Jump to content

alwaysfallforward

Pure Football
  • Posts

    3,416
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by alwaysfallforward

  1. With the innocent until proven guilty part, I want to share a few thoughts. I am an adamant believer of innocent until proven guilty, I believe that if you can't provide sufficient evidence someone is guilty they should walk. From my understanding, a jury is not supposed to vote based on whether or not they believe a person is guilty or not, but only vote guilty if there is sufficient evidence of the person being guilty, I believe that is how it should be. I also do think everyone should have a jury trial option. However, the photos are pretty good evidence to me. Granted, I don't know every fact, but I do think that is pretty good physical evidence. It may not be 100%, but if the standard is a true 100% I'm not sure we can ever convict anyone, that may not be reasonable. The standard should be very high, but I don't know if absolute certainty is reasonable to expect. If he is somehow innocent(I don't think so)then he has been wronged, and that shouldn't happen, and if someone is wrongfully put in jail, whether it was a reasonable mistake or not they should be compensated very well imo. I'd be surprised if Hardy is innocent though, but I do feel I should acknowledge I could be wrong.
  2. I agree with the part about hitting a child being worse than hitting an adult, but I think the bolded part should be left out, that shouldn't be factored in, that doesn't make it any more ok to do imo.
  3. I agree to an extent with you about the double standard. Taking nude pics of a guy isn't any worse than taking nude pics of a girl. Of course, the degree of injury caused does matter as well. However, I do agree that if Rousey were to cause/try and cause the same degree of injury that it appears Hardy did, it would be hypocritical to have a problem with Hardy and have no problem with that. I say agree to an extent, because most of the time a women's punch won't be as hard as a man's, and genders have different bone structures and things like that so I can see people thinking that should be taken into account, but it's not purely about gender for me, and I do still think DV from women to men is wrong...essentially assaults aren't ok just because they may not cause much if any injury. It does seem like you are saying you take issue with what it appears Hardy did, so I don't think your defending Hardy's actions.
  4. Randle was a good back from what I've seen I don't think he should have been cut based on performance. Good speed and explosion, a good home run threat and I remember a play where he did a good job getting yards while being tackled against a good leg tackle, I like those plays, they can be very effective Dallas does have a great line, however without Romo it seems their run game suffers. Randle averaged over 6 yards a pop last year. Romo played most of the Philly game but Philly's defense I believe has shown to get the better of Dallas's line. If legal issues are being factored in, then Hardy has them too, and I haven't heard of a whole lot of evidence about what Randle did, whereas in Hardy's case there are pictures. Hardy seems to get into altercations with teammates and coaches, Randle seems more to be simply upset over playing time matters or being told not to dive over the goal line, I would say Hardy is worse there for a working environment. I do agree with fib that keeping Hardy and cutting Randle seems a bit ridiculous. As to minimum wage, I say raise it. Bottom line is this for me-if I want to order pizzas, get McDonalds, get mall pretzels etc....someone has to make them/deliver them. If everyone followed the 'get a better career' advise....who does that job? Essentially, if I want the job done, I do feel like those who do it should be sufficiently paid, regardless of perceptions about whether or not that job should be a career.
  5. This shouldn't happen, that's not cool. Players should perhaps wear the visors like LT did, something to protect their eyes. If it does happen all the time, that should change imo.
  6. AFC NORTH 1-Steelers 2-Bengals 3-Ravens 4-Browns AFC SOUTH 1-Colts 2-Texans 3-Titans 4-Jaguars AFC EAST 1-Patriots 2-Dolphins 3-Bills 4-Jets AFC WEST 1-Chargers 2-Broncos 3-Chiefs 4-Raiders NFC NORTH 1-Lions 2-Packers 3-Bears 4-Vikings NFC SOUTH 1-Falcons 2-Saints 3-Panthers 4-Bucs NFC EAST 1-Cowboys 2-Eagles 3-Giants 4-Redskins NFC WEST 1-Cardinals 2-Seahawks 3-49ers 4-Rams I think that with Dan Quinn the Falcons defense will be better, and that the zone blocking scheme should help make the Falcons running game better, that balance should make their offense better by helping with down and distance and a better defense should help a lot.
  7. I agree, didn't like that. I could live with the Undertaker vs Lesnar, the ending wasn't so bad for me. I think they may be playing it off as a 'strategic tap', knowing the ref wasn't watching trying to get Lesnar to break his hold. The Stewart thing was terrible though, it was a title for title match and you have it decided by an interference, really? I will say though, that I think they are doing MUCH better than before. The whole 'authority vs good guys' thing was getting WAY too old, where it was basically two sides, and the 'mighty powerful bad authority interfering with matches and stacking the deck against the 'good guys', and JBL with insanely ridiculous bias saying some outrageous things to defend the authority's side. It is scripted, but it's supposed to seem real..if that was real then it's like....whoop-de-do...you won a match with 3 people helping you. Several people team together to prove they can win a match against one guy, doesn't seem worth it and it's kind of embarrassing lol. Now though, they have different types of feuds that we're seeing, which I like. Rollins is also doing more of standing on his own, and has had some good matches. I wish they would stop this theme of someone helping him in a match though. At least now it's for different reasons(usually someone else having a feud with his opponent), but even so I say they should either have him win matches on his own or have a new champion.
  8. Agreed, a player could get injured in a practice. Heck, some guys may even manage to get knicked up in a non contact practice, some guys get knicked up playing basketball. I get that extra contact increases the odds, but the bottom line is that if you want to play a game that involves contact then you will probably be involved in....contact. Preseason games serve a purpose for seeing how rookies and non rookie guys that don't often get playing time perform in games. For guys that do get playing time in the regular season, it can serve as a 'conditioning', help get guys into 'playing mode'. It's even worse to me when no tackling in practice is advocated. I understand not wanting guys to get injured, however if you don't practice contact aspects you may very well have sloppy play in contact aspects. Conditioning is key in performance when it comes to football imo. SOME precautions can be a good thing I think, however it gets ridiculous when it goes to the extreme of feeling like you can't even do a few runs through a tackling drill. If you feel that doing 3-4 runs through a tackling drill is a huge injury risk, I'm not sure how you figure your going to get very far into a season without several injuries, lol.
  9. I don't think QBs 'make' receivers, I think it's more that they allow receivers to expand what they can do, and that some offenses do a great job of using receivers well. I'd say NE and NO have been the best at recovering from the loss of skill players, but I think GB has shown they can do it pretty well also.
  10. The Niners managed the 5th defense in the NFL with a lot of injuries last year, I think Vic Fangio has proven he can do it without a roster stacked with big named stars. Quinn though, hasn't proven he can do that. Granted, he hasn't failed at it either, he just hasn't been tested. It is interesting that 2 great defensive minds are going to 2 teams who were terrible defensively last year.
  11. Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from people judging your speech, in fact it implies the opposite is true, as 'judgmental' speech is a part of it. I know you didn't mention freedom of speech, but I figured I'd throw it out there because people often use 'freedom of speech' as a defense when people judge what they say. As for Josh Robinson, perhaps HOW he said it was what caused more of a reaction. Adrian Peterson said he didn't support gay marriage I believe, as did David Tyree. It was talked about, but people didn't seem to vilify them too strongly. AP said he didn't support it, Tyree I believe talked about the tradition of marriage. Robinson however, made comparisons of gay marriage to child molestation, which shows a strong misunderstanding of what he is objecting to. If someone really doesn't know the difference between those two things and is speaking out in outrage, it's hard to have very much sympathy for them. PC or not, gay marriage is something I support. I'll defend free speech strongly, including speech I don't approve of, but as I stated in my first paragraph Robinson's free speech rights were not violated. He isn't someone I have sympathy for.
  12. Glad they did it, good for them taking a stand. Let's be honest here, this is not likely to hurt the team, or the NFL very much. The owners will likely still be rich, the team will probably make a lot of money still. Julian Edelman put a rainbow over his facebook profile, but I doubt the Pats will lose a lot of money over it. Him doing it will probably have little to no bearing on how much they throw to him. People love football, it is hard to stay away when your a fan. I doubt enough fans will actually buoycott the team over this, especially considering the area the team is from where a good bulk of the fans probably are.
  13. I wonder how the Bears defense will do with Vic Fangio, the Bears defense is terrible by NFL Standards imo, that will be a tough job for him to try and improve. What could work in their favor is that the 49ers defense that Vic Fangio coordinated played their division rivals the Packers offense pretty well while he was in San Fransisco. They tackled very well in San Fransisco, with a defense seemingly largely centered around the linebackers that wrack up a lot of tackles, reading the play, taking good angles and etc. Forcing an offense to make post snap adjustments can be key as well. When an offense is able to set up the play they want, it can be very difficult to stop them. They have a mental edge when they are able to imagine a play happening a certain way, and it happens-they can prepare for it mentally. If they have to make a post snap adjustment though, it is more difficult. Turnovers are key as well. It isn't necessarily easy to make an offense make post snap adjustments consistently, so if you take big advantage when you do that can be very helpful.
  14. Kaep seems to play unusually well against Green Bay. I believe he threw for 412 yards on the Packers defense WITHOUT Crabtree, and their pass offense without Crabtree was usually terrible, it may have even been worst in the league terrible. In part, it was probably teams adjusting better to the option. IMO Russell Wilson adjusted well, and learned how to make teams pay for devoting extra attention to stopping his runs, it became a 'pick your poison' sort of thing, where he didn't have to necessarily torch you with his runs for his running ability to be helpful. He seems to take advantage of passing lanes opened up due to extra attention given to stopping him from running, it may be part of why they are so good at deep balls. However, Kaep did not adjust well imo. When teams devote attention to playing his runs, it seems it works very well. In his case, it's 'if you shut down his running lanes, you likely shut him down', he doesn't seem to turn it into a 'pick your poison' type of thing.
  15. Pretty much. The courts are not likely to see him as a victim. Courts will only see you as a victim if it was a necessary act of self defense, as in actually needing to do it to prevent further harm from coming to yourself. One time a guy punched me in the ear, and then backed away after doing it. I walked towards him, he continued backing away, I eventually stopped my pursuit. If I had chased him down to punch him, that would probably not count as self defense, because it probably would not be seen as necessary to defend myself. Revenge shots aren't seen as self defense. That was between two men who were around equal size. I may have been a bit stronger(maybe not, I really don't know)but basically it wasn't something where a stronger person would be expected to be aware of that in how they respond. If she had actually come at him, and he shoved her away that probably would have been ok, but what he did with the belt probably would have been seen as too far, since she was nowhere near as strong as he was, and probably was never much of a threat to harm him. Granted, it would probably be believed by many that she was largely responsible for what happened, but that doesn't mean he gets off the hook.
  16. If he had hit her with the belt while they were involved with the fight, I'd say it was justified. After all, saying someone can essentially join in a jumping and be exempt from physical retaliation seems like a HUGE stretch to me. However, the thing is...she wasn't doing that when he struck her. She isn't exactly a 'sympathetic victim', but what he did wasn't justified either.
  17. As I said before, it's hard to sympathize too much with the woman since she was getting involved with the fight. When he initially hit her though, she wasn't. Now, had there been people jumping him and she got involved, then yeah I would say it would have been justified, but that wasn't what happened when he initially hit her. Pretty much. Had she been coming at him, actually trying to hurt him I could see him having a defense(if it was 'reasonably within the bounds of what she was trying to do')however, if she didn't even try to hit him there isn't much of a good defense he has for his actions.
  18. Yeah, the 'I'm totally innocent' approach likely won't fly, and shouldn't. There isn't much of a defense he has for many of his actions. He attacked that one woman with the belt, and she didn't even touch him. I have no clue where some people commenting on the Youtube video are getting the idea that that was self defense. You could make that case for the first man he was fighting, but her?....I get the feeling some people may buy some Ocean Front property in Arizona. Granted, when you see her start jumping in to help the person assaulting Galette's friend afterward it's hard for me to have much sympathy, but that doesn't equate to saying he's innocent. It seems a lot of people in this case were the 'see a fight, jump in and add to it' types of people, the types who won't let things diffuse, that mentality is strongly asking for trouble imo. He also seems to assault a man trying to break up the fight, not good at all. This situation makes it a bit harder to believe his innocence in his DV case as well.
  19. 2-3 games, why how outrageous. Imagine the GRATUITOUS amount more pressure you put on him than most other players by paying attention to him. It is OUTRAGEOUS than a PROFESSIONAL football player would be paid attention to, lol.
  20. Yeah, that was weird that he was saying people calling him a bust didn't have to do with football. People criticizing his football play is football talk because well....it's talk about football, lol. If he disagrees with those criticisms then that's one thing, but attributing them to the movie seems pretty ridiculous to me.
  21. Yeah, I read about that on Facebook. I think he may be saying this for attention, because it really makes no sense that the movie hurt his career, I think the guy is being ridiculous. First of all, I HIGHLY doubt that very many fans have wanted to follow his every play because of the movie. If fans only know who he is due to it, they probably are either A-not big fans of football or B-fans who don't pay much attention to lineman. I admit I'm B, and do only know who he is due to the movie. Neither of those types of fans are the types who would follow a lineman's every play. Plus, even if it did put more of a spotlight on him, that just means people were more aware about the truth of his play. He's either looking for excuses or attention in my book.
  22. It's good for him if he is getting better from it, and it makes sense because there are a lot of benefits to it. Smith mentioned learning how to counter to moves, Gregory can learn about how to respond to different things a tackle does, moves to get around it and etc. If he is willing to put in the 'learning' work he will likely figure those things out, and in going up against a top tackle enough times he will see more of what they do, and the more times he faces him the more of a chance there is for him to figure something out to get better 'he did this, if I respond this way I think this could work' and etc. It also works great as a conditioning tool, you become used to facing the top guys so you are prepared for it, mentally conditioned for a tough match.
  23. Running more should be good for the Falcons, hopefully the zone blocking scheme works out well. Teams can play off a team being pass heavy, they expect you to pass and increase the attention they give to it. Incomplete passes can cause longer down and distances, allowing teams to play to the pass easier. More sacks, more ints, thus more drives ended, or likely ended. With a good running game though, defenses would likely respect our run game, and if they don't we'd likely tear them up with it. Imagine if we combined how good Atlanta was at clock control back in 2008-2010 with their ability to make plays downfield in the passing game now. That kind of offense could be very dangerous if an approach that plays to both of those things is used. Honestly, we could probably have the #1 offense in the NFL if this works out well, maybe even a record breaking one.
  24. That isn't very good by NFL Standards, as was mentioned they were 29th in rushing that year. While the Falcons usually were more successful with a good running game, that year was an exception. They went 13-3, with a bad running game.
  25. I think I should be Daniel Bryan. I have the long hair, and like him I'm somewhat of a 'bush hippie'.
×
×
  • Create New...