BillsFan130
-
Posts
11,839 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by BillsFan130
-
-
1 minute ago, jmc12290 said:
Jay Cutler IS awesome.
Sorry.
Is that a joke?
-
21 minutes ago, Royale with Cheese said:
I also think you said Jay Cutler wsa awesome.
Lol sounds about right. Everyone loves to call out people when they are right the one time, but no one ever admits the 5 times they are wrong. (Or at least very rarely)
-
2 hours ago, Air it out Fitzy said:
He would be better with a qb that can make "all the throws" ?
Dc's would worry about passing yards which would help the run game too.
System worked with Texans and Broncos ?
He was never the play caller for those teams there bud. Always a sidekick. This is his first year in his career where he is "the guy" running the show on offence. Stop trying to defend him because of our bad QB play. He is awful as well
-
10 hours ago, Buffalo30 said:
See the thing is, you expect a "little fight"...the steelers and bengals aren't gonna have no "little fight." Rivalries aren't gonna have little fights. It will be a brawl. Maybe not every time, but if you allow it...it will blow up into big fights. Not a good idea at all in my opinion. Wouldn't protect head injuries.
You may be right about it being a brawl. There would have to be rules to make sure it is strict on those things.
And I'm not saying it would protect head injuries but I think it could help. Like I said before, how much worse can It get?
I much more agree with the NHL's stance opposed to the NFL's.
The NHL allows fighting and cracks down big time on cheap shots.
The NFL doesn't tolerate fighting but they allow cheap shots to a certain degree. You get what, a game and a 15 yard penalty at most if you intentionally drill the guy in the head?
Like I said, I much prefer how NHL handles things. I think it's safer 100 percent
-
2 hours ago, Rochesterfan said:
That is bull - maybe 20 years ago in hockey, but there are more cheap shots in hockey than most sports and the players do very little about it. You see guys get hit in the head and knocked flying or slew footed into the boards and the players do nothing. Guys hit defenseless players in the back and drill them into the boards and 5 minutes later 2 uninvolved players drop the gloves that does nothing - very rarely does the actual player involved get anything more than a glove to the face as players mill about.
Later in the season a different player will take a run a the original player because the league did nothing and then you get these guys getting injured. It is dangerous and does nothing to police themselves because there are no lines or code.
Therefore my question is do you want more Gronk like moves - because that move is exactly what you are advocating - a player taking care of a perceived slight (Gronk complains - I was being held trying to justify his actions) - or the league handling it.
If the league and the players union worked together on this and Burfict had been suspended 4 or 5 games originally- then you see these things stop. Since the union fights all suspensions - the league gives smaller suspensions and you get more retribution.
Additionally in football - you have 11 players of different sizes on the field and after each play several players come on and off the field - so fights can suddenly get out of hand quickly and as there is little to separate fans - if you allow fights - I could see an NBA situation where fans decide to take some vigilante justice if the fight escalates.
I think fighting in hockey has become a useless part of the game and if you watch minor league or European/International hockey a former part of the game - it is not missed and there are no more cheap shots taken there than in Pro Hockey.
I disagree with pretty much all of what you said to be honest. I can assure you hockey players still police themselves. Not as much as the old days but to say it doesn't happen is false. I watch hockey almost every single night and have been my whole life.
You are comparing apples and oranges in regards to the no fighting in European leagues. Europeans were taught the game very very differently opposed to the North American way. There is basically no contact in those leagues either, where the north american game is way more physical. They don't fight cause most of them don't know how to. If you find european hockey more appealing to watch then you are more than welcome to watch those leagues. I'll for one will watch the NHL for many reasons, including the physical nature of the game.
Once again of course there will be cheap shots as I said. There are 31 teams who play 82 games a year with lots of testosterone. Even non contact sports like soccer have cheap shots. Absolutely impossible to avoid it.
The Gronk hit is literally what I'm proving buddy. That is not a fight... That is a cheap shot. I think it's you who is advocating more moves like that not me. My solution is let them have a scuffle for 5 to 10 seconds to minimize those dirty plays.
Basically the difference between the NFL and NHL here is this. The NFL suspends and ejects for fighting and will barely suspend for cheap shots. The NHL allows fighting and cracks down hard on cheap shots.
The result? A lot more cheap shots in the NFL!! And brain injuries for that matter. And hockey is a very physical game which is even faster so can't even say football is much more violent
-
1 hour ago, Rochesterfan said:
Absolutely not. The NFL unlike the NHL actually ejects and suspends players for these thing. The NHL does a poor job policing hits and now they have very little in the way of retribution- so players get away with cheap hits all the time with very little to show for it.
First - I think the league needs to keep at it and get even a bit harsher, but more importantly the Union needs to step up and support suspensions rather than fighting them. The union does more damage to their own cause by always siding with the player getting suspended and fighting it even when it is something egregious against another union member.
Exactly, they throw ejections if you throw one punch, but you only get a 15 yard penalty (at most) if you smoke the guy in the head. Do you not see the problem there? This is what I'm trying to say.
Answer me this. What is more dangerous in your opinion...
Having a little fight with no punches to settle a dispute? Or to go head hunting when you're trying to get even with someone?
And I disagree with your comments about the NHL. There of course will be cheap shots as there are 31 teams times 82 games each. But all things considered, the fighting at least minimizes those cheap shots
-
3 hours ago, Buffalo30 said:
You really think the league would allow that? We are trying to get less violent and allowing players to sort it out...isn't going to lower injuries. I think they need to up the suspensions if they really want to make a difference. There is no place in the game for the crap that gronk and others have done this week. Absolute garbage. I don't really care if it was part of the older league, the league is changing and has changed.
Gronk should've gotten 2 games suspension and a third game equivalent fine. I don't want to see fighting on the field and I don't think the owners do either
No I don't think they would allow it, it was just an idea I had.
The injuries and brain injuries are at an all time high now.
What is there to lose? Even if a little scuffle can prevent one major head injury through the year , that would be a win.
I'll tell you one thing. The system they have now? It ain't working
-
58 minutes ago, OldTimeAFLGuy said:
...my friend, it is hard for me to quantify my answer or comment without knowing how long you have been following hockey and my question IS BY NO MEANS an insult.....insults are not my style..I've been a hockey guy since the 60's.....going back to that era as well as the 70's and 80's, fights were the "norm"...bench clearers were the epitome (LOL)....the Flyers in the 70's were known as the "Broad Street Bullies" for just that.....I had season tix for years along with 12 others for the AHL Amerks (Pegula now owns them as the Sabres farm club in Rochester).....we knew by the opponent who would be fighting when to "settle old scores and wounds"....hockey for me TODAY is a FAR different game from those eras...it's alomst "flag hockey" today versus that era as you would say the NFl is now "flag football" with QB protectionism..........
Played and watched hockey my whole life.
I'm Canadian, hockey is my life lol.
You're right that it's not comparable to the olden days. But policing themselves in hockey still happens alot
-
Just now, Chris66 said:
Think about this. A bunch of 260 plus men wearing essentially body armour. All your going to end up with is a bunch of broken hands.
Not talking about throwing punches.
And in hockey they drop the gloves and have even more armour. So I'm not sure I understand your point
-
3 minutes ago, CDogg20 said:
Youre 100% right its smart. I just hate the Pats* especially when they do it to us.
Lol I agree
-
Just now, OldTimeAFLGuy said:
.....I think there have been one or two posts (HUGE COUGH) about officiating quality and CURRENT rules......just curious as to how you see them being able to handle even a minimal semblance of "player self-policing" without it being a detriment to the game and borderline anarchy.....and NO I'm NOT trying to be a smart azz.....just trying to get a better understanding of what you are proposing and the ramifications, both plus and minus..........
Fighting a little may sound ridiculous, but how come it works well in hockey? Why couldn't it work in football? I know there are more players on the field, but the principle remains the same.
For one, if there is a one on one little fight, if a 3rd player comes into that fight then give that player an automatic ejection and suspension.
That is literally at the top of my head one way to minimize big brawls. I'm sure if I spent some time on it, I could come up with simpler/better ideas.
There will for sure be games where it gets out of control as it does in hockey, but most of the time in hockey, the self policing works very well.
Somy question is, why couldn't it work in football? And once again, I'm not talking about taking the helmet off and throwing punches
-
Just now, OldTimeAFLGuy said:
...I know what you're saying.....and what I'm saying is give players an inkling of NASCAR's "have at it boyz" and then try to keep that from spiraling out of control.........
You can implement rules to make them stay in control.
1 minute ago, Chris66 said:Nfl would love that. What a dumb idea.
Thanks for your input bud! Very insightful
-
5 minutes ago, OldTimeAFLGuy said:
.....yes, absolutely.......the officiating corp does one helluva job with the 2,675 page rule book containing 14,852 rules that you now want them to serve AS WWE stripers?.....fire Goodell and hire Vince McMahon......let the show begin......Eddie Guns vs Big Show........grudge match.....
Not what I'm saying at all as I thought I made that pretty clear in my original post
11 minutes ago, Dablitzkrieg said:I hear what you are trying to say, but disagree. The behavior on the field now, with the rules is gross. Prime example was last night's game. While you are suggesting "a little tussle", how often do these remain little? Think about what you are asking. It sounds dumb
What's more dumb to me is the constant head shots these guys do to eachother to get payback.
4 to 5 tussels a game sounds alot more safe then 2 to 3 hits like Smith Schuster put on Burfict last night. Those hits are built up frustrating because they are not allowed to police themselves, and the NFL will refuse to suspend these good players for long periods of time on top of it
-
4 minutes ago, Dablitzkrieg said:
If you let this happen, I really have no doubt that we will all witness the death of a player on the field. This is insane thinking
Lol a death on the football field will result from a cheap shot like a flagrant hit to the head or a freak accident like shazier last night.
My point was to minimize those hit to the heads/cheap shots by letting them tussle a bit.
A little tussle won't be the thing that would kill an NFL player... It will be the cheap shots in which we saw a few examples of last night
-
2 minutes ago, Fadingpain said:
Your comments about hockey are about 15 years out of date.
Much of the policing code has been removed from the game and all that slashing to the wrists, etc., you speak of has run out of control as a result, as has boarding from behind and other cheap shot offenses.
I have heard many ex NHL hockey players say that the old code is simple: It is not fun to get beaten up by someone in a fist fight and it keeps you honest. You are not going to do certain things, or not nearly as often, if you know you are going to be punched in the face after you do it.
The NFL would benefit from this type of thing too in my opinion, but for some reason, most NFL players, despite being huge and strong, do not have this type of toughness in them. They'll throw a huge hit (tackle) but no one seems to want to muck it up after a whistle, except for a few guys you might see once every blue moon.
Far more common is this weird football thing where the 2 protagonists grab each other's face masks and pull them around.
As to why no one just rips that helmet off quickly and easily and throws a few is beyond me, other than the obvious "You'll be ejected."
But you are probably going to be ejected anyway if you really get into it with that stupid face mask dance anyway.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-5JT36xAPE
My comments are not 15 years out of date though. Here is an example last year where Malkin took a cheap shot at Wheeler, (I stated earlier it was Ladd but was mistaken) and the next game (the link I posted) these two faced off and fought. Wheeler gave respect to Malkin after the game and the dust was settled from there.
But yes, I for sure agree with everything else you stated in your post
-
35 minutes ago, reddogblitz said:
I don't watch hockey BECAUSE of the fights. I'm sure hockey fans feel differently. But they could end the fighting if they wanted to. Anyone caught fighting gets tossed out for 3 games. But they do'n' want to obviously.
As far as if they did allow fighting in football, all that would do would piss off whoever got the least in the fight to come back and get retaliation either on the field or in the next fight.
I vote no to the proposition to allow fighting in football.
It seems like more Americans feel strongly towards the no fighting in Hockey. I could be wrong but that just seems like the consensus from watching and listening to American sports shows/podcasts.
I am Canadian and it would not sit well for the majority of our fans here if they took fighting away in Hockey.
In regards to your stance for fighting in Football, I think the tussle would settle a lot. Generally after one fight in Hockey, the dust gets settled and there isn't anything more from there. Not always true, but most of the time.
A good example was last year when Malkin injured Andrew Ladd. The next game Ladd and Malkin dropped the gloves cleanly, and Ladd actually gave props to Malkin for fighting. All was forgotten from there and respect was actually gained between the two. That is what I am trying to get at in terms of Football. I think a little tussle to settle things is a lot better then taking a cheap shot back
-
24 minutes ago, MAJBobby said:
if hockey didn't have Fighting it would be more fun to watch.
Well that and the other myriad of issues with the NHL
You think? As barbaric as it sounds I love watching fighting in hockey.
The staged fights can be a bit lame, but I love the bad blood Fighting
-
6 minutes ago, MDH said:
The league should be doling out punishments, not other players. The problem is that when the league fails to do a good job of it the players take it into their own hands. Players should be from games quicker, docked massive amounts of coin and suspended for dirty play. And not just the one game suspension slap on the wrist when the play was egregious.
Lost in all this hub hub about Gronk is that I've yet to hear anybody mention on radio, tv or print that at the end of that play the Bills were the ones penalized for SAYING SOMETHING TO THE REF. The illustrates the NFL's priorities right there. Saying something to the ref is worse than endangering other players on the field. The players are paying attention too and if the refs and league don't step up their game and require a more disciplined player base the players will take it into their own hands, whether the league likes it or not.
Ya the problem is the league doesn't do squat. They don't want star players being suspended for a long time
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, PetermanThrew5Picks said:
I wouldn't like it. Also I honestly don't know who on our 53 could throw down with Gronk right there in a legitimate fight. And I don't want our 53 to include a "goon" or 2 to run in and start that brawl.
I understand your argument. If I'm the Steelers OC, I'd be incredibly nervous drawing up Antonio Brown's bread and butter middle routes after JuJu declared open head hunting season. I've heard JuJu's hit was legal, but that's not going to change any defender's mind watching Burfict stretchered off.
And it sucks when this nonsense starts to affect the Xs and Os of the game.
I agree with most of what you said. Thank you for your comment
-
Just now, 26CornerBlitz said:
That would be too easy.
Hahaha fair enough
-
6 minutes ago, 26CornerBlitz said:
Sure. Let's have games spin out of control into full scale brawls. Come on man!
Lol a simple "No I don't think it would work" would also have done just fine lol
-
5 minutes ago, 4_kidd_4 said:
I’m as old school as it comes when it comes to sports, but things need to change with the times.
NHL in its current state is unwatchable during the regular season. Goalies are huge. There’s so much ‘fire it wide and hope for a bounce’ stuff, zzzzzz(Playoffs, however, are a different story). Opening up the ice would completely open up the game again.
Opening the ice generally means lower scoring as weird as that sounds. Do you remember 2014 Sochi Olympics? Every game was like 2-1. Teams take away the middle and keep everything to the wider perimeter.
Sorry getting off topic from my original topic but I had to clear that up lol.
I also love fighting in hockey and I think the game would turn very ugly if they took it out. There would be a lot more cheap shots cause players know they don't have to fight if they do something dirty
-
17 hours ago, CDogg20 said:
I didnt like the challenge either but I believe he was looking for a grounding call. You win some you lose some, gotta take chances especially when the Pats* pull their hustle to line bs.
Why is hustling to the line b.s? That's smart coaching/QB play. I wish the Bills were smart enough to do that when there is a questionable call
-
1
-
-
15 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:
Helmets can be lethal, but NFL players have a lot more protection than hockey players do with their own hard helmets, pads, etc.
The answer for the NFL is to eject guys and then suspend them multiple games for the kind of stuff Gronk did and for the kind of stuff you saw last night.
The problem I see with your approach is you don't really know where it ends. When does the football ref step in and say enough. With hockey they kind of tire themselves out. And not that I'm a huge fan of the hockey fighting either
I know. I know there are flaws to what I'm saying. I appreciate your comments
10 minutes ago, 4_kidd_4 said:The “system” really doesn’t work in NHL these days. No one keeps a roster spot for a goon anymore. The ‘enforcer’ is becoming a thing of the past, and rightfully so.
If the NHL was serious about safety, they would go with european size ice(would open up the entertaining speed game that fans want) , and ban fighting altogether. These guys are bigger, faster and stronger than ever before, and the equipment is practically armor. It’s not the 70’s anymore.
Opening up the ice would likely also lead to less incidents along the boards, and you would need speed/skill players at about every spot. Lumbering defensemen and marginally skilled rats would stay in the minors.
But to answer the OP, no. Not in the NFL.
Hmm I'm old school in terms of hockey so I don't like your rule changes to no fighting and switching to the European ice... Haha.
I appreciate your comment though. Most people I'm sure will definitely agree with you in terms of the no fighting in the NFL as I am well aware I'm in the minority
Should the NFL let players police themselves on the field more?
in The Stadium Wall Archives
Posted
No offense taken. I didn't expect too many people to agree with me as I know it is an outside the box idea. We'll agree to disagree. Thank you for your comments