|
On October 23 2014 02:40 AgentW wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2014 01:19 QuanticHawk wrote:
It would have to be something similar to getting megatron and giving deangello Williams for that kind of stupidity needing to be blocked. It would have to be way beyond a normal fleecing to deserve a veto I think it would have to be worse. I'm a proponent of "you can't ban stupidity" when vetoing trades. Megatron is hurt (I know it was just an example, but I'm running with it) and maybe the guy is super deep at WR and just really needs a RB. There's no such thing as winning or losing a trade; the only important thing is that your team improves. Just because a trade seems unfair in a non-existant vacuum doesn't mean that it's not helpful to both parties. Show nested quote +On October 23 2014 02:28 Jibba wrote:On October 22 2014 22:39 c0ldfusion wrote:On October 22 2014 21:29 AgentW wrote:On October 22 2014 21:07 c0ldfusion wrote:On October 22 2014 15:35 LeeDawg wrote:
I'm just happy to be at a point where in week 8 I don't feel the need to make too many waiver moves. Granted, my friend who dropped Cam Newton (for Kirk Cousins!) and the Cardinals D make that easier.
Speaking of this borderline clueless friend, I've been thinking of trying to get him to trade me Alfred Morris. His team is pretty decrepit top to bottom, so it may be easy to sway him, but I don't know if it will be worth trading for Morris, considering how he's played recently, and the way the offense is trending in D.C. I already have McCoy, the last thing I need is another back who gives me headaches each week... Trade raping a friend who has no chance of going anywhere with his team is basically collusion. The rest of your league will shun you if you do this. What? It's only collusion if he willingly agrees to help LeeDawg at something below market price. Stupidity does not equate to collusion. Rip him off, LeeDawg, rip him off. Whether the other party is willing or not is irrelevant. The result is the same. You're trying to gain an unfair advantage and reducing the level of competitiveness in the league. If you attempted that in my league, it'd get vetoed to oblivion and you'd be subsequently shunned. Your league still has vetos and therefore sucks. Collusion is about the process, not the outcome. Everyone should be encouraged to rip each other to shreds. This is goddamn 'Murka, not Soviet Finland. y0su is gonna be mad.
We don't actually do trades here... The league just votes to redistribute players so the teams are more even :D :D
|
On October 23 2014 10:15 Jibba wrote:http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/11745121/kansas-city-chiefs-monitor-jamaal-charles-concussion-signs+ Show Spoiler +Uh... Burkholder said Wednesday that he checked Charles after the hit and that the running back showed no signs of a concussion, although Charles said in an ESPN Radio interview Tuesday on The Dan Le Batard Show that he wasn't checked for a concussion Sunday.
...
"It definitely hurt," Charles said. "A couple plays later, I just [saw] this light buzz around my eyes and I was trying to catch 'em. But I was like, 'Let's get the ball and run again.'"
...
He went on to describe other symptoms that could be consistent with those of a concussion. He said he had flashbacks to scenes from his childhood. But he indicated he was never checked for a concussion because, he said, he didn't have one. Charles finished the game.
...
"I didn't have a concussion," he said. "It was definitely a hit that shocked me. I didn't think I had to go through the concussion protocol and all that because I didn't want to go through that again. That's what happened in the playoffs. I was definitely fine. I think I came out pretty good.
"I could definitely play through stuff like that. It wasn't a concussion. If it was a concussion, I wouldn't remember the plays or remember none of my teammates' names or remember what sideline to go to. I definitely remember everything. It was just a huge hit." So it was just a huge hit that caused childhood flashbacks and lights to whir around his vision, not a concussion. Nothing to worry about, guys!
Then proceed to sue the league because they lied about the long term effects of repeated blows to the head!
|
On October 23 2014 10:49 y0su wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2014 02:40 AgentW wrote:On October 23 2014 01:19 QuanticHawk wrote:
It would have to be something similar to getting megatron and giving deangello Williams for that kind of stupidity needing to be blocked. It would have to be way beyond a normal fleecing to deserve a veto I think it would have to be worse. I'm a proponent of "you can't ban stupidity" when vetoing trades. Megatron is hurt (I know it was just an example, but I'm running with it) and maybe the guy is super deep at WR and just really needs a RB. There's no such thing as winning or losing a trade; the only important thing is that your team improves. Just because a trade seems unfair in a non-existant vacuum doesn't mean that it's not helpful to both parties. On October 23 2014 02:28 Jibba wrote:On October 22 2014 22:39 c0ldfusion wrote:On October 22 2014 21:29 AgentW wrote:On October 22 2014 21:07 c0ldfusion wrote:On October 22 2014 15:35 LeeDawg wrote:
I'm just happy to be at a point where in week 8 I don't feel the need to make too many waiver moves. Granted, my friend who dropped Cam Newton (for Kirk Cousins!) and the Cardinals D make that easier.
Speaking of this borderline clueless friend, I've been thinking of trying to get him to trade me Alfred Morris. His team is pretty decrepit top to bottom, so it may be easy to sway him, but I don't know if it will be worth trading for Morris, considering how he's played recently, and the way the offense is trending in D.C. I already have McCoy, the last thing I need is another back who gives me headaches each week... Trade raping a friend who has no chance of going anywhere with his team is basically collusion. The rest of your league will shun you if you do this. What? It's only collusion if he willingly agrees to help LeeDawg at something below market price. Stupidity does not equate to collusion. Rip him off, LeeDawg, rip him off. Whether the other party is willing or not is irrelevant. The result is the same. You're trying to gain an unfair advantage and reducing the level of competitiveness in the league. If you attempted that in my league, it'd get vetoed to oblivion and you'd be subsequently shunned. Your league still has vetos and therefore sucks. Collusion is about the process, not the outcome. Everyone should be encouraged to rip each other to shreds. This is goddamn 'Murka, not Soviet Finland. y0su is gonna be mad. We don't actually do trades here... The league just votes to redistribute players so the teams are more even :D :D
I didn't know you pinko commies voted! 
|
On October 23 2014 10:57 Kevin_Sorbo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2014 10:15 Jibba wrote:http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/11745121/kansas-city-chiefs-monitor-jamaal-charles-concussion-signs+ Show Spoiler +Uh... Burkholder said Wednesday that he checked Charles after the hit and that the running back showed no signs of a concussion, although Charles said in an ESPN Radio interview Tuesday on The Dan Le Batard Show that he wasn't checked for a concussion Sunday.
...
"It definitely hurt," Charles said. "A couple plays later, I just [saw] this light buzz around my eyes and I was trying to catch 'em. But I was like, 'Let's get the ball and run again.'"
...
He went on to describe other symptoms that could be consistent with those of a concussion. He said he had flashbacks to scenes from his childhood. But he indicated he was never checked for a concussion because, he said, he didn't have one. Charles finished the game.
...
"I didn't have a concussion," he said. "It was definitely a hit that shocked me. I didn't think I had to go through the concussion protocol and all that because I didn't want to go through that again. That's what happened in the playoffs. I was definitely fine. I think I came out pretty good.
"I could definitely play through stuff like that. It wasn't a concussion. If it was a concussion, I wouldn't remember the plays or remember none of my teammates' names or remember what sideline to go to. I definitely remember everything. It was just a huge hit." So it was just a huge hit that caused childhood flashbacks and lights to whir around his vision, not a concussion. Nothing to worry about, guys! Then proceed to sue the league because they lied about the long term effects of repeated blows to the head!
You guys should check the Vilma appearance on First and 10(I know I kind of hate the show too, but it's extremely relevant in this case) if you can. They specifically brought up the lawsuits, and Charles's quotes, and the interplay between them, and Vilma basically said it's on the NFL to protect the players from themselves, and that they have every right to sue and shouldn't have to sign away any of those rights even if they act like Charles, because the doctors should just assert themselves and 'take players off the field.'
That became very much a run-on I know. It's infuriating to hear this attitude expressed though.
|
On October 23 2014 11:17 red_ wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2014 10:57 Kevin_Sorbo wrote:On October 23 2014 10:15 Jibba wrote:http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/11745121/kansas-city-chiefs-monitor-jamaal-charles-concussion-signs+ Show Spoiler +Uh... Burkholder said Wednesday that he checked Charles after the hit and that the running back showed no signs of a concussion, although Charles said in an ESPN Radio interview Tuesday on The Dan Le Batard Show that he wasn't checked for a concussion Sunday.
...
"It definitely hurt," Charles said. "A couple plays later, I just [saw] this light buzz around my eyes and I was trying to catch 'em. But I was like, 'Let's get the ball and run again.'"
...
He went on to describe other symptoms that could be consistent with those of a concussion. He said he had flashbacks to scenes from his childhood. But he indicated he was never checked for a concussion because, he said, he didn't have one. Charles finished the game.
...
"I didn't have a concussion," he said. "It was definitely a hit that shocked me. I didn't think I had to go through the concussion protocol and all that because I didn't want to go through that again. That's what happened in the playoffs. I was definitely fine. I think I came out pretty good.
"I could definitely play through stuff like that. It wasn't a concussion. If it was a concussion, I wouldn't remember the plays or remember none of my teammates' names or remember what sideline to go to. I definitely remember everything. It was just a huge hit." So it was just a huge hit that caused childhood flashbacks and lights to whir around his vision, not a concussion. Nothing to worry about, guys! Then proceed to sue the league because they lied about the long term effects of repeated blows to the head! You guys should check the Vilma appearance on First and 10(I know I kind of hate the show too, but it's extremely relevant in this case) if you can. They specifically brought up the lawsuits, and Charles's quotes, and the interplay between them, and Vilma basically said it's on the NFL to protect the players from themselves, and that they have every right to sue and shouldn't have to sign away any of those rights even if they act like Charles, because the doctors should just assert themselves and 'take players off the field.' That became very much a run-on I know. It's infuriating to hear this attitude expressed though.
I took it more as that the doctors should be given more leeway to step in. Players are, frankly, dumb. They'd rather take a hit to the head and risk a concussion than one to the knees and miss a year. They leverage their later years for a portion of their careers *intentionally*. Everybody on the team wants their best players on the field so they have the best chance at winning. It's the doctor's job to be stuck in the asshole position where they have the tell the entire team to deal with it. I don't envy the position.
|
"A couple plays later, I just [saw] this light buzz around my eyes and I was trying to catch 'em"
The mind of the typical RB.
|
On October 23 2014 12:09 Gahlo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2014 11:17 red_ wrote:On October 23 2014 10:57 Kevin_Sorbo wrote:On October 23 2014 10:15 Jibba wrote:http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/11745121/kansas-city-chiefs-monitor-jamaal-charles-concussion-signs+ Show Spoiler +Uh... Burkholder said Wednesday that he checked Charles after the hit and that the running back showed no signs of a concussion, although Charles said in an ESPN Radio interview Tuesday on The Dan Le Batard Show that he wasn't checked for a concussion Sunday.
...
"It definitely hurt," Charles said. "A couple plays later, I just [saw] this light buzz around my eyes and I was trying to catch 'em. But I was like, 'Let's get the ball and run again.'"
...
He went on to describe other symptoms that could be consistent with those of a concussion. He said he had flashbacks to scenes from his childhood. But he indicated he was never checked for a concussion because, he said, he didn't have one. Charles finished the game.
...
"I didn't have a concussion," he said. "It was definitely a hit that shocked me. I didn't think I had to go through the concussion protocol and all that because I didn't want to go through that again. That's what happened in the playoffs. I was definitely fine. I think I came out pretty good.
"I could definitely play through stuff like that. It wasn't a concussion. If it was a concussion, I wouldn't remember the plays or remember none of my teammates' names or remember what sideline to go to. I definitely remember everything. It was just a huge hit." So it was just a huge hit that caused childhood flashbacks and lights to whir around his vision, not a concussion. Nothing to worry about, guys! Then proceed to sue the league because they lied about the long term effects of repeated blows to the head! You guys should check the Vilma appearance on First and 10(I know I kind of hate the show too, but it's extremely relevant in this case) if you can. They specifically brought up the lawsuits, and Charles's quotes, and the interplay between them, and Vilma basically said it's on the NFL to protect the players from themselves, and that they have every right to sue and shouldn't have to sign away any of those rights even if they act like Charles, because the doctors should just assert themselves and 'take players off the field.' That became very much a run-on I know. It's infuriating to hear this attitude expressed though. I took it more as that the doctors should be given more leeway to step in. Players are, frankly, dumb. They'd rather take a hit to the head and risk a concussion than one to the knees and miss a year. They leverage their later years for a portion of their careers *intentionally*. Everybody on the team wants their best players on the field so they have the best chance at winning. It's the doctor's job to be stuck in the asshole position where they have the tell the entire team to deal with it. I don't envy the position.
Yeah that's a really shitty position. I kind of want the players to be able to decide. But what the hell to do they know about that stuff.
It would be much less of an issue if the the damn league guaranteed contracts
|
51593 Posts
|
I'd stop blocking for him.
|
hmm.. not as good as the Roley's given out by Curtis Martin eh?
|
Nice to have a legitimately good matchup on Thursday. Hopefully her game will live up to the billing.
|
Yeah I'm curious myself as to how this game is going to play out. I didn't realize it was on a Thursday when I saw the schedule at the beginning of the season.
|
United States97276 Posts
I wonder if Peyton's old bones had enough time to recuperate before this game
|
Seems like he's doing alright.
|
United States97276 Posts
Yeah I'm loving the Sanders TDs the last 2 games
|
Is it just me, or does the head ref sound exactly like Manning when he talks on the mic?
|
He's got the same accent.
|
Sanders gettin all of Peyton's love today.
|
I assume Montee Ball isn't getting his job back? At least not all of it.
|
United States22883 Posts
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
