NFL Season 2010

[dbdynsty25]

Does anyone really believe we truly know these football players? The greatest guys in the world have secret lives that are less awesome (see Puckett, Kirby)...so who really gives a flying F if they are good guys. We pay them to entertain us on weekends...that's all I care about. All of these pro-con stories are just annoying. I'm not paying them to watch my kid or take care of my ailing parents...so whatever.

[GTHobbes]

Does anyone really believe we truly know these football players? The greatest guys in the world have secret lives that are less awesome (see Puckett, Kirby)...so who really gives a flying F if they are good guys. We pay them to entertain us on weekends...that's all I care about. All of these pro-con stories are just annoying. I'm not paying them to watch my kid or take care of my ailing parents...so whatever.

Amen.

[GTHobbes]

Please refrain from discussing Ben Roethlisberger or "Number 7" unless it is strictly about his play.

That seems like a bit of overreaching, Todd. I think his off the field activity is a legitimate a topic here as anything else. Or is this the creeping censorship inevitable once we started the no-(banned topic) rule?

I agree and think ripping on Cutler and Big Ben are both legitimate topics. The latter is the lead story at SI.com, just like the former was last week. Aren't we (me) allowed to argue about anything here anymore?

[ScoopBrady]

GT, it seems to me as if you are trying to incite some users in this thread. With your constant posting of all things Ben related and your bashing of Jay Cutler it seems pretty obvious who you are trying to get a rise out of. That needs to stop now as it is obvious trolling.

I ripped Cutler cuz he deserved it, and responded to your post regarding Madden's comment with a quote from Concrete Charlie. Can see why you didn't like that, I guess. But I didn't post anything Ben related (other than in response to Danimal's idiotic comment -- why is he always free to start s*** up and walk away? I'd argue his comment about us "retarded fans" is a lot more offensive than anything I've posted about Cutler.) Anyways, I have been posting plenty of Steelers' articles and will continue to do so (absent another ban) since ya never know when your team is going to make it back to the SB.

Don't give me that innocent act GT. I'd tend to believe you if you didn't make subtle comments like "poor baby Jay" and if your posting style of posting articles you know will get people going didn't closely follow the posting style that got you banned in the first place. As far as I can tell, Danimal's comment about "retarded fans" was not about all Pittsburgh Steelers fans but only those fans who have blogs. As far as I know you don't have a blog so that comment was not directed towards you or anybody here.

I believe that you know full well that your posts will likely get a reaction and again I will say to please keep all talk regarding Ben Roethlisberger related to his play on the field. That goes for everybody, we know who thinks he is a bad person and we know who supports him. We gain nothing by beating a dead horse and I'm fairly sure it will lead to personal attacks.

[ScoopBrady]

Please refrain from discussing Ben Roethlisberger or "Number 7" unless it is strictly about his play.

That seems like a bit of overreaching, Todd. I think his off the field activity is a legitimate a topic here as anything else. Or is this the creeping censorship inevitable once we started the no-(banned topic) rule?

I hear you, Rob. I do believe it is a legitimate topic but I can't help but notice a pattern and I would just like to cut it off before it escalates.

[GTHobbes]

Don't give me that innocent act GT. I'd tend to believe you if you didn't make subtle comments like "poor baby Jay" and if your posting style of posting articles you know will get people going didn't closely follow the posting style that got you banned in the first place. As far as I can tell, Danimal's comment about "retarded fans" was not about all Pittsburgh Steelers fans but only those fans who have blogs. As far as I know you don't have a blog so that comment was not directed towards you or anybody here.

Whatever, dude. I don't claim to be innocent -- I shoot my mouth off around Danimal enough to know I risk getting banned everytime I respond to anything he posts. But I used to work with "retarded" people at a summer job during college, and whether directed at me or not, I find his use of that word to be offensive. You don't, and you're the moderator, so go ahead and ban me again if you don't like my "posting style." The Steelers are going to win their 7th SB on Sunday so it won't bother me.

[ScoopBrady]

Don't give me that innocent act GT. I'd tend to believe you if you didn't make subtle comments like "poor baby Jay" and if your posting style of posting articles you know will get people going didn't closely follow the posting style that got you banned in the first place. As far as I can tell, Danimal's comment about "retarded fans" was not about all Pittsburgh Steelers fans but only those fans who have blogs. As far as I know you don't have a blog so that comment was not directed towards you or anybody here.

Whatever, dude. I don't claim to be innocent -- I shoot my mouth off around Danimal enough to know I risk getting banned everytime I respond to anything he posts. But I used to work with "retarded" people at a summer job during college, and whether directed at me or not, I find his use of that word to be offensive. You don't, and you're the moderator, so go ahead and ban me again if you don't like my "posting style." The Steelers are going to win their 7th SB on Sunday so it won't bother me.

Um, you obviously don't know me. I spent 7 years working with adults and children with developmental disabilities. The use of the word "retarded" highly bothers me. I have even been very vocal in the past about the use of that word. However, I seem to be in the minority about the use of the word in our community. I'm sure many here can attest to that.

[Lancer]

The whole Ben thing is like Kobe. Remember during Kobe's trail the media was telling us how much of a great guy he was because he was flying to/from Colorado in between games in LA and other parts of the country. How admirable this was.

I agree with DB, I only care now about what the guys do on the field. I suppose before I really thought some of these guys were role models because that's what the media pushes onto us. And some of these guys get paid by their sponsors to be like role models, even if they like it or not (MJ).

[GTHobbes]

Um, you obviously don't know me. I spent 7 years working with adults and children with developmental disabilities. The use of the word "retarded" highly bothers me. I have even been very vocal in the past about the use of that word. However, I seem to be in the minority about the use of the word in our community. I'm sure many here can attest to that.

I didn't know that, Scoop, and am glad to hear you feel the same way about the use of that word in general.

With that said, hopefully the talk can now go back to football (and terrible towel wearing new babies in Pittsburgh).

[Danimal]

For the record for me to "start s*** up" would assume there were two people involved in an argument. Since I have had GT on ignore for a few weeks now I didn't know we were arguing.
I'll refrain from mentioning him (ben) Scoop if that is what you want, I didn't know it was upsetting people.

[vader29]

Does anyone really believe we truly know these football players? The greatest guys in the world have secret lives that are less awesome (see Puckett, Kirby)...so who really gives a flying F if they are good guys. We pay them to entertain us on weekends...that's all I care about. All of these pro-con stories are just annoying. I'm not paying them to watch my kid or take care of my ailing parents...so whatever.

Exactly. I bet there isn't a team in the league without a player or two with skeletons in their closet. What if the Jets were in the Super Bowl, would they bring up Mark Sanchez's accusation of rape when he was in college? How about the 7 Packer players accused of rape last year?, should we refer to them with a rapist title in their name's forever even though they were only accused also? It's unfortunately the way of the world today and sports should just be looked at as a form of entertainment and players shouldn't be looked upon as role models for kids.

[GTHobbes]

For the record for me to "start s*** up" would assume there were two people involved in an argument. Since I have had GT on ignore for a few weeks now I didn't know we were arguing.
I'll refrain from mentioning him (ben) Scoop if that is what you want, I didn't know it was upsetting people.

This is at least the fourth time in the last 2 weeks that I've seen you mention you have me on ignore -- we get it, dude. For the record.

And c'mon -- you didn't think referring to "retarded fans" and Rapelisberger over and over again was going to get me going? If the innocent act doesn't work for me, it sure as hell ain't going to work for you either.

[wco81]

There may be other players doing heinous things but we don't know about them.

One thing we know is that this week, the one guy who was accused is getting a lot of adulation for exploits on the field.

It would be nice to separate the off-field lives of pro athletes but once that part is out there, it can't be ignored. You really have to have blinders on to say you only care about his in-game performance. Your perception of that person has to change, just as if a co-worker or a classmate you thought you knew well was implicated in a felony.

The players who get into these off-field incidents have only themselves to blame for all the coverage that follows. If they didn't get involved in the shady behavior, there would be no news and their apologists wouldn't have to say "only what they do on the field matters."

[GTHobbes]

Uh, oh:

"Steelers win Madden 11 Super Bowl simulation
by James Ransom-Wiley on Feb 1st 2011 12:50PM

"Computers can be used to calculate all sorts of truly helpful data ... or they can be used to simulate the Super Bowl. If you're going to use processing power to predict the outcome of a sporting event, then you'd better be pretty darned accurate if you hope to maintain any semblance of a reasonable use of life (it still takes human people to run, recap and even report on -- hi there! -- the simulation). EA Sports' Madden games have at least been that, accurately calling the winner of six of the last seven Super Bowls.

This year, Madden 11 sees the Pittsburgh Steelers defeating the Green Bay Packers 24-20 in Super Bowl XLV, which sounds like a good enough guess. But now, do you put money on that? (After the break, delve into the video highlights and box score ... of the simulated game.)"

http://www.joystiq.com/2011/02/01/steel ... imulation/

[Lancer]

Does anyone really believe we truly know these football players? The greatest guys in the world have secret lives that are less awesome (see Puckett, Kirby)...so who really gives a flying F if they are good guys. We pay them to entertain us on weekends...that's all I care about. All of these pro-con stories are just annoying. I'm not paying them to watch my kid or take care of my ailing parents...so whatever.

Exactly. I bet there isn't a team in the league without a player or two with skeletons in their closet. What if the Jets were in the Super Bowl, would they bring up Mark Sanchez's accusation of rape when he was in college? How about the 7 Packer players accused of rape last year?, should we refer to them with a rapist title in their name's forever even though they were only accused also? It's unfortunately the way of the world today and sports should just be looked at as a form of entertainment and players shouldn't be looked upon as role models for kids.

F***. I didn't even know about this Sanchez thing or the Packer thing. I guess it adds fuel to the fire that we really don't know any of these guys. Since they've been pampered and given everything to them on a silver platter, I guess they have the mindset that they can get away with everything. That's just really sad to hear. Sanchez seems like a good guy. I know you said 'accusation', so I'm not saying he's guilty of anything, but it's not good to hear that guys name w/ the R word.

[dbdynsty25]

It would be nice to separate the off-field lives of pro athletes but once that part is out there, it can't be ignored. You really have to have blinders on to say you only care about his in-game performance. Your perception of that person has to change, just as if a co-worker or a classmate you thought you knew well was implicated in a felony.

I can totally separate them. I could give a sh*t less if my favorite running back broke into someones house and sh*t in their laundry basket (see Davenport, Najeh, former Hurricane)...as long as he can score for my team on weekends, it's whatever to me. Dead serious. I root for teams, not particular players. Sure, I like some players better than others, but it's strictly performance based. I hate Chad Henne with a passion...and last time I checked, he didn't jizz on some chicks tits that wasn't expecting it...he's just not a very good football player and it ruins my teams chances at a Super Bowl. That is first and foremost in my mind...not that 4 or 5 dudes got arrested on the Dolphins last year. I don't even remember who it was, just that it kept happening! That's how little of an impact that has on my rooting interest in a team.

[pk500]

Sir Charles nailed it 18 years ago in this Nike commercial. His words still ring true today:



I have three kids 12 and under. I want them to admire and try to emulate those athletes' feats, skill and will on the field, rink, court, ring or track, but I don't want them to adore those athletes as role models. Ever.

It's the job of my wife and I as parents to be role models for our kids. If we are good ones, then we have succeeded.

Roethlisberger's job for the Steelers and their fans is to win a Super Bowl. If he succeeds Sunday, then his job is done. His obligation to fans is to win and entertain. That's it.

[JRod]

Paul,

Except where not talking about a jerk and separating his off-field antics with on-field performance. Do we know if Rothlesburger raped anyone? No and yes he's innocent until proven guilty. However, as savvy news consumers, being an athlete also gives you certain "legal" perks where having money can buy the best lawyers, a PR firm to manage image even influence public opinion and possibly changing the course of events to avoid trial.

I think there's a difference between what Barkley said and committing a crime. If he didn't do anything wrong why did he get a 4 game suspension? And this is his second "incident". People can says he's innocent because no charges were filed and that's true. But it's also true that athletes have more resources than their victims and can manipulate these events.

I draw the line at criminal behavior. I think Tom Brady and the Hoodie are douchebags. But Tom Brady isn't out there with two alleged assaults. Any grown man or kid looking up to athletes is delusional. I never understood autographs and wearing jerseys but I'll watch games because it's entertaining. But my point, is when someone like Rothlisburger has two incidents with harassing women, should be separated out because he's going to the Super Bowl? I think it only makes athletes feel invincible where you can get away with rape because the public, the NFL, says oh well let's just separate the man from the performance because it's only sports that we care about. There's injustice in that attitude.

[Naples39]

I think separating on-field play from off-field life is always the ideal, but it's not always realistic.

I generally accept that many (most) of the players on sports teams are probably idiots, jackasses, or generally selfish, awful human beings, but there is a line between general douchebaggery and conduct that crosses the line like rape. And no, legal innocence under US law should not prevent a rational human being from concluding certain things very likely took place. When they cross that line, I have a hard time pulling for them on my team, and have no qualms hoping to see them fail spectacularly when they are elsewhere.

There are some sobering reminders out there at how common pro athletes misdeeds are, and it would be nice if endorsements for athletes went to the best guys instead of the best players. Or at the very least the endorsements dried up when stuff comes to light, but even that only happens to a certain extent.

Then again, I might be the only kid in the world whose favorite athletes growing up were as wholesome and whitebread as Mike Scioscia and Eric Karros.

[RobVarak]

Paul,

Except where not talking about a jerk and separating his off-field antics with on-field performance. Do we know if Rothlesburger raped anyone? No and yes he's innocent until proven guilty.

That's the state's burden of proof. You and I are free to convict whomever we choose based on whatever standard we choose.

[pk500]

Except where not talking about a jerk and separating his off-field antics with on-field performance. Do we know if Rothlesburger raped anyone? No and yes he's innocent until proven guilty. However, as savvy news consumers, being an athlete also gives you certain "legal" perks where having money can buy the best lawyers, a PR firm to manage image even influence public opinion and possibly changing the course of events to avoid trial.

And what makes Roethlisberger any different from a wealthy, high-profile person in another lucrative profession? Do you think an "average person" with as many transgressions as Charlie Sheen or Lindsay Lohan would have jail sentences measuring in days and weeks, not months and years?

Sheen will be back to work on the "Two And A Half Men" set as soon as his "rehab" is done, just like Roethlisberger was back on the field with the Steelers as soon as his suspension ended.

I think there's a difference between what Barkley said and committing a crime. If he didn't do anything wrong why did he get a 4 game suspension? And this is his second "incident".

Because there's a difference in the burden of proof, much like the difference between a criminal case and a civil suit. O.J. Simpson was shamefully acquitted in his criminal trial but nailed in the civil suit.

Plus Goodell doesn't need to follow the rule of courtroom law to run his league. He can suspend a player in almost any way he sees fit under the auspices of the "personal conduct" clause. Even if Roethlisberger didn't commit a crime, it's clear that he showed poor judgment for the third time, if you include the two alleged assaults and the motorcycle accident. That wasn't enough for a court to convict, but it was enough for Goodell to act. He has that right, just as your employer has the right to suspend you if you post pictures on your Facebook page of doing beer bongs with 19-year-old coeds.

I draw the line at criminal behavior. I think Tom Brady and the Hoodie are douchebags. But Tom Brady isn't out there with two alleged assaults. Any grown man or kid looking up to athletes is delusional. I never understood autographs and wearing jerseys but I'll watch games because it's entertaining. But my point, is when someone like Rothlisburger has two incidents with harassing women, should be separated out because he's going to the Super Bowl? I think it only makes athletes feel invincible where you can get away with rape because the public, the NFL, says oh well let's just separate the man from the performance because it's only sports that we care about. There's injustice in that attitude.

Just as there's injustice in nearly every business. I'm not happy when Bank of America executives get huge bonuses after participating in predatory lending practices and then accepting taxpayer bailout cash. But it happened.

The world is full of flaws and cracks. Sports are no exception. I think Roethlisberger is a scumbag who is playing the redemption role to the hilt. But he's a football player; he's not raising my kids. So in the grand scheme, much like DB, I don't give a f*ck about his morality.

[Lancer]

Sir Charles nailed it 18 years ago in this Nike commercial. His words still ring true today:



I have three kids 12 and under. I want them to admire and try to emulate those athletes' feats, skill and will on the field, rink, court, ring or track, but I don't want them to adore those athletes as role models. Ever.

It's the job of my wife and I as parents to be role models for our kids. If we are good ones, then we have succeeded.

PK : that's good but some kids don't have 2 parents or even 1 parent to be a role model to them. In these type of situations, the kids look to media figures/entertainers/sports athletes as fill in role models. So some of these athletes are role models even if they don't want to be.

[GTHobbes]

Plus Goodell doesn't need to follow the rule of courtroom law to run his league. He can suspend a player in almost any way he sees fit under the auspices of the "personal conduct" clause. Even if Roethlisberger didn't commit a crime, it's clear that he showed poor judgment for the third time, if you include the two alleged assaults and the motorcycle accident. That wasn't enough for a court to convict, but it was enough for Goodell to act. He has that right, just as your employer has the right to suspend you if you post pictures on your Facebook page of doing beer bongs with 19-year-old coeds.

I don't really disagree with anything you said, pk, but I do dislike how Goodell has set himself up as judge, jury and executioner. Why did Ben get 4 games, and Favre got nothing? We'll likely never know.

[Brando70]

I think separating on-field play from off-field life is always the ideal, but it's not always realistic.

I generally accept that many (most) of the players on sports teams are probably idiots, jackasses, or generally selfish, awful human beings, but there is a line between general douchebaggery and conduct that crosses the line like rape.

That's it in a nutshell. I certainly don't expect angels, but it's hard to root for criminals. Not that BB is a criminal, he just managed to go the extra step of being accused of rape twice. That's the kind of moxy that gets you a compliment from Hedley LaMarr in Blazing Saddles.

Back to the game: I think Mendenhall is the key to the game. He doesn't have to have a great game, but he has to be productive enough to slow the Packer rush down, because Roethlisberger's tendency to hold the ball too long could hurt him if the Packers don't have to respect the run.

I see Green Bay being a year away from a Super Bowl, too. This seems like the game they lose, learn from, and build on. Absolutely kills me to say that but it's hard not to see them as a team that will be very tough for the next few years.

[wco81]

Barkley wasn't talking about committing a crime.

He was talking about getting into an altercation at a public venue where he threw some guy who challenged him through a window.

And didn't he utter that line as part of some commercial?