TimGraham Posted August 3, 2009 Share Posted August 3, 2009 Tim, what's the word on Demetrius Bell? There have been mixed reviews here. Thanks He didn't stand out to me one way or the other when I watched him at camp with the second-teamers. Which, for a late pick who didn't play a game last year, probably isn't so bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BLZFAN4LIFE Posted August 3, 2009 Share Posted August 3, 2009 Holy crap! I've been on this board for years and doing things the hard way. I think I might go find some posts to reference, just because I can! Thanks Tim! If you hadn't inspired this thread, we never would have had 600 posts, just to eventually get to something of value. Seriously though... those are 2 good tips. Thanks guys. Now that we that solved, where is the Holy Grail? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bufluv Posted August 3, 2009 Share Posted August 3, 2009 Hi Tim, I noticed on espn's Contract Status of '09 1st Round Picks page that Eric Wood is one of only two 1st Rounders listed that signed for only 4 years. Does that benefit the Bills or the player? I'm wondering if you think the FO had to throw him a bone to get him in camp, since they can't afford a holdout this year. Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kettle Creek Football Posted August 4, 2009 Share Posted August 4, 2009 Tim: just read your ESPN blog on Marshawn's 3 game suspension to be upheld. Wow! You were hard on him, but... I hope he gets the message finally. Good job! Link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThereIsNoDog Posted August 4, 2009 Share Posted August 4, 2009 What was Graham's take on Goodell's Vick ruling? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erik Posted August 4, 2009 Share Posted August 4, 2009 Tim: just read your ESPN blog on Marshawn's 3 game suspension to be upheld. Wow! You were hard on him, but... I hope he gets the message finally.Good job! Link Now Tim, I see the point that you make regarding the reduction of Marshall back-firing however please explain how taking it out solely on Marshawn and not at all on Marshall acceptable? I would find this argument much more convincing if Goodell simply re-instate the three game penalty on Marshall and made him sit out the first two games of this season but that clearly is not going to happen. Just doesn't sit right with me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steely Dan Posted August 4, 2009 Share Posted August 4, 2009 Tim: just read your ESPN blog on Marshawn's 3 game suspension to be upheld. Wow! You were hard on him, but... I hope he gets the message finally.Good job! Link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThereIsNoDog Posted August 4, 2009 Share Posted August 4, 2009 Now Tim, I see the point that you make regarding the reduction of Marshall back-firing however please explain how taking it out solely on Marshawn and not at all on Marshall acceptable? I would find this argument much more convincing if Goodell simply re-instate the three game penalty on Marshall and made him sit out the first two games of this season but that clearly is not going to happen. Just doesn't sit right with me. Marshall gets arrested earlier this year for beating-up his girlfriend, but Goodell does nothing. Instead he sends a message to Lynch, about how he messed-up with Marshall last year. Sheer brilliance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted August 4, 2009 Share Posted August 4, 2009 Now Tim, I see the point that you make regarding the reduction of Marshall back-firing however please explain how taking it out solely on Marshawn and not at all on Marshall acceptable? I would find this argument much more convincing if Goodell simply re-instate the three game penalty on Marshall and made him sit out the first two games of this season but that clearly is not going to happen. Just doesn't sit right with me. Here's a crazy theory: Maybe Goodell sees something in Marshawn he doesn't see in some of the other players. Sometimes you are hardest on the person you think will actually benefit most from the punishment. Maybe Roger thinks Lynch really is a good guy who just is a little bit immature, and that this kind of punishment (which hurts the team, in theory) is the kind of thing Marshawn needs in order to get him to start thinking about the consequences of his actions. He may have let Lynch go, with nothing the first time, as Lynch really seemed to be sorry about getting into trouble. When it happened again, Roger may have felt Marshawn needed a kick in the ass to change his ways. Of course, I'm just postulating with very little information. I assume the commissioner has more info than has been made public, and has talked to the players, and others, before making his decision. There is no chart that dictates punishment for every given infractions (at least not to my knowledge), so he has to use his judgment, and I imagine, his gut. I agree, on the surface, Lynch's punishment looks to be much more severe than what others have received for far worse infractions. I'd like to think there is some rhyme or reason for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
May Day 10 Posted August 4, 2009 Share Posted August 4, 2009 Nice segment on the Ferrell show last night. Came off really good and informative. Next time you need to arm yourself with some more ammo to bust Ferrell's chops. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThereIsNoDog Posted August 4, 2009 Share Posted August 4, 2009 Here's a crazy theory: Maybe Goodell sees something in Marshawn he doesn't see in some of the other players. Sometimes you are hardest on the person you think will actually benefit most from the punishment. Maybe Roger thinks Lynch really is a good guy who just is a little bit immature, and that this kind of punishment (which hurts the team, in theory) is the kind of thing Marshawn needs in order to get him to start thinking about the consequences of his actions. He may have let Lynch go, with nothing the first time, as Lynch really seemed to be sorry about getting into trouble. When it happened again, Roger may have felt Marshawn needed a kick in the ass to change his ways. Of course, I'm just postulating with very little information. I assume the commissioner has more info than has been made public, and has talked to the players, and others, before making his decision. There is no chart that dictates punishment for every given infractions (at least not to my knowledge), so he has to use his judgment, and I imagine, his gut. I agree, on the surface, Lynch's punishment looks to be much more severe than what others have received for far worse infractions. I'd like to think there is some rhyme or reason for that. Most likely, there isn't. PushthePile's "it was for the buying public" was probably the closest to the truth, as sad as that may be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimGraham Posted August 4, 2009 Share Posted August 4, 2009 Now Tim, I see the point that you make regarding the reduction of Marshall back-firing however please explain how taking it out solely on Marshawn and not at all on Marshall acceptable? I would find this argument much more convincing if Goodell simply re-instate the three game penalty on Marshall and made him sit out the first two games of this season but that clearly is not going to happen. Just doesn't sit right with me. You're being a little myopic. Marshall's reduction was the exception to the rule, not Lynch's suspension being upheld. Goodell isn't "taking it out solely on" Lynch. Goodell realized he shouldn't have given Marshall the reduction. Now he's back to a more unwavering stance. There seems to be a running theme here that Lynch was entitled to a reduction. A sense of entitlement is a major reason why Lynch is in the trouble he's in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimGraham Posted August 4, 2009 Share Posted August 4, 2009 Nice segment on the Ferrell show last night. Came off really good and informative. Next time you need to arm yourself with some more ammo to bust Ferrell's chops. I have plenty of ammo against Scotty. We used to run together in Vegas. But I have an employer who'd be none too pleased with that kind of banter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steely Dan Posted August 4, 2009 Share Posted August 4, 2009 You're being a little myopic. Marshall's reduction was the exception to the rule, not Lynch's suspension being upheld. Goodell didn't "taking it out solely on" Lynch. Goodell realized he shouldn't have given Marshall the reduction. Now he's back to a more unwavering stance. There seems to be a running theme here that Lynch was entitled to a reduction. A sense of entitlement is a major reason why Lynch is in the trouble he's in. I have to agree with that until we see how Goodell handles future transgressions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
May Day 10 Posted August 4, 2009 Share Posted August 4, 2009 haha. That makes sense. Good segment though. I always enjoy good AFC East talk.... (thank you for so strongly shooting down Vick to Buffalo). yeah, I traditionally cant stand 'flashy' sports media personalities, but I love his show. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erik Posted August 5, 2009 Share Posted August 5, 2009 I have to agree with that until we see how Goodell handles future transgressions. Exactly. We'll agree to disagree and let's see what happens in the next similar situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GR8PRKN Posted August 5, 2009 Share Posted August 5, 2009 He didn't stand out to me one way or the other when I watched him at camp with the second-teamers. Which, for a late pick who didn't play a game last year, probably isn't so bad. With Bell getting the start tonight at camp do you think he jumped up for the swing tackle spot? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
extrahammer Posted August 5, 2009 Share Posted August 5, 2009 Tim, Have any good Ferrall stories from Vegas you COULD share? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattM Posted August 7, 2009 Share Posted August 7, 2009 I don't know why you'd have the perception ESPN would want to keep a lid on Spygate. ESPN was at the forefront of turning that story into a major scandal. The Patriots and ESPN do not necessarily get along to this day because of it. That's why I laugh every time somebody on this board or in my blog comment section writes about ESPN's love affair with the Patriots. When it came to Spygate coverage, ESPN and the Boston Herald were mentioned in the same breath, with the New York Times closely behind. There's a lot of scar tissue there. If there was another Spygate angle to explore, I'm sure ESPN would have no compunction. That said, I'm not going to write a story giving credence to a "perception is reality" piece on my blog when I think the perception is misguided. If you polled the average football fan about the Dolphins and the Wildcat, I'd predict most would say it was their base offense. That doesn't mean I need to write a story about it. Many thanks for the response (and sorry for the late reply, as I just noticed this). What you cover is obviously up to you, but I do think that it is newsworthy that still a year later, any time there's Pats news either on ESPN or ProFootballTalk.com, etc. (basically anywhere users are allowed to post comments) you see a TON of anti-Pats cheating comments after the article and obviously it's not just Bills fans making those comments. One of my favorite current running battles to watch is between Steelers fans and Pats fans going at each other on PFT, for ex. Average stories may get something like 30 comments there--mention the Pats and it guarantees three or four times that as folks go back and forth on them. They are clearly the most hated team League-wide right now (kind of like the Raiders may have been in the 70's), but I've yet to see a story angle on that. As to your point about coverage, nothing personal, but from a pure conflicts standpoint, I also must admit that I find it hard to believe that the business side of organizations with NFL contracts don't impact the editorial/writing side. When there are billions of dollars in contracts at stake (giving outlets like the networks a stake in the NFL itself essentially), I suspect that certain stories are pushed and others are discouraged, but that may just be my middle-aged cynicism showing through..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimGraham Posted August 7, 2009 Share Posted August 7, 2009 As to your point about coverage, nothing personal, but from a pure conflicts standpoint, I also must admit that I find it hard to believe that the business side of organizations with NFL contracts don't impact the editorial/writing side. When there are billions of dollars in contracts at stake (giving outlets like the networks a stake in the NFL itself essentially), I suspect that certain stories are pushed and others are discouraged, but that may just be my middle-aged cynicism showing through..... Then please explain to me how ESPN being at the forefront of Spygate coverage benefited its broadcast relationship with the NFL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts