Week 14 Discussion Thread

[Jvig43]

Originally Posted by jrdrylie

I won't speak for scotty, but that is not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that the NFL is a business. For the sake of protecting their image and their investments (playes), they have every right to require this for their players. If they don't like it, pleay somewhere else.

This isn't a civil liberties issue. There is no right to play football. There is no right to drive a car. So if a company notices that they have a serious issue with drunk driving, they have every right to put in place measures to reduce it.

This is hilarious to me, this whole argument. If the NFL really wanted to conduct itself like a business, these players just wouldnt have jobs, simple as that. What other business in the world is going to let multiple DUI offenders continue to work for them? No where, thats because they fire their asses- they don't spend millions to babysit them when they arent at work.

And to further the issue, why don't we take precautions against other types of crimes? Like Long horns said, lets just monitor all employees outside of the work place at all times to assure they aren't drinking too much, or engaging in illegal substances.

Or, if were going to back this up by saying its a business lets actually expect them to act like a business and hold its employees to act like ******* rational human beings. I'm sorry but thats a poor argument to make because this is in no way an acceptable decision for a "business" to be making in regards to assuring their employees are making the right decisions while not at work.

Originally Posted by BeerBaron

This.

Doing this would be imposing far too much on the individual freedoms of the vast majority of players who have done nothing wrong.

The NFL and teams absolutely should go after the offenders. Longer and harsher fines and suspensions for DUI offenses are one thing that should be imposed. Installing these devices into the cars of players who have alcohol related offenses on their record is another possibility worth considering.

But a blanket policy that punishes players who've done nothing wrong in unacceptable. I am 100% sure the Players Union would block the **** out of an attempt to impose such a thing.

Pretty much what he said too. Players that want to act bulletproof are only being encouraged to do so because of the special treatment they get as employees of the NFL. If the NFL was really concerned about this issue they would take more measures to assure that the people in wrong were being punished accordingly, not investing into ******* car breathilizers for everyone (I know this is just the cowboys organization but in general).

[WCH]

Apparently, these ignition interlock devices are a huge pain in the ass:

But even I wasn't prepared for how disruptive this thing can be to one's lifestyle. Several notes:

» It's hard to blow into. It took me two days to learn the proper technique (stop laughing). I've been late to appointments because I wasn't able to get my car started in time.

Just the past two days, I've gotten used to how to properly let out enough air while humming, so I've been consistent in starting my car.

» It randomly tests you as you drive. I was told the first one is always within 15 minutes. But in the past few days, the despicable device has beeped me for a test within three minutes of me starting the car. Apparently I was given a very needy version of the device.

The device gives you six minutes to pull over and perform the random test. If you don't, you get a violation. Get five violations, and you have 72 hours to take the device back to the vendor for recalibration, or it will lock the ignition.

» Mouthwash will register as a fail, so rinse with water if you gargle. I tested it by giving my mouth a good rinse with some Listerine. I had minty fresh breath, but unfortunately, I couldn't drive my car anywhere. After a fail, you're given 15 minutes before you can try again.

Other embarrassing scenarios I've been in:

» Having to blow while at the drive-through window of a fast-food restaurant.

» Other drivers seeing me blowing as they pass by me.

» Taking forever to get out of a parking stall and having another car wait for me while I'm trying to find the right pitch for the hum.

Did I mention that you have to pay $89 a month plus tax to go through this humiliation?

http://www.staradvertiser.com/news/2...l?id=119902659

[wogitalia]

I really don't get where you are coming from BB... exactly what civil liberty is being taken away from them?

Is being allowed to break the law a civil liberty because if it is, I apologise, but last time I checked, civil liberties did not extend to breaking the law.

Putting a device on a car that stops a drunk driver being able to operate it is a method of crime prevention. It doesn't do anything to anyone who is legally operating the vehicle, it doesn't take away any right or liberty or the ability to legally operate a vehicle. All it does is stop morons from being able to inflict their moronic thought process onto innocent victims and their own stupid self as an added bonus.

Again... I'm pretty certain that being able to break the law is not an individual freedom that should be protected, if it can even be defined as that.

I would personally fully support these systems being mandatory on all vehicles for everyone. As someone who has never drunk driven in my life and who has no desire to ever do it or support someone else doing it I don't see any issue with such a device. Hell even if it only operated in between certain hours it would be a good start. I see it as akin to video review, we have the technology to get it right for everyone and make the roads safer, so why the hell not use it?

I'd love to hear what individual freedom you actually think is being taken away from anyone here other than the ability to drink drive?

[BeerBaron]

Originally Posted by wogitalia

I really don't get where you are coming from BB... exactly what civil liberty is being taken away from them?

Is being allowed to break the law a civil liberty because if it is, I apologise, but last time I checked, civil liberties did not extend to breaking the law.

Putting a device on a car that stops a drunk driver being able to operate it is a method of crime prevention. It doesn't do anything to anyone who is legally operating the vehicle, it doesn't take away any right or liberty or the ability to legally operate a vehicle. All it does is stop morons from being able to inflict their moronic thought process onto innocent victims and their own stupid self as an added bonus.

Again... I'm pretty certain that being able to break the law is not an individual freedom that should be protected, if it can even be defined as that.

I would personally fully support these systems being mandatory on all vehicles for everyone. As someone who has never drunk driven in my life and who has no desire to ever do it or support someone else doing it I don't see any issue with such a device. Hell even if it only operated in between certain hours it would be a good start. I see it as akin to video review, we have the technology to get it right for everyone and make the roads safer, so why the hell not use it?

I'd love to hear what individual freedom you actually think is being taken away from anyone here other than the ability to drink drive?

You're inconveniencing people who did absolutely nothing wrong. Perhaps civil liberty wasn't the best term to use, but you are absolutely saddling people guilty of absolutely no wrongdoing with an extreme inconvenience (see WCH's article above.)

Just because these guys are more highly paid than your average office workers doesn't make it right. If any other place of business tried to impose this on their workers, they'd be fought tooth and nail nonstop.

Punish the players who have done wrong and leave the ones who are guilty of no wrong doing here alone.

[Jvig43]

By going off of this reasoning, we should just make alcohol illegal and be done with it. I mean if some people can't make responsible decisions while drinking we should just take measures to punish everyone to assure that that doesn't happen.

[jrdrylie]

Originally Posted by BeerBaron

You're inconveniencing people who did absolutely nothing wrong. Perhaps civil liberty wasn't the best term to use, but you are absolutely saddling people guilty of absolutely no wrongdoing with an extreme inconvenience (see WCH's article above.)

Just because these guys are more highly paid than your average office workers doesn't make it right. If any other place of business tried to impose this on their workers, they'd be fought tooth and nail nonstop.

Punish the players who have done wrong and leave the ones who are guilty of no wrong doing here alone.

I could get down on this. In fact, if Goodell today proposed requiring any player who has ever tested positive for drugs or been arrested for a DUI to have one of these in their cars, I would be cool with it. Start with the guys who have already got in trouble. If that doesn't substantially reduce the DUIs, then they can expand it.

But Goodell would never do this. He's too busy making sure defensive players don't hit too hard and quarterbacks don't get sand in the vag to actually address any serious issues in the NFL.

[Smooth Criminal]

I just don't understand why they dont all have drivers. If I was that rich that would be my favorite thing I owned. Never have to worry about having a DD again.

[scottyboy]

so we're worrying more about punishing people harder who get DUI's instead of trying to prevent said DUI's in the first place?

Oh.

[Shreckart]

Just to throw this out there, it was posted on Twitter early this morning by Darren Rovell.

@darrenrovell: 28% of total NFL player arrests since '00 have been DUI. 11.6% of arrests for general population ages 21-34 are DUIs, according to FBI.

Just an interesting stat, that over a fourth of arrests by NFL players are DUIs. I don't know if the breathalyzer in the car is the solution, maybe it is maybe it isn't, but something needs to be done. DUIs are incredibly dangerous for the players safety and the people on the road. I know people who have family or friends who've been killed by drunk drivers, and something needs to be done to at least hopefully reduce the amount of DUIs in half. It'll have to be drastic measures to change it though, I don't have any better ideas than a breathalyzer but I'd rather take heat as an owner or GM for trying to save lives, than to have another incident similar to what just happened occur again. It's not right that these million dollar athletes have little responsibility relative to the public. They work hard getting ready for game, but in many cases a DUI and you're fired from a normal desk job, but in the NFL you get a spanking and your million dollars and call it a day.

Maybe I'm just way more against DUIs because I have personal experiences, but I don't like how it's becoming a serious problem.

[Jvig43]

Originally Posted by scottyboy

so we're worrying more about punishing people harder who get DUI's instead of trying to prevent said DUI's in the first place?

Oh.

So why dont we just go ahead and make the consumption of alcohol illegal again then. It would prevent all said DUIs.

[WCH]

Darren Rovell's comparison is one of those "How to lie with statistics" type things. It would be much more useful to know what percentage of NFL players are arrested and charged with a DUI, compared to the percentage for the general population of men ages 21-34.

I suspect that this comparison is just telling us that active NFL players aren't being arrested for poverty-related crimes like shoplifting, larceny, breaking and entering, and armed robbery.

[scottyboy]

Originally Posted by Jvig43

So why dont we just go ahead and make the consumption of alcohol illegal again then. It would prevent all said DUIs.

trust me, you know of all people i'm not advocating that. I don't have a really good solution to stop DUI's. Hell, make people take a breathalyzer before they leave the bar and if it's too high, make them call a cab or some ****. One DUI is all it takes to kill someone (or multiple people). Stop it at the beginning.

[Forenci]

I agree with Scotty's approach. We far too often focus on cutting the supply side of things (i.e., this would be stopping them from drinking or taking punitive actions) as opposed to addressing the demand side.

Talk with players, find out why they are doing this, show the tragedies and effects from drinking an driving. Educate them.

However, with drinking and driving it is a tough subject for most, including myself. It's tough because, hey if you drink and drive and wrap your car around a tree and die then fine. That's your own stupid fault. The problem is when people who have nothing to do with drinking get killed in the process. That's why drinking and driving pisses me off and if any of my friends ever did it I'd punch them in the throat.

That said, you can't punish everyone for the stupidity of a few.

[LonghornsLegend]

Cam Cameron was fired, that seemed long overdue.

[billybeejr]

Am I the only person that thinks AD coming back to dominate like this is the most athletically impressive thing I have ever seen? Holy **** 1600 yards after tearing his acl last year, after all of his injury history? AD is like bo jackson or michael jordan or some **** from the older generations. How is this not an all time big deal?

[bantx]

because he plays for the vikings.

[vidae]

The Chiefs have two wins, against the Saints and Panthers.

The Falcons have two losses, from the Saints and Panthers.

NFLDC logic dictates that only one truth can be gleaned from this: The Chiefs are better than the Falcons.

LOGIC'D.

[Grizzlegom]

Originally Posted by Forenci

I agree with Scotty

Its a Christmas miracle!

[nobodyinparticular]

Originally Posted by vidae

The Chiefs have two wins, against the Saints and Panthers.

The Falcons have two losses, from the Saints and Panthers.

NFLDC logic dictates that only one truth can be gleaned from this: The Chiefs are better than the Falcons.

LOGIC'D.

This is why the Chiefs will win nextSunday and vault the Raiders to the #1 pick.

[vidae]

Originally Posted by nobodyinparticular

This is why the Chiefs will win nextSunday and vault the Raiders to the #1 pick.

You know I love you dude, but yous cray.

[VernonLawson89]

Seahawks VS 49ers moved to Sunday Night

[nobodyinparticular]

Originally Posted by vidae

You know I love you dude, but yous cray.

Since the Raiders beat the Chiefs 26-16, they have failed to hold any opponent below 20 points. They are giving up an average of 35.8 points per game.

You are probably right, but I have absolutely no confidence in the Raiders to do anything other than give up a record breaking amount of yards to Jamaal Charles and I know Brady Quinn will scramble for plenty himself. This team just has no gap discipline.

[Jvig43]

Originally Posted by nobodyinparticular

Since the Raiders beat the Chiefs 26-16, they have failed to hold any opponent below 20 points. They are giving up an average of 35.8 points per game.

You are probably right, but I have absolutely no confidence in the Raiders to do anything other than give up a record breaking amount of yards to Jamaal Charles and I know Brady Quinn will scramble for plenty himself. This team just has no gap discipline.

Look so long as Meyers gets about 100 yards and a couple TDs then I don't care what happens.

[nobodyinparticular]

Originally Posted by Jvig43

Look so long as Meyers gets about 100 yards and a couple TDs then I don't care what happens.

Catches? Yes. Yards? Sure. TDs? hahahahahahahahahahahahaha

[Jvig43]

Originally Posted by nobodyinparticular

Catches? Yes. Yards? Sure. TDs? hahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Hey I'm hoping for another garbage time TD in the final seconds. Don't be so pessimistic!