PDA

View Full Version : Troublemakers


awfullyquiet
10-22-2008, 04:50 PM
Steve Smith: Suspended 2 games to start the season. Arguably the Panthers best weapon. Carolina goes 2-0 without him.

Tommie Harris: Suspended for one game. Bears win that week.

Plax: Suspended for one game (and it looks like he'll probably be suspended for a second if he doesn't quit mouthing off to coughlin). Giants win that game (albeit it was the seahawks, getting drubbed).

Kellen Winslow: ?

The trend for suspending players this year has been: victory. curious, team-sport thing?

Bruce Banner
10-22-2008, 04:52 PM
http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c140/Joides/Movies/TroublemakersFront.jpg

This has to be about the Chargers.

MetSox17
10-22-2008, 04:54 PM
What about Larry Johnson? Well i guess it's a wash since the Chiefs never win.

CashmoneyDrew
10-22-2008, 05:02 PM
Titans undefeated since VY's suspens.... urrr benching.

ShutDwn
10-22-2008, 05:14 PM
Steve Smith: Suspended 2 games to start the season. Arguably the Panthers best weapon. Carolina goes 2-0 without him.

Tommie Harris: Suspended for one game. Bears win that week.

Plax: Suspended for one game (and it looks like he'll probably be suspended for a second if he doesn't quit mouthing off to coughlin). Giants win that game (albeit it was the seahawks, getting drubbed).

Kellen Winslow: ?

The trend for suspending players this year has been: victory. curious, team-sport thing?

Steve Smith being suspended brought the Panthers together. Both games were dedicated to him.

TitanHope
10-22-2008, 05:14 PM
Titans undefeated since YY's suspens.... urrr benching.

We get a Korean player or something? :D

The Cowboys were fined when PacMan was suspended, and teams are willing to take actions into their own hands. I bet this has made an impact on the players and has encouraged them to be accountible in their responsibilities. Plus, pride itself will compel men to perform at their highest in order to say, "Yeah, we don't need our star player to win 'cause we can still get things done."

Of course, on some teams it doesn't make a difference. Is Larry Johnson good enough to be the deciding factor in a game week in and week out? Would the Cowboys be on ESPN every fifteen minutes if PacMan wasn't suspended? (No, they'd just get a full half hour called "Outside the Star All Access Live Tonight" and consist of in depth pinky reports, TO's media interviews, and Wade Phillips look over his shoulder at Jerruh...)

Hooray Karma!

CashmoneyDrew
10-22-2008, 05:16 PM
Whoopsie daisy. That Y sure looked like a V originally.

TitanHope
10-22-2008, 05:21 PM
It's all good my friend. V's are just the girl version of Y's anyway...

Watchman
10-22-2008, 05:22 PM
Steve Smith being suspended brought the Panthers together. Both games were dedicated to him.

Really? Did it bring the teammate he sucker punched closer to Smith?

Saints-Tigers
10-22-2008, 05:53 PM
Actually it did, and they ended up resolving their long standing issues with each other from what I heard.

ShutDwn
10-22-2008, 06:23 PM
Really? Did it bring the teammate he sucker punched closer to Smith?

Well, the team sure did.
http://img508.imageshack.us/my.php?image=080914harrissmithwipebogo3.jpg


You know by now that Smith broke Ken Lucasís nose in a training-camp incident this summer, which is why the Panthers suspended Smith for the first two games.

Since then, Lucas and Smith have made up completely. Smith gave Lucas the ball from his first touchdown this season in full view of thousands two weeks ago.

But this is not just a camera-ready forgive-and-forget. When I walked by an otherwise deserted Panther meeting room this week, there sat Smith and Lucas, quietly playing dominoes with each other.

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/scottfowler/story/264732.html

Yeah, I think they made up.

bored of education
10-22-2008, 07:47 PM
Larry Johnson sucks!

Xiomera
10-22-2008, 07:49 PM
I'm a troublemaker . . .

Vikes99ej
10-22-2008, 07:56 PM
Vikings 1-3 without McKinnie.

Yep.

PoopSandwich
10-22-2008, 08:18 PM
Derek Anderson is a trouble maker!!!

...

SeanTaylorRIP
10-22-2008, 09:41 PM
Luckily Skins have zero issues with players.

TheBuffaloBills
10-22-2008, 09:44 PM
Bills won without Jason Peters at LT for week 1. But that doesnt matter since we win almost every week. Ha. Ok dont flame, being a Bills fan I have not been able to say something like that for a long time.

awfullyquiet
10-22-2008, 11:58 PM
Bills won without Jason Peters at LT for week 1. But that doesnt matter since we win almost every week. Ha. Ok dont flame, being a Bills fan I have not been able to say something like that for a long time.

since before you were born!

I just find it funny, people go like 'oh no, these people, if they're suspended, the team totally isn't going to win!'...

there are few, few people in the league (meaning zero) i believe are so good that teams simply cannot win without them. if that person says 'tom brady' you are also wrong. because, that team has lost because it's defense is shifty and broken, it's running game is rather bad.

MetSox17
10-23-2008, 08:49 AM
since before you were born!

I just find it funny, people go like 'oh no, these people, if they're suspended, the team totally isn't going to win!'...

there are few, few people in the league (meaning zero) i believe are so good that teams simply cannot win without them. if that person says 'tom brady' you are also wrong. because, that team has lost because it's defense is shifty and broken, it's running game is rather bad.

The Cowboys without Romo....

Sorry, but i'd take Matt Cassel over Brad Johnson any day

iloxygenil
10-23-2008, 10:00 AM
Steve Smith: Suspended 2 games to start the season. Arguably the Panthers best weapon. Carolina goes 2-0 without him.

Tommie Harris: Suspended for one game. Bears win that week.

Plax: Suspended for one game (and it looks like he'll probably be suspended for a second if he doesn't quit mouthing off to coughlin). Giants win that game (albeit it was the seahawks, getting drubbed).

Kellen Winslow: ?

The trend for suspending players this year has been: victory. curious, team-sport thing?
How about Atlanta cleaning house in the offseason, and Tennessee as well? Dallas brought in one, Oakland brought in one, and you can see the effects on the field. Atlanta is 4-2 (someone pinch me, that way I wake up before the Eagles game and it doesn't hurt as bad) Tennessee is 6-0 and then you have teams like Dallas struggling who everyone thought was a lock for playoffs and would dominate the NFC.

This trend of highly capable high character players is taking room away from the likes of PacMan and Deangelo Hall etc. It's people who take the focus away from football that are killing their teams. Vince Young for Tennessee kept causing off field problems, lost his job to WHO? Yeah, exactly and its paying off, people know they can trust their QB anywhere, makes everyone better.

awfullyquiet
10-23-2008, 10:09 AM
How about not?

Oakland is suffering from insufferable coaching regime (see: detroit). Bringing on Deangelo does not ruin a team regardless of how much you personally despise the man. The team was ruined from day one. He's not 'that' much of a cancer.

PacMan Jones on the other hand. Is a cancer. He's taken a few 'kids' with him and started turning them downhill (IIRC). But that's not the reason for that team's sudden downturn. It's not people taking focus from the field in dallas. It's injuries. You think that all these people aren't at least moderately professional that they wrap themselves up in this high school gossip magazine?

Vince Young is a weird case... Also, just to note. The Titans are 6-0... without vince young... their playmaker. so. Obviously it isn't affecting them? Sure it'll personally affect the person involved... but, the whole team? Get real.

iloxygenil
10-23-2008, 12:30 PM
How about not?

Oakland is suffering from insufferable coaching regime (see: detroit). Bringing on Deangelo does not ruin a team regardless of how much you personally despise the man. The team was ruined from day one. He's not 'that' much of a cancer.

PacMan Jones on the other hand. Is a cancer. He's taken a few 'kids' with him and started turning them downhill (IIRC). But that's not the reason for that team's sudden downturn. It's not people taking focus from the field in dallas. It's injuries. You think that all these people aren't at least moderately professional that they wrap themselves up in this high school gossip magazine?

Vince Young is a weird case... Also, just to note. The Titans are 6-0... without vince young... their playmaker. so. Obviously it isn't affecting them? Sure it'll personally affect the person involved... but, the whole team? Get real.

I think no matter how right I am that you'll never agree with me anyway. But it's OBVIOUSLY at least a coincidence. Maybe that's all it is, but high character teams are winning games this year, teams who weren't afraid to let go some big name players to become better as a TEAM.

Deangelo isn't 'that' much of a cancer, and if you knew me at all you'd know that I don't despise him at all. In fact I wish he would have just straightened up, but he pitched a fit from the time that Mora left. I wanted it to be seen as passion, and the calls against him vs Steve Smith were completely blown calls, not even close to something that should have been flagged. That's another point all together. I know he's not 'that' much of a cancer, the entire organization though, Al Davis takes flyers on guys like that and hopes they stick and hopes that the fact that they are Raiders will mean enough to make them change. The Denver game is a prime example...listen to what he had to say afterwards, it's pitiful.

Same thing with teams like the Giants, they're not afraid to lay down the law on Plaxico, a big star for them, but a guy who if allowed to continue without punishment would suck the life out of an organization.

Teams like Kansas City etc, rewarding Larry Johnson for holding out. Players know their value, or should, and if they think they're worth more let em wait through free agency. If a guy is under contract though, that's just crap. I don't care if you're out performing your pay grade, you keep doing it, so that way when it's time for a review, (the end of your contract) then you get a big fat pay day. I know it's not just them, that's just one example, but when players hold out they hurt the team, they hurt the organization and it creates this heir about them that makes them seem like they feel that they are better than everyone around them, that destroys chemistry. How many players have successful seasons after prolonged holdouts? How many rookies come in after a holdout and succeed?

So you can refute my illustrations if you want, they're there in plain sight though, nothing you can say about that. You can give your view on it, or state your opinion all you want, that's what this is about. But look at the teams, look at the records, look at the feelings in the locker rooms. A guy like Nate Clements left Buffalo...oh man that was heartbreak, but he wanted money, the organization not throwing all the cash at that 1 player obviously had some effect on the situation, cause it let the team know they're confident that they can do it without him, he's not irreplaceable. That builds a team up, now look at Buffalo...not saying they couldn't have gotten here with Clements, but they didn't break the bank, and they're reaping the benefits.

Gay Ork Wang
10-23-2008, 01:28 PM
lol, every team that wins has high character teams, cause why would you complain if u are winning?

i just dont get you logic: Good teams have high character guys. So bad character guys means they are going to suck?

Shane P. Hallam
10-23-2008, 01:34 PM
lol, every team that wins has high character teams, cause why would you complain if u are winning?

i just dont get you logic: Good teams have high character guys. So bad character guys means they are going to suck?

Well, Plax and the Giants, still good. Steelers had some issues with some players in the off-season. All teams have players with character issues.

Gay Ork Wang
10-23-2008, 01:37 PM
Well, Plax and the Giants, still good. Steelers had some issues with some players in the off-season. All teams have players with character issues.
yes they do, but mostly those teams that are losing have those problems. I still cant follow his logic though

awfullyquiet
10-23-2008, 02:16 PM
I think no matter how right I am that you'll never agree with me anyway. But it's OBVIOUSLY at least a coincidence. Maybe that's all it is, but high character teams are winning games this year, teams who weren't afraid to let go some big name players to become better as a TEAM.


Coincidence with no basis. This is not High School Football we're talking about here. Not everyone gets along, but they sure as hell try to act professional, that's the majority of the league has 'high character'... even teams like detroit... which are perennial losers, they have 'character'. they're 'good' people... but does that change things? no. character issues are just that, an individual basis, no necessarily a team threat. The exception to the rule is cincy's defense circa 2006 and pacman jones.


know he's not 'that' much of a cancer, the entire organization though, Al Davis takes flyers on guys like that and hopes they stick and hopes that the fact that they are Raiders will mean enough to make them change. The Denver game is a prime example...listen to what he had to say afterwards, it's pitiful.


Warren Sapp? Character Issues? Yeah, a little obese at times, but he's a quality pickup. McFadden? He has 'character issues'. Randy Moss? He had a right to be upset (a premier wr with no quarterback... what do you expect?)... Davis has a great team. The talent is all there. He just runs it incompetently. Which is exactly what i said the first time. The problem with Oakland is it's coaching, not it's players. Sure it can use some upgrades on defense, but offensively it's getting there.

Same thing with teams like the Giants, they're not afraid to lay down the law on Plaxico, a big star for them, but a guy who if allowed to continue without punishment would suck the life out of an organization.


Is plax a 'bad seed' sometimes? Should he be released because he's got 'character issues'? are the Giants suddenly a better team over the long run with plax? The answer is yes. no. and no. You will have bad seeds on your team on occasion. if you lined up 53 people, you'd be bound to find one bad seed. Will he suck the life out of the organization? No. That's ludicrous and completely illogical. It's a team. Look at him last year playing in the playoffs... In pain. You call that a 'character issue'. No. It's what you leave on the field, not what you say or what you do that matters (to an extent, without breaking the law), it's what you back up on the field is the most important. No one person can wholly drag down an organization, which was my original point. Watch what happens when injury happens with players. Addai?

Teams like Kansas City etc, rewarding Larry Johnson for holding out. Players know their value, or should, and if they think they're worth more let em wait through free agency. If a guy is under contract though, that's just crap. I don't care if you're out performing your pay grade, you keep doing it, so that way when it's time for a review, (the end of your contract) then you get a big fat pay day. I know it's not just them, that's just one example, but when players hold out they hurt the team, they hurt the organization and it creates this heir about them that makes them seem like they feel that they are better than everyone around them, that destroys chemistry. How many players have successful seasons after prolonged holdouts? How many rookies come in after a holdout and succeed?

Here's the deal. Take my friend Ania. She works for a laboratory, she's started there and started running simple tests on liquids for head scientists (this is a real story mind you), as she's worked there, she's picked up more and more responsibility and has learned more and more, she now, basically runs her own little department, assisting and tutoring those younger than her, and she still makes 14 dollars an hour. She's obviously frustrated because she has 30X the responsibility, and the same pay. Now, obviously, she's a vital position, because she has intimate knowledge of the plans, and the way things work. She's smart and capable. And she's not getting paid. She has the option of saying, give me a raise, or i won't work for you, or i'll sit here and wait for my contract to be up, and get paid the same amount, with less security, and more responsibility. Which is the smarter move? The first one. If you've demonstrated your worth. You should get paid. Even if it causes a distraction. Lance Briggs. Great example. Pro-Bowl LB. Wanted to hold out until he got his money. Did that stop everyone else from playing well? No. You have absolutely no backing that 'holdouts' hurt their team.

Last I heard, Jamarcus Russell beat up a pretty good jets squad... and he held out his rookie year. I think you forget that this isn't high school football and the business of this is really a gigantic part.

So you can refute my illustrations if you want, they're there in plain sight though, nothing you can say about that. You can give your view on it, or state your opinion all you want, that's what this is about.

Sure. No doubt. But if you make foolish comments trying to present them as your opinion, I will tell you your opinion has no gravity. It's poorly thought through. It's a weak opinion with weak basis. And, if that's your opinion, that's fine. I think it's a terrible opinion and, if you looked deeper you'd think that your opinion was unfounded. See the following statement

But look at the teams, look at the records, look at the feelings in the locker rooms. A guy like Nate Clements left Buffalo...oh man that was heartbreak, but he wanted money, the organization not throwing all the cash at that 1 player obviously had some effect on the situation, cause it let the team know they're confident that they can do it without him, he's not irreplaceable. That builds a team up, now look at Buffalo...not saying they couldn't have gotten here with Clements, but they didn't break the bank, and they're reaping the benefits.

No player is irreplaceable. All players have a price... having him leave was just part of the deal. He's a free agent. He is not required to stay in buffalo because it's a 'good place'. That doesn't make him a bad player. That doesn't even make him a 'character issue'. Sure, it was sad to see him go, but that's JUST THE WAY IT GOES. That's homer loyalty you're talking about there, not any sort of fact, just rubbish sentiments that have absolutely nothing to do with how good a team is or will be. Is Zach Thomas a bad guy for leaving the Dolphins, the team he was brought up with, the team he played with for 10 year... should he have begged the team to let them sign him? How about bernard berrian... is he a bad guy because he wanted more money? No way. Why are you knocking nate clements on a normal part of the business? You have no right to do that.

What the bills did was smart management, but has ABSOLUTLEY NOTHING TO DO WITH SUSPENDING PLAYERS and CHARACTER ISSUES. The point is completely moot because it has absolutely nothing to do with saying that 'teams are better without players who cause trouble'. The bills would have been in a similar situation with the maturity of their team with or without nate clements.

All in all. I'm calling your opinion rubbish. It lacks weight. It lacks evidence, is highly short sighted, but hey. It's you're opinion. All i'm saying is, players with character issues who produce on the field and stay out of legal trouble aren't bad players as you're saying. You're saying teams with 'great character' players will end up winning because of their 'outstanding character'. no. No amount of outstanding character by jon kitna will ever make the detroit lions better.

RCAChainGang
10-23-2008, 02:20 PM
Maybe thats why the Colts have done so well past seasons kicking troublemakers!

:?

Hasn't helped them this year.

iloxygenil
10-23-2008, 02:30 PM
If you don't see things when they're laid out there for you. The reason that you feel my opinion is 'rubbish' is because it doesn't line up with yours.

Is what I see a coincidence? MAYBE, but is it viable, COMPLETELY. So you can write things off all you want justify them how you will, you blast me for coming at you with evidence and calling it rubbish, while right now it's circumstantial doesn't mean it's not evidence.

Last you heard about Jamarcus Russel taking what 2 years to finally have a decent game? How'd Matt Ryan fair in his first professional contest? How long did he hold out? Hrmm...coincidence? MAYBE, grounds for possibility, no doubt about it.

Who said anything about high school football? Just because men grow up doesn't mean they don't still have jealousy issues especially since everyone as a 'professional' has an ego, if you don't believe that then you're coming up more than a few fries short. Everyone in a professional lockerroom wants to win, they want to be the guy who contributes to it too. So when they see one guy especially at a position like RB or WR get a big head and want to not play and show up to camps etc so he can get more money, you better believe those other guys are out to prove a point.

Just because a businessman invests 1000 dollars on a property knowing it's value is going to go up, it doesn't matter if he bought that land for 1k and it becomes worth 2 million, he still has a contract on that land for a thousand bucks. The same SHOULD be true with players, they sign a contract, if they raise their value, then they can market themselves when their current owner decides to sell, or when that contract has gone out. When a record company buys an artist, they don't get to just hold out and not produce a record, if they have a 3 album contract, then until that 3rd one is produced they get no more money, they don't get to fight for more.

So if you wanna come up with stories that aren't football related so can I, your opinion is no better than mine, and you're going to try for the rest of your life to stay after me, and that's fine, but people can read and make judgements for themselves. This thread is about troublemakers, and the effects, well, I showed some effects, you can say it's not because Pacman, you can say whatever you want, but doesn't make the evidence not out there. Sure at this point it's all based on circumstance, but you can't just write it off, because it's in a process where that could turn into rock solid convicting evidence.

If you don't like the way I process things and don't think my opinion has any weight, then don't respond anymore, there's an ignore feature for a reason. Use it, please do, I'm going to as soon as I finish this response. But you're just like the rest of those guys out there who can't handle it when someone else has an idea, because it wasn't yours it's not valid, or valuable.

If my theory holds up, then guess what, nothing, I can just smile and go on, if it's wrong, then I can say...well guess I was wrong, then move on. But until you can show me something, other than your opinion to go against mine, then your argument is invalid, just because your opinion is different than mine doesn't make it better. Just makes it different.

Oh and your point about talent, just further proves mine, if you line up the talent pool on the Raiders and compare it with, the Titans, you'd say wow, Raiders are going to win, if you didn't know anything about the game itself. But if you put those TEAMS on the field, which one is more of a unit? Which one would win?

I never knocked Nate Clements, not at all actually, I applauded the organization for letting him walk, good for him, I'm glad he got his money, nothing wrong with the guy and I never said there was. So you can blast me for your nonsense and misconstrue what I said and read INTO what I said instead of reading WHAT I said...that's the problem here.

Gay Ork Wang
10-23-2008, 02:32 PM
lol thats why you discuss. Because one is wrong. and that means 1 never lines up with another. Thats the idea of discussing

btw Palmer held out and well look at how his rookie season turned out. Seriously u take 2 guys and then somehow say it counts for everyone? So you think everyone is the same? you think JaMarcus would have turned out like Ryan if it wasnt for the holdout?

iloxygenil
10-23-2008, 02:40 PM
lol thats why you discuss. Because one is wrong. and that means 1 never lines up with another. Thats the idea of discussing

btw Palmer held out and well look at how his rookie season turned out. Seriously u take 2 guys and then somehow say it counts for everyone? So you think everyone is the same? you think JaMarcus would have turned out like Ryan if it wasnt for the holdout?

Nope, I think it would have given him a much better chance though, he missed a major part of the growth process as a football player. The offseason is huge for young guys to learn each other and to learn the systems.

I'm just pulling examples, not saying this is everything, if I were to do that, the post would become a book so long not many would read it. To break down every hold out ever, vs every player to show up to camp on time.

I'm just saying right now there seems to be a slight trend going on...maybe it's coincidence, maybe it's not...only time will tell. Even then it may not, because every person is different, each player processes differently and each team reacts differently. But if you don't think vets despise young guys for holding out for more money than the vets are making after having done it for years, then that's just crazy talk.

Gay Ork Wang
10-23-2008, 02:43 PM
so the vets are not unhappy if rookies get the money without holdouts?
i mean i understand holdouts are not good for the developements. but that doesnt mean it hurts the team

iloxygenil
10-23-2008, 02:49 PM
so the vets are not unhappy if rookies get the money without holdouts?
i mean i understand holdouts are not good for the developements. but that doesnt mean it hurts the team

I can't think of a scenario where a football player not being out on the field to practice and get reps in with his team that could ever possibly help the team. They lose chemistry. I'm sure vets get salty at contracts that rookies are getting now, but they don't tend to complain nearly as much when they're in camp on time. The team is better off when everyone practices all the way through the offseason, there's a better chemistry, the way I see it. Maybe I'm wrong, but I really just don't think a player missing practices and meetings is a good idea.

Gay Ork Wang
10-23-2008, 02:51 PM
yes but u have 54 other players that can try to get a chemistry

awfullyquiet
10-23-2008, 03:14 PM
If you don't see things when they're laid out there for you. The reason that you feel my opinion is 'rubbish' is because it doesn't line up with yours.

No. I'm not saying i'm right. I'm saying you're looking at such shallow concepts in the NFL i don't believe you're qualified to share your opinion on matters like this.

Is what I see a coincidence? MAYBE, but is it viable, COMPLETELY. So you can write things off all you want justify them how you will, you blast me for coming at you with evidence and calling it rubbish, while right now it's circumstantial doesn't mean it's not evidence.

Viable. Sure. Just like there's a *** mafia in the NFL. It's possible. Is it likely? No.

Last you heard about Jamarcus Russel taking what 2 years to finally have a decent game? How'd Matt Ryan fair in his first professional contest? How long did he hold out? Hrmm...coincidence? MAYBE, grounds for possibility, no doubt about it.

How did Joe Flacco fair in his first game? Not terrible. How about Tavaris Jackson? Dan Orlovsky? Trent Edwards? Peyton Manning? Eli Manning? Tony Romo? Kyle Orton? Brett Favre? Ryan Leaf? Carson Palmer? Rex Grossman? Chad Pennington? Kellen Clemens? Is it a coincidence that some of the best QB's in the game all had ****** first games? Or some of the worst QB's in the league now have great first games?

No. No coincidence. Sure. Things are possible. But HIGHLY UNLIKELY.


Who said anything about high school football? Just because men grow up doesn't mean they don't still have jealousy issues especially since everyone as a 'professional' has an ego, if you don't believe that then you're coming up more than a few fries short. Everyone in a professional locker room wants to win, they want to be the guy who contributes to it too. So when they see one guy especially at a position like RB or WR get a big head and want to not play and show up to camps etc so he can get more money, you better believe those other guys are out to prove a point.

Or defensive tackles, LB's, o-linemen. Every person has an ego to an extent. If you believe that everyone's not going to go their and do their job with or without a wingnut on their team. You're basically embracing my point here. It doesn't matter if the team has character issues, because it's the individual who wants to go out and play. Even with a wingnut on the team. The team will go do what they're paid to do... it's the point of being a 'professional'. Teams aren't suddenly going to get better without a distraction in the room. And they're probably not going to get better with a distraction in the room. The fact is, you've been trying to say distractions bring down team performance if they complain about their salary or their contract or other issues. Is chad johnson really the problem in cincy? Is TO really the problem in Dallas? Was Brett Favre really the problem in Green Bay? No. No. and No. Distractions are a convenient way for the ESPN talking heads to blab on about their sports superiority, when in reality, the effect it can have on a club is limited unless it's putting players in legal or physical harm... subverting authority is one thing. That is what my original intention was with this post. Larry Johnson subverted authority and put himself in legal risk. Tommie Harris subverted authority. Plax did. Smith did. Players who are about money, but play well, who do their job on the field and ask for more money, but have absolutely no bearing on bringing down a team.

Just because a businessman invests 1000 dollars on a property knowing it's value is going to go up, it doesn't matter if he bought that land for 1k and it becomes worth 2 million, he still has a contract on that land for a thousand bucks. The same SHOULD be true with players, they sign a contract, if they raise their value, then they can market themselves when their current owner decides to sell, or when that contract has gone out.

The difference between your analogy and mine is the concept of present return. Property, unless it's currently developed doesn't 'return' as a worker does. The player creates revenue. Hence, your analogy is invalid. I guess if you wanted, here's another analogy to describe how this situation works. You lease a vending machine. The city you live in builds a stadium across the street. You decide, hey, i'm the only vending machine in this area. I'll charge 2.50 for a soda pop instead of the dollar i was charging (analogous to: getting better production out of a player at the same pay grade)... the leasing company decides hey. we want part of this action too and decides, you have three choices. either you can give us our vending machine back (holdout) and find a new vendor to lease (a free agent who will probably charge the same for the production), OR you can give the leasing agent a larger share of the revenue (increasing the contract), OR you can say, screw you, and go to a 'different' solution, and get like a jolt cola vending machine that may not sell as well (playing a backup player over said player).

If you knock on a player for wanting more money in his contract, that his original contract didn't cover (i.e. maxing out all bonuses and still making 1 mil a year for a DE with 10 sacks the past two years in a four year contract... i'd ask for money this year)

When a record company buys an artist, they don't get to just hold out and not produce a record, if they have a 3 album contract, then until that 3rd one is produced they get no more money, they don't get to fight for more.

Have you not seen the breach of contract suits that have gone on in the past 10 years? This is where i get you for not doing your research and being shallow.

So if you wanna come up with stories that aren't football related so can I, your opinion is no better than mine, and you're going to try for the rest of your life to stay after me, and that's fine, but people can read and make judgements for themselves.


Why aren't my opinions better than yours? They're more thought out, more researched... Scholars have Opinions and Theories. If an average person has a Opinion and Theory in the same field as a Scholar, is their opinions and theories credible? No. I'm saying your theories and opinions are rather weak and uninformed.

This thread is about troublemakers, and the effects, well, I showed some effects, you can say it's not because Pacman, you can say whatever you want, but doesn't make the evidence not out there. Sure at this point it's all based on circumstance, but you can't just write it off, because it's in a process where that could turn into rock solid convicting evidence.

Why can't you write of circumstance? If you falter the base of the circumstantial evidence, it should crack. I've said that teams with character issues can succeed. And fail. You've said it too.

If you don't like the way I process things and don't think my opinion has any weight, then don't respond anymore, there's an ignore feature for a reason. Use it, please do, I'm going to as soon as I finish this response. But you're just like the rest of those guys out there who can't handle it when someone else has an idea, because it wasn't yours it's not valid, or valuable.

Why? I'm pretty sure it's important read what goes on. I've called some major posters on homershit they've fed on. You're not special. What separates you from most is your inability to get that i'm tearing apart your arguments. My idea is that you're ideas are wrong because you have a terribly flawed explanation.

If my theory holds up, then guess what, nothing, I can just smile and go on, if it's wrong, then I can say...well guess I was wrong, then move on. But until you can show me something, other than your opinion to go against mine, then your argument is invalid, just because your opinion is different than mine doesn't make it better. Just makes it different.

You have no way of proving your theory is right or wrong. so what do we go on? the basis of our theories. the more i can say, you're basis is wrong (by showing that there are successful clubs with 'distractions'), by offering explanations to your supposed 'coincidences'...

Oh and your point about talent, just further proves mine, if you line up the talent pool on the Raiders and compare it with, the Titans, you'd say wow, Raiders are going to win, if you didn't know anything about the game itself. But if you put those TEAMS on the field, which one is more of a unit? Which one would win?

Which one has had a coach for 15 years who'll end up in the HOF? Which has had a coach for two weeks who's never been a head coach, has a lunatic for a boss, and is managerially in shambles? You didn't follow when i said "the raiders problem is the management", they are on paper a very good team, they aren't being destroyed by individual players, by any base players. they're being destroyed from the top down which is something VERY DIFFERENT.

I never knocked Nate Clements, not at all actually, I applauded the organization for letting him walk, good for him, I'm glad he got his money, nothing wrong with the guy and I never said there was. So you can blast me for your nonsense and misconstrue what I said and read INTO what I said instead of reading WHAT I said...that's the problem here.

Your tone said otherwise. It was 'good to let him walk' it made them a 'better team'. That's what i got from your statement. You also made it seem that he should have stayed in buffalo. It doesn't really matter because that was the most moot point of your entire argument because it had absolutely nothing to do with character issues or hold outs. It had to do with business as usual in the NFL.

Gay Ork Wang
10-23-2008, 03:16 PM
aq is way too smart for this board

awfullyquiet
10-23-2008, 03:17 PM
aq is way too smart for this board

you're way to german for this board.

Gay Ork Wang
10-23-2008, 03:18 PM
you're way to german for this board.
im more asian than you are

619
10-23-2008, 03:20 PM
aq is way too smart for this board

YES !

Note to Self : Never Ever Argue With AQ :)

awfullyquiet
10-23-2008, 03:24 PM
YES !

Note to Self : Never Ever Argue With AQ :)

It's not really arguing. It's called 'boring people to death' with a bunch of tl;dr ****.

Gay Ork Wang
10-23-2008, 03:25 PM
its more like: OWNAGE

awfullyquiet
10-23-2008, 03:26 PM
its more like: OWNAGE

no it's not.

619
10-23-2008, 03:26 PM
its more like: OWNAGE

Has she ever lost an argument ? I can't recall a time ..

Gay Ork Wang
10-23-2008, 03:27 PM
no it's not.
u owned him!

iloxygenil
10-23-2008, 03:28 PM
I'll argue with her, if I could read her post, I'm sure she had something to retort everything I said to explain how much more weight HER opinion had to it. Prolly had a comment even about the record industry (which I'm sure she works in and I don't...oh wait...that's not right)

I'm thankful for the ignore feature. I almost want to read her post just to retort again, but it will never end, I can't be proven wrong in my OPINION, neither can she. She'll always think she's smarter, no matter what, waste of time.

Gay Ork Wang
10-23-2008, 03:30 PM
wow sometimes people just dont want to find the truth. She doesnt think she is smarter, she tries to help you to get you to find the right thing.

awfullyquiet
10-23-2008, 03:31 PM
Has she ever lost an argument ? I can't recall a time ..

People give up and get bored.

What i do is i cull the statements that are illogical and off the wall and people go, yep, mmhmm. no. i strike with fury because i have no tolerance for ignorance and not doing research and not presenting a logical argument.

to that, i give you chris mortensen.

awfullyquiet
10-23-2008, 03:34 PM
I'll argue with her, if I could read her post, I'm sure she had something to retort everything I said to explain how much more weight HER opinion had to it. Prolly had a comment even about the record industry (which I'm sure she works in and I don't...oh wait...that's not right)

I'm thankful for the ignore feature. I almost want to read her post just to retort again, but it will never end, I can't be proven wrong in my OPINION, neither can she. She'll always think she's smarter, no matter what, waste of time.

you didn't ignore me. duh. quit being cute.

we'll have fundamental differences in opinion. not all of my opinions are 'good'. i can say that. when it comes to figuring out what are good 'draft' prospects, i'm terrible. that's why i came to this board... get some insight.

i can be the first to say, i ask questions when it comes to certain things, and in many situations, there are no right or wrong answers, just as there are no right or wrong answer in 'are troublemakers bad for the clubhouse'... because it depends on individual situations... good clubhouses do not necessarily make good teams.

iloxygenil
10-23-2008, 03:35 PM
wow sometimes people just dont want to find the truth. She doesnt think she is smarter, she tries to help you to get you to find the right thing.

Seriously, I don't understand how you can't see the facts that I put out there, you HAVE to verify them, you can't NOT verify them they already have been. Yes there will be facts to the contrary as well, but I'm talking about THIS YEAR, RIGHT NOW, the troublemakers are a big problem for their locker rooms.

There's no evidence to the contrary right now. Yes, I have to qualify that statement with right now, heck look what Tommie Harris is doing for the Bears right now, nothing, it seems pretty evident to me that his off the field issues are effecting his play on the field, thus taking away from the team.

619
10-23-2008, 03:38 PM
People give up and get bored.

What i do is i cull the statements that are illogical and off the wall and people go, yep, mmhmm. no. i strike with fury because i have no tolerance for ignorance and not doing research and not presenting a logical argument.

to that, i give you chris mortensen.

You have a philosophical mind. Scary, I dislike philosophy. :)

awfullyquiet
10-23-2008, 03:41 PM
Yes, I have to qualify that statement with right now, heck look what Tommie Harris is doing for the Bears right now, nothing, it seems pretty evident to me that his off the field issues are effecting his play on the field, thus taking away from the team.

http://nfl.fanhouse.com/2008/10/02/tommie-harris-and-his-injured-knee-have-been-suspended-for-one-g/

'Nothing' has a reason. Renji. Please feel free to share or repost.

Gay Ork Wang
10-23-2008, 03:47 PM
http://nfl.fanhouse.com/2008/10/02/tommie-harris-and-his-injured-knee-have-been-suspended-for-one-g/

'Nothing' has a reason. Renji. Please feel free to share or repost.
Its called a bad knee.

Seriously its not like people talk about and then suddenly lose their ability to play...
off the field incidents dont have to effect the play on the field. Look at PacMan. He is horrible off the field but still plays pretty good on the field

btw logic and philosophy is awesome

awfullyquiet
10-23-2008, 03:50 PM
Its called a bad knee.

Seriously its not like people talk about and then suddenly lose their ability to play...
off the field incidents dont have to effect the play on the field. Look at PacMan. He is horrible off the field but still plays pretty good on the field

btw logic and philosophy is awesome

Pacman has been absolutely terrible this year. :p

Gay Ork Wang
10-23-2008, 03:51 PM
Pacman has been absolutely terrible this year. :p

not as terrible as he is off the field. he has at least been serviceable

awfullyquiet
10-23-2008, 03:55 PM
not as terrible as he is off the field. he has at least been serviceable

it's okay, the secondary looks like death in dallas anyway.

BlindSite
10-23-2008, 04:15 PM
If you bothered to research, you'd know that since Smith caused his "trouble" the team has gelled closer than ever.

Pretty much the day after he apologised to Lucas and the team there was nothing more to the "issue" and the two are good friends.

The team is vastly different from last year, there's a lot more chemistry and the two units, offense/defense seem to feed off each other more than Panthers' teams of past.

IT might sound stupid, but Smith punching Lucas in the face was the best bonding exercise possible.

awfullyquiet
10-23-2008, 04:19 PM
If you bothered to research, you'd know that since Smith caused his "trouble" the team has gelled closer than ever.

Pretty much the day after he apologised to Lucas and the team there was nothing more to the "issue" and the two are good friends.

The team is vastly different from last year, there's a lot more chemistry and the two units, offense/defense seem to feed off each other more than Panthers' teams of past.

IT might sound stupid, but Smith punching Lucas in the face was the best bonding exercise possible.

Oh yeah, definitely. 'trouble' isn't 'trouble'. trouble doesn't necessarily split your team apart. Sometimes it brings them closer, sometimes it doesn't even matter.

Bruce Banner
10-23-2008, 05:21 PM
LMAO!

He gave up.

awfullyquiet
10-23-2008, 05:35 PM
LMAO!

He gave up.

It's okay. Many men have tried.

Mr. Stiller
10-23-2008, 05:37 PM
Oh yeah, definitely. 'trouble' isn't 'trouble'. trouble doesn't necessarily split your team apart. Sometimes it brings them closer, sometimes it doesn't even matter.

He has a point though.

My friend and I have times when we go punch each other in the face to bond.

awfullyquiet
10-23-2008, 05:37 PM
He has a point though.

My friend and I have times when we go punch each other in the face to bond.

i don't think that's necessarily healthy.

Bruce Banner
10-23-2008, 05:40 PM
It's okay. Many men have tried.

It's become a battle of the sexes on NFLDC.

One vs World

awfullyquiet
10-23-2008, 05:43 PM
It's become a battle of the sexes on NFLDC.

One vs World

so it is.

past my bed time.

Mr. Stiller
10-23-2008, 05:50 PM
i don't think that's necessarily healthy.

I think I missed the [sarcasm] command.

LonghornsLegend
10-23-2008, 06:24 PM
it's okay, the secondary looks like death in dallas anyway.

It's funny because the league wide gameplan for us right off the bat us "you can beat them deep" and it's been that way for some time, sad but true, hard for me to put ALL of that on the players, we don't have Jacque Reeves starting anymore.

619
10-23-2008, 06:34 PM
It's become a battle of the sexes on NFLDC.

One vs World

Just today she's left enough of us in the dust. :)

iloxygenil
10-23-2008, 06:42 PM
I've not given up, I said I put her on ignore, I was at work anyway, but I'm home now. No I didn't give up, if you can't see the points I gave then there's no helping you and you're just arguing to argue. She'd argue if I said the Falcons were 4-2. So it doesn't matter.

I'm just ignoring.

619
10-23-2008, 06:44 PM
I've not given up, I said I put her on ignore, I was at work anyway, but I'm home now. No I didn't give up, if you can't see the points I gave then there's no helping you and you're just arguing to argue. She'd argue if I said the Falcons were 4-2. So it doesn't matter.

I'm just ignoring.

Sometimes tis best to do. I wouldn't want to mess with her for today atleast. She argues like a philosopher so really it can go on forever.

awfullyquiet
10-23-2008, 11:23 PM
I've not given up, I said I put her on ignore, I was at work anyway, but I'm home now. No I didn't give up, if you can't see the points I gave then there's no helping you and you're just arguing to argue. She'd argue if I said the Falcons were 4-2. So it doesn't matter.

I'm just ignoring.

Here's the thing. You're trying to do the exact same thing you're accusing me of.

you can't see the points I gave then there's no helping you

meaning, your points you gave are better than my points.

The falcons are 4-2. I'm not arguing that. I guess that's just a bad example? Again? I don't know.

Bruce Banner
10-23-2008, 11:33 PM
Just today she's left enough of us in the dust. :)

Speak for yourself, hollywood.

awfullyquiet
10-23-2008, 11:57 PM
Speak for yourself, hollywood.

you don't count. you're one of very few who can even stand me, let alone talk with me above like, a 'normal' level.

Gay Ork Wang
10-24-2008, 01:49 AM
I love u aq!!!! Asian Pride!