leh-nerd skin-erd

Great write up. You suckered me in on that Raiders fan part, I was tearing up and feeling his pain when POW you brought me back to Billstown. Excellent recap of the team, and credit where credit due.

[quote name="NoSaint" post="4629137" timestamp="1509291924"If he didnt, sure. But do we jump to defend every far fetched after the fact explanation as probably true? No. Unless he can explain what he meant and it makes sense in the wider context, simply saying he wasnt talking about players wont hold much water- right? And of course we cant banish phrases from our language but you and I can say jeeeze before this discussion I used to say that without much thought but after actually pausing for a second its not really the kind of thing I want to keep saying. And we dont have to go burn down the other posters house for typing it either. All kinds of totally reasonable human interaction can come from this, if we decide to be reasonable human beings that can discuss things and effect change in ourselves and those around us. A lot of us, myself included, rattle off old phrases that sound charming and kitschy but are actually kind of gross when held up for examination. I tend to appreciate when someone points out something like that. Cause most of us dont want to be that guy He might well be lying now, yes. If so, he's created a much bigger problem then he had before. Then again, if he's not lying...he's being accused in the court of public opinion as being a bigot, and I believe you'd agree it would be at least reasonable to assume the players might have something to gain by misrepresenting his comments? And if so, falsely branding a man a bigot in the name of social justice is about as low as it gets. As for growth, yeah, I try to pay attention too. I told my adult daughter one day, after she changed some plans with me to hang out with her friends "that I wasn't anyone's plan B!". When she gasped, I looked at my wife and she just shook her head. Turns out I missed a couple pharmaceutical advancements over the last decade or so. Nice dialogue, I won't burn your house down, but I might tell me what neighborhood you live in. I'd do a smile emoji here but don't have the option.

Well, it depends on your perspective. Words and phrases are not currency, and cannot simply be removed from the lexicon. On the other hand, it's nice to evolve so I think over time this tends to happen anyways. And personally I get a little antsy when someone suggests words and phrases that will no longer be tolerated (with of course some notable exceptions). That has a sorta 70s Cambodia feel to me. I guess at my core I think that sticks and stones can break my bones but words can rarely hurt me. That still doesn't address the main point, which is this: if McNair did not direct the comments toward the players, the whole issue is silly, isn't it? People may be upset and outraged over something that never occurred in the manner it was reported. That sort of manipulation does not further the dialogue, it's does not contribute to the greater good and should at least be considered.

I only speak for myself, but I see very little value in the time/place they have chosen to protest. It quite literally does nothing for me to except offend my sensibilities that they choose a multi-billion dollar entertainment venue with massive security provided by police as their Selma. Put CK in his dopey Che t-shirt in downtown Miami calling for revolution and while I'd still think he's a moron, I'd respect his commitment to his ideals. That's just me. I think you cemented my point where you acknowledged that context is important, and followed up with...the "hand in glove....". Comment. Context is always necessary, that's the point of context. A few pages back, one of the more visible posters said something akin to "the natives are getting restless". That poster always seems pretty reasonable to me, and certainly seems to be at least in part on the side of the players. But in 2017....natives are getting restless seems to make light of the emotions and concerns of the indigenous people(s) of the land. Given the history of imperialism of this country, referring to "natives" as "restless" could be perceived as both objectifying and condescending. Given the context of where it was said, I don't think that was the intent but one could argue it was McNairish. As for the veracity of McNair explanation, I have no idea. I'm just a guy who wants to see Tyrod throw for 425 and the bills to drop fifty-three on the Raiders.

Well, I'm not saying he's Stephen Hawking, but I think calmer heads should at least consider what he says before buying pitchforks at the Home Depot. We don't know any of the context that lead up to the statement, and there have been more than a few stories out of owners being dissatisfied with goodell and the league offices. All I'm suggesting is that the narrative may well be false. I just want to watch football and don't trust anyone at the table.

I think you're right about the players, or at least the players group here. This is a negotiation, and had McNair made his comments about the players, well it was a dumb thing to say. I have no doubt activists will seek every angle necessary to exploit the situation, and unfortunately ownership will as well. Personally, I think the players should sit it out. Walk away, enough posturing and threatening and odd protests. I don't know what that actually accomplishes because the ownership group, on average, seems to be compensating them quite fairly, and the fans in attendance/watching seem to be doing their part. But, if a political statement must be made, make a good one. Ripping logos off helmets (one form of protest mentioned) seems pretty weak.

This is an interesting article. McNair repeats his assertion that his comments addressed concerns regarding the relationship between league office and ownership, not about the players. The writer chooses not to address that assertion---but isn't that kind of a big deal? The narrative continues to be he insulted players...but I'd think if he WAS speaking about the league that context is pretty important.

I didn't see the video of a guy putting a knife to a police officers throat. Is there a second video? I saw a guy running toward another human being with a knife in his hand and he seemed intent on piercing the other guy's chest with it. At least I think it was a knife. It could have been a travel-sized umbrella or perhaps a curling iron. I don't follow you on why the money you make is relevant, but ok. That's good. Maybe when you save enough you can start a class to train law enforcement on the taser-a-guy-in-the-foot technique. But I was being sincere, even though you thought that I thought you were poor when I sent the first note.

I can only hope that you're the guy in front of me when the knife wielding psycho is coming my way. While you're having your tough love moment with him I'll be looking for the heat.

I don't ever like to confuse the NFL player with the individual off the field. Dareus has dealt with hardship and heartache off the field and it's no doubt impacted him and has shaped who he is. He seems like a decent guy and I wish him well. Dareus the player was a tremendous disapppointment. He found ways to be a distraction, several in fact. He's selfish in the sense that he had consistent issues with drug tests, and personally I'd be fine if he failed another in Jville and another thereafter. I'm old school in the sense that if you take money to do a job, and subsequently f around to the extent it impacts your performance, that's on you. If he somehow finds a way to right his career and perform at a consistently high level, well, I hope he fails a drug test even more. That part is because I'm petty. He's no Bruce Dickinson, I'll tell you that.

12 pages and running, and the truth is this: Football is a game that inspires passion. Grown men gather in large groups wearing the oversized shirts of other men, and if that isn't bad enough, they wear the other guy's name on their back. "Hey Brett---can I get an autog---WAIT A SECOND YOU'RE NOT BRETT FAVRE...you're guy who put the ice cream in the special bag at the Wegmans the other day". With that type of devotion and loyalty comes a price. The price to pay is that sometimes, people will surprise you and give a sh&t about what you say or do. Whether it's the second suspension for smoking weed, the domestic violence issue, or something as simple as some other team gave you more money than the prior one--people will turn on you. When you mix in something as important to some as loyalty to the country (perceived or not), it become a very volatile mix. A lot of the folks involved have forgotten the most important job for the nfl is to tend to the survival of the nfl. There's plenty of stupid sh&t being said and done by enough people (players and owners) to screw this all up, it's just a matter of whether or not they can calm the ship and move forward. McNair said something very dumb given the state of the nfl right now, and actions do have consequences.

to be fair I just heard some jamoke say it on the radio, and at that, I was wrong on the number. I give myself an 80, bumped to 85 on the curve.

On Monday morning, one of the talk radio shows was talking about the impact of the multiple fumbles on that play. They indicated the Bucs were recorded as having 4, I think on that play.

Thank God we're not undefeated. I assume we would be #32.

holy crap.

very true. some businesses don't care at all. my thought here was always that the protests--in scope and in context of where they occur--go to the heart of the fan experience on some level and on that level--potentially ruin the experience. one genius who plays for the nfl put it succinctly: paraphrased "We'll protest if we want to, and if you don't want to watch, don't watch.". I'd think the average owner probably wants fans to watch, to attend games, to buy hot dogs and beer and gear. I actually think that's the whole point of the game, where some (though not all) of the players think it's only really about them. I'd think the ownership group should care and should resolve that problem, at least to the extent it's impacting viewership, attendance and sales. I suppose if they protests improved the product from a sales perspective, they'd probably let 'em protest away. I just don't see that happening.

Sure, but if he's grieving I'm definitely grieving. You guys are suckers if you don't get some.

it just seems so preposterous. you take a couple guys who by all accounts are obsessively competitive. they take over a 7-9 team, and the plan is to strip the wins out of the season, display excellence by going backwards in the win column to 2-14, 2-13, yet stumble in doing so and win 3 out of the first 5? so now, after giving the fans hope that the season won't be a bust, you're going to try and drop the next 11 games and not look totally inept in doing so?? it's possible to have realistic expectations about your chances to win titles, the need to improve the roster in the manner you see fit, and not be in tank mode.

I'll say this--Rose McGowan is like the Substitute Teacher. She's fa real.

people pay lots of money to go to comedy clubs and not get the laughs I got out of that line. awesome

when I saw the clip of the interaction I had to laugh, he really looked like an oversized 12 year old kid who just saw his first playboy as he giggled and avoided eye contact.

right, so we agree, at least in part. He said something idiotic at the wrong place and the wrong time to the wrong person. yet the story continues. every major network I saw referenced "growing outrage" against Cam Newton for controversial remarks. the reporter has circled back to say she was never given an apology. as for him being a "sexist", I checked the website for his foundation and found it interesting. seems to have at least one woman on the board (not sure if she's a relative or close friend as other members are), and his media manager is a woman. some of the charities he supported clearly benefit underprivileged people many of whom seem to be women. People are complicated, I just don't see a need for massive wall to wall coverage here, and it seems more than a little "crowds with pitchforks" to me.

...and the objectification of women continues. "including beautiful ones"?? is this 1937?

I don't get it. Not in the least. Is the story just that he's an idiot while speaking to a reporter in a press conference, and if so...what's the game plan to address the outrage? Demand an apology for what he said, or what he thinks? And if she's offended, which would be perfectly understandable, what's the end game there? Will an apology from an idiot solve the problem, because isn't the problem that he's an idiot??

In fairness, who would see problems coming? the league is full of success stories of well-known malcontents with a penchant for tossing picks and dividing locker rooms who retired and were subsequently lured out of the broadcast booth to take the helm for a team just prior to the season opener. I think waiting two weeks to anoint him the #2 behind Brady showed great restraint.