Jump to content

The Redeemer Speaketh!


UncleEarl

Recommended Posts

Kaepernick is a phony.  If these things are so important to him then why has he remained silent other than a few tweets which were mostly memes, not actually words?   Most people don't care what players on their teams do in their spare time as long as you are not found guilty  (Rothleisberger and Ray Lewis) and it doesn't involve dogs or America.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, High School Harry said:

What comes in on two legs and leaves on four?

 

Antonio Brown on the stretcher after Pacanimal Jones breaks him in half in the first Piggsturd game.

And all will be forgiven.

 

Hell, if on the same play Burdock would send Ben the Rapist into retirement I would quit bad mouthing Marvin for a year!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/28/2017 at 11:47 AM, schotzee said:

He must be referring to the Cowboys cutting Lucky Whitehead, though I didn't see him as that valuable.

 

Or we could compare it to the Cowboys not cutting Josh Brent.  All he did was kill a teammate while driving drunk.  He ended up later retiring rather than serve a suspension, so they made him a scout.

 

I expect the rest of the NFL to spin things like the Bengals are some kind of anomaly rather than a scapegoat, but it's kind of annoying when the team's fans buy into it too.  Being a low-revenue team combined with a holier-than-thou owner definitely makes us a target, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/28/2017 at 11:43 AM, fredtoast said:

Not sure what this means?

The Cowboys cut Adam Jones.  But that was before he learned the technique that combined with his athleticism have made him great.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not exactly breaking news that talent trumps nearly everything else in the NFL.  Pacman gets more leash despite multiple incidents because he can still play.  Ray Rice didn't because he was in rapid decline.  Many years ago, the Stealers made an example of cutting scrub receiver Cedrick Wilson for a domestic violence arrest while at the same time not cutting James Harrison for his domestic violence arrest.  Harrison just happened to be in the midst of a season where he won DPOY.  The examples go on and on, most recently in Dallas with Zeke Elliott and Lucky Whitehead.  I am loathe to defend Mike Brown in most situations, but he isn't doing anything different than every other team in the league.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Inigo Montoya said:

I am loathe to defend Mike Brown in most situations, but he isn't doing anything different than every other team in the league.  

 

Pretty much, but he is doing 2 things different:

 

1. Virtue signaling

 

2. Making less money than those other teams

 

 

It's #2 that's the real problem where Goodell etc are concerned.  Most of the owners truly DGAF about player conduct or concussions or anything else, unless it costs them money.  It's cool that MB seems like he does, but he fucks up when he rubs the other owner's noses in it.  You can't do that and then take their money via revenue sharing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, T-Dub said:

 

 It's cool that MB seems like he does, but he fucks up when he rubs the other owner's noses in it.  You can't do that and then take their money via revenue sharing.

What the fuck does their money have to do with it.

 

How can Jerry Jones be upset with Mike Brown when he backed Greg Hardy?  Some fans actually threatened to boycott, i.e. actually cost teams money, but no one cares about us keep Adam.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/30/2017 at 0:38 AM, Inigo Montoya said:

I am loathe to defend Mike Brown in most situations, but he isn't doing anything different than every other team in the league.  

Yeah, but you have to point out the hypocrisy of it all. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Do you remember Ali's Vietnam stance as a guy who wasn't that good trying to get himself in front of TV cameras? Did he change his name from Cassius Clay to freakin' Muhammed just because he was in desperate need of attention? Would you have claimed that Liston threw the fight because of death threats made by the Nation of Islam, and that Ali was always just a loudmouth chump? Because we all know no negro could beat a white man in a fair fight.

Because all of those claims were laid at his feet 50 years ago. I dare say history has a more rosy view. The people who peddled these viewpoints now find themselves on the wrong side of history.

(Disclaimer: Ali, the Nation of Islam, and his civil rights era behavior is actually pretty disturbing. I also don't think it was at all effective. History has been very kind to the man who called George Foreman a "Christian bitch" and dubbed Floyd Patterson an Uncle Tom.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, LostInDaJungle said:

Yeah, but you have to point out the hypocrisy of it all. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Do you remember Ali's Vietnam stance as a guy who wasn't that good trying to get himself in front of TV cameras? Did he change his name from Cassius Clay to freakin' Muhammed just because he was in desperate need of attention? Would you have claimed that Liston threw the fight because of death threats made by the Nation of Islam, and that Ali was always just a loudmouth chump? Because we all know no negro could beat a white man in a fair fight.

Because all of those claims were laid at his feet 50 years ago. I dare say history has a more rosy view. The people who peddled these viewpoints now find themselves on the wrong side of history.

(Disclaimer: Ali, the Nation of Islam, and his civil rights era behavior is actually pretty disturbing. I also don't think it was at all effective. History has been very kind to the man who called George Foreman a "Christian bitch" and dubbed Floyd Patterson an Uncle Tom.)

I'm not sure I would consider it hypocrisy on Mike Browns part, bc he is not criticizing other owners for doing it. At least to my knowledge.... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, LostInDaJungle said:

Yeah, but you have to point out the hypocrisy of it all. Two wrongs don't make a right.

What was the "wrong"?

 

Adam does not deserve to be released over this last incident.  Every player who gets a DUI has done something much worse than get mad at an officer who arrested him on false charges.  And I don't think anyone claims that a player should be cut for getting a DUI.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, schotzee said:

I'm not sure I would consider it hypocrisy on Mike Browns part, bc he is not criticizing other owners for doing it. At least to my knowledge.... 

I think it's more on Goodell's part myself. 

However, it's on all 32 owners that they'd rather defend a player who get arrested every off-season than have a guy willing to stand up for something he believes in. (right or wrong)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, fredtoast said:

What was the "wrong"?

 

Adam does not deserve to be released over this last incident.  Every player who gets a DUI has done something much worse than get mad at an officer who arrested him on false charges.  And I don't think anyone claims that a player should be cut for getting a DUI.

Yeah, it's not like he hit a woman or was charged with a felony. Oh, wait, he was charged with a felony in January and hit a woman last year.

Well, at least he wasn't tied to a giant cocaine ring... Dang it.

Well, it's not like he shot anyone.... Whoops.

Well, it's not like his behavior was so bad that he was kicked out of Canadian Football before signing with the Bengals... Wow, really?

Well, at least he hasn't cost us any games with stupid 15 yard penalties... Oh.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Jones_(American_football)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, LostInDaJungle said:

Yeah, it's not like he hit a woman or was charged with a felony. Oh, wait, he was charged with a felony in January
 

False charges.

 

But who cares about facts when you are on a witch hunt, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, LostInDaJungle said:

I think it's more on Goodell's part myself. 

However, it's on all 32 owners that they'd rather defend a player who get arrested every off-season than have a guy willing to stand up for something he believes in. (right or wrong)

Yea, to me it seems though with Mike he stands with his player no matter what. Doesn't seem to pick and choose who to make an example out of depending on their value. I feel many other owners are like that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone who STILL defends Pacman and anyone else like him are the reason that NFL owners CAN be hypocritical and continually get away with it.

 

Pacman IS a criminal, was a criminal, and will always be a criminal. He has received preferential treatment because he is a gifted athlete and he has money.

 

To deny that is pure and utter bullshit, and makes you part of the problem.

 

2 minutes ago, LostInDaJungle said:

So false he paid a lot of money to make them go away. And you're glossing over a long history.

No need to throw common sense to those that ignore it because it doesn't fit their "I'm always right and facts don't matter to me" rhetoric.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, schotzee said:

Yea, to me it seems though with Mike he stands with his player no matter what. Doesn't seem to pick and choose who to make an example out of depending on their value. I feel many other owners are like that.

Mike Brown is allergic to dead money. "You may have just shot the Pope, but I'll be damned if I'm going to have 1.6 Million in dead money against next year's cap. Can you play safety?"

I don't think it's a moral stance as much as a financial one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, LostInDaJungle said:

So false he paid a lot of money to make them go away. And you're glossing over a long history.

Money did not make the charges go away.

 

Plus he never shot anyone and he was never connected to any cocaine dealing.

 

 

Here is the deal.  A criminal history should not mean that a person is never allowed to work or earn a living again.  If I needed brain surgery I would not care if the best brain surgeon was accused of hitting a woman.  I would still want him to operate on me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, USN Bengal said:

No need to throw common sense to those that ignore it because it doesn't fit their "I'm always right and facts don't matter to me" rhetoric.

Actually facts do matter to me.

 

I am not the one claiming Pacman shot someone and was connected to a cocaine dealings.

 

I am not the one making up shit to try and make my point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, LostInDaJungle said:

Mike Brown is allergic to dead money. "You may have just shot the Pope, but I'll be damned if I'm going to have 1.6 Million in dead money against next year's cap. Can you play safety?"

I don't think it's a moral stance as much as a financial one.

Ok. That is your opinion, but I'm not sure it's fair to say 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...