NFL 2013-2014: Snow Plow to the Super Bowl

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
I almost, almost was willing to play devil's advocate for him until that last paragraph reminded me that this makes him, potentially, history's greatest hypocrite.
 
Remember when Tony Dungy used to be sent to talk to troubled players?

I wonder if the NFL will send him to try to "un-gay" Michael Sam.
 
Ray Rice only suspended for two games for knocking his fiancee the fuck out. Cool story, Rog. Can't wait for the four weeks of pink cleats to pretend you care about women.
 
Dogs is indefinite, shortened to 2 years, women is 2 games. Good message.

I mean... They aren't comparable at all.

This is Ray Rice's first offense, and it's one singular offense. It's not a systematic pattern of abuse.

Not defending Rice's acts in anyway and/or saying what he did is better than abusing a dog, but it's not like Vick had one isolated instance of animal cruelty and was suspended for 2 years. He was running a dogfighting ring that led to the abuse and execution of hundreds of animals.

Rice could have easily gotten more than two games, and probably should have, but he should not have gotten as much as or more than Vick.
 
Well in NFL terms that was Vick's first offense.

It was a serious crime and he was punished by the justice system as he should have been.

I'm not saying Vick was unfairly punished, I'm saying Rice got off easy. Not 2 years like Vick, but he deserved a lot more than 2 games.
 
Well in NFL terms that was Vick's first offense.

It was a serious crime and he was punished by the justice system as he should have been.

I'm not saying Vick was unfairly punished, I'm saying Rice got off easy. Not 2 years like Vick, but he deserved a lot more than 2 games.

Makes me wonder if Vick's suspension would have been lower if one of the dogs had publicly said that they forgave Vick and even married him afterwards.
 
Did Daryl Washington even get suspended when he assaulted his child's mother? Or did they do nothing because he's already suspended this upcoming season and he only just plead guilty in March?

Banned substance abuse

On April 3, 2013, the NFL announced that Washington will be suspended for the first four games of the 2013 season for violating the league's substance policy.[7]

On May 30, 2014, the NFL announced that Washington will be suspended for at least the 2014 season for once again violating the league's substance policy bringing his personal credibility and character into question after his statement from the 2013 violation: "I promise to work even harder and to not let you guys down anymore."[8]
Assault

On May 3, 2013, Washington was arrested[9] in Phoenix, Arizona on two counts of aggravated assault (and one count of criminal trespass in the first-degree) from an incident on May 1, 2013 involving his 27-year-old ex-girlfriend with whom he shares a daughter.[10][11] The altercation concerns a custody dispute over the 5-month-old child. Phoenix Police accuse him of pushing her with two hands, causing her to fall and break her right collarbone. On March 24, 2014, he pleaded guilty to the crime of aggravated assault, a class 6 felony. Washington was sentenced to one-year of supervised probation on April 23, 2014.[12]

(Daryl Washington upsets me more than just about any other athlete for completely fucking up a really good thing, just by the by)
 
BtUyxWiCIAEoHrW.jpg:large


:|
 
Knock a woman the fuck out, sit out a couple of games. That's the way it works. That's how it should be.
 
Terrelle Pryor got five games for the Ohio State shit, Rice should be double that at least.

In other news: does Seattle just cut Marshawn Lynch?
 
Terrelle Pryor got five games for the Ohio State shit, Rice should be double that at least.

In other news: does Seattle just cut Marshawn Lynch?


I think it's an option. I'd be hesitant to give him a ton of money.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
It's a lot of faith to put in Christine Michael but those are the decisions you have to make when you have to lock up as much talent as Seattle does.
 
Holding out? It means he's not showing up to training camp in order to attempt to force Seattle's front office to take his contract demands more seriously.
 
Holding out? It means he's not showing up to training camp in order to attempt to force Seattle's front office to take his contract demands more seriously.

Oh jeez. I was so confused because I read your post as "DID" Seattle just cut Lynch. I assumed that's what holding out meant, but I thought there was more to it, because I misunderstood your original post.
 
In general, I would always be hesitant to give running backs a large chunk of the offensive budget, particularly a running back going into their 8th year.

But I watched every game of their playoff run and I don't believe they would have gotten as far as they did without him. Their line looked incredible at the time, but I think it overachieved. Put a mediocre RB behind it and I don't think their offense would run nearly as efficiently as it did with him in there. And picking up the slack is a lot of pressure to put on Wilson. Alfred Morris took a lot of heat off of RG3 during our little run in 2012 and I suspect it may be a similar situation with Wilson, though he would be a very good QB in nearly any situation.

It's a tough call.
 
Last edited:
You definitely don't pay him because he's 28. If you think you can sweat $1.5 million of dead money next year you try to call his bluff and hope he plays. If you can't afford him at all next year you just cut him. He's $3 million of dead money this year but they need it way more next year with the Wilson deal coming up.
 
This will be a long tweeted message, folks. So please stay with me and let me finish my complete thought before responding...b/c i'm ANNOYED
Oh shit, I need to settle in before I read this one, brb while I refill my coffee.
 
OK.

I get what he's saying.

People were having a similar argument after the Chris Brown/Rihanna thing. I THINK, anyways, that's what he's getting at. I believe he's suggesting that women shouldn't repeatedly go back to an abusive man.

I THINK.

Because, the more I think about it. He does seem to be suggesting that the woman go back and just be better prepared for the next time. And I think that's the problem with what he's saying. He's opening that window up for confusion because he's not saying directly what he means.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom