Gramps Posted December 5, 2017 Report Posted December 5, 2017 But is Wentz the exception or the rule? Also Wentz never tossed 15 interceptions. He only threw 14 his entire college career if what I see is correct. I am just saying Allen doesn't pass the eye test at all and I would be hesitant to draft him in the first round. Just because you need a QB doesn't mean the one you target is a first round QB. The Bills need to be smart. I question Allen's decision making. Not sure about Wentz but he is big with a great arm. As for Allen, I'm willing to let the Bills scouting staff evaluate him as an entire package and not just on the arm. Good news is that other QBs will likely be available when the Bills draft.
WildCard Posted December 5, 2017 Author Report Posted December 5, 2017 Not sure about Wentz but he is big with a great arm. As for Allen, I'm willing to let the Bills scouting staff evaluate him as an entire package and not just on the arm. Good news is that other QBs will likely be available when the Bills draft. But...that's all he has
Gramps Posted December 5, 2017 Report Posted December 5, 2017 But...that's all he has I'm not saying Allen is the answer. I am saying he deserves to be evaluated as a potential 1st round pick.
WildCard Posted December 5, 2017 Author Report Posted December 5, 2017 I'm not saying Allen is the answer. I am saying he deserves to be evaluated as a potential 1st round pick. Why? Because he's a QB?
That Aud Smell Posted December 5, 2017 Report Posted December 5, 2017 (edited) If you didn't see it, the Steelers-Bengals game was violent tonight. Perfect football Bell steamrolls https://twitter.com/NFL/status/937897329125818369/video/1 Burfict gets destroyed on a block by JuJu https://twitter.com/_TailgateSports/status/937901657777688576/video/1 Brown dies and still gets the TD https://twitter.com/NFL/status/937905200970350592/video/1 I honestly can't tell if you're being serious. For me, that sort of awfulness (the Burfict and Brown incidents specifically) is why I am confident that I (and 100s of 1000s of others) will eventually no longer watch or care for the NFL in its current form. p.s. Nothing wrong (and plenty right) with that play by Bell -- having just watched it for the first time. Edited December 5, 2017 by That Aud Smell
darksabre Posted December 5, 2017 Report Posted December 5, 2017 I honestly can't tell if you're being serious. For me, that sort of awfulness (the Burfict and Brown incidents specifically) is why I am confident that I (and 100s of 1000s of others) will eventually no longer watch or care for the NFL in its current form. You hate the troops or something?
That Aud Smell Posted December 5, 2017 Report Posted December 5, 2017 You hate the troops or something? you're percipient af.
WildCard Posted December 5, 2017 Author Report Posted December 5, 2017 I honestly can't tell if you're being serious. For me, that sort of awfulness (the Burfict and Brown incidents specifically) is why I am confident that I (and 100s of 1000s of others) will eventually no longer watch or care for the NFL in its current form. p.s. Nothing wrong (and plenty right) with that play by Bell -- having just watched it for the first time. I'm being serious. I love big hits in football. Don't like it, don't play it and make millions of dollars
darksabre Posted December 5, 2017 Report Posted December 5, 2017 I'm being serious. I love big hits in football. Don't like it, don't play it and make millions of dollars I'm kinda coming around to this argument lately mainly because of the huge amount of money and effort being dumped into all of this military recruitment advertising in pro sports. If we want to draw parallels between soldiers and athletes, then let's do that. Let's fix the pro athlete system to something that serves these guys better later in life (like we supposedly do with our vets) when they're brain damaged and useless just because they wanted to play a game for our amusement (or fight a war for no reason). I'm tired of feeling bad about these guys. I'd rather just do right by them when they hang em up.
TrueBlueGED Posted December 5, 2017 Report Posted December 5, 2017 I'm being serious. I love big hits in football. Don't like it, don't play it and make millions of dollars Big hits? Yes. Dirty hits? No.
WildCard Posted December 5, 2017 Author Report Posted December 5, 2017 Big hits? Yes. Dirty hits? No. I don't think any of those hits were dirty. Gronk was a dirty hit
inkman Posted December 5, 2017 Report Posted December 5, 2017 I honestly can't tell if you're being serious. For me, that sort of awfulness (the Burfict and Brown incidents specifically) is why I am confident that I (and 100s of 1000s of others) will eventually no longer watch or care for the NFL in its current form. p.s. Nothing wrong (and plenty right) with that play by Bell -- having just watched it for the first time. I really don't think the violence or kneeling for that matter is pushing that many fans away. I think it's availability of other types of entertainment.
SwampD Posted December 5, 2017 Report Posted December 5, 2017 (edited) I don't think any of those hits were dirty. Gronk was a dirty hit All the yellow in the endzone would say otherwise on that touchdown. I thought the Burfict hit could have been helmet to helmet and taunting. Edit: I thought you weren't allowed to crackback block like that anymore. The first one was fine,... and awesome. Edited December 5, 2017 by SwampD
WildCard Posted December 5, 2017 Author Report Posted December 5, 2017 All the yellow in the endzone would say otherwise on that touchdown. I thought the Burfict hit could have been helmet to helmet and taunting. The first one was fine,... and awesome. Well I'm not exactly going to say what the refs do and do not call is definitive that the play is dirty or not. He caught the ball and got laid out, that's what happens Taunting is the dumbest penalty in football. It's a freaking game, who cares
SwampD Posted December 5, 2017 Report Posted December 5, 2017 Well I'm not exactly going to say what the refs do and do not call is definitive that the play is dirty or not. He caught the ball and got laid out, that's what happens Taunting is the dumbest penalty in football. It's a freaking game, who cares Taunting is the dumbest thing in football. It's a freaking game, who cares.
That Aud Smell Posted December 5, 2017 Report Posted December 5, 2017 I'm being serious. I love big hits in football. Don't like it, don't play it and make millions of dollars Yeah - okay. Blechk. I'm kinda coming around to this argument lately mainly because of the huge amount of money and effort being dumped into all of this military recruitment advertising in pro sports. If we want to draw parallels between soldiers and athletes, then let's do that. Let's fix the pro athlete system to something that serves these guys better later in life (like we supposedly do with our vets) when they're brain damaged and useless just because they wanted to play a game for our amusement (or fight a war for no reason). I'm tired of feeling bad about these guys. I'd rather just do right by them when they hang em up. I generally don't tire of feeling some measure of regret as well as sympathy and/or empathy for human suffering -- especially when I view it as gratuitous and unnecessary, and perhaps even more especially when it's being orchestrated for my amusement and entertainment. I'll probably get to a point where I just stop watching, rather than continue to clamour for changes to the game. I don't think any of those hits were dirty. Gronk was a dirty hit Double blechk. I really don't think the violence or kneeling for that matter is pushing that many fans away. I think it's availability of other types of entertainment. I think that's more than fair. That's probably the leading reason. But I think there are multiple factors at play, and, for any given consumer, some or all of the factors may play a role in diminished interest.
WildCard Posted December 5, 2017 Author Report Posted December 5, 2017 They're not gladiators, they're getting paid to be there. They have every ability to not play. There are plenty of NFL guys that retired early because of the violence. It's the same thing with any potentially violent profession. Don't like it? Don't do it. It's that simple
That Aud Smell Posted December 5, 2017 Report Posted December 5, 2017 They're not gladiators, they're getting paid to be there. They have every ability to not play. There are plenty of NFL guys that retired early because of the violence. It's the same thing with any potentially violent profession. Don't like it? Don't do it. It's that simple To borrow a phrase: Reductive simplicity is the hobgoblin of little minds.
Gramps Posted December 5, 2017 Report Posted December 5, 2017 Why? Because he's a QB? Mine is an uneducated armchair opinion ... let's listen to some others. http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000870850/article/sources-tell-us-scout-says-josh-allen-most-talented-qb-in-class https://www.metro.us/sports/nfl-mock-draft-2018-josh-allen-to-broncos https://www.si.com/nfl/2017/11/14/josh-allen-wyoming-2018-nfl-draft-top-small-school-prospects http://draftwire.usatoday.com/2017/11/23/2018-nfl-draft-big-board-is-josh-allen-still-a-top-10-prospect/
WildCard Posted December 5, 2017 Author Report Posted December 5, 2017 To borrow a phrase: Reductive simplicity is the hobgoblin of little minds. Then tell me why I'm wrong.
Eleven Posted December 5, 2017 Report Posted December 5, 2017 To borrow a phrase: Reductive simplicity is the hobgoblin of little minds. He does have a point. The players are not forced to play and are informed of the risks.
That Aud Smell Posted December 5, 2017 Report Posted December 5, 2017 They're not gladiators, they're getting paid to be there. They have every ability to not play. There are plenty of NFL guys that retired early because of the violence. It's the same thing with any potentially violent profession. Don't like it? Don't do it. It's that simple To borrow a phrase: Reductive simplicity is the hobgoblin of little minds. Then tell me why I'm wrong. I'm not sure it's a matter of right and wrong, tbh. I reflexively thought that the way you articulated the position above was ill-conceived because it was purportedly simple and premised on the elements of free will and lotsa money. Intellectually, that doesn't do it for me -- it doesn't do anything for me, really. What your analysis seems to ignore is the consumer's role in purchasing the product. If we accept that the players now have their eyes wide open, are sufficiently educated on the risks, and choose to participate and accept the risks because of the potentially significant financial rewards, that doesn't end the inquiry. It only starts it, really. Is this a product that I want to consume? Do I want to purchase something that is predicated on, in fact features, a reckless and unnecessary disregard for human health and safety? Increasingly, I don't think I want to purchase that thing. I think it communicates a disregard for human health and safety in favour of making a bunch of greasy bucks (the players make lots; the owners make a whole lot more); I think that sort of thing is corrosive toward the human spirit. The various actors involved in presenting that on-field product may all be acting of their own free will. Ultimately, I plan to do likewise.
Eleven Posted December 5, 2017 Report Posted December 5, 2017 I'm not sure it's a matter of right and wrong, tbh. I reflexively thought that the way you articulated the position above was ill-conceived because it was purportedly simple and premised on the elements of free will and lotsa money. Intellectually, that doesn't do it for me -- it doesn't do anything for me, really. What your analysis seems to ignore is the consumer's role in purchasing the product. If we accept that the players now have their eyes wide open, are sufficiently educated on the risks, and choose to participate and accept the risks because of the potentially significant financial rewards, that doesn't end the inquiry. It only starts it, really. Is this a product that I want to consume? Do I want to purchase something that is predicated on, in fact features, a reckless and unnecessary disregard for human health and safety? Increasingly, I don't think I want to purchase that thing. I think it communicates a disregard for human health and safety in favour of making a bunch of greasy bucks (the players make lots; the owners make a whole lot more); I think that sort of thing is corrosive toward the human spirit. The various actors involved in presenting that on-field product may all be acting of their own free will. Ultimately, I plan to do likewise. This is a better response than the Emerson paraphrase. So, WC, we NFL fans may be akin to the spectators at the Colosseum after all.
SwampD Posted December 5, 2017 Report Posted December 5, 2017 This is a better response than the Emerson paraphrase. So, WC, we NFL fans may be akin to the spectators at the Colosseum after all. Was that ever in question?
Recommended Posts