#4721  
Old 10-18-2010, 11:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BankaiZaraki View Post
REALLY?! REALLY?! Fired for ONE bad call? Thats an asinine comment to make. And usually I respect your comments Horror. Maybe instead, he should be reprimanded. That seems more appropriate than getting fired. I'm sure he got an ear full and the league may take a look at this. I do agree it was a very bad flag. But shit like this happens all the time. Personally, I think they should extend the Instant Replay to penalties because sometimes when there is a tight game like the one on Sunday between the Texans/Chiefs and that penalty gets thrown haphazardly, that turns the tide of the game to one team and it isn't fair to the other.
Ok I admit I kind of went a little overboard but I just hate things like this when officials make ridiculously obvious bad calls like this

I'm not sure what the protocol is for officials for after bad calls or how many games they end up doing a year or after bad calls like this I'm sure it affects how many or if they do any playoff games.

I read a few weeks ago by the new FOX referee analyst(I think his name is Mike Perriera) the same officals only see the same team no more than once a year and if they see the same team twice it will be always on the road which I never knew that.

So my bad for going overboard a bit I just saw the comment and wanted to see the replay and I just hated what I saw and it wasn't even my team either.

Also saw the highlights of the monday night game and there's a reason the Bills cut Trent Edwards and seeing what happenned tonight was that reason. Just terrible
Reply With Quote
  #4722  
Old 10-19-2010, 03:57 PM
http://www.nfl.com/goto?id=09000d5d8...=breaking_news


Tuesday morning, NFL executive vice president of football operations Ray Anderson said harsher fines and possible suspensions could be coming immediately for flagrant hits.

The league wasted no time as Tuesday afternoon it fined Pittsburgh Steelers linebacker James Harrison $75,000, and New England Patriots safety Brandon Meriweather and Atlanta Falcons cornerback Dunta Robinson $50,000 apiece for hits they delivered in games Sunday.


Harrison is considered a repeat offender. He was previously fined for unnecessary roughness (roughing the passer) in the Steelers' Sept. 19 game against the Tennessee Titans.

Harrison sidelined two Browns players with head injuries after jarring hits. An NFL spokesman said one of the tackles, on Joshua Cribbs, was legal. The Browns were more upset about Harrison's hit on Mohamed Massaquoi, which the league is reviewing.

After the Steelers' 28-10 victory, Harrison stated matter-of-factly that his intention is to hurt opposing players who roam near him.

"I don't want to injure anybody," Harrison said. "There's a big difference between being hurt and being injured. You get hurt, you shake it off and come back the next series or the next game. I try to hurt people."

Meriweather was fined for a helmet-to-helmet hit on Baltimore Ravens tight end Todd Heap during the Patriots' overtime victory Sunday.


Heap lay on the ground for several minutes, left the game but returned before intermission. It was "one of those hits that shouldn't happen," Heap said.

Anderson was asked specifically about that hit during a radio show Tuesday morning.

"That in our view is something that was flagrant, it was egregious," Anderson said. "And effective immediately, that's going to be looked at a very aggressive level, which could include suspension without pay."

Robinson and Philadelphia Eagles wide receiver DeSean Jackson were knocked out of their game after brutal collision in which Robinson launched himself head first to make a tackle. Both sustained concussions.
Reply With Quote
  #4723  
Old 10-19-2010, 08:49 PM
I would like to comment on the recent changes regarding the hits. First off, when did the NFL turn into NASCAR, where everyone is just waiting around for a big hit? I was watching the Eagle - Falcon game and Dunta Robinson meant to seriously hurt Jackson. I as a fan do not want to see a nice catch being made and then somebody gets to take a free hit on a defenseless player making a play. He did not try to tackle Jackson. He wanted to hit him so hard he would drop the ball and have to be carried off the field. He saw his shot and took it. He put his head down and hit him. I wish he had broken his neck on that play.

It is time for the NFL to start making sure hard hits are no longer turned into massive shots that are being dished out. It is time to start protecting players and players to learn there is no such thing as a free shot at someone. It is time for anyone who leads with the head to be kicked out of the sport. It is also time for all the assholes at ESPN to stop saying, "This is football. This is how it is played and how we are taught to play it." That is bullshit. That is what it has become. No one tackles anymore, they hit and that is fine. Players are crossing the line way too often.

I do not like seeing game in game out people laid out on the field with serious injuries. The NFL protected Qbs and got rid of shot blocks (80's and 90's 49ers) and now it is time to start protecting receivers and running backs.
Reply With Quote
  #4724  
Old 10-19-2010, 10:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erroneous View Post
I would like to comment on the recent changes regarding the hits. First off, when did the NFL turn into NASCAR, where everyone is just waiting around for a big hit? I was watching the Eagle - Falcon game and Dunta Robinson meant to seriously hurt Jackson. I as a fan do not want to see a nice catch being made and then somebody gets to take a free hit on a defenseless player making a play. He did not try to tackle Jackson. He wanted to hit him so hard he would drop the ball and have to be carried off the field. He saw his shot and took it. He put his head down and hit him. I wish he had broken his neck on that play.

It is time for the NFL to start making sure hard hits are no longer turned into massive shots that are being dished out. It is time to start protecting players and players to learn there is no such thing as a free shot at someone. It is time for anyone who leads with the head to be kicked out of the sport. It is also time for all the assholes at ESPN to stop saying, "This is football. This is how it is played and how we are taught to play it." That is bullshit. That is what it has become. No one tackles anymore, they hit and that is fine. Players are crossing the line way too often.

I do not like seeing game in game out people laid out on the field with serious injuries. The NFL protected Qbs and got rid of shot blocks (80's and 90's 49ers) and now it is time to start protecting receivers and running backs.
I definatley agree with this but it takes something like what happens with Dunta Robinson and Desean Jackson and the James Harrison hits to take action.

BTW is it me or does it seem like there's been like almost 20 players taken out by like concussions or concussion like symptoms.

And the owners want to go to 18 games they really can't be serious after what we have seen the past 2 or 3 weeks
Reply With Quote
  #4725  
Old 10-20-2010, 08:09 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by horrorfreak13 View Post
I definatley agree with this but it takes something like what happens with Dunta Robinson and Desean Jackson and the James Harrison hits to take action.

BTW is it me or does it seem like there's been like almost 20 players taken out by like concussions or concussion like symptoms.

And the owners want to go to 18 games they really can't be serious after what we have seen the past 2 or 3 weeks
I am totally against an 18 game schedule. If the league went back to tackling and not hitting, I might go for it. They will pass it, because it is what the gamblers and fantasy football people want. The game will suffer. Reaching the Super Bowl is more like a game of attrition than anything else. Who wants to see lesser teams make or win the Super Bowl, because other teams like too many injuries. Most teams lose art least a guy a week that miss at least one game.
Reply With Quote
  #4726  
Old 10-20-2010, 11:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erroneous View Post
I am totally against an 18 game schedule. If the league went back to tackling and not hitting, I might go for it. They will pass it, because it is what the gamblers and fantasy football people want. The game will suffer. Reaching the Super Bowl is more like a game of attrition than anything else. Who wants to see lesser teams make or win the Super Bowl, because other teams like too many injuries. Most teams lose art least a guy a week that miss at least one game.
Actually its what owners want because if anything this is about money and when your the Redskins, Cowboys, Giants and a few other teams that make lots of money on ticket revenue its all about money and greed.

Its also why there's a lockout coming next year all about owners and greed.
Reply With Quote
  #4727  
Old 10-20-2010, 11:34 PM
Greed is what will keep the lockout from happening.
The NFL is a cash-cow operating at maximum capacity.
The owners would be morons not to give the NFLPA the bargaining agreement they want.
Do the owners really want the NFL to go through a version of what happened to the NHL?
No they dont, because they know it would lose them money in the long run.

There will be no lockout...count on it.
Reply With Quote
  #4728  
Old 10-21-2010, 12:03 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fixedMind View Post
Greed is what will keep the lockout from happening.
The NFL is a cash-cow operating at maximum capacity.
The owners would be morons not to give the NFLPA the bargaining agreement they want.
Do the owners really want the NFL to go through a version of what happened to the NHL?
No they dont, because they know it would lose them money in the long run.

There will be no lockout...count on it.
The problem with this logic is a number of contracts with the owners, like tv rights, are already in place - and they will be paid whether there is a lockout or not.

The owners really have nothing to lose.
Reply With Quote
  #4729  
Old 10-21-2010, 12:46 AM
My understanding is that revenue from TV rights is miniscule in comparison to ticket sales, stadium income, etc.
The money TV generates is from advertising, and if there's no games broadcast then there is no advertising to gain income from.

I have no statistical evidence to back up my argument, and being a football fan I obviously have a personal bias leaning toward an agreement between owners and players. I just can't see the greedy bastards risk losing the massive head of steam the NFL currently enjoys.
Reply With Quote
  #4730  
Old 10-21-2010, 10:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fixedMind View Post
My understanding is that revenue from TV rights is miniscule in comparison to ticket sales, stadium income, etc.
The money TV generates is from advertising, and if there's no games broadcast then there is no advertising to gain income from.

I have no statistical evidence to back up my argument, and being a football fan I obviously have a personal bias leaning toward an agreement between owners and players. I just can't see the greedy bastards risk losing the massive head of steam the NFL currently enjoys.
WOW! You could not be more wrong. The NFL is being paid over $20 BILLION for this years games. Google it. The info is well known.

I do not know what the games make, but let's do some math. 32 teams each with 8 home games. Multiply that by 100,000 people. Multiply that by an average ticket price of $200. With those vastly over bloated figures we get $5.12 billion.

Personally, I think the owners are greedy fucks. They make way too much money and spend too little on the players. Math again, let’s divide $20 billion tv money by 32 teams. That is $625 million for each team on just tv money. Salary cap is under $100 million. Now what side are you on now?

If they add two more weeks worth of games, how much more money it that worth? Players to the owners are disposable. The less players play, the less they will have to pay them both in contracts and retirement pay. They want to have a salary cap for newly drafted players. Players have very little guaranteed with their contracts. The owners want the players to last 4 or 5 years and go away. So the owners win on both huge points (pay players less in the beginning of career and more games will shorten careers).

No way the owners want a strike. They stand to lose too much. In the end, I think they get what they want in two more games and rookie cap and they pay the players more with higher team salary caps, more players on a team and better medical and retirement shit. With the two more games, the extra costs will be a wash.

Last edited by Erroneous; 10-21-2010 at 10:45 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #4731  
Old 10-21-2010, 11:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erroneous View Post
WOW! You could not be more wrong. The NFL is being paid over $20 BILLION for this years games. Google it. The info is well known.

I do not know what the games make, but let's do some math. 32 teams each with 8 home games. Multiply that by 100,000 people. Multiply that by an average ticket price of $200. With those vastly over bloated figures we get $5.12 billion.

Personally, I think the owners are greedy fucks. They make way too much money and spend too little on the players. Math again, letís divide $20 billion tv money by 32 teams. That is $625 million for each team on just tv money. Salary cap is under $100 million. Now what side are you on now?

If they add two more weeks worth of games, how much more money it that worth? Players to the owners are disposable. The less players play, the less they will have to pay them both in contracts and retirement pay. They want to have a salary cap for newly drafted players. Players have very little guaranteed with their contracts. The owners want the players to last 4 or 5 years and go away. So the owners win on both huge points (pay players less in the beginning of career and more games will shorten careers).

No way the owners want a strike. They stand to lose too much. In the end, I think they get what they want in two more games and rookie cap and they pay the players more with higher team salary caps, more players on a team and better medical and retirement shit. With the two more games, the extra costs will be a wash.
I did a little digging and the only one that even hits 90,000 is Fed Ex Field when the Redskins play that seats 91,704 everyone else is in the 70,000-80
,000 range pretty much

As for revenue I did a little digging from the TV contract(ESPN, CBS, FOX, NBC) each team gets 95.8 million.

http://www.marketingcharts.com/direc...-fall-2-14039/

And the average ticket price for this year isn't anywhere close to $200 its actually $76.47 which is an increase of 4.5% from last year

Here's each team's average ticket price

(source: the new york post)

New England$117.84

Jets$114.64

Giants$111.69

Dallas$110.20

Chicago$93.55

Baltimore$86.92

Indianapolis$85.34

San Diego$81.39

Washington$79.13

Denver$76.75

San Francisco$76.39

Minnesota$75.69

New Orleans$74.99

Pittsburgh$74.32

Houston$73.40

Green Bay$72.36

Tampa Bay$72.10

Cincinnati$72.04

Miami$70.54

Philadelphia$69.00

Kansas City$68.44

Atlanta$68.22

Arizona$67.69

Carolina$66.17

St. Louis$65.80

Seattle$63.80

Tennessee$62.95

Detroit$62.40

Oakland$62.23

Buffalo$59.19

Jacksonville$57.34

Cleveland$54.51

NFL Average$76.47

http://www.nypost.com/p/sports/giant...Ghhdj6hkTW4jBL

Not that I'm on the side of the owners becaue I believe out of the 4 major sports (NHL, NBA, MLB, and NFL) I believe player salaries are the lowest in the NFL and the owners do want to cut them by at least $1 billion possibly more
Reply With Quote
  #4732  
Old 10-22-2010, 11:11 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erroneous View Post
.

I do not know what the games make, but let's do some math. 32 teams each with 8 home games. Multiply that by 100,000 people. Multiply that by an average ticket price of $200. With those vastly over bloated figures we get $5.12 billion.

Question. Where do you get the 100,00 people from? Most stadiums don't even seat that much. I'm pretty sure the exception is the new Cowboy's Stadium and maybe FedEx Field..But most stadiums seat anywhere between 65,000-90,000 people.
Reply With Quote
  #4733  
Old 10-22-2010, 12:46 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BankaiZaraki View Post
Question. Where do you get the 100,00 people from? Most stadiums don't even seat that much. I'm pretty sure the exception is the new Cowboy's Stadium and maybe FedEx Field..But most stadiums seat anywhere between 65,000-90,000 people.
FedEx Field seats the most with 91,704 and Cowboys stadium seats actually 80,000 but can hold 110,000 which including standing room

Here's the seating capacity for each NFL stadium

FedEx Field: Washington: 91,704
New Meadowlands Stadium: Giants/Jets: 82,566
Aarowhead Stadium: Kansas City: 81,425
Cowboys Stadium: Dallas: 80,000
Invesco Field at Mile High: Denver: 76,125
Sun Life Stadium: Miami: 75,192
Ralph Wilson Stadium: Buffalo: 73,967
Bank Of America Stadium: Carolina: 73,778
Cleveland Browns Stadium: Cleveland: 73,200
Louisiana Superdome: New Orleans: 72,968
Lambeau Field: Green Bay: 72,928
Reliant Stadium: Houston: 71,500
Qualcomm Stadium: San Diego: 71,294
Georgia Dome: Atlanta: 71,228
M&T Bank Stadium: Baltimore: 71,008
Candlestick Park: San Francisco: 69,732
Lincoln Financial Field: Philadelphia: 69,144
LP Field: Tennessee: 69,143
Gillette Stadium: New England: 68,756
EverBank Field: Jacksonville: 67,164
Qwest Field: Seattle: 67,000
Edward Jones Dome: St. Louis: 66,965
Lucas Oil Stadium: Indianapolis: 66,153
Raymond James Stadium: Tampa Bay: 65,857
Paul Brown Stadium: Cincinnati: 65,790
Heinz Field: Pittsburgh: 65,050
Ford Field: Detroit: 64,500
Hubert H. Humphrey Metrodome: Minnesota: 64,121
University of Phoenix Stadium: Arizona: 63,400
Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum: 63,026
Soldier Field: Chicago: 61,500

Hope the last 2 posts I've made kind of cleared things up a little bit.
Reply With Quote
  #4734  
Old 10-22-2010, 02:24 PM
Owners like Jerry Jones also holds concerts and other events year round. He wont lost anything if there's no football.
Reply With Quote
  #4735  
Old 10-22-2010, 04:42 PM
Interesting stats and facts...
Even if the networks are currently under a multiple year contract with the owners; I imagine there would be a clause or stipulation within the contract in regards to a potential work stoppage. The network execs are everybit as greedy, and I dont see them being short-sighted enough not to protect themselves from any form of revenue loss.

Last edited by fixedMind; 10-22-2010 at 04:44 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #4736  
Old 10-22-2010, 05:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fixedMind View Post
Interesting stats and facts...
Even if the networks are currently under a multiple year contract with the owners; I imagine there would be a clause or stipulation within the contract in regards to a potential work stoppage. The network execs are everybit as greedy, and I dont see them being short-sighted enough not to protect themselves from any form of revenue loss.
But you said it yourself - they're under contract. The owners have all the leverage. Thats why there will be a work stoppage next year.
Reply With Quote
  #4737  
Old 10-23-2010, 03:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by adamjohnson View Post
Owners like Jerry Jones also holds concerts and other events year round. He wont lost anything if there's no football.
Besides Lady GaGA who else is selling out stadiums? The Stones making another tour? Perhaps Hee Haw is coming back. Many bands and singers canceled their tours this year, because of lack of ticket sales at arenas. There's always Ringling Brothers, but the Cowboys are the best circus in town. He is not going to make up any where near the money he pulls in on football.
Reply With Quote
  #4738  
Old 10-23-2010, 04:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by adamjohnson View Post
But you said it yourself - they're under contract. The owners have all the leverage. Thats why there will be a work stoppage next year.
I don't believe that. I believe the players have more leverage. The owners have more to lose if there is a stoppage. In five years, at least 25% of the league will turnover. In 10, at least 90% will be gone. The players want and need to make their money now. If they strike, they will get more than if they don't and the owners know it. The owners need the players. The owners need players to play. Players don't have to pay anyone to get to play. New owners have to pay to own a team and huge money too.

Football is a sport driven by gambling and fantasy league stuff. A strike will have an huge impact on their business. I would not want to get on the bad side of all the illegal gamblers.
Reply With Quote
  #4739  
Old 10-23-2010, 05:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erroneous View Post
I don't believe that. I believe the players have more leverage. The owners have more to lose if there is a stoppage. In five years, at least 25% of the league will turnover. In 10, at least 90% will be gone. The players want and need to make their money now. If they strike, they will get more than if they don't and the owners know it. The owners need the players. The owners need players to play. Players don't have to pay anyone to get to play. New owners have to pay to own a team and huge money too.

Football is a sport driven by gambling and fantasy league stuff. A strike will have an huge impact on their business. I would not want to get on the bad side of all the illegal gamblers.
I don't think the players have any leverage at all the most of the owners make money from the tv contract alone and 5 years 25% tournover maybe but there's no way 90% of the league turnsover in 10 years.

There's a reason the owners opted out of the CBA a couple years ago.
Reply With Quote
  #4740  
Old 10-23-2010, 05:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erroneous View Post
Besides Lady GaGA who else is selling out stadiums? The Stones making another tour? Perhaps Hee Haw is coming back. Many bands and singers canceled their tours this year, because of lack of ticket sales at arenas. There's always Ringling Brothers, but the Cowboys are the best circus in town. He is not going to make up any where near the money he pulls in on football.
Actually Cowboys stadium does moure than NFL foomctball they have college football games, had concerts including U2, Paul McCartney among others, a soccer friendly match involving 2 soccer teams from Mexico, and a boxing match involving Manny Pacquio and Antonio Margarito in November.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cowboys_Stadium

Jerry Jones will be fine same with most of the other owners. They are hell bent on cutting salaries down and there will be a lockout next year because of it.

I'm hoping for a season next year but from what Ive heard the past several months I don't see anyone budging
Reply With Quote
  #4741  
Old 10-24-2010, 09:41 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erroneous View Post
I don't believe that. I believe the players have more leverage. The owners have more to lose if there is a stoppage.
The owners aren't gonna pay for players health insurance if there's a lockout, players have to pay out of pocket or through the union.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Erroneous View Post
In five years, at least 25% of the league will turnover. In 10, at least 90% will be gone.
Please provide a link to this, I've seen you throw around these statistics before without any source, and you've been proven wrong everytime.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Erroneous View Post
The players want and need to make their money now. If they strike, they will get more than if they don't and the owners know it. The owners need the players. The owners need players to play. Players don't have to pay anyone to get to play. New owners have to pay to own a team and huge money too.
The players do need their money, so if they lockout they won't get paid. The owners can weather this storm longer since, you know, they have billions of dollars. There aren't any new owners in the league to my knowledge so I'm not sure why you wrote that.

In the end, both sides are gonna have to give up something to get something. Its the way it always is.
Reply With Quote
  #4742  
Old 10-24-2010, 02:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by labialover View Post
The owners aren't gonna pay for players health insurance if there's a lockout, players have to pay out of pocket or through the union.



Please provide a link to this, I've seen you throw around these statistics before without any source, and you've been proven wrong everytime.




The players do need their money, so if they lockout they won't get paid. The owners can weather this storm longer since, you know, they have billions of dollars. There aren't any new owners in the league to my knowledge so I'm not sure why you wrote that.

In the end, both sides are gonna have to give up something to get something. Its the way it always is.
1. No shit! That is part of the battle. What the players get in terms of health insurance is no where near what it should be. What kind of point is this? So you are saying that the players will not want to strike for fear they will have to pay for their own health insurance? You think that they would rather settle for less money just to keep the crappy health plan they have now?
2. "The average length of an NFL career is about 3 and a half seasons. Although there are some exceptional players who have long careers that extend 10 or twelve seasons and beyond, most players only stay active for about three seasons. Players leave the game because of injury, self-induced retirement, or being cut by the team. This also means that while players may make more money than most people, they are only making it for an average of three and a half years. To make sure they are successful in the future, players must invest their money well and make plans for another career when they can no longer play football. "

That is a quote from the NFL Player Assoc.

http://www.nflplayers.com/about-us/F...-Hopeful-FAQs/

You have some fucking balls.

Why don't you put up some stats of your own and prove me wrong. I was called out once and I preceded to put the record straight and was proven right and I never heard from the guy again. You want to know where I get my numbers from or prove me wrong, do the work yourself. I gave you a huge piece right there.

3. I guees it is all over your head. Sorry, I can't help you beyond this. You need to understand how rich people think.

4. You would be right if we are talking about the NHL or NBA. The owners are taking advantage of the players sim to baseball prior to the 60's. The only thing the owners are going to win with is a rookie cap and 18 game schedule. They will have to pay a larger percentage to the players in terms of salary, health coverage and pension. In my humble opinion, the owners are in a no win situation. Their best bet is for a long strike. They can't afford that in terms of the health of the league or their own pockets.

Last edited by Erroneous; 10-24-2010 at 02:58 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #4743  
Old 10-24-2010, 05:46 PM
I am disgusted to be a Broncos fan today...
I may just move to Tibet and become a monk.
Reply With Quote
  #4744  
Old 10-24-2010, 06:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fixedMind View Post
I am disgusted to be a Broncos fan today...
I may just move to Tibet and become a monk.
Just looked at the score update of the Denver/Oakland game HOLY FUCKIN SHIT What is going on there????

Yeah this Sunday blew for me as well. Fins got dicked over on that fumble call However, Miami settling for 5 fieldgoals will NOT get wins vs elite NFL teams like the Steelers.

Oh and fuck Ben Rapelisberger!!!

That is all.
Reply With Quote
  #4745  
Old 10-24-2010, 09:56 PM
How the hell do the Raiders score 59 on the Broncos. Maybe Denver is THAT bad now.

Kris Brown has cost the Texans games and now he cost the Chargers a game lol.

Anyways, this was a boring weekend of sports for me. Texans and Gators had a bye week.
Reply With Quote
  #4746  
Old 10-24-2010, 10:43 PM
Well done, Pack. Holding on to win a close one, and against Captain Cocktext at that.
Reply With Quote
  #4747  
Old 10-24-2010, 10:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erroneous View Post
1. No shit! That is part of the battle. What the players get in terms of health insurance is no where near what it should be. What kind of point is this? So you are saying that the players will not want to strike for fear they will have to pay for their own health insurance? You think that they would rather settle for less money just to keep the crappy health plan they have now?
The problem is with retired players, not current players. Players are fully covered for everything that happens while playing and have a good portion covered for off-field stuff, including their families. They have great coverage. When someone retires they get continued coverage for 5 years, after that they have to seek new coverage.

I don't recall ever saying they'll settle for less money. I was simply saying its possible that the players and family members could be without health insurance during a lockout, and that its something for them to consider during negotiations when they're trying to get everything they want.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Erroneous View Post
You have some fucking balls.
I have great balls, and they stay healthy because of my insurance.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Erroneous View Post
4. You would be right if we are talking about the NHL or NBA. The owners are taking advantage of the players sim to baseball prior to the 60's. The only thing the owners are going to win with is a rookie cap and 18 game schedule. They will have to pay a larger percentage to the players in terms of salary, health coverage and pension. In my humble opinion, the owners are in a no win situation. Their best bet is for a long strike. They can't afford that in terms of the health of the league or their own pockets.
How is this anything like baseball in the 60s? Seriously, cause I have no idea what you're talking about. You're comparing the way baseball players in the 60s were treated, to the way these prima donnas in the NFL are treated today?

Last edited by labialover; 10-24-2010 at 10:57 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #4748  
Old 10-25-2010, 12:17 AM
Thoughts on this week's games

1. Good win against the Bears offense wasn't great but our defense was great today DeAngelo Hall with 4 INTs plus a couple fumbles as well its nice to see us get something like that. That has been exactly what our defense has been lacking the past few years.

And also fuck ESPN and you critics bashing our defense. sure we give up a lot of yards but we haven't been giving up alot of points.

2. I can maybe understand San Diego losing to the Rams earlier this year and some of the other weird things that have happenned but New Orleans loses to fucking Cleveland. Cleveland of all teams and to a rookie QB. I don't know what's more weird that or the Ravens having to resort to winning in OT against Buffalo.

3. Or maybe its Oakland scoring 59 points today I still can't believe that.

Oh I haven't seen it but I'm just reading Miami got screwed today by the refs have yet to see the highlight but if its exactly what I read it to be it's almost seems worse than the Broncos-Chargers call a couple years ago.

4. San Francisco 1-6 your done.
5. Minnesota same thing done after tonight's loss to Green Bay who looked ok tonight I think Green Bay becomes the clear cut favourite in the NFC North.

As for clear cut favourite in the NFC it could be the Giants if the win tomorrow night.

No seriously I've never seen a conference so wide open after 6 or 7 weeks where anybody from about 6 or 7 teams could win the NFC and the 1st seed could be a 10-6 team. Actually all 4 division winners could be 10-6.
Reply With Quote
  #4749  
Old 10-25-2010, 01:22 AM
Wow, great win for the Packers. That was one of the most intense games I've watched in a loooong time. Great to finally see the Packers hold on and finally win that close game, and it couldn't have come at a better time. Finally, FINALLY, we beat Favre, and at his "last" game at Lambeau.
Reply With Quote
  #4750  
Old 10-25-2010, 12:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by horrorfreak13 View Post
Thoughts on this week's games


Oh I haven't seen it but I'm just reading Miami got screwed today by the refs have yet to see the highlight but if its exactly what I read it to be it's almost seems worse than the Broncos-Chargers call a couple years ago.
This is gonna be the Calvin Johnson rule all over again. From what I saw, and I've seen the replay many times already, The replay wasnt conclusive that Miami recovered. If the replay isn't conclusive that a team recovers a fumble, isnt the ball placed where it came loose and the team that had the ball still gets it? I thought that was the rule in those situations.
Reply With Quote
  #4751  
Old 10-25-2010, 02:39 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BankaiZaraki View Post
This is gonna be the Calvin Johnson rule all over again. From what I saw, and I've seen the replay many times already, The replay wasnt conclusive that Miami recovered. If the replay isn't conclusive that a team recovers a fumble, isnt the ball placed where it came loose and the team that had the ball still gets it? I thought that was the rule in those situations.
Here's the explanation somewhat from Mike Periera(NFL rules expert for FOX and former VP of officiating 2004-2009)

This was a very unusual play. The ruling differs in the field of play if the ruling was down by contact vs. a play in the end zone, when the ruling is a touchdown. In the field of play, had this play happened, Miami would have lost the challenge since there wasn't indisputable visual evidence to determine who recovered the ball. The down by contact ruling would have stood in that case.

In this case, the officials ruled touchdown and since the ball was loose before it broke the plane, the touchdown ruling was reversed and the ball is returned to the spot of the fumble. Since the ruling changed from a touchdown to the ball being returned to the spot of the fumble, an aspect of the play was changed and therefore, Miami won the challenge.


Now I've seen the replay now and the explanation is still the dumbest thing ever it looks like Miami got the ball but it's the official's job to see who got the ball I just think its stupid that officating is costing teams games and Miami got royaly screwed in this game at the end.

I really don't get it this looks like one of the worst years I've seen by officating this season.
Reply With Quote
  #4752  
Old 10-25-2010, 02:43 PM
Dont forget the BS celebration penalties against Dallas two weeks in a row.
Reply With Quote
  #4753  
Old 10-25-2010, 03:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by adamjohnson View Post
Dont forget the BS celebration penalties against Dallas two weeks in a row.
I agree that the rule in unfortunately lame, but I don't think it bears any relation to the Miami situation because the celebration rule is the most clear of any rule.

That said, the Miami ruling makes sense to me in light of what happened: the unfortunate thing is that once the TD was called, the refs didn't care what happened to the ball and no one even tried to figure out who has possesion.

And really, Miami, how about you don't let them get to 1st and Goal in the first place?
Reply With Quote
  #4754  
Old 10-25-2010, 07:19 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AceD View Post
And really, Miami, how about you don't let them get to 1st and Goal in the first place?
I don't agree with this line of logic. That's like when people try to defend the preposterous instant death overtime policy by saying that teams shouldn't have to be forced into overtime anyway. Whatever happens in the game, happens. Officials are called upon exactly for reasons like this.

I thought Miami recovered it. It was complicated and it's possible the Steelers did get it back, but from what I saw it really looked like Miami should've gotten that.
Reply With Quote
  #4755  
Old 10-25-2010, 10:19 PM
Dallas season over.
Reply With Quote
  #4756  
Old 10-25-2010, 11:09 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by adamjohnson View Post
Dallas season over.
Oh it was over last week its even more over now.

And while I hate the celebration rule Dallas deserved both of those penalties.

This team has no leadership for a coaching staff nor on the field and takes stupid meaningless and dumb penalties. This team isn't that good

I'll be a honest though I didn't think this team was that good but I didn't expect a trainwreck that has happenned this season.

And for once I'm happy for it to not be my team for the first time in the past few years.

Giants look like to me the best team in the NFC. I think though there are 5 or 6 teams that are better than them.

The AFC is winning the super bowl. Then again the Ravens barely beat the Bills and the Steelers got a BS call to win last week.
Reply With Quote
  #4757  
Old 10-26-2010, 12:13 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brando @$$ Fat View Post
I don't agree with this line of logic. That's like when people try to defend the preposterous instant death overtime policy by saying that teams shouldn't have to be forced into overtime anyway. Whatever happens in the game, happens. Officials are called upon exactly for reasons like this.
I agree that this logic is overused in sports, but at times it's relevant because of the breadth of a game. I just wish players would shoulder more of the blame instead of sliding it all on the refs, like the majority of Fins players did.
Reply With Quote
  #4758  
Old 10-26-2010, 12:38 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by adamjohnson View Post
Dallas season over.
It's been over.
Reply With Quote
  #4759  
Old 10-26-2010, 07:20 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AceD View Post
I agree that this logic is overused in sports, but at times it's relevant because of the breadth of a game. I just wish players would shoulder more of the blame instead of sliding it all on the refs, like the majority of Fins players did.
Fair enough. Refs have a hard, thankless job and do have to shoulder that burden most of the time.

The good news this week is that my Cats have finally got a win! I will go into exile if they don't beat the Rams and give me a happy Halloween.
Reply With Quote
  #4760  
Old 10-26-2010, 07:34 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by adamjohnson View Post
Dallas season over.
Indeed. Last night's MNF was the nail in the coffin. With Tony Romo out for 6-8 weeks and Jon Kitna taking over, the Cowboys will lose many more games. If they finish the season 5-11, I'll be surprised. At least I (as well as those who hate the Cowboys with a passion) no longer have to worry about the Super Bowl becoming a home game for the Cowboys. If Jerry Jones refuses to make some radical changes in the coaching department after the season comes to a bitter end, he is truly a fucking idiot.

Strider
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