NFL General Discussion

[Mr. Brightside]

It's a job... You need to look after number one. Spending that money elsewhere might help, it might not. Either way, it's better in your pocket than somebody else's.

It's greed, though. Like any of the top end QBs will be short of money or a job after they retire.

[Stewbo]

It's greed, though. Like any of the top end QBs will be short of money or a job after they retire.

Everybody is greedy though, if youre living fairly comfortably on your wages and you found out someone else was getting paid double that for doing the same thing would you not want the same? Its human nature to always want more than you have, thats just how life works

[lichtie23]

It's greed, though. Like any of the top end QBs will be short of money or a job after they retire.

I'm sure Brady took a wee pay cut last season so they could afford too keep Welker

[strichener]

I'm sure Brady took a wee pay cut last season so they could afford too keep Welker

I thought he just re-worked it for longer with more total money and it rather more back loaded. I could be wrong though.

[Stewbo]

I thought he just re-worked it for longer with more total money and it rather more back loaded. I could be wrong though.

Aye I think you're right, either that or it was less guaranteed money or something. A restructuring to bend salary cap rules anyway

[strichener]

Aye I think you're right, either that or it was less guaranteed money or something. A restructuring to bend salary cap rules anyway

This was without doubt the intention but the way it was portrayed by the NFL you would think he had agreed to play for vet minimum

[Mr. Brightside]

So who is up for a spare $16.5 million in their salary cap next season? Oh yeah, the Jets.

It is very likely we'll release Santonio Holmes ($8.25m) and Mark Sanchez ($8.3m).

[thehoss]

So who is up for a spare $16.5 million in their salary cap next season? Oh yeah, the Jets.

It is very likely we'll release Santonio Holmes ($8.25m) and Mark Sanchez ($8.3m).

Not sure that's enough cap space to bring back tebow.

He is the saviour after all.

[thehoss]

Brandon browner suspended indefinitely after losing his appeal for PEDs.

So only the 7 Seahawks caught using PEDs since 2011.

Under control indeed Pete Carroll.

[strichener]

Garvin fined $25k. Rather harsh I thought since the League appear to be making up the rules as they go (as usual). The punter cannot be a defenceless player during open field action, that is just patently stupid.

[Stewbo]

Garvin fined $25k. Rather harsh I thought since the League appear to be making up the rules as they go (as usual). The punter cannot be a defenceless player during open field action, that is just patently stupid.

Aye that's rotten, most of the league fines are tbh. Suh seems to get fined after every game for someting or other, fair enough a few times it's been deserved but a lot of the time it isn't. They really should have an independent panel to deal with disciplinary action.

[Mr. Brightside]

Suh is a thug and should be fined every week.

[Stewbo]

Suh is a thug and should be fined every week.

Because he's not liked? Hes done some stupid things and been punished for them, but hes also been punished for things that other players do all the time. Hes clearly been singled out and no matter who it is, that shouldnt happen to anyone in a sport.

[Mr. Brightside]

Because he's not liked? Hes done some stupid things and been punished for them, but hes also been punished for things that other players do all the time. Hes clearly been singled out and no matter who it is, that shouldnt happen to anyone in a sport.

He brought it upon himself, like Gareth Bale being booked for diving when he actually got fouled. I have no sympathy for them.

[thehoss]

He brought it upon himself, like Gareth Bale being booked for diving when he actually got fouled. I have no sympathy for them.

Hasn't he cleaned up his act now? Could have swore I read an article here he was trying to curb his dirty play.

[lichtie23]

Tho I agree with Brightside that Suh is a total thug, I'm sure we can all agree he is a hell of a player

[Pride_of_the_Clyde]

Regarding the hit on the punter in the Steeler match; the league can impose as many fines and legislation as it likes but ultimately the overwhelming onus is on the players to ensure the safety of themselves and their fellow professionals when they're on the field.

I completely understand that the lad from Pittsburgh is doing his utmost to maintain his career by catching his coaches eye and that of evaluators from other teams and that special teams is the only phase of the game for a guy to do that when he's so buried on the depth chart. That said, what he did was so far beyond reasonable and justified.

I understand that he may not be able to identify the protected punter in the rush of the play, or that punters should neccesarily even be protected while not in the act of punting, however the hit was laid miles off the play and to the head and neck of a guy much smaller than him.

The fact is though, a great number of players would have done likewise and this is why I say the greatest onus for player safety lies with the players themselves. Why do you need to make that hit? It's dangerous and has no effect on the play.

I am with defenders when they bemoan the fact that they can't play the game as physically as they should be able to - nothing is more frustrating in the game than ticky tacky penalties in favour of an offense. We've all seen plenty of games ruined that way.

But ultimately, in the play in question and others like it, when you could seriously injure a man when you could otherwise safely take him out, that's when attitudes in the locker room have to change. That's the most important factor.

Yes, everyone on the field accepts a level of risk by being out there but lets not needlessly raise that with cheap shots like we saw the other night.

[strichener]

Regarding the hit on the punter in the Steeler match; the league can impose as many fines and legislation as it likes but ultimately the overwhelming onus is on the players to ensure the safety of themselves and their fellow professionals when they're on the field.

I completely understand that the lad from Pittsburgh is doing his utmost to maintain his career by catching his coaches eye and that of evaluators from other teams and that special teams is the only phase of the game for a guy to do that when he's so buried on the depth chart. That said, what he did was so far beyond reasonable and justified.

I understand that he may not be able to identify the protected punter in the rush of the play, or that punters should neccesarily even be protected while not in the act of punting, however the hit was laid miles off the play and to the head and neck of a guy much smaller than him.

The fact is though, a great number of players would have done likewise and this is why I say the greatest onus for player safety lies with the players themselves. Why do you need to make that hit? It's dangerous and has no effect on the play.

I am with defenders when they bemoan the fact that they can't play the game as physically as they should be able to - nothing is more frustrating in the game than ticky tacky penalties in favour of an offense. We've all seen plenty of games ruined that way.

But ultimately, in the play in question and others like it, when you could seriously injure a man when you could otherwise safely take him out, that's when attitudes in the locker room have to change. That's the most important factor.

Yes, everyone on the field accepts a level of risk by being out there but lets not needlessly raise that with cheap shots like we saw the other night.

Whilst I agree with a lot that you say regarding player safety, you need to go and review the actual play again. At the time that the block was made on the punter, the returner was within three/four yards of the blocker and the punter was making his way across the pitch to tackle the returner. I don't agree that it was "miles" off the play and think that it was legitimate to block. Also the idea that the punter was "much smaller" than the LB needs clarifying: LB: 221lbs 6'3 Punter: 212lbs 6'1 - not exactly a great deal in it.

Edited December 20, 2013 by strichener

[Mr. Brightside]

POTC over embellishing as usual, nothing to see here, move along.

[invergowrie arab]

Garbage.if your on the field your on the field to play. Are you saying a prop shouldn't touch a scrum half in rugby? Or a big centre half shouldn't clear out a wee striker.

Kickers and punters piss me off with their half arsed attempts to be in the game,arm tackles and pretending to get side stepped.