Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Saturday, September 09, 2017

OT - 2017 NFL thread

Free agent NFL cornerback Antonio Cromartie and his wife Terricka announced the birth of baby girl Jhett Paxton, born Aug. 30.

This is the couple’s sixth child, and it is Cromartie’s fourteenth. By our count, it is his third child since (supposedly) having a vasectomy during his tenure with the New York Jets in 2013.

Lance Reddick! Lance him! Posted: September 09, 2017 at 12:36 AM | 369 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: nfl, off-topic

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 4 of 4 pages ‹ First  < 2 3 4
   301. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: December 06, 2017 at 10:08 AM (#5587121)
Andy's response to this is very confusing. It was a dirty play, obviously, and was punished fairly harshly (prior to this season I don't recall so many suspensions for on-field incidents). But I don't get this notion that he's somehow a dirty player now? Am I forgetting some history with him?

You don't need much of a history to deserve such a label when you engage in the sort of thuggery that was on display on Sunday.

I used to have a friend who was the most mild mannered guy imaginable, except for the one time he raped and murdered a woman in a one time contract killing. He was sentenced to death, but the Supreme Court threw out the death penalty a few months later, and he's now long out of prison and at last report is as mild mannered as he was before that one grizzly evening.

But guess what? He's still a rapist and a murderer. And Gronkowski is a dirty player.
   302. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: December 06, 2017 at 10:11 AM (#5587125)
It'd really improve matters around here if people didn't interpret every goddam opinion as the result of laundry leanings.

Deal. You go first.


So after reading the paragraph after the one you replied to, do you really think my opinion about Gronk is based on hatred of the Patriots?
   303. Ray (RDP) Posted: December 06, 2017 at 10:14 AM (#5587129)
Okay, here I should've made myself clear: Gronk should also have been immediately ejected, then suspended for the rest of the season. I didn't mean to exclude the former by calling for the latter, but if I seemed to imply that, then it was just miscommunication on my part.


Andy, feel free to engage on the actual topic I was discussing any time.
   304. SoSH U at work Posted: December 06, 2017 at 10:14 AM (#5587130)
So after reading the paragraph after the one you replied to, do you really think my opinion about Gronk is based on hatred of the Patriots?


I don't really care. I do know that you're just as guilty of ascribing positions to laundry as anyone else around here.

   305. jmurph Posted: December 06, 2017 at 10:15 AM (#5587133)
I used to have a friend who was the most mild mannered guy imaginable, except for the one time he raped and murdered a woman in a one time contract killing. He was sentenced to death, but the Supreme Court threw out the death penalty a few months later, and he's now long out of prison and at last report is as mild mannered as he was before that one grizzly evening.

Well, jesus, that's certainly a relevant comparison.
   306. Ray (RDP) Posted: December 06, 2017 at 10:17 AM (#5587137)
It'd really improve matters around here if people didn't interpret every goddam opinion as the result of laundry leanings.


Well, when you non-responsively obsess over a tiny sliver of a fraction of the problem while endlessly repeating Gronk Gronk Thug Gronk Thug Gronk, what else do you expect people to "interpret"?
   307. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: December 06, 2017 at 10:27 AM (#5587151)
Okay, here I should've made myself clear: Gronk should also have been immediately ejected, then suspended for the rest of the season. I didn't mean to exclude the former by calling for the latter, but if I seemed to imply that, then it was just miscommunication on my part.

Andy, feel free to engage on the actual topic I was discussing any time.


So what part of this "actual topic" haven't I addressed?
   308. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: December 06, 2017 at 10:31 AM (#5587152)
It'd really improve matters around here if people didn't interpret every goddam opinion as the result of laundry leanings.

Well, when you non-responsively obsess over a tiny sliver of a fraction of the problem while endlessly repeating Gronk Gronk Thug Gronk Thug Gronk, what else do you expect people to "interpret"?


For Christ's sake, Ray, I agreed with what you said about ejections. I agree that Gronk is only a symptom of the NFL's larger problem. What more do you want? Do I have to come out in favor of banning helmets and shoulder pads in order to satisfy you?
   309. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: December 06, 2017 at 10:34 AM (#5587157)
I used to have a friend who was the most mild mannered guy imaginable, except for the one time he raped and murdered a woman in a one time contract killing. He was sentenced to death, but the Supreme Court threw out the death penalty a few months later, and he's now long out of prison and at last report is as mild mannered as he was before that one grizzly evening.

Well, jesus, that's certainly a relevant comparison.


I suppose it's not relevant if you think that somehow The Devil made St. Gronk gratuitously cold #### a defenseless player who was lying on the ground. That's more or less how the usual defense of these NFL thugs go.
   310. PepTech Posted: December 06, 2017 at 10:56 AM (#5587179)
But it is also true that this is far from the first time something like that has happened on the field this season (or any season). And quite often much worse than what Gronk did.
As someone who generally dislikes the Pats, but has loved Gronk, I feel the need to take issue with this statement. I can't remember an on-field incident that I have found this distasteful. Maybe someone can remind me.

There have been fights and hard hits, sure, and the Talib/Crabtree thing was ridiculous, but there was mutual involvement and history there. This was Suh-level shenanigans, but even Suh never (to my recollection) elbow-dropped a guy who was not only down but out of bounds, well after the run of play. To the back of the head.

I want to keep liking the player, but it'll be awhile before I can, and I think another game or two would have been well warranted. Compare to the Iloka play - that was bang/bang, and while there was helmet-to-helmet contact, the sheer speed of the game makes it pretty difficult to completely eradicate that happening every once in awhile. Given a sufficient sample size, that collision is just going to happen as part of the game. I wouldn't suspend for that.

Compare the Smith-Schuster play - the *initial* hit was part of the game except for what I felt was a little extra zeal in going high. And the taunt put it over the top into what I would consider suspension-worthy. The Gronk play was in no way part of the run of play. He got beat, he got pissed, and took it out on a prone, defenseless guy from behind who had no idea it was coming and no expectation that it should (he was OUT OF BOUNDS, even). Some WR going up for a slant signs up for getting demolished. An RB heading for the end zone knows he's going to get hammered. This was assault, and I'd have no problem if he were actually charged with a crime.

The only incident off the top of my head that compares is the Kermit Washington/Rudy Tomjonavich (sp?) punch. Maybe the Woody Hayes thing, for the premeditation factor. But Gronk is a big, big dude and to legitimately unload on a guy like that with the play over was despicable (heh) and warrants a higher level of censure than what we've seen.

To Ray's point, I don't think the game is fundamentally in trouble. I believe that the proliferation of technology - particularly super slo-mo and endless replays - have served to highlight specific outliers that have taken place throughout the history of the game, the vast majority of which are Iloka-like in their unavoidability. Go back and look at Lester Hayes or Dick Butkus hitting people, or Frank Gifford taking that hit. Heck, even little Steve Largent unloaded Smith-Schuster-like on Mike Harden that time (check out those 80s shoulderpads!). Sh!t happens sometimes. But not that Gronk elbow nonsense, that demands swift and sure action.
   311. Ray (RDP) Posted: December 06, 2017 at 11:00 AM (#5587190)
For Christ's sake, Ray, I agreed with what you said about ejections. I agree that Gronk is only a symptom of the NFL's larger problem.


The problem really is not hitting people 5 seconds after the play, as Gronk did. Even within the league's thuggery that's an outlier.

The problem is far broader and deeper than that. It has to do with what goes on DURING the play.
   312. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: December 06, 2017 at 11:05 AM (#5587193)
The problem really is not hitting people 5 seconds after the play, as Gronk did. Even within the league's thuggery that's an outlier.

The problem is far broader and deeper than that. It has to do with what goes on DURING the play.


So are we now back to your loony ideas about wrap-up tackles and getting rid of helmets and padding? Those are mad as a March hare, but maybe you might suggest a better way to prevent future muggings other than ejections and much stronger subsequent penalties.
   313. Ray (RDP) Posted: December 06, 2017 at 11:11 AM (#5587196)
If you want to suspend Gronk for the rest of the season, please start by citing the CBA and precedent. Then we can have an informed discussion about what should be done with him if you think the one game is too light.

Goodell does not have unlimited powers; he's constrained by the CBA. And late hits are not something unusual like Deflategate, so I imagine there's a bedrock of precedent that applies here.

   314. PepTech Posted: December 06, 2017 at 11:17 AM (#5587203)
If you want to suspend Gronk for the rest of the season, please start by citing the CBA and precedent.
You guys are really talking about different things. Ray, in-play violence is an issue, one which has been exacerbated by HD and Super-Slo-Mo and 24/7 coverage. If you want to discuss that, discuss that. Gronk's behavior in this instance is without precedent and worthy of discussion on separate merits.
   315. SoSH U at work Posted: December 06, 2017 at 11:23 AM (#5587209)
So are we now back to your loony ideas about wrap-up tackles and getting rid of helmets and padding? Those are mad as a March hare, but maybe you might suggest a better way to prevent future muggings other than ejections and much stronger subsequent penalties.


I'm not sure removing all of the padding is necessary, but the idea that removing helmets to make the game safer is "mad as a march hare" is simply wrong. It would fundamentally alter the game, but it could very well become safer (it's at least debatable).
   316. jmurph Posted: December 06, 2017 at 11:23 AM (#5587211)
Ray, in-play violence is an issue, one which has been exacerbated by HD and Super-Slo-Mo and 24/7 coverage. If you want to discuss that, discuss that. Gronk's behavior in this instance is without precedent and worthy of discussion on separate merits.

So it's perhaps worth clarifying that Ray is actually the one who started the discussion about the league's issue with player health/violence on the previous page, at which point Andy started with the campaign to have the league's thuggiest thug who ever thugged removed for the rest of the season. Seems a little harsh to chastise Ray, which it seems like what you're doing here, for somehow changing the subject.

   317. jmurph Posted: December 06, 2017 at 11:25 AM (#5587213)
And further, Ray's point seems obviously correct: he's concerned that the in-game stuff that's actually tolerated before the whistle will ruin the game forever. Andy's "well you have to first start with Gronkowski" is almost a complete non-sequitor. The league does not have an ongoing, pervasive problem with players getting concussions from after-the-whistle hits.
   318. PepTech Posted: December 06, 2017 at 11:28 AM (#5587216)
So it's perhaps worth clarifying that Ray is actually the one who started the discussion about the league's issue with player health/violence on the previous page, at which point Andy started with the campaign to have the league's thuggiest thug who ever thugged removed for the rest of the season. Seems a little harsh to chastise Ray, which it seems like what you're doing here, for somehow changing the subject.
I was not intending to chastise Ray at all; I think it's a worthwhile discussion. I just think it's a *different* discussion. Gronk's punishment has nothing to do with the fundamental state of the game, that play was a major outlier.

Rugby has no helmets or pads and gets along fine. I'm open to any player-safety proposals.


   319. SoSH U at work Posted: December 06, 2017 at 11:29 AM (#5587217)
Seems a little harsh to chastise Ray, which it seems like what you're doing here, for somehow changing the subject.


It didn't seem that way to me. His point was that Gronk's play was really outside precedent (and outside the typical "late hit" Ray referenced).

And further, Ray's point seems obviously correct: he's concerned that the in-game stuff that's actually tolerated before the whistle will ruin the game forever. Andy's "well you have to first start with Gronkowski" is almost a complete non-sequitor. The league does not have an ongoing, pervasive problem with players getting concussions from after-the-whistle hits.



He's not taking exception to Ray's argument. But subjects change all the time, and how the league deals with Gronk is a reasonable subject to pursue.
   320. jmurph Posted: December 06, 2017 at 11:31 AM (#5587220)
I was not intending to chastise Ray at all; I think it's a worthwhile discussion. I just think it's a *different* discussion.

Right, which is actually the point Ray has been making on this page.
   321. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: December 06, 2017 at 11:31 AM (#5587221)

Rugby has no helmets or pads and gets along fine.


Eh -- 110 British rugby players have been paralyzed over the last 30 years.
   322. jmurph Posted: December 06, 2017 at 11:32 AM (#5587224)
He's not taking exception to Ray's argument. But subjects change all the time, and how the league deals with Gronk is a reasonable subject to pursue.

Of course! I'm just sympathetic to his frustration at Andy immediately conflating the two things and banging on about it for like 12 posts.
   323. PepTech Posted: December 06, 2017 at 11:41 AM (#5587230)
There's always multiple subthreads going on, stuff is easy to conflate. Ray's campaign against the violence inherent in the game is certainly worth talking about, and the Smith-Schuster and Iloka hits are spot-on relevant to that discussion.

The Gronk thing is a separate problem that should be dealt with as a separate topic. In my opinion. It's not one first, then the other. Is all I'm saying.

"Late hits" are almost overwhelmingly the result of a decision a player makes during the play that gives them momentum with consequences that manifest after the whistle (or, maybe, release of the ball by a QB). Gronk's decision-making happened after the whistle. That's extremely unusual. You *could* squint and make an argument that the overall adrenaline level caused by all the constant in-game violence contributed to Gronk's behavior, but that would be a stretch. He got beat and acted like a child kicking a toy, except Gronk weighs 260 and the toy was someone's skull.
   324. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: December 06, 2017 at 11:43 AM (#5587231)
If you want to suspend Gronk for the rest of the season, please start by citing the CBA and precedent. Then we can have an informed discussion about what should be done with him if you think the one game is too light.

Goodell does not have unlimited powers; he's constrained by the CBA. And late hits are not something unusual like Deflategate, so I imagine there's a bedrock of precedent that applies here.


Ray, my comment about what should happen to Gronk wasn't intended to be vetted by the signers of the CBA. It was intended to address the best way to deter future thuggery, and it was a gut reaction to the clear evidence of thuggery presented by the Gronkowski video.

As for precedent: You have to start somewhere. And if you're so concerned about the CBA or precedent, what's with your initial deal about doing away with helmets and padding? There's no precedent for that.** OTOH I think a reasonable person could read both of our comments and figure out that we're talking about preferences, not something that's likely to happen or has ever happened before.

** Although up through the 1940's a few players chose not to wear helmets,helmets have never been forbidden.
   325. Ray (RDP) Posted: December 06, 2017 at 11:43 AM (#5587232)
Ray, in-play violence is an issue, one which has been exacerbated by HD and Super-Slo-Mo and 24/7 coverage. If you want to discuss that, discuss that.


I was.

Gronk's behavior in this instance is without precedent and worthy of discussion on separate merits.


Right. This is what I said.

Please try to follow what I say, rather than bring in harbored grudges from OTP. I really try when outside of OTP to stay on point with the sports-related topic under discussion.
   326. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: December 06, 2017 at 11:54 AM (#5587242)
It was intended to address the best way to deter future thuggery, and it was a gut reaction to the clear evidence of thuggery presented by the Gronkowski video.


Because if history has taught us one thing, it's that harsh draconian punishments inevitably end up eliminating antisocial behavior.
   327. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: December 06, 2017 at 11:56 AM (#5587243)
The Gronk thing is a separate problem that should be dealt with as a separate topic. In my opinion. It's not one first, then the other. Is all I'm saying.

And that's all I'm saying as well. The Gronkowski cold cock was what prompted my initial comment, but I've never objected to broadening the discussion to include non-late hits or other safety-related issues.

Now AFAIC Ray's specific proposals about helmets, padding and wrap-up tackling ARE mad as a March hare** and would be DOA among players, owners and fans, but that doesn't mean that there aren't plenty of other safety measures that would be worthy of consideration.

** Banning helmets and padding wouldn't reduce injuries, and reducing tackling to wrap-ups would transform American football into something completely different. I've never seen an actual pro football player advocate anything quite so loony.
   328. jmurph Posted: December 06, 2017 at 11:56 AM (#5587244)
"Late hits" are almost overwhelmingly the result of a decision a player makes during the play that gives them momentum with consequences that manifest after the whistle (or, maybe, release of the ball by a QB). Gronk's decision-making happened after the whistle. That's extremely unusual. You *could* squint and make an argument that the overall adrenaline level caused by all the constant in-game violence contributed to Gronk's behavior, but that would be a stretch. He got beat and acted like a child kicking a toy, except Gronk weighs 260 and the toy was someone's skull.

I guess I just don't think anyone is disagreeing here? Everyone seems in favor of a suspension, to varying degrees, with one outlier.

But honestly, I promise I wasn't trying to police the discussion topic, I was just trying to clarify the original point that Ray was trying to make as I thought it was getting treated like he was the one doing the subject changing/evading.
   329. PepTech Posted: December 06, 2017 at 12:00 PM (#5587246)
All I ever meant was that 311 (a Ray post) does a good job of illuminating that there are *two* problems, neither of which is "the" problem, and we should keep that in mind going forward.
   330. Nasty Nate Posted: December 06, 2017 at 12:01 PM (#5587248)
You *could* squint and make an argument that the overall adrenaline level caused by all the constant in-game violence contributed to Gronk's behavior, but that would be a stretch.
Yeah, - squinting -, he only arrived at the player an instant after a teammate who made contact intended to ensure that the guy was down, so conceivably he wasn't 100% sure the guy was out of bounds. Even under that generous interpretation, of course, Gronk didn't need to make contact in such a violent manner - i.e. it would have been a dirty flag-worthy play even in the middle of the field.
   331. SoSH U at work Posted: December 06, 2017 at 12:02 PM (#5587250)
Please try to follow what I say, rather than bring in harbored grudges from OTP. I really try when outside of OTP to stay on point with the sports-related topic under discussion.


He wasn't guilty of any of that.
   332. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: December 06, 2017 at 12:02 PM (#5587252)
I guess I just don't think anyone is disagreeing here? Everyone seems in favor of a suspension, to varying degrees, with one outlier.

So who's the one who doesn't think he should've been suspended?
   333. jmurph Posted: December 06, 2017 at 12:06 PM (#5587255)
All I ever meant was that 311 illuminates that there are *two* problems, neither of which is "the" problem.

Well if you really want to argue (ha) I don't actually think the Gronk thing is a problem at all. The guy did a bad, violent thing, and is getting punished for it, and the next person who does a bad, violent thing will also be punished for it, but I think it's a pretty big stretch to treat it like it's some kind of issue that needs to be solved. Again, as far as I can tell the league does not have an ongoing, pervasive issue of players getting injured due to after the whistle, non-football playing related acts.

And that's kind of what I've been banging on about. "The league really has an issue with violence and player safety" "It sure does, let's start by suspending Gronk for the rest of the season" was a weird turn in the conversation.

I'll now stop repeating myself 11 times and being part of the problem!
   334. jmurph Posted: December 06, 2017 at 12:07 PM (#5587258)
So who's the one who doesn't think he should've been suspended?

I was referring to your stance, which seemed like an outlier.
   335. Ray (RDP) Posted: December 06, 2017 at 12:15 PM (#5587265)
I mean, I certainly would watch flag football; I'd be more interested in it, actually. But I get that for a lot of people this is a non-starter.

There has been a mini sea change already, with the new rules and focus on player safety. But I don't think this is going to be enough to save the league from becoming extinct in 10-20 years; I think that in order for the league to survive, it needs a complete sea change. Maybe not flag football, but something.

I also think that this is going to start at the lowest levels of organized football; I predict within a decade we will see a tidal wave in which high school football programs get phased out in large swathes of the country -- at least, leagues of the tackle variety.
   336. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: December 06, 2017 at 12:19 PM (#5587273)
So who's the one who doesn't think he should've been suspended?

I was referring to your stance, which seemed like an outlier.


Okay, but we all agree that he should've been suspended. And I think we also all agree that the issue of preventing future thuggeries is going to have to be addressed in multiple ways. There's no one magic bullet----unless of course it was fired at the thugs, and there we might get objections from the Players' Union, and possibly even from the Supreme Court.
   337. PepTech Posted: December 06, 2017 at 12:21 PM (#5587276)
Well if you really want to argue...

Palin: I came here for a good argument!

Cleese: AH, no you didn't, you came here for an argument!
   338. jmurph Posted: December 06, 2017 at 12:28 PM (#5587281)
And I think we also all agree that the issue of preventing future thuggeries is going to have to be addressed in multiple ways.

If you're talking about the stuff that actually happens in every game every week, yes, I do think they probably need to step up the penalties. Immediate ejections on the helmet to helmet stuff, immediate ejections on the targeting, way more unnecessary roughness penalties, escalating suspensions on repeat offenses, etc.
   339. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: December 06, 2017 at 12:28 PM (#5587282)
I predict within a decade we will see a tidal wave in which high school football programs get phased out in large swathes of the country -- at least, leagues of the tackle variety.


I think you underestimate how embedded in the local landscape football is, in many areas; this is far, far too fast for such a change to happen, at least on the scale you suggest. 50 years, maybe. 10 years? No way.
   340. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: December 06, 2017 at 12:31 PM (#5587294)
There has been a mini sea change already, with the new rules and focus on player safety. But I don't think this is going to be enough to save the league from becoming extinct in 10-20 years; I think that in order for the league to survive, it needs a complete sea change. Maybe not flag football, but something.

It's a very tricky balance that you (we) are trying to achieve. Obviously controlled violence is a big part of the NFL's appeal. It's the uncontrolled and gratuitous violence that's the problem, and though in theory those types of violence should be easy to distinguish from one another, in the heat of the moment it's not always that easy, even if in many cases it's clear when a line has been crossed.

Personally I think that instant ejections and long suspensions for clearly gratuitous thuggery (like Gronk's) would be the quickest way to get potential future thugs' attention, but I also realize that this isn't something that can be imposed by Goodell without running into all kinds of legal challenges. So in real life such changes would have to be accompanied by return favors offered to the players. What those return favors might be, I have no idea at the moment, but many more incidents like Sunday and Monday nights' and your extinction prediction might not be as farfetched as it might seem today.
   341. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: December 06, 2017 at 12:34 PM (#5587297)
And I think we also all agree that the issue of preventing future thuggeries is going to have to be addressed in multiple ways.

If you're talking about the stuff that actually happens in every game every week, yes, I do think they probably need to step up the penalties. Immediate ejections on the helmet to helmet stuff, immediate ejections on the targeting, way more unnecessary roughness penalties, escalating suspensions on repeat offenses, etc.


Again, to be clear, I am "talking about the stuff that actually happens in every game every week". Gronkowski happened to be the thug du jour, but I'm not under any illusion that he's the only one. And many of them aren't even Patriots. Some of them might even be Ravens. (smile)
   342. jmurph Posted: December 06, 2017 at 12:37 PM (#5587303)
Again, to be clear, I am "talking about the stuff that actually happens in every game every week". Gronkowski happened to be the thug du jour, but I'm not under any illusion that he's the only one.

I give up man, you're very confused about this stuff.
   343. Ray (RDP) Posted: December 06, 2017 at 12:44 PM (#5587314)
Say, did something happen with Gronk in Sunday's game?
   344. Ray (RDP) Posted: December 06, 2017 at 12:47 PM (#5587319)
If you're talking about the stuff that actually happens in every game every week, yes, I do think they probably need to step up the penalties. Immediate ejections on the helmet to helmet stuff, immediate ejections on the targeting, way more unnecessary roughness penalties, escalating suspensions on repeat offenses, etc.


I basically agree with you so this will now sound like I'm taking the other side of the argument -- I'm not, I promise -- but this is all tricky to implement because I think players who let up can be putting themselves at more risk of injury, ironically. Also a lot of this happens in breakneck speed -- the runnningback lifts his head up or drops it just before a would-be clean hit lands 00 so it's hard to blame all helmet to helmet stuff on the person who gets flagged.

That's why I think a complete metamorphosis is best.
   345. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: December 06, 2017 at 12:52 PM (#5587324)
And I think we also all agree that the issue of preventing future thuggeries is going to have to be addressed in multiple ways.

If you're talking about the stuff that actually happens in every game every week, yes, I do think they probably need to step up the penalties. Immediate ejections on the helmet to helmet stuff, immediate ejections on the targeting, way more unnecessary roughness penalties, escalating suspensions on repeat offenses, etc.

Again, to be clear, I am "talking about the stuff that actually happens in every game every week". Gronkowski happened to be the thug du jour, but I'm not under any illusion that he's the only one.

I give up man, you're very confused about this stuff.


There seems to be nothing more confusing to you than having someone agree with you when you just want to keep arguing for argument's sake.
   346. jmurph Posted: December 06, 2017 at 12:54 PM (#5587329)
I give up
   347. Commissioner Bud Black Beltre Hillman Posted: December 06, 2017 at 01:32 PM (#5587404)
There seems to be nothing more confusing to you than having someone agree with you when you just want to keep arguing for argument's sake.

Andy, what's confusing is you conflating two separate topics, then when called out insisting you recognise that they're separate topics, but continuing to conflate them all the same.
   348. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: December 06, 2017 at 02:07 PM (#5587464)
Andy, what's confusing is you conflating two separate topics, then when called out insisting you recognise that they're separate topics, but continuing to conflate them all the same.

This is just silly. They're separate topics in that they're not identical, but they're both addressing the same problem, and there's no particular reason why they can't be considered at the same time.

Again, some people here just love arguing for argument's sake. And other than Ray's screwball ideas about transforming American football into a sport that would barely be recognizable, I note that none of you have actually spelled out any concrete ideas for addressing the problem of gratuitous violence in today's NFL.

   349. Ray (RDP) Posted: December 06, 2017 at 02:58 PM (#5587526)
And other than Ray's screwball ideas about transforming American football into a sport that would barely be recognizable,


Change or die.
   350. zenbitz Posted: December 06, 2017 at 03:16 PM (#5587537)
Hey it's not guaranteed that violent football is doomed to a slow death by conscious. Medical science is improving! How violent would a game be where we can regrow limbs and spinal columns, and instantly nullify brain trauma!
   351. Commissioner Bud Black Beltre Hillman Posted: December 06, 2017 at 03:20 PM (#5587541)
they're both addressing the same problem
No, they're not. The fact that Gronk got fed up and acted like a thug has nothing to do with the violence inherent to NFL football. Dropping some massive penalty on Gronk may discourage future thuggish behaviour but will do nothing to address the problem that football, as played, leads to brain damage. Conversely, adopting Ray's "screwball ideas" and totally changing the rules of the game would do nothing to stop some meathead from getting frustrated and taking it out on another player.
   352. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: December 06, 2017 at 04:51 PM (#5587628)
they're both addressing the same problem

No, they're not. The fact that Gronk got fed up and acted like a thug has nothing to do with the violence inherent to NFL football. Dropping some massive penalty on Gronk may discourage future thuggish behaviour but will do nothing to address the problem that football, as played, leads to brain damage.


If the common goal is to reduce player injuries, then by dealing with both the Gronks and the "football, as played" problem, you're addressing the same ultimate goal.

Conversely, adopting Ray's "screwball ideas" and totally changing the rules of the game would do nothing to stop some meathead from getting frustrated and taking it out on another player.

Well, that's a secondary objection to Ray's ideas, but the main objection is that they'd be completely DOA with the players, the fans and the owners. What Ray's proposing would be little more than a slightly rougher version of flag football, and there aren't nearly enough Rays within the NFL's fan base to support such a radical change.
   353. Ray (RDP) Posted: December 06, 2017 at 05:45 PM (#5587669)
Andy, this is like saying that if we want to reduce the head injuries associated with boxing, addressing the problem by focusing on fighters who hit after the bell would be a good start.

It's honestly (obsessing over Gronk in relation to the issue) just a bizarre response.
   354. Eddo Posted: December 06, 2017 at 06:47 PM (#5587702)
No, they're not. The fact that Gronk got fed up and acted like a thug has nothing to do with the violence inherent to NFL football. Dropping some massive penalty on Gronk may discourage future thuggish behaviour but will do nothing to address the problem that football, as played, leads to brain damage.

If the common goal is to reduce player injuries, then by dealing with both the Gronks and the "football, as played" problem, you're addressing the same ultimate goal.

No, they're quite different.

Addressing the Gronkowksi hit is like prosecuting someone who purposefully drives their car onto the sidewalk into a pedestrian.

Addressing the in-game action is like adding more safety features to cars so that accidentally rear-ending someone doesn't result in death. (EDIT: Or better yet, enforcing following-too-close or speed limit laws.)

What you're saying is, "Those are the same, since what we're trying to do is reduce deaths due to car collisions."
   355. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: December 06, 2017 at 07:08 PM (#5587716)
Andy, this is like saying that if we want to reduce the head injuries associated with boxing, addressing the problem by focusing on fighters who hit after the bell would be a good start.

Addressing the Gronks of the NFL would most certainly be a good start to reducing injuries. Should we just forget all about thuggish late hits until we've eliminated shoulder pads?

Seriously, you're like the the flaming leftists who say that Obamacare is meaningless because it didn't get us Medicare for All.

It's honestly (obsessing over Gronk in relation to the issue) just a bizarre response.

I brought up Gronk simply because his thuggish late hit was being shown repeatedly on videos. I've never once said that this was the only problem causing injuries, despite your repeated implications.

Once again, all you want to do is argue for argument's sake. You haven't offered any actual solutions to reducing NFL injuries, other than your silly neo-flag football ideas, which have about as much chance of being acted upon as mandating helmets would be for heavyweight championship fights. You're acting like a BernieBot of the NFL.
   356. Ray (RDP) Posted: December 06, 2017 at 10:37 PM (#5587798)
Once again, all you want to do is argue for argument's sake. You haven't offered any actual solutions to reducing NFL injuries, other than your silly neo-flag football ideas, which have about as much chance of being acted upon as mandating helmets would be for heavyweight championship fights.


I absolutely love this. "You haven't offered any actual solutions, other than the ones you offered."

Really now.
   357. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: December 07, 2017 at 08:49 AM (#5587864)
Once again, all you want to do is argue for argument's sake. You haven't offered any actual solutions to reducing NFL injuries, other than your silly neo-flag football ideas, which have about as much chance of being acted upon as mandating helmets would be for heavyweight championship fights.

I absolutely love this. "You haven't offered any actual solutions, other than the ones you offered."

Really now.


Right, "solutions" that have about as much chance of being put into place as Hillary Clinton would have of being the next Governor of Alabama.
   358. PepTech Posted: December 07, 2017 at 10:46 AM (#5587904)
I would rate the chances of radical flag-football-like changes unlikely, but ask yourself this: What if Shazier had been immediately paralyzed, or worse, right there on MNF? It's happened in football, and will happen again someday, it's an odds thing. Given the cultural whiplash we appear to be capable of these days, nothing is out of the question.

Well, the HRC/Alabama thing maybe.
   359. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: December 07, 2017 at 11:10 AM (#5587923)
I would rate the chances of radical flag-football-like changes unlikely, but ask yourself this: What if Shazier had been immediately paralyzed, or worse, right there on MNF? It's happened in football, and will happen again someday, it's an odds thing. Given the cultural whiplash we appear to be capable of these days, nothing is out of the question.

Your point about our current state of cultural whiplash is well taken, but football players have been paralyzed (or died) on the playing field going back to the days of Teddy Roosevelt, when helmets weren't in vogue and padding was minimal. I remember being in Boston watching the game on TV when Darryl Stingley was paralyzed for life by a brutal but legal hit by Jack Tatum, and while that sparked a national conversation about football's brutality, the type of play that caused Stingley's paralysis (helmet-to-shoulder contact) took years to be addressed by the NFL.

And of course there's quite a political difference between the potential voices of millions of involuntary sexually harassed women lying in wait to out their harassers, and a relatively small number of football players who voluntarily accepted the risks of playing football. I think that there's a very good chance that further actions will be taken to reduce these sorts of injuries, but I think those solutions will be much closer to what I've suggested than to anything remotely close to Ray's proposals. Those solutions won't eliminate the problem, but then football is an inherently violent sport with enormous popular appeal, and neither its violence nor its popularity are likely to go away in the foreseeable future.

One caveat to that last sentence: Lawsuits. I'll let the lawyers address the potential for that prospect to lengthen the NFL's attention span.
   360. Ray (RDP) Posted: December 07, 2017 at 06:34 PM (#5588362)
I would rate the chances of radical flag-football-like changes unlikely, but ask yourself this: What if Shazier had been immediately paralyzed, or worse, right there on MNF?


Feh. Looks like he may have been:

As scary as Ryan Shazier’s condition looked Monday night after a collision during the Steelers-Bengals game, doctors now believe it’s worse than anticipated.

The Steelers announced Thursday that Shazier, a fourth-year linebacker, underwent spinal stabilization surgery on Wednesday, the same day he was transferred back to Pittsburgh from the University of Cincinnati medical center. Shazier spent two nights in Cincinnati while doctors put him through a variety of medical tests.

This type of surgery is performed when the bones surrounding a person’s spinal cord are dislocated, neurologist Dr. Anthony Alessi told ESPN’s Michelle Steele.

“It’s not good. … We’re not going to see him [on the field] this season,” Alessi said of Shazier. “He may not play football again. This is a much more severe situation on our hands than we thought.”


Part of the problem here, which I've tried to address, is tackling in which the player leads with his shoulder. That's dangerous for the player being hit -- as the disgusting hit on Burfict showed -- but it's also very dangerous for the tackler -- as the Shazier and Dennis Byrd injuries show.

If you don't line things up right or the player you're trying to hit moves the wrong way at the last second, you end up launching yourself head first into him.

It's really time to do away with this stuff.

And what Smith-Schuster did is in some respects worse than what Gronk did, IMO. Burfict was moving laterally and not looking and just got broadsided by Smith-Schuster, who could have let up and just blocked him less violently. Instead Smith-Schuster stood over the half dead player and gloated. That is not football; that's a blood sport. Gronk's nonsense came after the whistle so was worse in that sense, but at least Gronk has an excuse: he let his emotions get the better of him. Smith-Schuster has no such excuse; he was just out there for looking for blood -- he was out there looking for violence for the sake of violence. If I were to suspend one of the two for the rest of the year and I could only pick one, it would be Smith-Schuster without a doubt.
   361. Ray (RDP) Posted: December 07, 2017 at 06:40 PM (#5588366)
And of course there's quite a political difference between the potential voices of millions of involuntary sexually harassed women lying in wait to out their harassers, and a relatively small number of football players who voluntarily accepted the risks of playing football.


Andy you've tried half a dozen times or so to inject politics into this discussion. This is supposed to be a politics-free zone, unless politics specifically relates to an issue under discussion, such as stadia or whatever. Or if we're discussing outlawing tackle football, which nobody here is.
   362. Commissioner Bud Black Beltre Hillman Posted: December 07, 2017 at 07:50 PM (#5588391)
Klosterman's piece on football and violence is an interesting perspective, but it's less about the game itself than its cultural/political relevance, so posted an excerpt/link in OTP, [1057].
   363. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: December 07, 2017 at 11:26 PM (#5588534)
I would rate the chances of radical flag-football-like changes unlikely, but ask yourself this: What if Shazier had been immediately paralyzed, or worse, right there on MNF? It's happened in football, and will happen again someday, it's an odds thing. Given the cultural whiplash we appear to be capable of these days, nothing is out of the question.


Your point about our current state of cultural whiplash is well taken, but football players have been paralyzed (or died) on the playing field going back to the days of Teddy Roosevelt, when helmets weren't in vogue and padding was minimal. I remember being in Boston watching the game on TV when Darryl Stingley was paralyzed for life by a brutal but legal hit by Jack Tatum, and while that sparked a national conversation about football's brutality, the type of play that caused Stingley's paralysis (helmet-to-shoulder contact) took years to be addressed by the NFL.

And of course there's quite a political difference between the potential voices of millions of involuntary sexually harassed women lying in wait to out their harassers, and a relatively small number of football players who voluntarily accepted the risks of playing football.


Andy you've tried half a dozen times or so to inject politics into this discussion. This is supposed to be a politics-free zone, unless politics specifically relates to an issue under discussion, such as stadia or whatever. Or if we're discussing outlawing tackle football, which nobody here is.


Jesus ####### Christ, Ray, if for once in your life you'd read something IN CONTEXT---that's spelled C-O-N-T-E-X-T--- instead of cutting and pasting parts of what people write in order to make some irrelevant response, you'd see that I was responding to a political point that placed football violence within our current political (or cultural) context.

But then you just like to argue for the sake of arguing, so I guess your response shouldn't surprise me.
   364. PepTech Posted: December 08, 2017 at 01:23 PM (#5588833)
Local sportsradio guy threw out the idea that Gronkowski's suspension should last one game beyond whatever his victim is out for. This sort of thing has been floated in the past, and maybe there's some merit. I would only apply this kind of penalty in situations where it's clear and compelling the offending action was gratuitous and/or non-football-move-related - meaning Gronk, this week, and I believe the Smith-Schuster taunt aspect would put it in this category^. I would *not* advocate this kind of thing for injuries on legal, run-of-play hits (like the one that knocked Gronk out for a few games last season, courtesy of Earl Thomas).

The logic being, if you're actually intending to hurt someone, you're going to feel it more than they do. This could extend to plays that may not have been penalized originally, too, if game film shows a Suh-like stomp or similar feats of idiocy, that the officials missed - hit the perpetrator hard.

^ Burfict may not miss any time, in which case leave Smith-Schuster's suspension at one game (for a first offense; it could escalate for repeaters).
   365. Nasty Nate Posted: December 08, 2017 at 01:30 PM (#5588841)
The Falcons' win over the Saints really made the NFC South interesting. Those two have a rematch in 2 weeks, and then Atlanta finishes with a game against Carolina. All 3 teams each have a chance to get a first-round bye or be completely out of the playoffs (and everything in between).
   366. PepTech Posted: December 08, 2017 at 02:30 PM (#5588897)
If:

Saints win out
Rams lose to Seahawks only
Seahawks win out
Panthers win out
Vikings lose to Panthers and Packers
Eagles lose to Rams and Cowboys

All six teams end up 12-4 :) Cowboys over Eagles in Philly is the least likely, but it's fantasyland anyway...
   367. Nasty Nate Posted: December 08, 2017 at 02:38 PM (#5588902)
If:

Saints win out
Rams lose to Seahawks only
Seahawks win out
Panthers win out
Vikings lose to Panthers and Packers
Eagles lose to Rams and Cowboys

All six teams end up 12-4 :)
And who gets the byes and who gets the wildcards?

Also, just looking quickly, I think all 6 teams could (hypothetically) also end up 10-6, or all end up 11-5.
   368. PepTech Posted: December 08, 2017 at 02:45 PM (#5588912)
Nate, in the 12-4 scenario, it went NO-MIN-SEA-PHI-LAR-CAR, per the ESPN playoff machine. As for all ending up with a worse record, that would involve an increasing number of more and more unlikely scenarios, like Philly losing to the Giants or 49ers over the Rams. I'd say it's even more likely there's a 13-win team or two amongst the 12s.

That being said, we'll probably end up with zero 12-win teams in the end, just because.
   369. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: December 08, 2017 at 02:46 PM (#5588913)
Local sportsradio guy threw out the idea that Gronkowski's suspension should last one game beyond whatever his victim is out for. This sort of thing has been floated in the past, and maybe there's some merit. I would only apply this kind of penalty in situations where it's clear and compelling the offending action was gratuitous and/or non-football-move-related - meaning Gronk, this week, and I believe the Smith-Schuster taunt aspect would put it in this category^. I would *not* advocate this kind of thing for injuries on legal, run-of-play hits (like the one that knocked Gronk out for a few games last season, courtesy of Earl Thomas).

The logic being, if you're actually intending to hurt someone, you're going to feel it more than they do. This could extend to plays that may not have been penalized originally, too, if game film shows a Suh-like stomp or similar feats of idiocy, that the officials missed - hit the perpetrator hard.


I like this idea, and the logic behind it. Also agree (obviously) with not extending this penalty to legal hits.
Page 4 of 4 pages ‹ First  < 2 3 4

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

News

All News | Prime News

Old-School Newsstand


BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
greenback wears sandals on his head
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogAlan Trammell worthy of Cooperstown call
(24 - 7:30pm, Dec 10)
Last: John DiFool2

NewsblogRosenthal: He’s 53 and hasn’t played in the majors since 2005, but Rafael Palmeiro is eyeing a comeback, and redemption – The Athletic
(93 - 7:26pm, Dec 10)
Last: Gonfalon Bubble

NewsblogOTP 04 December 2017: Baseball group accused of ‘united front’ tactics
(1673 - 7:24pm, Dec 10)
Last: ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick

NewsblogRyan Thibs has his HOF Ballot Tracker Up and Running!
(324 - 7:15pm, Dec 10)
Last: Gonfalon Bubble

NewsblogOT - NBA 2017-2018 Tip-off Thread
(1895 - 7:03pm, Dec 10)
Last: don't ask 57i66135; he wants to hang them all

NewsblogThe Giancarlo Stanton Trade Shines a Light on the Sad Difference Between the Mets and Yankees
(25 - 6:54pm, Dec 10)
Last: PreservedFish

NewsblogYankees in talks on Giancarlo Stanton trade
(182 - 5:33pm, Dec 10)
Last: You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR)

NewsblogShohei Ohtani agrees to deal with Angels | Los Angeles Angels
(55 - 4:51pm, Dec 10)
Last: Walt Davis

Hall of Merit2018 Hall of Merit Ballot Discussion
(313 - 4:40pm, Dec 10)
Last: bachslunch

NewsblogShohei Ohtani’s Value Has No Precedent | FiveThirtyEight
(19 - 4:31pm, Dec 10)
Last: PreservedFish

Gonfalon CubsLooking to next year
(296 - 4:03pm, Dec 10)
Last: Meatwad

NewsblogOT: Winter Soccer Thread
(288 - 1:16pm, Dec 10)
Last: Jose is an Absurd Doubles Machine

NewsblogIf Sandy Koufax is a Hall of Famer, Johan Santana Is Too
(46 - 12:40pm, Dec 10)
Last: karlmagnus

NewsblogMariners Acquire Gordon As Marlins Pick Up Trio Of Prospects | BaseballAmerica.com
(58 - 9:16am, Dec 10)
Last: snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster)

NewsblogBill Liningston's HOF Article
(24 - 8:47am, Dec 10)
Last: PreservedFish

Page rendered in 0.9551 seconds
47 querie(s) executed