Just something to hear before the next Butler thread gets started

[FourierSeries]

According to another thread you can't use that word in describing how bad one team beats another so I'm sure you have some comments coming from the politically correct crowd for using it here.

Rape. The word you're looking for is rape.

Rape.

 

[FourierSeries]

I'm not sure if you guys know the whole story here, but the thread contained a graphic about the Patriots opponents next year and their likely results. One of them was "Rape" another said "Actual Rape" and a third said "Rape the Rapist" - referring to Roethlisberger. As someone who is actually also very against the political correctness police and thinks our society is too sensitive, I think we should all acknowledge there are some boundaries that aren't cool to cross. I personally thought that went too far, not that I would have necessarily removed the thread, and I didn't complain to the mods - I just told the OP my thoughts on it.

I mean, what if someone had something similar which said we are going to "Auschwitz Gas Chamber" an opponent or that we were going to "slave master whip" someone. I'm just saying that rape, especially referenced so many times and purposely averting you to make a joke about the actual act, is pretty far towards the obvious out-of-bounds mark. The OP even said "You must all be a bunch of women" which basically made it all worse. I think people of intelligence can find better wording than that which would actually be funny. Though we use words like "we're going to murder/kill them" that has long been accepted as being okay within the context...not saying it is right or wrong, but I'm sure there are many women on this board who would view that rape post as incredibly distasteful. And I think we are better than that...leave that stuff to the Jets forums, along with their expletives and common threads wishing actual injuries/death to our players.

And no, I am not a bleeding heart liberal. I think most of the people I know would consider me to be very thick skinned and not someone who is easily offended.

You can't tell me you didn't enjoy watching Brady rape Atlanta's defense in the 4th quarter of SBLI. Even Gisele approved.

 

[patfanken]

Oh yeah. He's been in deep with Pretend Football Facts for some time now. And NBC should require him to disclose that every single time he mentions it in broadcasts. Of course, since neither he nor NBC has any ethics...

You are perfectly correct in your opinion that NBC should require him to acknowledge his ownership of PFF if he mentions it on a broadcast. However I think you go overboard with your Pretend Football facts description of the service. If around 25NFL teams think the service is effective enough to pay a lot of money to utilize it, then it's time to give what they do at least the benefit of the doubt as to it's effectiveness.

IIRC - PFF got its start in Europe with a bunch of football nerds who got off breaking down and grading every game. At the time any criticism of them would be absolutely correct. Up to today, I would have agreed with you. Clearly its come a long way from its very amateur roots.

Pretty much all stats and so called grades have to be taken with a grain of salt, as their utilizatiion are often manipulated to support the needed narrative of the user. Personally what I gathered from the podcast was that main reason NFL teams utilize the service was as a time saver. A way to get a breakdown of vital information in a quick and effective format.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

Well again, I didn't report/complain about the post to any moderators or ask for it to be removed. Let's just respect the mod's decision and move on. Some people think it's fine to post that, some people don't. To each their own. Obviously no one is condoning rape and it is a gray area if the multiple rape references are acceptable on a forum like this. I don't think any less of people if they thought it was funny/acceptable, despite my personal feelings on it.

 

[patfanken]

PFF WAS what you thought it was. Back before Collinworth and his group bought it, was an amateur site who watched the TV broadcast. They do a more scientific approach now with actual all 22 film. That said, their metrics are still crap.

What do you mean their metrics are crap? Is it the raw data, or just their interpretation of it? I'm not sure I know what you mean.

 

[QuantumMechanic]

You are perfectly correct in your opinion that NBC should require him to acknowledge his ownership of PFF if he mentions it on a broadcast. However I think you go overboard with your Pretend Football facts description of the service. If around 25NFL teams think the service is effective enough to pay a lot of money to utilize it, then it's time to give what they do at least the benefit of the doubt as to it's effectiveness.

The grades they give to the public and mediots are Pretend Football Facts. Without knowing calls and assignments their grades are total BS and it's shameless, content-free self-promotion.

The other stuff you describe -- collecting stats on how many times a team uses formation X and what they do out of that formation and being able to click and bring up those plays -- is indeed real and useful. But it's boring data grinding that any club could do itself, but are willing to outsource to free up time for team staff to do higher-level stuff.

 

[patfanken]

The grades they give to the public and mediots are Pretend Football Facts. Without knowing calls and assignments their grades are total BS and it's shameless, content-free self-promotion.
+.

I wouldn't be so harsh. We live, as we see every day we come to this board, in a world of opinions that can be best described as, "everyone's best guess based on what we've seen and heard".

Now I know sometihing about breaking down film, and if I still had the patience and focus to take an all 22, I could give you a good idea of who did well, who did OK, and who sucked on a given play, even without knowing the exact calls and responsibilities. Sometimes a missed block or tackle is simply a missed block or tackle.

As long as I was clear that these are simply MY observations and that I recognize that calls and changes of responsibilities might affect those results; I'd be perfectly within my rights to offer that " best guess" with the idea that I would be adding to everyone's knowledge of what happened as a whole.

Like I said before. Stats are stats, and can be manipulated to support or reject pretty much any narrative. I'll give you an example. I used Hightower's tackling stats to justify how easily that production could be replaced. This was in support of my narrative that losing him wouldn't be the end of the world. Just recently I saw stats that showed that when Hightower was on the field, the defense was about a yard better in BOTH the passing and run game. Stats that supported a completely opposite story line.

The point being, I get our distrust of PFF and have to ask, "is it only PFF or are you skeptical of all analytics?

 

[Rob0729]

What do you mean their metrics are crap? Is it the raw data, or just their interpretation of it? I'm not sure I know what you mean.

They still make a lot of assumptions without knowing the plays and responsibilities. I think they still employ the "first guy to the receiver" is responsible for a blown coverage. When you put your own judgement to determining stats, the metrics are crap.

 

[QuantumMechanic]

The point being, I get our distrust of PFF and have to ask, "is it only PFF or are you skeptical of all analytics?

I'm less distrustful of analytics than most people on this board. What I really distrust are "blame-placing" (or if you want to be more positive , "credit-granting") analytics computed w/o any knowledge of what the call was or what players' responsibilities are on the play. I also am generally distrustful of individual player stats because football is such an interdependent game. Take a given player's YAC, for example. On the surface it seems an objective number -- you can see the YAC right on tape. However, how much that YAC is due to the receiver's great moves and how much of it is due to a QB who regularly puts it on the receiver's hands in stride?

I'm much more accepting of team-based analytics and aggregates.

 

[Ring 6]

Interesting. So behind the scenes PFF does real stuff while it's generating total crap for public consumption.

PFF has the potential to be fantastic. They have the intrastructure in place to deliver a tremendous product. What they need is football people setting the criteria abs football people grading the film.
Right now it's a great idea with such poor execution that no information is better than what they provide but if done right it could be very valuable.

 

[scout]

You can't tell me you didn't enjoy watching Brady rape Atlanta's defense in the 4th quarter of SBLI. Even Gisele approved.

Brady _______ Atlanta's defense in the 4th quarter of SBLI. Define, articulate and use the power of words. Rape doesn't do much for me.

 

[Soliel]

I say he kicked them in the nads.

 

[Patsfanin Philly]

Brady _______ Atlanta's defense in the 4th quarter of SBLI. Define, articulate and use the power of words. Rape doesn't do much for me.

vivisected.............
macerated........
eviscerated.........
emasculated........
treated them like a rented mule.....
treated them like a red headed stepchild...(is that allowed?)
traumatized them for life...........................
psychologically scarred an entire city for decades...................

 

[aluminum seats]

Well again, I didn't report/complain about the post to any moderators or ask for it to be removed. Let's just respect the mod's decision and move on. Some people think it's fine to post that, some people don't. To each their own. Obviously no one is condoning rape and it is a gray area if the multiple rape references are acceptable on a forum like this. I don't think any less of people if they thought it was funny/acceptable, despite my personal feelings on it.

It's also just incredibly lame. I was on some other team's board last year and it was "yeah we're going too azz rape them all day" all over the place. Just so cringeworthy and pathetic. Remember being happy it wasn't like that here.

 

[Soliel]

We must hold ourselves to a higher standard. Other team sites say many things. For the most part, this site is far and away better.

Im not criticising any words. All im going to say is all pats fans should remember that it seems were scrutinized at a crazy level.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

I don't see anything offensive about it and I'm not sure how "we're going to murder them" would be any less offensive to people that DO consider something like that offensive.

vivisected.............
macerated........
eviscerated.........
emasculated........
treated them like a rented mule.....
treated them like a red headed stepchild...(is that allowed?)
traumatized them for life...........................
psychologically scarred an entire city for decades...................

There are definitely words that describe bad acts that we use casually that are acceptable, as @Patsfanin Philly has listed eloquently as alternatives, so why should those be okay while others are out-of-bounds? I think it has to do with groups of people who have been traditionally singled out and are sensitive to remarks that imply that serious acts of evil that have affected them are being laughed at callously.

When you use the words that you guys have listed, these apply to the general population of people. They are seen as obvious metaphors that can be applied universally. Things like "we are going to kill them" or "win the war" or "murder them" are seen as obvious acceptable terms, as no group is really singled out. In addition, sports is often compared to war battles, for better or worse, and that doesn't seem offend anyone.

I'm willing to bet that a huge majority of women would object to people using the word rape in a casual setting when describing a sporting event. Why? Because it happens to them...it's always on their mind. If they haven't been raped, you can be sure one of their friends has been raped. It's a ****ty word. Women carry pepper spray for a reason. There have been studies that women fear being raped on an hourly basis. When men joke around about rape and use it as a casual sports term, it would clearly make them feel unsafe. I'm sure you can have examples of "not the women I know" or "my wife would never..." but I'm not buying that counter-argument.

It's the same thing with other people who already feel vulnerable and would rightfully offended when certain terms are applied casually in a rah-rah way.

I already brought up two examples: "Gas Chambering" and "Slave Whipping." There are others:

"We are going to lynch them from an apple tree like it's the 1920s deep south."
"We are going to gay bash the Jets entire team and drag them from a pickup truck."
"We are going to turn Arrowhead Stadium into Hiroshima."
"We are going to make the Cowboys running game as immobile as Daryl Stingley."
"We are going to take down the Dolphins like they are the World Trade Center on 9/11."
"We are going to take down that entire team like a massive outbreak of AIDS in San Francisco."
"We are going to be all over them like cancer remission into stage 4."

Is there any question that these terms shouldn't be used and for self-evident reasons?

Maybe the theme here is becoming clear, that generally it isn't funny or witty to insert jokes about really crappy events that have likely affected many people in their lives, and that there is a big difference between this and saying "we are going to slaughter them" in a general sense. I think it's pretty obvious that there is a line we shouldn't cross, and I don't think people are "overly sensitive" in trying to be civil and not offensive...it does make them part of the political correct police...it makes them aware of why these terms are damaging to people and not something to joke around about. The term "rape" is probably the most offensive of all terms, since at least 50% of the population would be not only disgusted, but likely frightened, by its casual use in this context, as an end goal of what we want to do to the other team, metaphorically or not, doesn't really change the idea that it is a really crappy thing to promote.

 

[Soliel]

You are right. There is no way to argue this point.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

It's also just incredibly lame. I was on some other team's board last year and it was "yeah we're going too azz rape them all day" all over the place. Just so cringeworthy and pathetic. Remember being happy it wasn't like that here.

I have always been incredibly impressed with the civility of this message board, mainly due to the excellent moderators and the intelligent people we have on here. I don't think people realize what a **** show most football message boards are. That is why I spend so much time on this site...because I love the discussions and the insights. I don't want it to turn into GangGreen or some other cesspool of scum posters who think that, because they are on the internet and anonymous, they can post things that are sub-human.

 

[Soliel]

I have always been incredibly impressed with the civility of this message board, mainly due to the excellent moderators and the intelligent people we have on here. I don't think people realize what a **** show most football message boards are. That is why I spend so much time on this site...because I love the discussions and the insights. I don't want it to turn into GangGreen or some other cesspool of scum posters who think that, because they are on the internet and anonymous, they can post things that are sub-human.

Your right.
I believe strongly in free speach but i do not like anything that divides people who are of like minds. I could go to thebar with most people here....the last thing id want is to say anything that would make things go bad.

 

[Kontradiction]

There are definitely words that describe bad acts that we use casually that are acceptable, as @Patsfanin Philly has listed eloquently as alternatives, so why should those be okay while others are out-of-bounds? I think it has to do with groups of people who have been traditionally singled out and are sensitive to remarks that imply that serious acts of evil that have affected them are being laughed at callously.

When you use the words that you guys have listed, these apply to the general population of people. They are seen as obvious metaphors that can be applied universally. Things like "we are going to kill them" or "win the war" or "murder them" are seen as obvious acceptable terms, as no group is really singled out. In addition, sports is often compared to war battles, for better or worse, and that doesn't seem offend anyone.

I'm willing to bet that a huge majority of women would object to people using the word rape in a casual setting when describing a sporting event. Why? Because it happens to them...it's always on their mind. If they haven't been raped, you can be sure one of their friends has been raped. It's a ****ty word. Women carry pepper spray for a reason. There have been studies that women fear being raped on an hourly basis. When men joke around about rape and use it as a casual sports term, it would clearly make them feel unsafe. I'm sure you can have examples of "not the women I know" or "my wife would never..." but I'm not buying that counter-argument.

It's the same thing with other people who already feel vulnerable and would rightfully offended when certain terms are applied casually in a rah-rah way.

I already brought up two examples: "Gas Chambering" and "Slave Whipping." There are others:

"We are going to lynch them from an apple tree like it's the 1920s deep south."
"We are going to gay bash the Jets entire team and drag them from a pickup truck."
"We are going to turn Arrowhead Stadium into Hiroshima."
"We are going to make the Cowboys running game as immobile as Daryl Stingley."
"We are going to take down the Dolphins like they are the World Trade Center on 9/11."
"We are going to take down that entire team like a massive outbreak of AIDS in San Francisco."
"We are going to be all over them like cancer remission into stage 4."

Is there any question that these terms shouldn't be used and for self-evident reasons?

Maybe the theme here is becoming clear, that generally it isn't funny or witty to insert jokes about really crappy events that have likely affected many people in their lives, and that there is a big difference between this and saying "we are going to slaughter them" in a general sense. I think it's pretty obvious that there is a line we shouldn't cross, and I don't think people are "overly sensitive" in trying to be civil and not offensive...it does make them part of the political correct police...it makes them aware of why these terms are damaging to people and not something to joke around about. The term "rape" is probably the most offensive of all terms, since at least 50% of the population would be not only disgusted, but likely frightened, by its casual use in this context, as an end goal of what we want to do to the other team, metaphorically or not, doesn't really change the idea that it is a really crappy thing to promote.

So, basically, you were offended? Should we stop saying "we killed them"? After all, it HAS to be offensive to people who have known someone that's died. You brought up another example earlier in "we murdered them". According to this logic, that we shouldn't make jokes about crappy events that affect people in their lives, we shouldn't say that either. Because people that know someone that has been murdered would be offended. How about just "we beat them"? Well, wait, we're not thinking about the women around the world that have been beaten by their significant others then. What if they're offended? Maybe we shouldn't say that either. People need to quit being so soft. Without getting overly political and pointing out various world events, there are plenty, PLENTY of things in this world to be offended by. Making a joke about Roger Goodell getting "Oz'd" is really not one of them.