NFL thread 2014 v. Frankford Yellow Jackets Lay the Pipe on the Dayton Triangles

[Destiny Of Chaos]

https://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/11455813/wes-welker-denver-broncos-suspended-four-games-use-amphetamines

[King Postwhore]

Oh snap!  Wow!

BTW, scroll down and this was the first thing I read.  LOL.

"Concussions and speed -- basically Wes Welker is a Motörhead song."

[bosk1]

Oh snap!  Wow!

BTW, scroll down and this was the first thing I read.  LOL.

"Concussions and speed -- basically Wes Welker is a Motörhead song."

  I know the situation isn't funny, but that comment is.

[King Postwhore]

Sometimes you find gems in serious moments.

I'm not surprised anymore with any athlete on any sport when they get caught.  It's the norm,  sad to say.

[Tom Bombadil]

And I just drafted him last night... 

[Destiny Of Chaos]

And I just drafted him last night... 

Maybe the 4 weeks may allow him to fully recover from his latest concussion.

[Tom Bombadil]

And I just drafted him last night... 

Maybe the 4 weeks may allow him to fully recover from his latest concussion.

That's a good point. I'd certainly prefer this suspension to another concussion. If he gets one more I think he'll call it quits (which he should).

[El Barto]

Wow. Trying to figure what sort of Speed he's likely into, and I'm guessing X. Partying at the Kentucky Derby, lots of pretty gold-diggers and drinking mint flavored whiskey. Hit of X seems like a pretty good option. And yeah, I was thinking the same thing about avoiding contact for 4 weeks. This really is the best time for him to get busted for being a dufus.

[Accelerando]

Let me get this straight...

Beating your wife = 2 game suspension....

Using amphetamines = 4 game suspension.....

Smoking pot = 1 year suspension


 

[Dr. DTVT]

The part that no one ever mentions when comparing Josh Gordon to others is that it is his third failed test, while Welker's was only his first.  He didn't get suspended for smoking pot, he got suspended for repeatedly smoking pot after being caught twice.

[Destiny Of Chaos]

Let me get this straight...

Beating your wife = 2 game suspension....

Using amphetamines = 4 game suspension.....

Smoking pot = 1 year suspension


 

This post = 

[Rattlehead]

I'm disappointed in Welker  Hopefully Sanders, Latimer, J. Thomas and Bubba Caldwell step up in his absence. I know I don't have to worry about Demaryius Thomas 

[lonestar]

Oh snap!  Wow!

BTW, scroll down and this was the first thing I read.  LOL.

"Concussions and speed -- basically Wes Welker is a Motörhead song."

 

[black_biff_stadler]

Let me get this straight...

Beating your wife = 2 game suspension....

Using amphetamines = 4 game suspension.....

Smoking pot = 1 year suspension


 

Meanwhile, half the NFL wears white after labor day at least 16 weeks a year scott fuckin free.

Let me get this straight...

Beating your wife = 2 game suspension....

Using amphetamines = 4 game suspension.....

Smoking pot = 1 year suspension


 

This post = 

Care to explain how hittin a broad isn't worse than taking a lower/mid level drug?

[Destiny Of Chaos]

Let me get this straight...

Beating your wife = 2 game suspension....

Using amphetamines = 4 game suspension.....

Smoking pot = 1 year suspension


 

This post = 

Care to explain how hittin a broad isn't worse than taking a lower/mid level drug?
[/quote]

Nope. Obviously not enough context to compare these suspensions.

[KevShmev]

Rice obviously should have gotten more than two games, but it's not as simple as saying, "Gordon got a year for smoking pot."

1. It was the third time he was caught.
2. It was collectively bargained by the players and the owners for that to be the deal.
3. Pissing away millions to get high is moronic.

[KevShmev]

Oh, and as for Welker, well, he was on the Patriots for years, and you know what they say: once a cheater, always a cheater.

[King Postwhore]

Oh, and as for Welker, well, he was on the Patriots for years, and you know what they say: once a cheater, always a cheater.

[bosk1]

OH YEAH, KEV?  Well, Welker plays for the Broncos now, and EVERYBODY knows that they...er...

I mean, they have such a longstanding reputation for...um...

That entire organization is a well-known bunch of...

Well, I never really liked orange that much.

[KevShmev]

Haha, exactly.

Honestly, I wasn't counting on Welker that much this year, as I think he is one more concussion from retiring, so these first four weeks will give the young guys like Sanders and Latimer more of a chance to shine.  The two Thomases (Demaryius and Julius) should both be reliable as heck, so let's see what the others can do and get this going.

[Dark Castle]

Cowboys signed Michael Sam to their practice squad. Good for them, they could actually use Michael Sam on the defense really. Cowboys are my mom and bio dad's favorite team, so as an extension I've always liked them, would be happy to see Sam in a Cowboys uniform sooner than later.
Apparently this facebook group of Moms is going to have a protest over it though 

[bosk1]

Well, the thing is, he actually doesn't look like he is going to develop into a very good player, from what he has shown so far.  So that being said, I am absolutely in favor of him going to the Cowboys. 

[Dark Castle]

Well, the thing is, he actually doesn't look like he is going to develop into a very good player, from what he has shown so far.  So that being said, I am absolutely in favor of him going to the Cowboys. 

He had a pretty good preseason, the only reason he didn't make it onto the Rams is because the Rams are already solid as fuck on defense and they gave the one open spot they had to another player with a pretty much equally good preseason.

[KevShmev]

Sam did almost all of his good work in preseason against the backups (see: a lot of players who were cut this past week).  I think he could be a good situational pass rusher for a team in need of help in that area, but that's about it.  He is apparently awful against the run (too small).

[bosk1]

I wasn't following specifically, but the things I read actually said he was very lackluster in the preseason.  If that is not correct, I apologize.

[bosk1]

Just out of curiosity, what is the take from an outsider's perspective (i.e. someone outside the S.F. Bay Area who is not a 49er fan) on the Ray McDonald situation?  A certain former 49er commented on radio that Harbaugh "has to" take a stand and bench McDonald this week if we wants to uphold any credibility.  I strongly disagree--at least, based on the facts I am aware of so far.  If there are enough facts to believe that the accusations are likely true, then he should absolutely be benched AND should face severe consequences from the league.  But until such evidence actually comes out and the process has not had a chance to play out, I think it actuall behooves the coaching and the organization to essentially consider him innocent until proven otherwise.  I mean, how to other players in the locker room even attempt to feel like the organization has their back if players get penalized based on mere accusations?  I dunno.  It's a tough call, and I understand wanting to take a hard stance on the issue to make a statement in support of zero tolerance for certain behaviors.  But I just also think it is important to refrain from jumping the gun. 

What do you guy think?

[jingle.boy]

It's a damned if you do; damned if you don't situation.  These are some pretty serious allegations.  Yes, the law is innocent until proven guilty, but benching someone has nothing to do with the law, it's about principle's.  Let me put it back this way... in ANY other profession, what could/should an employer do if an employee is charged with something like this?  I would suspect most would put an employee on paid leave while an investigation is ongoing.

It's not a matter of doing the legal thing, it's a matter of doing the 'right' or ethical thing.  Sure, you've got to guard against unfounded allegations, but is this a legit thing with MacDonald (I don't know... I'm not following it)?  If there's ANY semblance of legitimacy, I would say the 'right' thing is to bench him.

[El Barto]

Do we have any idea what the allegations are? If there was a tussle and both parties went to jail then I could see holding off on judgement. If he was caught on video dragging her lifeless body out of an elevator then you bench him now.

[ReaPsTA]

Just out of curiosity, what is the take from an outsider's perspective (i.e. someone outside the S.F. Bay Area who is not a 49er fan) on the Ray McDonald situation?  A certain former 49er commented on radio that Harbaugh "has to" take a stand and bench McDonald this week if we wants to uphold any credibility.  I strongly disagree--at least, based on the facts I am aware of so far.  If there are enough facts to believe that the accusations are likely true, then he should absolutely be benched AND should face severe consequences from the league.  But until such evidence actually comes out and the process has not had a chance to play out, I think it actuall behooves the coaching and the organization to essentially consider him innocent until proven otherwise.  I mean, how to other players in the locker room even attempt to feel like the organization has their back if players get penalized based on mere accusations?  I dunno.  It's a tough call, and I understand wanting to take a hard stance on the issue to make a statement in support of zero tolerance for certain behaviors.  But I just also think it is important to refrain from jumping the gun. 

What do you guy think?

I agree with your assessment.  Particularly the bolded part.  When the Donald Sterling tape leaked, the NBA had to do an investigation to confirm its authenticity.  A Clippers game was scheduled to be played before the investigation would be finished, so Silver (NBA commissioner) asked Sterling not to attend.  Because the voice on the tape was almost certainly Sterling's, it was appropriate for Silver to take this action.

In this case, very little is known about what McDonald is being accused of.  Unless the league and the 49ers know far more than we do, no information exists to justify a benching or suspension.  In America, you're supposed to be innocent until proven guilty.

[bosk1]

It's a damned if you do; damned if you don't situation.  These are some pretty serious allegations.  Yes, the law is innocent until proven guilty, but benching someone has nothing to do with the law, it's about principle's.  Let me put it back this way... in ANY other profession, what could/should an employer do if an employee is charged with something like this?  I would suspect most would put an employee on paid leave while an investigation is ongoing.

It's not a matter of doing the legal thing, it's a matter of doing the 'right' or ethical thing.  Sure, you've got to guard against unfounded allegations, but is this a legit thing with MacDonald (I don't know... I'm not following it)?  If there's ANY semblance of legitimacy, I would say the 'right' thing is to bench him.

I do not disagree with you in principle.  But the thing is, thus far, he has NOT been charged.  IMO, we simply do not know enough.  And I get that in a normal workplace, the safe course would be to put someone on an admin leave pending investigation.  But in an NFL season that lasts only 16 weeks, doing that to a player has very different consequences than it would in the typical workplace.  I just don't know.  I tend to agree with Reap's assessment.

[ReaPsTA]

And I get that in a normal workplace, the safe course would be to put someone on an admin leave pending investigation.  But in an NFL season that lasts only 16 weeks, doing that to a player has very different consequences than it would in the typical workplace.

Yeah.  I thought about this too.  Let's say you told McDonald not to play in games, but you still allowed him to collect paychecks, attend practices, and work out.  What message are you sending, that the only reason he isn't playing is for PR?  That strikes me as far more cynical than just playing him.

[jingle.boy]

I agree on all counts above.  Like I said, I'm not following it at all.  I didn't know that he hadn't been charged.  This first broke when??  5 days ago.  If there hasn't been enough in 5 days for the po-po to press charges, then I say there's not enough to justify benching him.  Hence the reason/need to guard against baseless accusations.  Frankly, this hasn't made any of the news outlets I'm following, so I don't know squat about it.

[Dr. DTVT]

We, as a society are too quick to judge.  We demand quick, and harsh retribution of the highest degree, fact finding be damned.  The facts must be presented, and they must be indisputable.  Furthermore, from a PR standpoint, once the punishment is enacted, you can't fix the past if it is later determined they are innocent.  Ask a Duke lacrosse player what happens when "justice" is meted out without regards to the facts just to satisfy out egos.

The 49ers and the league must wait until the facts are found, even if it pisses off women's rights groups.  Right now we don't know the facts.  Leveling any discipline until the time they are known - which doesn't necessarily mean when and if it goes to trial - only makes it harder to do the right thing in the future because society will demand justice faster next time.

[hefdaddy42]

If I'm not mistaken, I think I read that Goodell said that the league wouldn't do anything until the legal system had run its course.

[jingle.boy]

We, as a society are too quick to judge.  We demand quick, and harsh retribution of the highest degree, fact finding be damned.  The facts must be presented, and they must be indisputable.  Furthermore, from a PR standpoint, once the punishment is enacted, you can't fix the past if it is later determined they are innocent.  Ask a Duke lacrosse player what happens when "justice" is meted out without regards to the facts just to satisfy out egos.

The 49ers and the league must wait until the facts are found, even if it pisses off women's rights groups.  Right now we don't know the facts.  Leveling any discipline until the time they are known - which doesn't necessarily mean when and if it goes to trial - only makes it harder to do the right thing in the future because society will demand justice faster next time.

There's a fine line between judging too quick vs acting too lenient.  Tell me how society/authorities should react if child pr0n allegations are thrown against an elementary school teacher?  Abuse of power charges against law enforcement?  Should we just wait until there's undeniable proof/evidence.  Sometimes the idiom 'better safe than sorry' should prevail.  For as many Duke lacrosse players, there are UC at Berkley female students who got swept under the rug because of their (ultimately proven) allegations.  But, we digress and are approaching P/R level discussion.

I've stated my stance on this MacDonald situation, and I'm taking it to the extreme with the above situations.  Just saying it's not always as black and white as "innocent until proven guilty".