacobs also gave Armento a $5 bill to refill his piggy bank.

"He had some interest in there just for being a good kid," Jacobs said. "He's worth a lot more than that $5 bill I gave him."
Not often you get to see good stories like this. I am glad BJ is gone. He was not worth what he was being paid.
Reply With Quote
  #5400  
Old 06-25-2012, 06:03 AM
God am I ready for training camp.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump