Jump to content

Antonio Brown Tells Raiders without his helmet no football


Recommended Posts

Like I said back in the spring...

 

Coaches/teams are almost always willing to give multiple chances to guys who with off-field issues - getting arrested for DUIs or drugs, beating-up their girlfriends/kids, etc.  If the NFL doesn't issue a suspension, they have no problem putting these kinds of players on the field indefinitely.  They know that regardless of how bad these offenses are, they will have little to no impact on the team's success.

 

But once guys start doing stuff like this, you can forget it.  Teams (at least the smart ones) know they can't succeed with these kind of distractions.  They bring down morale and divide locker rooms.  Pittsburgh had absolutely no problem dumping Antonio Brown, and you can tell that Oakland is already starting to regret picking him up.  

 

Just something to consider when you see (for example) Brandon Beane trading away Marcel Dareus for scraps. 

 

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Joe in Winslow said:

 

Who was it here that CASTIGATED Beane for not landing Brown?

 

I wanna take a victory lap.

 

Beane is a wizard, a futurist, a soothsayer and a great GM.  Love that man!

3 minutes ago, Warcodered said:

Talk about dodging a bullet.

Dodging a nuclear warhead...

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mort with the two word kill-shot

 
 
Oh boy
 
Quote Tweet
 
Adam Schefter
 
@AdamSchefter
· 8m
And now this: Raiders’ WR Antonio Brown has told team officials that, unless he gets to wear his old helmet, he will not play football again, per league sources. And more....
Edited by JoeF
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Joe in Winslow said:

 

Who was it here that CASTIGATED Beane for not landing Brown?

 

I wanna take a victory lap.

 

I mean I guess the idea was that with a good enough locker room/culture you could absorb a crazy player but I don't think a good enough one exists for this much crazy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

fwiw -and it’s totally nothing, I’m sad to see the helmet look of the past now be banned. I liked seeing Rodgers wearing that helmet as it had the look of Favre and Starr before him. These new ones just don’t have the same appeal.

 

but I’m old..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, mjt328 said:

Like I said back in the spring...

 

Coaches/teams are almost always willing to give multiple chances to guys who with off-field issues - getting arrested for DUIs or drugs, beating-up their girlfriends/kids, etc.  If the NFL doesn't issue a suspension, they have no problem putting these kinds of players on the field indefinitely.  They know that regardless of how bad these offenses are, they will have little to no impact on the team's success.

 

But once guys start doing stuff like this, you can forget it.  Teams (at least the smart ones) know they can't succeed with these kind of distractions.  They bring down morale and divide locker rooms.  Pittsburgh had absolutely no problem dumping Antonio Brown, and you can tell that Oakland is already starting to regret picking him up.  

 

Just something to consider when you see (for example) Brandon Beane trading away Marcel Dareus for scraps. 

 

But the guys on WGR55, lead by Schopp and White argue that culture, accountability, maturity and other qualitative measures are meaningless. Essentially, these guys believe there is zero negative impacts when players of this ilk act as they do. The issue with these dorks is they believe in binary quantitative evidence. In other words, they look at yards and catches and that, and only that, is a measure of the value of a player. They can be self-destructive off the field, destroy the lockerroom, and undermine the coach but none of that will impact the team or their own play because.... numbers. 

 

I am continually fascinated by the WGR55 people when I get a chance to listen. They seems to always focus on data and numbers, incorrectly in most cases, yet fail miserably in understanding that in all professions, and hockey and football are not immune, back co-workers can often have a deleterious impact on the organization. For some reason, they believe sports are immune. As soon as someone comes up with an analytical measure that quantifies the impact of these losers on a team, then maybe they'll believe in it. 

 

Let's maybe add some context here. You can't tell me that in cases where someone has to make a tough block or play to support a catch and run by Brown that less effort might be put into it because he's not someone a millionaire is going to stick his neck out for. That would impact, for example, yards after a catch in this on instance. That is a direct impact on the game due to bad behavior and I bet my next paycheck on it that it happens. The reason is, guys say they work harder for guys they love, who are committed to the team. So the inverse is true.

 

In the end, I railed against these kinds of players before and am a major supported of McD and Beane and the way they are shaping this team. Emotional maturity, team-first, football IQ, hard working, and smart. You can teach and coach up the emotionally intelligent and smart players, you can't with the Browns and Dareuses of the world... the perpetually late, inattentive, divas who put themselves above the team.

 

So I will thoroughly enjoy his lackluster season (he gave up on a much better QB) as much as I'll enjoy watching the Cowboys suck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...