Do we care about who the players are poll

[aluminum seats]

Been a ton of conversation lately about Antonio Brown, character, doing the right thing, winning, losing, life and death, etc. Seems to me at the heart of it is whether or to what extent you care about players' behavior and how that affects your viewing.

So, going to try to put this into poll form. Multiple choices allowed--I tried to give a range of different thoughts without putting in obvious straw men (like "I expect everyone on the team to be in the church choir"). Be interesting to see where people land here.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

I care that the owner is a spineless, easily manipulated fool who rides the coattails of the greatest QB and coach in NFL history.

There are a lot of "bad dudes" on every NFL team. For example, Brown was always a "bad dude" in Pittsburgh; our perception as fans of these players just comes from when the press happens to hone in on their crappy behavior. Aaron Hernandez was "a hard worker and good teammate" who had cleaned up his act until he wasn't at all and never had been. A lot of these guys are not the choir boys they're made out to be. So, I just think Brown is not some huge outlier, and I pretty much guarantee if his rape accusations and texts were kept private, but Kraft knew about them, AB would still be on the team.

In short, you're asking about whether we're okay with these players when we become aware of their sins, even though it's a given that many of them are embroiled in stuff like this - behind the scenes - a lot more frequently than we'd like to believe. Brown just made a ****ty decision to not bury it under the rug with payoff money, whether he was guilty or not.

So I think your question requires a lot of naive thinking about what constitutes a "bad guy." Because I think we are rooting for a lot of them already but just don't realize it, and we'd rather not know.

 

[shmessy]

You're poll is incomplete.

Where's the option for:

" I value character highly and want good guys on my team; A good lockerroom with everyone selflessly focused on the job and not their egos = winning".???

It's worked (for the most part) for 20 years.

.....plus you are also missing the required RLKAG.

.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

You're poll is incomplete.

Where's the option for:

" I value character highly and want good guys on my team; A good lockerroom with everyone selflessly focused on the job and not their egos = winning".???

It's worked (for the most part) for 20 years.

.

I think you mean "I value players that Bill Belichick decides are conducive to winning, weighing in all these factors (which was also used in preferring to keep Brown.)"

 

[oldrover]

I will soon be starting a Tom Brady thread. But don’t worry... it won’t REALLY be about Tom Brady.









(jk)

 

[QuantumMechanic]

You need more options. For example, if (ugh) Roethlisberger ended up on the team none of those options (except the final one, which I think is too strong) allow me to say I wouldn’t want him.

I think you need an option for caring about “unproven but likely” bad stuff.

 

[Clonamery]

Too many options, can’t focus, can’t read, totally fake news.

 

[aluminum seats]

I care that the owner is a spineless, easily manipulated fool who rides the coattails of the greatest QB and coach in NFL history.

There are a lot of "bad dudes" on every NFL team. For example, Brown was always a "bad dude" in Pittsburgh; our perception as fans of these players just comes from when the press happens to hone in on their crappy behavior. Aaron Hernandez was "a hard worker and good teammate" who had cleaned up his act until he wasn't at all and never had been. A lot of these guys are not the choir boys they're made out to be. So, I just think Brown is not some huge outlier, and I pretty much guarantee if his rape accusations and texts were kept private, but Kraft knew about them, AB would still be on the team.

In short, you're asking about whether we're okay with these players when we become aware of their sins, even though it's a given that many of them are embroiled in stuff like this - behind the scenes - a lot more frequently than we'd like to believe. Brown just made a ****ty decision to not bury it under the rug with payoff money, whether he was guilty or not.

So I think your question requires a lot of naive thinking about what constitutes a "bad guy." Because I think we are rooting for a lot of them already but just don't realize it, and we'd rather not know.

Hmmm. Well, a lot to unpack there. I'd start with I think you're falling into what I'd call a "naïve cynicism" to a certain extent. I disagree with the idea that there are "a lot" of bad guys on every team, and honestly think it's a little questionable to think that way.

Beyond that, yes, we're going with known behavior.

 

[PatsDeb]

My choice is, "I can't really put it into words, but I know "enough is enough" when I see it. If you can stay on one side of that line, you can stay, but if you cross over I want you gone, no matter how good you are." AB was on one side of the line when the Pats signed him, straddling the line when all the sexual misconduct crap came out, and over the line when he sent that last tweet to one of his alleged victims.

 

[Oswlek]

Beyond that, yes, we're going with known behavior.

I struggle to see how you could do otherwise. If I'm to believe that a disproportionate number of football players act like AB, what am I supposed to do with that information? Presume everyone is a dirtbag until proven otherwise?

If I share that outlook - and that behavior bothers me - the only reasonable tack to take is stop watching football altogether.

 

[Oswlek]

You need more options. For example, if (ugh) Roethlisberger ended up on the team none of those options (except the final one, which I think is too strong) allow me to say I wouldn’t want him.

I think you need an option for caring about “unproven but likely” bad stuff.

Yes, the "convictions" and "proven" options say the same thing. I would find a "likely" option more useful as well, in addition to something that conveys a lack of recency.

 

[aluminum seats]

Yes, the "convictions" and "proven" options say the same thing. I would find a "likely" option more useful as well, in addition to something that conveys a lack of recency.

Not sure how to change poll options, but I’ll look.

 

[chris_in_sunnyvale]

It's case-by-case. Devil is always in the details.

Regards,
Chris

 

[maust]

You're poll is incomplete.

Where's the option for:

" I value character highly and want good guys on my team; A good lockerroom with everyone selflessly focused on the job and not their egos = winning".???

It's worked (for the most part) for 20 years.

.....plus you are also missing the required RLKAG.

.

My choice is, "I can't really put it into words, but I know "enough is enough" when I see it. If you can stay on one side of that line, you can stay, but if you cross over I want you gone, no matter how good you are." AB was on one side of the line when the Pats signed him, straddling the line when all the sexual misconduct crap came out, and over the line when he sent that last tweet to one of his alleged victims.

@shmessy & @PatsDeb came pretty close to summing it up for me except I lean more heavily towards RLKAG (P2). I think what qualifies as acceptable on this team, at least to me, is like Justice Potter's definition (as opposed to let's say a more @fnordcircle type definition JK) of pornography. I know it when I see it. Selflessness in support of the team goal has always been the biggest part of what Belichick and Co have tried to build into their roster. With that comes a player who doesn't provide undo distraction of any type.

 

[Hyped]

At the end of the day, professional football is a violent sport in which 200-250 lb. dudes run into each other at top speed....and there are only a HANDFUL of guys on god's green earth that can impact things on a football field. Talent reigns supreme in the NFL. You want those guys on your team. I am talking about guys like LT...the "real" LT mind you...who would be out all night partying and come in on Sundays and just wreak havoc on the field. I mean...BB did not really coach LT...he just stayed out of the way...and Parcells looked the other way....and they won Superbowls.

And at the same time, you don't want to have scumbags playing for you like Rae Carruth, Aaron Hernandez, Michael Vick, Lawrence Phillips, and etc.... so you gotta draw the line somewhere.

It is for that reason that I never really want to meet any Patriots player in "real life"....I just want them all to be my Gladiators in the coliseum on Sundays....that is the relationship I want with our players. I don't want to see them hurt...I don't want to hear their political opinions...I just want to root for laundry on Sundays....it's entertainment at the end of the day.

 

[The Brandon Five]

All non-AB threads need the "OT" prefix. I mean what else is there to talk about.

 

[shmessy]

@shmessy & @PatsDeb came pretty close to summing it up for me except I lean more heavily towards RLKAG (P2). I think what qualifies as acceptable on this team, at least to me, is like Justice Potter's definition (as opposed to let's say a more @fnordcircle type definition JK) of pornography. I know it when I see it. Selflessness in support of the team goal has always been the biggest part of what Belichick and Co have tried to build into their roster. With that comes a player who doesn't provide undo distraction of any type.

Anyone who trusts Antonio Brown to be selfless in pursuit of a team goal for four months should have a very high deductible insurance policy.

.

 

[maust]

Anyone who trusts Antonio Brown to be selfless in pursuit of a team goal for four months should have a very high deductible insurance policy.

Which is why I said it's 'biggest part' of what they try to build into the roster instead of what they require to be on the roster. Few people know better than Belichick they can't all be Brady that the LTs do happen and exceptions are made for them but they are extremely rare. It's highly unlikely in the world according to Belichick any WR could merit LT type indulgence.

 

[woolster22]

At the end if the day, these are brain damaged men who thrive in violent settings, and they are being selected for their ability to physically impose their will. We arent looking for government leaders (though we may be better off with them instead), school teachers or mensa candidates.

We still don't know how bad CTE really is. Mix that in with all the physical talents these guys are being made millionaires for and how don't you expect situations like Chung's cocaine whoopsie, fights, all the stuff the real LT was famous for, and the occasional Caruth/AHern. Who was that kid that died falling out of a truck, all sorts of off field issues as a WR for the Bengals. That's the kind of crap I almost expect more of. Or Pacman Jones. That cb with a dozen kids he can't name.

So maybe what I'd prefer is jaded by what I'd expect to be the norm. Id say as long as they aren't doing heinous things, I don't really care.

 

[The Brandon Five]

All non-AB threads need the "OT" prefix. I mean what else is there to talk about.

Welp, it turns out there was something else: Tom Brady is a secret Nazi, apparently