The Big Cat

You mean now that you've shown up?

Yeah. So do I. But one quarter of my wardrobe is not pink. That was the question.

Took the words right out of my mouth. I planned to add: What. A. !@#$ING. Tool. Seriously, this guy was a tool in Buffalo, too. Anybody remember his eatin' shramp video blog??

Haha, okay. Well, let's back up for a second. Nobody said the NFL isn't entitled to new markets. But if that's their intent, it's an awfully exploitative means of achieving it. And believe it or not, I do understand that's the point. But the way you've framed it, if Comish Goddell were to fly to every stadium Sunday and look over each of the pre-game, trotted onto the field breast cancer survivors and say: thanks for all the new fans, ladies, nobody would/should be shocked. Right. THIS IS ABOUT THE CURE! they'd say. In fact, I'd go so far as to say (and I know you'll shame for speculating here. how dare I?) that if the NFL were to release a press statement even implying that new markets have been beneficial outcome for them in their partnership with breast cancer charities, said charities would fire back a statement right away saying how disappointed they were that an organization like the NFL would stoop so low as to use the opportunities created from the pain and suffering of women as a means to attract new fans. Hell, they might even pull the whole damn plug. But that's unlikely, because lest we ignore they benefits they get from the NFL. I also never qualified any charity as unworthy, rather with all things being equal, there are other charities just as worthy that get no recognition because they don't win new markets. And--just my opinion here--I think that's kinda ****ty. OPM, sure. But just to clarify, I donate to friends who do Movember. Not looking for props here, but don't imply that I'm just a spectator in the charity game. And again, I understand how marketing works, and how the "pink crap" factors in. If you were to read any of the criticisms here rather than dismiss them out of hand, you'd know that already it's been mentioned in this thread that this marketing campaign is precisely that. But it's one that gathers its fuel from a nerve that's pretty easy to prey upon: death and suffering. So, again. In this case, not a critique of breast cancer research or the lives it stands to impact, but rather a critique of an opportunistic money grab that's come to be characterized by a branding behemoth that's now turning people off: enough pink already. I think that's fair.

Excellent, though (again) extremely cynical point you made there. It's like McDonald's funding research connecting the correlations between sodium and heart disease/diabetes.

Well, when there are other relevant charities out there for causes just as worthy, for afflictions that impact the breadth of the fan base already, how can you not question whether the motive behind promoting THIS charity with such magnitude is more about breaching a new viewer market?? That seems like a very fair criticism to me. Cynical as hell, but so criticisms tend to go. And why can't anyone have a negative opinion on the "pink crap?" What about that is invalid?

So you don't think any of the issues raised in this thread are legitimate criticisms?

You might be able to just walk over if you get there early enough? Right? Haven't been to RWS since 2010, when do the usher's start screening people trying to access certain sections?

Marcel Dareus got one of his sacks from DE position Sunday. Why should the backfield be rigid when the line has shown you can have success through fluidity? Imagine what fluidity we can create with Williams, Byrd, McKelvin and Gilmore. (I think I just peed a little)

All good points. But to dig a little deeper, the emphasis on pre-screens, the partnerships involved and the disproportionate payouts to otherwise frivolous expenses (not least of which is their MASSIVE marketing budget) makes it seem--as it seems WITHOUT knowing these things for certain--that the whole thing is a beast engineered to keep feeding...itself.

Why not both? Disguise, shift, don't let the offenses know just what his assignment will be.

The pink does seem conveniently emasculating, doesn't it?

By all reports he lost his confidence last year. He seems to have gotten it back. And that seems to be making all the difference.

This thread is on a one-way highway to PPP. But I can't resist: Overkill, yes. Suspect charity, yes (read articles on how money from "awareness" is actually spent and how effective that spending is). At the expense of more relevant afflictions that are just as lethal, yes. A campaign for the campaign's sake, you bet. Kind of lame, I think so. The money doesn't go to a "good cause." Mostly because there's no correlation between screenings and effectively thwarting fatality. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/28/magazine/our-feel-good-war-on-breast-cancer.html?pagewanted=all

Ding. Ding. Ding. Lawson deserves his own thread. He's everything Kelsay was and everything he wasn't.

Roughage

Bet against the SF, Seattle and KC D's? When it comes to Fitz, I may be delusional, but I'm not completely stupid.

As should the haters. But to clarify: Biscuit said nobody ever compared him to Brady. You agreed, then when ahead and did so.

yep

Now he insists on being called Moonbeam Thrust

He's formerly Bill Nelson.

He was the best Bills quarterback in a decade. Period.

You must have forgot about the Titans game last year. The one when both teams were racing each other to see who could get down the field faster.

Nothing like those bold Bills fans who go out on a limb to predict 8-8.