NFL 2009

[D'kian]

No, he wouldn't.

Then let's not make it a Catch-22. Agreed?

Also, the Rams won a superbowl and fired a quarterback in order to build a franchise around a new QB.

Oh, sure. All teams make bad decisions with the best of intentions. However these remain bad, sometimes stupid, decisions. I'll grant that Warner's level of play was pretty bad, compared to what he'd done before, by the time he was fired. But I will maintain his replacement wasn't much better.

Warner hasn't done much since, besides a lucky trip to the Super Bowl. (Missed the playoffs every other year)

That wasn't luck. That was Ken Wisenhunt taking a small opportunity and making the most of it. What have the Rams accomplished since Warner left?

[Thales]

No, he wouldn't. Also, the Rams won a superbowl and fired a quarterback in order to build a franchise around a new QB. Warner hasn't done much since, besides a lucky trip to the Super Bowl. (Missed the playoffs every other year)

He didn't, they didn't even really consider it they said "absolutely not."

In the name of decency, here are some Rush Limbaugh quotes... let me know if you still think I'm "basing it purely in ignorance".

"Why should Blacks be heard? They're 12% of the population. Who the hell cares."

"I mean, let’s face it, we didn’t have slavery in this country for over 100 years because it was a bad thing. Quite the opposite: slavery built the South. I’m not saying we should bring it back; I’m just saying it had its merits. For one thing, the streets were safer after dark."

Ah, those are all smears. They are not the thoughts and beliefs of Rush. You don't appear to be too media savvy. The media is lying about Rush. I've listened to Rush for years now, and he is the least racist guy you can find, and he damned well has nothing positive to say about slavery. Which is about the most ludicrous thing I've heard about him, that he somehow saw good in slavery. What he does do quite often is engage in satire. Lots of big time satire. He pokes fun at political correctness daily, because he isn't going to let them control his thoughts and words.

However, if you care to look, you will find that leftists have nothing against racism or slavery. Obama came from an overtly racist church which he attended for 20 some odd years, but that was okay with leftists. That was a REALITY, not a conjured up story, as these things are with Rush. Leftists are pushing for complete control health care, which will enslave us to the state all the more.

And the whole McNabb thing has been done to death. Rush was criticizing the media, not McNabb.

[Thales]

You don't sound like a Rams fan. If he was trying to buy the Patriots, I would be horrified. He has no experience, he's more interested in media and politics than the sport and the business behind it, and he doesn't necessarily have the money to guarantee a stable ownership, long term.

I used to be a big sports fan, but the last ten years or so not so much. I don't get into sports like I used to. Still, I'm a mild Rams fan. The Rams original owner died a few years ago. She had the team in the Superbowl twice since in St. Louis. Since then the team has been on the decline, so a change would be welcome. Rush is a massive football fan. He loves the game and has since he was a kid, so this is why he wants to buy the team. I'd like to see him get it all the more so because he's being smeared by leftists.

Also, does he really have the moey to even buy the Rams? How much would that purchase set you back?

His recent contract was for 400 million, and he's going in on the purchase with some other people, I think. I don't know exactly how much money he has all told, but I know is a large sum.

[D'kian]

And the whole McNabb thing has been done to death. Rush was criticizing the media, not McNabb.

I remember that flap well.

Rush claimed McNabb was just an average QB, but the media elevated him because he's black. Of course the whole team vs QB credit question comes up with every successful team whose QB isn't a hot passer like Elway, Monatana or Marino. Sometimes there's merit (look up Mike Kruzcek in Pittsburgh), sometimes not. But mix race into the question and it becomes explosive.

Liberals and the media are obsessed with race and "diversity." Back in the 80s the Redskins had to resort to their backup QB, Doug Williams, to play in the Superbowl (I believe also the playoffs). He was annointed as the first black QB to win the Superbowl. Well and good, as he was black, a QB, and he did win the big game. But that bit of news pushed everythign else out. One reporter did ask "Since when have you been a black quarterback?" which is a ridiculous question on many levels.

Anyway, Rush fell into the worst of conservative intellectual vices: what if he were <blank>. It's on display strongly right now, with a great deal of posts on the right-wing blogs consisting of "If a Republican had said that..." "If Bush ahd done what Obama did...." "If Palin had said what Biden said..." etc etc

It's a pointless excercise and serves only to further drive up frustration and anger about media bias. It does no good at all and it's distracting. if Rush ever did something stupid, this was it.

Rush was also wrong about McNabb. Maybe not at the time, but surely now. he is better than average, though far from the game's greats, and he's done rather well for the Eagles. Of course making a mistake evaluating a player is not grounds for the way he's being treated now.

In any case the group seeking to acquire teh Rams ha sdropped Limbaugh from its team, so he's no longer even an issue.

[Thales]

Anyway, Rush fell into the worst of conservative intellectual vices: what if he were <blank>. It's on display strongly right now, with a great deal of posts on the right-wing blogs consisting of "If a Republican had said that..." "If Bush ahd done what Obama did...." "If Palin had said what Biden said..." etc etc

Per se, there is nothing wrong with pointing out hypocrisy, but I agree Rush does it far too often. Still, he does more than that. He has many solid points on these matters. He's one of these guys who can see through left wing rhetoric.

Rush was also wrong about McNabb. Maybe not at the time, but surely now. he is better than average, though far from the game's greats, and he's done rather well for the Eagles. Of course making a mistake evaluating a player is not grounds for the way he's being treated now.

I'm not sure that he was wrong. I don't think he thought McNabb was average, just not as good as the media would have us believe. Still, that's all a matter of personal judgment about the talents of a player, which is a very hard thing to judge anyway.

In any case the group seeking to acquire teh Rams ha sdropped Limbaugh from its team, so he's no longer even an issue.

Which is very sad.

[D'kian]

Per se, there is nothing wrong with pointing out hypocrisy, but I agree Rush does it far too often.

"It's no use calling a foolish man a fool, but at least the truth is where it needs to be," or words to that effect.

I agree, but the right is stuck in victim mode and it does them little good.

Yes, the mainstream media is biased. Those who know it already know it, and whose who refuse to see it won't ever see it. It's like beating a dead horse.

Still, he does more than that. He has many solid points on these matters. He's one of these guys who can see through left wing rhetoric.

Yes, he does. But the what if he were <blank> vice is not the best way to go about it. Certainly not when it's overused.

I'm not sure that he was wrong. I don't think he thought McNabb was average, just not as good as the media would have us believe. Still, that's all a matter of personal judgment about the talents of a player, which is a very hard thing to judge anyway.

Ha! Half my statements on this thread are "it's too early to say," and "we will now for usre later," meaning in hindsight (which is always 20/20).

Which is very sad.

Yes, it is. I repeat sports whould steer clear of politics. Politics simply don't matter in sports.

[D'kian]

I've posted too much on this thread already, but in the interest of steering us back to football:

Polamalu is back in practice along with Willie Parker. It seems likely they'll play against the Browns next Sunday. If I were Tomlin I'd give them a few early plays each and see how they do, maybe then pull them out unless the vitry is threatened (right! by the Browns?). If I were Parker, I'd run as though my job depended on it, which very likley it does. Mendenhall has proved himself capable enough, now Willie has to prove himself better.

I don't worry about the Browns, but it will be excellent to have Polamalu back against the Vikings and then the Broncos soon enough. Those teams I worry about.

Elsewhere int he League the trade deadline approaches and news is rife with obligatory speculation. There's also speculation about which coaches are soon to be sacked, among them Jim Zorn of the Redskins. I'm sorry for Zorn. He took on a job he couldn't possibly do. John Gruden's been mentioned for a coaching job either int he NFL or in the NCAA. He's too young to fritter his life away in broadcasting and he's a good coach. Football needs him back.

[Shabby]

In the name of the level of discussion on this forum, take your quotes from credible sources, or even better start relying on audio, since he's supposed to have said these things on the radio, and then get back to us with your "evidence".

And yes, I'm only interested in audio of these first ones (and any others you found in the book "101 People Who Are Really Screwing America", or other leftist propaganda) , the rest are either jokes or small exaggerations only the PC police would mind.

Those quotes are sourced on audio in the book and several places online (YouTube). If you want to ignore reality, by all means.

[Shabby]

Ah, those are all smears. They are not the thoughts and beliefs of Rush. You don't appear to be too media savvy. The media is lying about Rush. I've listened to Rush for years now, and he is the least racist guy you can find, and he damned well has nothing positive to say about slavery. Which is about the most ludicrous thing I've heard about him, that he somehow saw good in slavery. What he does do quite often is engage in satire. Lots of big time satire. He pokes fun at political correctness daily, because he isn't going to let them control his thoughts and words.

Yeah because he's so anti-establishment... my point exactly about pandering to the ignorant tin-foil wearing and angry citizens. You can look up all of these quotes and find the exact audio of what he said. If you'd like to ignore reailty, by all means... all of Limbaugh's listeners do. It's why even the GOP Chairman refuses to touch Limbaugh with a ten-foot pole.

However, if you care to look, you will find that leftists have nothing against racism or slavery. Obama came from an overtly racist church which he attended for 20 some odd years, but that was okay with leftists. That was a REALITY, not a conjured up story, as these things are with Rush. Leftists are pushing for complete control health care, which will enslave us to the state all the more.

It's not the Leftists vs Limbaugh. I don't care for extreme leftists or the extreme right, especially not one like Limbaugh who has several times endorsed racist sentiments and said all of these things.

And the whole McNabb thing has been done to death. Rush was criticizing the media, not McNabb.

Yet he only came up on the Limbaugh show because he was black.

[Shabby]

Then let's not make it a Catch-22. Agreed?

Rush doesn't have the skill set to own an NFL team. It's apparent as they dropped him from the race to own the Rams.

Oh, sure. All teams make bad decisions with the best of intentions. However these remain bad, sometimes stupid, decisions. I'll grant that Warner's level of play was pretty bad, compared to what he'd done before, by the time he was fired. But I will maintain his replacement wasn't much better.

This is just a poor understanding of how football franchises operate. The same reason holds true as to why the Packers got rid of Favre. They invested considerable money and time into Rodgers, and to continue using an old, declining quarterback would just make the rebuilding process take ten years instead of five.

Teams shouldn't put lots of money into old super stars unless they have an immediate chance at the Super Bowl.

That wasn't luck. That was Ken Wisenhunt taking a small opportunity and making the most of it. What have the Rams accomplished since Warner left?

They are rebuilding with a brand new head coach, mentality and a whole slew of rookies. This is just another issue of not understanding football.

[D'kian]

Rush doesn't have the skill set to own an NFL team. It's apparent as they dropped him from the race to own the Rams.

They dropped him because the union and the commisioner woulnd't approve a sale to a group that included Limbaugh. I said please don't make this a Catch-22.

Besides, what skills does an owner need? Business skills, marketing, the ability to judge future prospects?

This is just a poor understanding of how football franchises operate. The same reason holds true as to why the Packers got rid of Favre. They invested considerable money and time into Rodgers, and to continue using an old, declining quarterback would just make the rebuilding process take ten years instead of five.

Not quite. Favre retired, so the Packers went to work on developing an offense using a new QB. When he unretired, the process was too far along to reverse it, therefore it made sense not to take Favre back (miles away from getting rid of him). Had he unretired within a week, he'd still be wearing Packer green now.

Teams shouldn't put lots of money into old super stars unless they have an immediate chance at the Super Bowl.

They shoulnd't, but they too often do.

[Shabby]

They dropped him because the union and the commisioner woulnd't approve a sale to a group that included Limbaugh. I said please don't make this a Catch-22.

Besides, what skills does an owner need? Business skills, marketing, the ability to judge future prospects?

Public relations? A skill that kind of goes "poof" when you liken a game of the NFL to a "fight between Crips and Bloods without weapons".

Not quite. Favre retired, so the Packers went to work on developing an offense using a new QB. When he unretired, the process was too far along to reverse it, therefore it made sense not to take Favre back (miles away from getting rid of him). Had he unretired within a week, he'd still be wearing Packer green now.

McCarthy had ever opportunity to re-sign Favre, but made a public statement saying that "Rodgers would be the new man". It was a distinct choice of Rodgers over Favre. A good one, too.

[Jake_Ellison]

Those quotes are sourced on audio in the book and several places online (YouTube). If you want to ignore reality, by all means.

I won't go through millions of videos for some audio that supposedly exists. Unless you can provide audio, in context, of him seriuosly defending slavery, as that supposed quote suggests, I'll just assume you're lying.

Edited October 15, 2009 by Jake_Ellison

[dadmonson]

"He is exaggerating the effects of the disease. He's moving all around and shaking and it's purely an act. ... This is really shameless of Michael J. Fox. Either he didn't take his medication or he's acting.

This is neither here nor there, but, what an idiotic thing to say. He was trying to persuade people into thinking this because he doesn't like stem cell research due to his religious beliefs.

The bottom line is(And you guys know this) that Rush Limbaugh has every right to attempt to become a partial owner of an NFL football team, and that is what he got; a shot. If the current owners don't like him personally or under further review they don't see him fit for the job, it is their right to reject him.

Edited October 15, 2009 by dadmonson

[D'kian]

Public relations? A skill that kind of goes "poof" when you liken a game of the NFL to a "fight between Crips and Bloods without weapons".

1) Why public relations?

2) Do you think a man with a nationwide audience numbering in the millions doesn't have a knack for PR?

3) As to the Limbaugh quotations, I agree with Jake: show your sources.

McCarthy had ever opportunity to re-sign Favre, but made a public statement saying that "Rodgers would be the new man". It was a distinct choice of Rodgers over Favre. A good one, too.

I will say this for the last time: after Favre had retired and the team had spent months retooling the offense.

[FeatherFall]

D'Kian, you are right about the Favre thing. Had Favre never retired, Thompson probably would have risked Rodgers signing elsewhere after a year and played Favre. While the Packer's weren't rebuilding (they went to the NFC championship game the year before), in the end it was partly a rebuilding question - the Packers wanted another franchise quarterback and they lose an opportunity if Rodgers gets disgruntled and goes elsewhere. Pluss he'll never be ready if he doesn't get play time.

Those quotes are sourced on audio in the book and several places online (YouTube).

Shabby, the problem is that they aren't sourced here. Quotes need context. Without context we don't have what it takes to evaluate them. Was Rush playing devil's advocate? Was the tone serious or playful?

Why won't you lend us a hand if you've already done the work? I don't even listen to Rush (I have in the past, but its a rare thing), so my interest is minimal. I don't think you can seriously expect people like me to go chasing after your quotes.

[D'kian]

D'Kian, you are right about the Favre thing. Had Favre never retired, Thompson probably would have risked Rodgers signing elsewhere after a year and played Favre.

Thank you.

Yes, that's exactly right. You don't begin to rebuild the offense when the QB gets old, only when he retires or when he can no longer play. If he leaves, you either have a backup who can handle your system, or you change your system to fit the backup, or you compromise in the middle. Once you're far along that road, you can't just take back the old starter and go back to the way things were.

The 49ers did get rid of Montana after he recovered from the back injury, but only because his backup was doing well and had more years left to run. At that time it made sanse to trade the old starter, regardless of how good he was. I thought the Pats might do the same with the Brady/Cassel situation, but clearly Cassel wasn't as good as his record would make it seem.

[Shabby]

1) Why public relations?

2) Do you think a man with a nationwide audience numbering in the millions doesn't have a knack for PR?

3) As to the Limbaugh quotations, I agree with Jake: show your sources.

1) A good owner needs to be able to deal with the press and the team image.

2) Not good PR for a football team.

3) D McNabb

M Fox

Crips N Bloods http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/estack_12...ure_.guest.html

The other quotes are contained in the book that was mentioned before, I do not have a copy on hand but you can see the sources of the quotes in the back of the book.

I don't have time to go further than that, if you want to believe Rush Limbaugh is a good guy, go for it. I'll keep my peace of mind after looking at some of the things he's said.

I will say this for the last time: after Favre had retired and the team had spent months retooling the offense.

Think about MJ and the Bulls, if you value your franchise player enough, it doesn't matter how long he's been gone. They chose Rodgers over Favre.

Again, the same thing happened in St. Louis, but Warner is far less caliber QB than Favre... so this whole side disucssion has been pretty worthless.

[D'kian]

1) A good owner needs to be able to deal with the press and the team image.

How often do you see woners on TV or interviewed by the media? Most delegate the job to their (wild guess here) PR department.

2) Not good PR for a football team.

Why not? A celebrity owner will keep the team on the press, even outside the sports pages, for longer.

3) D McNabb

M Fox

Crips N Bloods http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/estack_12...ure_.guest.html

I recall the McNabb flap, as I said, and I checked out the Crips vs Bloods quote. The latter is an exaggeration on how tasteless on-field celebrations have become, namely how some are too agressive towards the other team. Funny he also praises LaDanian Tomlinsos, who is black, as the classiest player in the League. Which is it? I don't see any racism there.

I don't have time to go further than that, if you want to believe Rush Limbaugh is a good guy, go for it.

I don't particularly care for him, but he's not being treated fairly by the media, and he's being smeared as far as I can see.

Think about MJ and the Bulls, if you value your franchise player enough, it doesn't matter how long he's been gone. They chose Rodgers over Favre.

No pro team will spend months re-tooling and then change back to accomodate the whim of an aging star player, no matter who he is. Favre had two or three years more, at most, if he didn't get injured. Suppose you take him back and he retires again? Only now you maybe lost your rookie prospect. What do you do?

[Thales]

Yeah because he's so anti-establishment...

What does that mean? Rush is anti-big government statism. Is that what you mean by "anti-establishment"? If so, you're on the wrong forum, because Objectivists are far more "anti-establishment" than is Rush.

my point exactly about pandering to the ignorant tin-foil wearing and angry citizens.

You mean citizens angry over socialized medicine? Are you referring to the innumerable Objectivists who came out in protest in Washington DC and elsewhere?

You can look up all of these quotes and find the exact audio of what he said. If you'd like to ignore reailty, by all means... all of Limbaugh's listeners do. It's why even the GOP Chairman refuses to touch Limbaugh with a ten-foot pole.

I've listened to Rush Limbaugh since about 1992. Those are not his views. Rush talks on the radio 3 hours a day, five days a week, and has been doing so for, oh, 20+ years nationally. There isn't a person alive who could not be taken out of of context and distorted, especially someone with that many words out there. In fact, it is inexcusable that the media is peddling these lies in the face of the full context of evidence.

It's not the Leftists vs Limbaugh.

That's simply false.

I don't care for extreme leftists or the extreme right, especially not one like Limbaugh who has several times endorsed racist sentiments and said all of these things.

Nope. Rush is not remotely a racist. I would have nothing to do with him if he were. You are completely ignorant of Rush's show, so you really have no leg to stand on.

Yet he only came up on the Limbaugh show because he was black.

McNabb? No. That came up on ESPN, when he was asked about him in 2003. At the time it caused not one ripple. It took a week for there to be a backlash, and it was from one sports media journalist that the "outrage" came and then grew. Also, what Rush said was not wrong at all. He was probably right wrt to the media.

Edited October 15, 2009 by Thales

[D'kian]

McNabb? No. That came up on ESPN, when he was asked about him in 2003. At the time it caused not one ripple. It took a week for there to be a backlash, and it was from one sports media journalist that the "outrage" came and then grew. Also, what Rush said was not wrong at all. He was probably right wrt to the media.

It's also worth mentioning Limbaugh was employed by ESPN in its morning pre-game show, and that he was fired as a result of the flap that developed later.

BTW Mr. Limbaugh does make a good point regarding on-field celebrations. In the old days a player simply handed the ball to the closes official after scoring a TD. In the 70s some players started celebrating touchdowns in various ways. Things reached an absurd point in the late 80s, sometimes with entire teams performing celebratory rituals after a score. That was when penalties for excessive celebration were instituted (unsportsman-like conduct, I think, covered that) and talk about the No Fun League began.

I don't see anything wrong with clebrating a score, a sack, an interception or even a tackle, but there are limits imposed by sportsmanship. Meaning this is a game and one ought to respect one's rivals. There's a custom in the NFL about not running up the scoreboard when the game is effectively won. Mostly this practice is adhered to because it amkes no sense to risk one's players when there's nothing further to be gained, but also out of respect to the other team. Celebrations should take that into account.

The first time the Steelers met the Cowboys in the Superbowl, Roy Gerela missed a field goal, and a Cowboys player came over, patted him on the head and otherwise mocked him. Unfortunately for him Jack Lambert was standing right there. Lambert picked up the Cowboys player and slammed him to the turf. Lambert was penalized with a personal foul (rightly), but I can understand why he reacted that way. Celebrating a missed field goal by the opposition is ok, mocking the kicker is not.

Earleir in this nameless decade many players would celebrate by insulting the other team's players and/or fans. That's tacky and unbecoming a professional. The League has levied fines and imposed penalties. This attitude has abated somewhat.

Another thing, watch the highlight shows and take a good look. All teams, usually, score on every game. These shows will show the scores and often the celebrations that follow. Consider how the losing team celebrated each score, sack, etc, then ask yourself how ridiculous it looks after the game when they've lost.

Speaking of penalties (we were speaking of penalties?) I had an idea the other day about a means for reducing what I call serious penalties. Let me backtrack. I divide penalties in two categories: light and serious. Light penalties are procedural and often the result of errors. Things like offside, illegal formation, delay of game and such. These are penalized by 5 yards. The serious ones are things like personal foul, grabbing the face mask, holding, roughing the passer/kicker/punter/holder, pass interference, late hits, etc. These get 10 to 15 yards, sometimes loss of down (illegal grounding) and a first down for the other team if it is in offense mode.

Serious penalties sometimes are commited because the alternative is to let the other team score. Sometimes because the player making them thinks he can get away with it. Either way it's poor sportsmanship to willfully break the rules, especially when such acts risk the well-being of other players (like face mask penalties and late hits). So how about any player who commits such penalties has to sit out the next play he'd be on? I'd even go as far as allowing the player on the next play in exchange for a time out (no time outs left, no deal)

The notion is modeled on an existing NFL rule that any player requiring medical assistance on the field has to sit out the next play. The itnent of this rule is that players won't fake injuries in order to stop the clock. The intent in my rule is that players will be more careful as well. As it is many serious penalties are stupid. Holding a defender is not preferable to a sack (neither is intentional grounding, though this one can be commited in error).

Just a thought.

[Jake_Ellison]

The other quotes are contained in the book that was mentioned before, I do not have a copy on hand but you can see the sources of the quotes in the back of the book.

I don't have time to go further than that, if you want to believe Rush Limbaugh is a good guy, go for it. I'll keep my peace of mind after looking at some of the things he's said.

The quote that you lied about is the one in which he is supposedly saying that slavery was a good thing. That is the one we asked you to back up, not the other, perfectly harmless jokes and exaggerations.

If you have actually heard the audio, and know for a fact that he said that, then it shouldn't take more time to link it than what it took to look up the written version of it. That leads me to believe you lied about the existence of that audio (you in fact lied in three posts now), and that Rush Limbaugh in fact never defended slavery.

I don't think Rush Limbaugh is a good guy, I don't like him in the least. You'll find that I disagreed with people who defend him on this forum. But I do think you are spreading lies about him, maybe intentionally, maybe because of ignorance, and that practice of dishonesty is hurting this forum and American culture in general. You can admit it, or you can persist in your lie, but don't call me delusional for calling you out about it, and asking for proof of your claims.

Edited October 16, 2009 by Jake_Ellison

[D'kian]

We interrupt the current flame war to report what is actually going on in the league...

I'll post more later, but, wow, the Saints may overcome the reverse-curse of their name. They didn't just beat the Giants, they flattened them.

Meanwhile the Vikings tried very hard to hand the game over to the Ravens, but the Ravens refused to cooperate.

More later.

[D'kian]

What's the opposite of "Titan"? Whatever it is, that's what Tennessee should call itself now.

Ok, so it snowed (how's that Global Warming™ working out, BTW?), but, come on! 59-0! I'm speechless (mostly because I've used up a very clever line about the former Titans).

And the Jets lost to Buffalo. I can't believe I just said that. It's true, though. I just can't believe it.

Even harder to believe is what happened to the Eagles. On the other hand, the Eagles never miss a chance to screw the pooch. So it's not harder to believe after all. How about that?

On more normal games, sort of, the Cards pounded on the Seahawks (too bad, I do like the son of Jim Mora), and KC finally won a game, although only against the Redskins. I like Jim Zorn, but if he's not fired by the end of the season then the NFL no longer makes any sense. Given the way NY's teams fared, though, perhaps that's already happened.

[Thales]

D'kian, take the week off if you like. The Cowboys aren't playing this week.

Television ratings are probably atrocious.