OT: James Harrison threatens to quit over fine

[letekro]

The NFL sucks at making rules, proof by this:

YouTube - Calvin Johnson Robbed of TD By Refs.. Lions vs. Bears Sept 12th 2010

No, no, no, no. That's a good example of a GOOD rule because it is completely objective and NOT arbitrary. If you get up with the ball, you're good. Not in the Calvin Johnson case, but in others, you may have situations where the ball is caught and the guy goes to the ground, rolls over and the ball flies out. Did he catch it and he was just throwing it to the side, or did he not catch it? When you're making rules, you want to avoid those judgment calls.

 

[Captain Cliche]

Helmet to helmet hits have been illegal since shortly after the Darryl Stingley incident. No one wants to see that happen again.

Guess what, as a player, you adjust your technique, just like Rodney Harrison did. Helmet to helmet hits are poor technique....just like face guarding. Are people still complaining about the face mask rule? Guess what...it is a good rule that has been properly enforced and has probably saved some injuries.

Of course the rules will favor the offense. This is entertainment and it's big business. Anyone whining about this turning into flag football needs to either get used to it and get over it or get out.

The NHL has also done it's best to de-goon their game and let talent prevail.

The game is evolving. Leather helmet days are over. As players and fans we can either evolve with it, or get out.

There will still be plenty of cheap hits and injuries, if that's what you crave.

 

[Synovia]

Are you serious? I take it then you have no problem with all the issues these players have been facing after retiring from the game? Once they are done entertaining you, you couldn't give a **** what the rest of their lives are like?.

I don't have a problem with them at all.

Every single NFL player knows what they're getting into, and are paid substantially for it. There's not a single one of them who couldn't retire (from football) after 3 years in the league, and live wealthy the rest of their lives with a normal job.


Coal miners face just as serious issues, and they don't get $6ooK game checks.

 

[Synovia]

The NFL is trending towards the elimination, or severe restriction, of contact, with various stated reasons for doing so. This isn't really debatable. The only question is where the trend finally stops.

Its plenty debateable, despite your insistence otherwise.

 

[scout]

Brain damage is collateral damage. As long as we get entertained on Sunday and the players get paid, then nothing else should matter. Is that the argument?

 

[Synovia]

Brain damage is collateral damage. As long as we get entertained on Sunday and the players get paid, then nothing else should matter. Is that the argument?

The argument is that they're adults, and they chose a career path that is dangerous. (Like bullfighting, or UFC, etc).

The danger is part of the entertainment.

 

[emoney_33]

I don't have a problem with them at all.

Every single NFL player knows what they're getting into, and are paid substantially for it. There's not a single one of them who couldn't retire (from football) after 3 years in the league, and live wealthy the rest of their lives with a normal job.


Coal miners face just as serious issues, and they don't get $6ooK game checks.

Well the bolded is a lie by any definition of "wealthy" and complete and utter rubbish by most definitions of "wealthy".

As for coal miners, they also know what they are getting into but would you NOT support rules that look out for their safety? Also no player should have to accept the risks associated with completely unnecessary helmet to helmet blows while defenseless. It's equivalent to a sucker punch in boxing. Boxers all know they are going to get punched hard and often, but no matter what they are paid none of them should EXPECT or accept getting sucker punched while defenseless.

Most positions on the field aren't put in vulnerable positions like receivers are. Why anyone would argue against protecting DEFENSELESS receivers is beyond me. I'd like for all of the people who enjoy these things to put on a helmet and allow someone to whack you with their helmet, while you aren't expecting it. Remember it has always and will always be TACKLE football, not "kill the man with the ball".

 

[Captain Cliche]

Brain damage is collateral damage. As long as we get entertained on Sunday and the players get paid, then nothing else should matter. Is that the argument?

I have thought about starting a thread about this. If you have any sense of conscience, you have to ask yourself if you're contributing in some way to the future of these young men as being effictively cripples when they get older.

What got me thinking along these lines is a friend of mine that has a neck injury from high school football. There is a restriction in his spinal column from improper tackling technique. At times his arm goes mumb and is effictively useless. This condition is inoperable...no surgeon will go near the area. This is from a few years of high school football. Imagine the damage someone like Rodney Harrison sustains from all those years.

 

[PatsChamp88]

Go ahead and quit Harrison like I care!

 

[Synovia]

Well the bolded is a lie by any definition of "wealthy" and complete and utter rubbish by most definitions of "wealthy".

You're saying, if someone handed you $1M, you couldn't live quite well while working a normal (say $40K/yr job).

I know I could. Paying for everything in cash, and never having to take loans cuts the price of pretty much every major purchase (like your house) hugely. I buy a $300K house, I pay $600K for it after interest. The NFL player pays...$300K.

As for coal miners, they also know what they are getting into but would you NOT support rules that look out for their safety? Also no player should have to accept the risks associated with completely unnecessary helmet to helmet blows while defenseless. It's equivalent to a sucker punch in boxing. Boxers all know they are going to get punched hard and often, but no matter what they are paid none of them should EXPECT or accept getting sucker punched while defenseless.

And football players all know they're going to get hit.I think the PLAYERS UNION should be pushing for some of this stuff, but I don't think the NFL has any obligation, and frankly, I don't see why I should have some obligation to care.

Again, coal miners don't make any money, and in most areas with heavy coal mining, there aren't many other job opportunities. They know what they're getting into, but most of them HAVE NO CHOICE. Thats not something NFL players can say.

Most positions on the field aren't put in vulnerable positions like receivers are. Why anyone would argue against protecting DEFENSELESS receivers is beyond me. I'd like for all of the people who enjoy these things to put on a helmet and allow someone to whack you with their helmet, while you aren't expecting it. Remember it has always and will always be TACKLE football, not "kill the man with the ball".

I'm not arguing against protecting them. I'm arguing against the moral outrage. I don't think its the NFL's responsibility to do anything. The NFL's responsibility is to keep the marketability of the game as high as possible. The Player's Union's responsibility is to protect the players.

 

[emoney_33]

You're saying, if someone handed you $1M, you couldn't live quite well while working a normal (say $40K/yr job).

I know I could. Paying for everything in cash, and never having to take loans cuts the price of pretty much every major purchase (like your house) hugely.

I highly doubt I could live on $65K a year for the next 40 years, no. Absolutely not if I wanted to support a family. For the next 5 years, with no family to support, sure not too bad but I surely wouldn't shoot for that or retire early to earn that.

Of course I'd have to pay a large amount of taxes on that $1M as well. And in order to buy a house with "cash" that entire $1M is gone (after taxes), unless I go for the cheapest house possible rather than one in an area I enjoy and feel comfortable living in and raising a family in long term.

When you are in your 60's, your entire gross earnings will likely exceed $1M by a large amount. As a matter of fact, all you have to do is average $30K/year starting in your 20's and you will exceed $1M by 20%. Not to mention for MOST people it is much more difficult to manage one large lump sum than it is to manage earnings spread out long term.

And football players all know they're going to get hit.I think the PLAYERS UNION should be pushing for some of this stuff, but I don't think the NFL has any obligation, and frankly, I don't see why I should have some obligation to care.

The NFL has the obligation because of, well, self-interest. You -should- care because of, well, the human condition.

Again, coal miners don't make any money, and in most areas with heavy coal mining, there aren't many other job opportunities. They know what they're getting into, but most of them HAVE NO CHOICE. Thats not something NFL players can say.

What exactly is your point? There are inherent risks and unnecessary risks to any "job". Because coal miner's are subject to inherent risks of coal mining, is it then OK to subject them to any other unnecessary risks? Point being that football players do not HAVE to be subject to violent and risky hits while defenseless. It does NOT add to the game, it is not a fundamental of the game, there is no place for it in the game. The same you wouldn't argue that sucker punches in Boxing aren't a big deal because well they chose that career.

I'm not arguing against protecting them. I'm arguing against the moral outrage. I don't think its the NFL's responsibility to do anything. The NFL's responsibility is to keep the marketability of the game as high as possible. The Player's Union's responsibility is to protect the players.

What moral outrage exactly? The NFL's 'responsibility' btw is to make money, and rest assured they know that. There will never be another driving force for their decisions. Every decision is based around $$$ in business. Anything done that appears to be done based on "morals" is done for the $$$ that the people who care about the perception of their morals will give them (or because they are required to by law).

 

[BSR]

I highly doubt I could live on $65K a year for the next 40 years, no. Absolutely not if I wanted to support a family. For the next 5 years, with no family to support, sure not too bad but I surely wouldn't shoot for that or retire early to earn that.

You are thinking Boston area home market values. That $1m, which is on the low end for a three year career, would essentially take care of mortgage, college for kids and possibly even retirement for a modest family in say Florida. The problem, of course, that nobody ever makes the modest choice.

 

[Deus Irae]

As I explained to you already, I took issue with the hyperbole used in the video. No contact were his words, not mine. He was the one talking about flag football and soccer. I simply pointed out the hyperbole. I can't imagine why you are taking issue with it. You haven't explained yourself yet.

But on a side note ... "alleged?" Really, you are going with that? This isn't a criminal prosecution for god's sake. xD People can decide for themselves if it is hyperbole. I say it is. I have a right to my opinion. I have a right to post it.



All I've done is keep you honest, mate. You clearly are just looking to fight with someone. Bad day?

Please... when you demand 100% removal of all contact as your baseline, you're clearly not out to keep anyone honest.

 

[Gwedd]

You are thinking Boston area home market values. That $1m, which is on the low end for a three year career, would essentially take care of mortgage, college for kids and possibly even retirement for a modest family in say Florida. The problem, of course, that nobody ever makes the modest choice.

True dat. I can assure you that I live comfortably, am raising my youngest, and have two other grown kids whom I raised, on less than half of that $65,000/year. Much less, in fact. It takes some self-discipline, and the ability to distinguish "need" from "want". But it can be done, and you don't have to live in a trailer and eat hamburger-helper to do it.

Poverty is a state of mind, not being.

 

[Haley]

Please... when you demand 100% removal of all contact as your baseline, you're clearly not out to keep anyone honest.

English ... not your strong suit.

How many times do I have to drill it into your skull, that the 'no contact' was in YOUR VIDEO!

*facepalm*

Oy... I give up on you. You aren't capable of rational discourse, at least not today.

 

[Synovia]

I highly doubt I could live on $65K a year for the next 40 years, no. Absolutely not if I wanted to support a family. For the next 5 years, with no family to support, sure not too bad but I surely wouldn't shoot for that or retire early to earn that.

You can't live off $65K a year?

The average median HOUSEHOLD income in the US is $53K. HOUSEHOLD. Not personal income.

 

[scout]

The argument is that they're adults, and they chose a career path that is dangerous. (Like bullfighting, or UFC, etc).

The danger is part of the entertainment.

Like I posted, I'm glad your entertained.

 

[MustaphaM0nd]

True dat. I can assure you that I live comfortably, am raising my youngest, and have two other grown kids whom I raised, on less than half of that $65,000/year. Much less, in fact. It takes some self-discipline, and the ability to distinguish "need" from "want". But it can be done, and you don't have to live in a trailer and eat hamburger-helper to do it.

Poverty is a state of mind, not being.

The problem is that most professional athletes miss the memo on this.

 

[Synovia]

The problem is that most professional athletes miss the memo on this.

And why is that anyone's problem but their own?

 

[ausbacker]

I don't care if James Harrison retires. Why should I?

Whiny *****.