Captain Caveman
-
Posts
5,722 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Captain Caveman
-
-
Del Rio is an idiot...a real meathead. Should Henderson come back to practice and sustain a real injury, don't the coach's remarks leave the team wide open to a lawsuit? I don't know the details of the labor agreement, but I would think this might qualify as coercing an injured player to continue to play.
Most coaches, at this point in the offseason, want their dinged vets to sit out small injuries, as nobody is winning games in June.
Considering the OTAs are supposed to be voluntary, and are supposed to be non-contact drills (which makes one wonder how Henderson injured his shoulder in the first place), Del Rio is opening himself and the Jags up to questioning by the league and the NFLPA. Of course I'm not stating anything that wasn't in the article.
-
Are you joking?
He's already accepted a check (form the same gang, no less) for $78 million to willfully yank his team out of Buffalo every year and into a city that really hasn't shown a huge interest in his Bills (unless they are playing the Dolphins, apparently).
I think it is widely understood on the other side that Ralph will accept Canadian currency.
He's accepting Canadian currency as part of a deal which he felt was necessary to keep the team in Buffalo. If he feels that having a team in Toronto would threaten the Bills (which he most certainly would) then it would be an entirely different story. I'm not saying going to say never as did the previous post, but I think it's unlikely that Ralph would accept a franchise in Toronto without massive compensation.
-
The leagues bottom line won't suffer.
As I said before, I'm sure the league has more qualified people than you or I looking into this, and they'll act appropriately. There's not all that much to be gained from allowing this guy back into the league, especially since his best days are almost certainly behind him. And there certainly is a risk of losing advertising $ from sponsors scared to be associated with a league that would reinstate Vick, whether you see it or not.
Nobody is saying they'll stop making money, only that it's possible they'll make less with him around, and that he's not worth the risk.
-
But if someone has a skill set that is so rare and could make said company money than a company might decide to hire him leave it up to the teams on whither or not Vick has value to the league . Mike Tyson was allowed to box with no public outrage what so ever after he was convicted for raping a women. If vick was an average player no one would want him and he would be out of the league. But because he is a good player teams like the Rams want to take a chance on him.
And the NFL lost not a dime due to the Michael Vick situation. The NFL is an unstoppable industry Vick wouldn't hurt the bottom line at all. The image of the NFL is terrible but on Sunday we all tune in to watch so I don't buy the argument that its about the league making money. If Goodell banned Vick it would be to send a message to the other players that he has the hammer and as window dressing that he is cleaning up the image of the league.
As for the financial incentives / disincentives, you're missing the point. Does one team have the right to sign Vick to make an extra million $, if it costs each other team in the league a quarter of a million $ in lost tv / advertising revenue? And I'm not saying that it would or would not be the case. All I'm saying is that the NFL has people far more qualified than you or I looking at this, and if they decide that it would hurt the league overall, they have every right to keep him out.
As for it being about Goodell cleaning up the league, I partially agree, but again, it has to be looked at from a financial perspective. The whole reason the NFL is so worried about cleaning up the league's reputation is to keep the revenue flowing. So far, it hasn't been greatly impacted by player behavior, but that doesn't mean it might not have a negative impact, especially if things continue as is or get worse.
If Goodell decides that having Vick in the league is what is best for the league, then he will do that. I don't have a problem with it. But you keep arguing that Goodell doesn't have the right to ban him. You may not like it, but he absolutely does have that right, and it's been granted to him with consent of the owners and players. Get over it.
-
Too much of a felon. He served his time in jail. What ever happened to if you pay your debt to society you can re-enter and make good? If a team wants to hire him than why not let them. As for image why should you let PETA ban a guy from the league. If Vick is willing to do psa's and work with the humane society (which he has committed to do) what more do you want from him?
Everyone deserves a second chance once they have payed their dues. Is jail time and the loss of a 100 million dollar contract is not enough of a penance the American Justice system thinks so.
Saying that everyone deserves a second chance is fine, but what does that mean? It means they are allowed back into society, and will play by society's rules. In our society, that means that a company can hire them, or refuse to hire them if they feel it will be bad for business.
I'm not asking for the guy to be punished further, and I really think too much of this conversation has focused on punishment, which I also feel should be left to the courts. All I'm saying is that if Goodell thinks it will hurt the NFL financially to have him back, then he should not allow him back. It's not about Michael Vick getting punished, or PETA, or anything other than the league making money.
-
I mean, it's not like there have been that many advances in play calling over the last 10 years. Everyone still goes out and runs and passes and fakes and punts and kicks and hits. Nothing new there..... oh yeah , now they cheat (see Belichick, William).
They cheated back then too (see Parcells, William.)
-
Its is a right to play in the NFL to an extent. The NFL can't say no Asians or Mexicans in the league because they do not deserve the privilege. So to a degree its a privilege but if you pay the dues and have the ability than as long as a team wants you, you have the right to play in the league.
You're really reaching with the Asians / Mexicans analogy. But even so, if the NFL won the right to keep out Maurice Clarett because he was too young, they can sure as hell keep out MV because he's too much of a felon.
-
What ever happened to capitalism. If a team wants to employ him knowing that his set of skills is rare and can bring a team a win or two more than why should the NFL not be able to not let that team hire him if he has spent his time in jail for the sins he committed.
While one team may be able to justify signing him if it thinks he will help them more than hurt them, the commissioner is supposed to be looking out for the entire league. If Roger Goodell thinks having Michael Vick in the NFL is bad for the NFL, for whatever reason, then he can and should should ban him. If the individual teams don't like his actions, they can try to oust him.
Again, I'm not proposing this as punishment for Vick, and I'm not going to get into the argument of whether he deserves more or less punishment than what he's already received. But in the real world (and even NFL players have to live in the real world) it's pretty uncommon for someone who commits a major crime to just be able to go back to their old life. This isn't because people are going out of their way to further punish an individual (usually); it's just a side effect of going to prison.
-
It amazes me how many times this chant is repeated. It is a product of the "old NFL" where running is not an option but a necessity. These people obviously never watched Jimbo and the no-huddle fill the air with sucessful passes in their hey day. I will never forget the shoot outs between Kelly and Marino in December and January. Actually the only times it is easier to run would be in high wind condition. If the field is slick the advantage is heavily weighted toward the air game as pass blocking is easier to execute than drive blocking and db's have to give more cushion to avoid slipping on a cut.
I think the key is that they have to be able to run the football in those conditions, in order to keep the defense honest and open up the passing game a little bit. It doesn't mean they have to actually run on every first, second and third down.
And when the field is slick, making the defense account for the running back first makes it even harder for them to adjust and cover a receiver coming out for a pass.
How successful would Kelly have been if not for the constant threat of Thurman breaking a big gain on the ground?
-
I'm not sure if he should be allowed to play again or not, but to all those who don't think the NFL should be able to ban him, think about it this way. Say he worked as a salesman for a manufacturing company. Would that company be justified in not hiring him back after his release from prison, if it felt that it was going hurt the company financially due to decreased sales? In effect, every player in the NFL is a salesman of the game, and the league, and if the NFL feels that it will be hurt by allowing Vick back in, in my opinion it has every right to ban him. It's not about punishing Vick, it's about doing what's right for the league.
-
Sol, the question arises, where does Maybin fit? It sure ain't LDE. So where? I'm sayin, Ellison's spot.
I'm assuming you're stating that he can't play LDE because of his limitations against the running game? (Most teams tend to run more often to their right side - our left.) If he's as good of a pass rusher as people think, maybe they move him to the right side and move Schobel over to the left?
As for your assertion that he fits into Ellison's spot, I'm not sure he'd be any better in pass coverage (which the LB's are sometimes forced to do) then against the run. I think they start working him at LDE, and see how it goes. Eventually, I think you're right that they'll want him to take over at RDE.
-
Is there any player we haven't thought about signing? I think if JP Losman was just released by a different team there'd be posts saying we should sign him too.
PTR
It pretty much happened here, right?
-
If we thought Terrell Owens pulls in a lot of media, just picture what Lebron would do for an NFL team. I was surprised to see that his 44 inch vertical leap would only make the top 10 at the combine which shows the elite athleticism of NFL players. I would say that the nearest player to Lebron in the NFL is Vincent Jackson.
That's the Top Ten of all time, of the thousands of guys who have participated in the combine. And that's 44" in addition to his 6'8" frame and whatever ridiculous reach he already has (which chances are, those guys didn't come anywhere close to.) Was trying to find a list of the top ten leaders, but couldn't pull anything up. If anybody has a site with those records, please post.
-
Seems to me that picking up a guy who chose jail over rehab, and is one more failed drug test from a long suspension is a bad, bad, bad idea. Not to mention that we just can't hold any more WRs on the roster.
-
I think the biggest issue with this is that his only justification for this seems to be the addition of TO. He's saying that we're 27 (in a negative way) because of TO. Which is ridiculous.
But I'm not taking too much offense after seeing where he ranked some other groups. Peyton Manning and co. and #10, one spot behind… The Bears? IMO Jay Cutler + nobody is not greater than Peyton + Joseph Addai + Donald Brown. Aaron Schaub and Steve Slaton @ 15? And how are Kyle Orton and Knowshon Moreno ahead of anyone other than maybe Detroit or Oakland?
-
I guess its more the principle of the whole thing. The Titans might have been able to negotiate a contract if Hayneseworth didn't have knowledge of a huge offer coming his way from the Redskins. Its more of a precedent for future cases. If you tamper with a guy you should be prepared to give that team draft choices.
I don't know maybe its more of a the punishment should fit the crime deal. If you snake a teams player unfairly than they get your picks.
Not arguing with the 'Skins losing picks, I'm just saying that the reason that the Titans don't get those picks is because the whole league misses out by not having a fair shot at A.H. The Titans already had their shot, and Haynesworth was obviously going to wait to hit FA no matter what.
-
I don't know that the Titans were penalized much more than the rest of the league. The real issue is that Haynesworth was about to be a free agent, and some of the other teams that might have pursued him by the book maybe didn't get that chance (assuming Hayneseworth actually did have discussions or an agreement with Washington before the opening of free agency.) Tennessee had plenty of chance to sign him, so I don't really think they lost out on anything.
There's also a proposal currently on the table to open a short window before free agency begins where agents can talk with other teams; this would prevent teams from gaining an advantage by breaking / bending the early contact rules.
Link: http://views.washingtonpost.com/theleague/...ering-rule.html
-
If the Redskins did tamper with Haynesworth than they should get draft picks taken away as well as fines and their cap lowered for a few seasons.
But if they do get draft picks taken than shouldn't the Titans receive them? It was the Titans who should get compensation for a player they lost due to the Redskins tactics. If I am the NFL I take away the Redskins second round choice if they don't make the playoffs but their first if they do make the playoffs and give that pick to the Titans. Than I would just take away their next third round draft choice. Which would take away either their first and third of their second and third.
You have to compensate the victim a little bit at least considering that they lost a free agent by shady means. I think the Titans wouldn't mind losing Haynesworth as much if they got an early second or late first back and didn't have to pay his contract on top of that.
I don't know that the Titans were penalized much more than the rest of the league. The real issue is that Haynesworth was about to be a free agent, and some of the other teams that might have pursued him by the book maybe didn't get that chance (assuming Hayneseworth actually did have discussions or an agreement with Washington before the opening of free agency.) Tennessee had plenty of chance to sign him, so I don't really think they lost out on anything.
-
I think i heard that Albert's agent met with the redskins at the combine.
What I've read so far is that his agent officially met with Redskins personnel to discuss some of his other clients, but it's more than likely that there was also some talk of Haynesworth. But good luck proving it.
-
Load off.
Seriously though did the Keystone Cops investigating this case REALLY think that an NFL FULLBACK would EVER ride a bicycle??????
Uh, it's not being disputed that he was riding a bicycle. He offered to show the cops his usual route. Or are you saying he's not really an NFL fullback?
-
Oh yeah...because you fail to mention that the reason we are getting so little for our money is that all that money is going to pay for unnecessary bureaucrats, PC driven agendas that don't have anything to do with education, and lavish healthcare/retirement benefits that we can't afford.
Try a Q-tip to get the sand out of your ears.
Did I fail to mention it? Go back and re-read my post, where I twice mentioned that better management (by which I don't mean more management) is needed along with the funding.
The reason that NYS (and specifically NYC) needs to spend more than pretty much anyone else is because unfortunately, there are far too many parents in the city who are completely uninvolved in the education of their children. It's not as evident in and around Buffalo, but it's a big problem in NYC. You can say
'em, if they don't care about their kids, why should I (I have a feeling that's exactly what you would say), but you'll be spending a lot more money in just a few years, only it will be to jail them, instead of to educate them. -
Good retort. Keep burying your head in the sand and defending the laughable "services" excuse the gov't attempts to sell so they can justify having you pay for retirement and health care for hundreds of thousands of gov't employees.
I'm burying my head in the sand? Ask yourself, who has controlled the state for most of the past 30 years? What has been their policy? How did we get where we are?
As for the homeless in this state, how many of them are on the streets as a direct result of cuts to public health programs? Most of the wave of homeless caused by cuts to Mental Health Facilities during the Reagan years are dead by now, but it doesn't mean continued cuts haven't led to a new wave of homeless in metropolitan areas.
My wife works in NYC schools, and while there certainly is some mismanagement happening, believe me if they are not better funded (and managed) you haven't seen the beginning of our problems.
-
Can you even explain what half of these are and how they benefit you? Lottery?? Isn't that supposed to GENERATE money?
While you are at it, perhaps you can highlight which of these things are not available in Florida.
Pathetic that people can be this duped by an endless bureaucracy that only seeks endless expansion of its powers. No wonder we're headed off the cliff.
Please move to Florida, or stop bit$%ing.
-
What I don't get is how he really plans to save money. Any revenue from the hockey team will remain taxable in NYS. Any income from his business will remain taxable -- unless he brings his business with him. So long as his income is derived from NYS, he'll have to pay NYS taxes on it no matter where he lives.
At this point, most of his income is probably generated through investments (that tends to happen when you're worth 1.7 Billion dollars.) Any income gained from investments in stocks, bonds, savings etc..., which probably accounts for most of his income at this point will not be taxable in NY.
He's not making serious money (at least from him) from the Sabres, and since Paychex is public, I'm assuming owns a controlling interest of stock in the company rather than owning the company directly. Of course the company will still pay taxes wherever they do business, but that's not his personal income tax which is what we're talking about.
Where is Nelson?
in The Stadium Wall Archives
Posted
Unless it's maybe a personal matter? Could be a family thing, or any one of a hundred other things he doesn't want in the news.