The Weird, Wacky and Awesome World of the NFL - General Banter thread

nerd69

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

Personally I take the term 'Fighting Irish' as a great compliment to me, my fellow Irishmen & women, our spirit and our history of rebellion and standing up to the bigger foe.

But how any native American could have make a positive association with the expression 'Redskin' is beyond me.

i agree its just something iv heard off of a few people i think it has more to do with the native american theme than the term redskin itself.

with regards the phrase redskin should the community stand up and demand it be removed then i would imagine it would be gone but it is a small group that have not gotten backing from the majority of the community (at least last time i looked at this a few months back).

for me i feel if the native american community in general do not feel offended by the term then perhaps its just a world gone pc but if they did come out in force and say they didn't like it it should be done away with immediately

nerd69

BizzyC wrote: »

Hate to admit it, but this will definitely hurt his draft stock.
Not because I think is sexuality will come into play, but the publicity will.
As that article points out, there will be extra scrutiny on how he's treated.

If a team drafts him and decides he's not good enough to get decent playing time, or that they need to release him for any of the number of legitimate reasons they may have, they now have to make extra justifications for treating him like any other player on the team.

Some "experts" have his talent rated as a mid round prospect, wont be surprised if he ends up in the 6th or 7th round now.

i could see him go the other way this has vaulted him into the national spotlight and could be a huge marketing ploy for a franchise ala jason collins getting signed when he came out in the nba.

additionally as stated above he is a good player and this shows huge character i would be confident that chip kelly for example will instantly have him up a few spots on his board as he rates character higher than most

TaosHum

The only issue I can see being a problem for the kid is how the players react in the dressing room. We have seen in the past players coming out and saying they couldn't accept a player that's gay (Chris Culliver springs to mind).

Realt Dearg Sec

TaosHum wrote: »

The only issue I can see being a problem for the kid is how the players react in the dressing room. We have seen in the past players coming out and saying they couldn't accept a player that's gay (Chris Culliver springs to mind).

People like Culliver need to be reminded that there was a time when they would have been unacceptable to many people in a locker-room, when many players would have been uncomfortable sharing a shower with a black man. Those people, in time, came to be recognised as dinosaurs, and no white man hoping to survive five seconds in the NFL would dare to express those feelings now (which doesn't mean racism is no longer an issue in the NFL). And one day, not too far from now, the likes of Culliver will be seen in the exact same light. It takes people like Sam to make that happen, but it's going to happen, and homophobic players better start getting used to the fact.

padraig_f

Brave move to come out before his NFL career even starts, he is possibly sacrificing millions by doing this.

Itssoeasy wrote: »

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/10/us/politics/2-lawmakers-urge-nfl-to-change-washington-redskins-name.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&smid=tw-nytimes

What do people think about the redskins name ?

I've gone back and forth on it. I don't know the exact history of the name, if it was used as an offensive term previously. If it was, then it's unacceptable, if it wasn't, then it's a bit more of a grey area.

Maybe a good comparison is the Vikings, there's positive associations in that, fighting qualities etc. And that's what I thought about the Redskins name initially, that it was a positive association, only difference is it's referring to the colour of people's skin...

Lately I'm thinking more that even if it's a minority of people offended by it, it's reason enough to get rid of it.

This is pretty strong:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mR-tbOxlhvE

Paully D

Paully D wrote: »

Great stuff:

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap2000000324584/article/seahawks-fans-unite-in-support-of-homeless-49ers-fan-at-parade

Wow!

Small world.

Met Catherine Tate in a bar here in Kerry a couple of years back, few of us got talking with her and her friends. She was amused that we all knew our NFL (though none of us were 49ers fans). Assumed she was just another 49ers fan, didn't know she had a role in the fans organisation. I see now that she announced the 49ers 4th round draft picks before, so clearly she wasn't bs-ing us.

Leslie91

Whatever about his (Sam) draft status being affected, I always saw him as a bit of what they call a 'tweener' i.e. he is not NFL DE type material and he has never played OLB (where he probably projects to a bit more).

BizzyC

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

If character and leaderships were ranked amongst the highest qualities you looked for when drafting a player, then Michael Sam has them in abundance. What more could you ask for in a player, he has already demonstrated his footballing talent on the field. Now he has demonstrated his courage and mental toughness to step onto a lonely path, the lad's a hero imo.

The problem is though, you're not just getting Michael Sam here.
Every news outlet, every lgbt group and every homophobic group is going to key in on your organisation and scrutinize what you do.

All of your players are going to be interviewed in relation to it, press will be looking to highlight any possible issue in the organisation relating to it. If the kit manager has something to say, it will be published.
I don't think there are enough organisations in the NFL that will have the strength in leadership to navigate that storm, so his draft stock will go down.

There are plenty of teams that could do it, but you have to look at their needs as well.
Patriots could be a good place for him, but I don't see BB using a high round pick on him regardless of this story. He might be the kind of player we'd pick up around the 4th or 5th though.

UnitedIrishman

Fair play to him and he's doing something that will be important for any other gay players that decide to come out before joining the NFL in future.

The first gay player is always going to be a story (despite how much of a non-story it should be), and he's taken that mantle so it should be much easier for the second, third and fourth player to come out before it becomes a non-issue altogether. He could just have easily have said to himself that he's going to keep out of the spotlight and let that fall on someone else.

Very brave step IMO.

Son Of A Vidic

BizzyC wrote: »

The problem is though, you're not just getting Michael Sam here.
Every news outlet, every lgbt group and every homophobic group is going to key in on your organisation and scrutinize what you do.

I don't agree, the fact that any team would sign the player in the first place. Would hopefully be evidence enough that the franchise in question is not homophobic.

BizzyC wrote: »

All of your players are going to be interviewed in relation to it, press will be looking to highlight any possible issue in the organisation relating to it. If the kit manager has something to say, it will be published.

And that's why I mentioned earlier that the Pats would be ideal for him. We killed off Tebowmania when he came to us. Bill & Co would do a similar job if we signed the lad. Unfortunately though, DE isn't a pressing need for us right now so he will most likely be going elsewhere.

BizzyC wrote: »

I don't think there are enough organisations in the NFL that will have the strength in leadership to navigate that storm, so his draft stock will go down.

Some franchises might not be savy enough to handle the media hype. But I can't see how this affects his draft status. If anything, for me it climbs higher. What he did took some amount of balls and courage and I think a lot of draft day war rooms might take note of that.

BizzyC

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

I don't agree, the fact that any team would sign the player in the first place. Would hopefully be evidence enough that the franchise in question is not homophobic.

Yes, but my point being that groups who are homophobic would now have reason to attack that franchise, while LGBT groups would be critical of any decision made that wasn't in favour of the player. They'd be very popular during the draft, but if they need to bench him they'll become unpopular fast.

Some franchises might not be savy enough to handle the media hype. But I can't see how this affects his draft status. If anything, for me it climbs higher. What he did took some amount of balls and courage and I think a lot of draft day war rooms might take note of that.

He's obviously a kid of strong character, and I'd personally be very proud to see him drafted by the Pats.
The problem is that people have question marks as to how he'll be received in the NFL.
Traditionally question marks of any kind tend to hurt a players draft status.

Son Of A Vidic

BizzyC wrote: »

Yes, but my point being that groups who are homophobic would now have reason to attack that franchise,

I don't even know who those groups would be and who would give a shít anyway about what such nutjobs think.

BizzyC wrote: »

while LGBT groups would be critical of any decision made that wasn't in favour of the player.

Well in that case they'd be making an fool of themselves. Equality isn't and shouldn't be selective. If a player isn't performing on the field then he shouldn't play, regardless of whether he is heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual. One's orientation shouldn't even enter into the equation. LGBT groups may or may not try and beat that drum, but I'm pretty sure they wouldn't do it for long.

BizzyC wrote: »

He's obviously a kid of strong character, and I'd personally be very proud to see him drafted by the Pats.
The problem is that people have question marks as to how he'll be received in the NFL.
Traditionally question marks of any kind tend to hurt a players draft status.

Me to, I'd love if the Pats drafted him. The courage to step up the way he has shows so much strength of character. With the Pats, he'd get the media protection he needs and the hype would be quickly snuffed out. Then gay players that follow in his footsteps, wouldn't have that novelty hype factor to deal with.

But regarding his draft status, I suppose we won't really know how all this affects his draft status until draft day. I could be totally wrong of course, but personally I think it will only have a positive effect,

mikemac1

Jimmy Graham to get the Tight End franchise tag of 6.8 million and he is expected to file a grievance that he deserves the wide reciever tag of 11.6 million

The stats back him up, profootballfocus has him lining up as a TE just one third of his snaps.

This happened before with Finley in Green Bay but a contract was signed before a grievance case had to be settled.

Happened a few years ago with Terrelle Suggs arguing he was a defensive end which is considered a more premium position then linebacker. As far as I remember they checked all his snaps on tape and split the money difference between the two tags

None of this is news and it's been around for months but should be interesting what the league and union decide on

Realt Dearg Sec

mikemac1 wrote: »

Jimmy Graham to get the Tight End franchise tag of 6.8 million and he is expected to file a grievance that he deserves the wide reciever tag of 11.6 million

The stats back him up, profootballfocus has him lining up as a TE just one third of his snaps.

This happened before with Finley in Green Bay but a contract was signed before a grievance case had to be settled.

Happened a few years ago with Terrelle Suggs arguing he was a defensive end which is considered a more premium position then linebacker. As far as I remember they checked all his snaps on tape and split the money difference between the two tags

None of this is news and it's been around for months but should be interesting what the league and union decide on

It's interesting alright but it really goes to show how difficult positional categories are in the game. Hard to argue that Graham isn't worth more than 6 million to the saints in fairness. He'd definitely get much more on the open market.

helimachoptor

That was the case with Cook in Tennessee too, but they let him go and thankfully it was the right decision

In Exile

Interesting to watch sportscentre this morning.

They said that Sam told his teammates at the start of the season that he was gay. As a result, this is news to only the wider media.

Supposedly all NFL teams already knew about it and so did most of the NFL media types who cover the sport.

Paully D

mikemac1 wrote: »

Jimmy Graham to get the Tight End franchise tag of 6.8 million and he is expected to file a grievance that he deserves the wide reciever tag of 11.6 million

The stats back him up, profootballfocus has him lining up as a TE just one third of his snaps.

This happened before with Finley in Green Bay but a contract was signed before a grievance case had to be settled.

Happened a few years ago with Terrelle Suggs arguing he was a defensive end which is considered a more premium position then linebacker. As far as I remember they checked all his snaps on tape and split the money difference between the two tags

None of this is news and it's been around for months but should be interesting what the league and union decide on

We're going to have the same trouble with Dennis Pitta.

Putin

In Exile wrote: »

Interesting to watch sportscentre this morning.

They said that Sam told his teammates at the start of the season that he was gay. As a result, this is news to only the wider media.

Supposedly all NFL teams already knew about it and so did most of the NFL media types who cover the sport.

The New York times interviewed him yesterday and he stated that he told his teammates during college preseason. Yet in all those months since then, nothing was leaked out and fair play to everyone for backing him in college. In light of this, its pretty obvious him coming out was a decision he made himself and was nothing to do with any worries about predraft leaks ect.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/10/sports/michael-sam-college-football-star-says-he-is-gay-ahead-of-nfl-draft.html

Billy86

Deleted User wrote: »

A Missiouri Defensive End that will be drafted this year has come out as gay.
He won SEC Defensive Player of the year and is looking at a 3rd round pick.
Let's see how the NFL reacts.
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1954005-nfl-prospect-michael-sam-comes-out-as-gay-big-tests-loom-for-him-league
Quote for people on phones.

Apparently he's a 4-3 DE / 3-4 OLB 'tweener. And what team wouldn't want a linebacker called 'Mike Sam' on their roster? :pac:

If he slips significantly (and I hope he doesn't based on this - hopefully he has a really lead up to the draft to give teams no excuse), but my money would be on Marvin Lewis and the Bengals picking him up.

Billy86

Holy Jaysus, the comments.

http://msn.foxsports.com/midwest/story/mizzou-te-eric-waters-calls-out-proud-sam-teammates-on-twitter-021014

Owww, my freaking eyes!!

UnitedIrishman

Billy86 wrote: »

Holy Jaysus, the comments.

http://msn.foxsports.com/midwest/story/mizzou-te-eric-waters-calls-out-proud-sam-teammates-on-twitter-021014

Owww, my freaking eyes!!

I just don't get how many people accept gay/lesbian relationships. I don't want to see it and don't want my kids to see it. But it gets flaunted everywhere you look. If that makes me a bad parent to not want my kids to see it then I guess I'm a bad parent. This world is messed up with lots of things not just this. Loads of people have turned away from God and religion.

I know there are ****ed up people in the world.. but really.. this ****ed up? Did they get hit by a train and manage to survive or something? Are they that ****ed up?

BizzyC

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

I don't even know who those groups would be and who would give a shít anyway about what such nutjobs think.
.......
Well in that case they'd be making an fool of themselves. Equality isn't and shouldn't be selective. If a player isn't performing on the field then he shouldn't play, regardless of whether he is heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual. One's orientation shouldn't even enter into the equation. LGBT groups may or may not try and beat that drum, but I'm pretty sure they wouldn't do it for long.

You'd hope that 90% of teams out there would think the same, but I expect a few will prefer to avoid the situation entirely.

But regarding his draft status, I suppose we won't really know how all this affects his draft status until draft day. I could be totally wrong of course, but personally I think it will only have a positive effect,

Hopefully you're right, it would be great to see the nfl get past this in the most un-spectacular way possible.

Itssoeasy

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap2000000325021/article/joe-banner-michael-lombardi-leaving-browns

Lombardi and banner gone in Cleveland. That franchise is a mess and is the owner still having legal problems ?

nerd69

Billy86 wrote: »

Holy Jaysus, the comments.

http://msn.foxsports.com/midwest/story/mizzou-te-eric-waters-calls-out-proud-sam-teammates-on-twitter-021014

Owww, my freaking eyes!!

ya i saw one article where someone said it was unfair that sam was getting all this praise for coming out as gay when tebow didn't get any for coming out as born again christian.

some people are just idiots im afraid

Tristram

God help Browns fans.

bobby wade

Bye bye Rollerdome

‏@Vikings · 10m
Down goes the Dome! RT "@MplsSports: Wrecking ball is swinging away. @vikings #Metrodome pic.twitter.com/n2SJklpmkr

taidghbaby

Some ****e being spouted by current NFL players at the moment! I'd much rather share a changing room with Michael Sam than a fcuking dog killer like Michael Vick!

matthew8

Stolen from YLYL:



Meanwhile, Matt Birk was saying he's played with numerous players who everyone in the locker room knew was gay and that it was no problem.

Hazys

matthew8 wrote: »

Meanwhile, Matt Birk was saying he's played with numerous players who everyone in the locker room knew was gay and that it was no problem.

Matt Birk is anti gay marriage, he strikes me as a "I'm not a racist, i have a black friend" type of guy.

BizzyC

I'm surprised we haven't seen more ex-players come out in recent years actually.

Michael Sam will be the first openly gay active player, but he's definitely not the first gay player in the league.
I'm sure there has to be some in the HOF as well...