Roger Staubach Calls Today's Players Wussies


A place for the discussion of all things not closely related to the sport and its competitive side. (as always, locked for the duration of major international championship)

Re: Roger Staubach Calls Today's Players Wussies

Postby Marlow » Fri Sep 24, 2010 10:24 am

jazzcyclist wrote:What I'm saying is that there are mentally competent people in this world who don't share your value system,

I certainly hope so. What a dull world otherwise.

jazzcyclist wrote:and obviously MLK was one of them. Are you so close-minded that you're incapable of seeing this? :roll:

WTF??!! Total non-sequitur.

jazzcyclist wrote:Does anything at all matter to you other than longevity?

Lots of things. Quality of life (Pursuit of Happiness) being chief among them.

jazzcyclist wrote:Are we to assume that Ali's insistence on continuing to fight was due to insanity?

If the old Ali could go back in time, he would beg the intermediate Ali to stay retired, if he thought he would prevent his current state.

jazzcyclist wrote:For the record, the value that I place on my long-term health and longevity is probably similar to yours, but I don't assume that those who don't share my values are insane.

I'm not talking about 'values'; I'm talking about people who make critically bad decisions, because they do not consider the ramifications of their actions.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21076
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: Roger Staubach Calls Today's Players Wussies

Postby Pego » Fri Sep 24, 2010 10:50 am

Perhaps I can hijack this thread, so you two quit sniping at each other needlessly :wink: .

I have not seen Ali's MRI (pictures or reports), but of what I've seen of him, especially many years ago, in the beginning of his progression, it looked to me more like an idiopathic Parkinson's Disease than a secondary parkinsonism due to a battered brain syndrome.
Pego
 
Posts: 10196
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Re: Roger Staubach Calls Today's Players Wussies

Postby Marlow » Fri Sep 24, 2010 10:55 am

Pego wrote:it looked to me more like an idiopathic Parkinson's Disease than a secondary parkinsonism due to a battered brain syndrome.

That's why I put the 'if' in there. I've heard both sides. In any case, the latter is a real (preventable) condition.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21076
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: Roger Staubach Calls Today's Players Wussies

Postby jazzcyclist » Sat Sep 25, 2010 2:46 am

Marlow wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:Are we to assume that Ali's insistence on continuing to fight was due to insanity?

If the old Ali could go back in time, he would beg the intermediate Ali to stay retired, if he thought he would prevent his current state.

You're making an assumption about something you can not possibly know, unless, of course, you have a magic crystal ball, which to my knowledge hasn't been invented yet. How do you know he doesn't think that it was all worth it? Putting Ali aside, what leads you to believe that George Foreman, Joe Frazier and Ken Norton, men who are now all in their 60's, regret their decisions to box?

Marlow wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:For the record, the value that I place on my long-term health and longevity is probably similar to yours, but I don't assume that those who don't share my values are insane.

I'm not talking about 'values'; I'm talking about people who make critically bad decisions, because they do not consider the ramifications of their actions.

You are absolutely talking values when you accuse all boxers and MMA fighters of making bad decisions.
Clearly there is a complete disconnect between what they think they want (glory, later wealth) and what they really want (life). Same goes for boxers and MMA fighters.
It's no different than accusing someone who volunteered for the Army of making a bad decision because of the likelihood of returning from Afghanistan or Iraq maimed or in body bag. I've seen interviews with soldiers, who returned from Iraq with limbs missing, say that they don't regret their decision to volunteer for military service? For some folks, athletic success, fame and money are very important, while others believe that serving their country at a time of war is important. And for the record, I know many people who think that anyone who would volunteer for the U.S. Armed forces is a sap, unless there are Chinese storming the beaches of California.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10857
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Roger Staubach Calls Today's Players Wussies

Postby Marlow » Sat Sep 25, 2010 6:14 am

I'll put it another way: would you agree that the overwhelming consensus is that MMA is a very dangerous sport and most people would not want their loved ones engaged in it, if it were entirely up to them (not the person who wants to do it)? On the other hand, I would not stand in the way of my daughter wishing to join the military and ship off to Afghanistan.

Of course some people want to be MMA fighters (or prostitutes, another career path that most people would not want their loved one to embark upon). I'm just saying that most people would agree those are 'bad choices'.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21076
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: Roger Staubach Calls Today's Players Wussies

Postby jazzcyclist » Sat Sep 25, 2010 7:44 am

Marlow wrote:I'll put it another way: would you agree that the overwhelming consensus is that MMA is a very dangerous sport and most people would not want their loved ones engaged in it, if it were entirely up to them (not the person who wants to do it)?.

Absolutely! I wouldn't want a relative of mine to be a boxer, mixed martial artist, bull-rider, Alaskan king crab fisherman, logger, etc. Hell, I don't want my cousin playing in the NFL anymore.

Marlow wrote:On the other hand, I would not stand in the way of my daughter wishing to join the military and ship off to Afghanistan.

I would discourage any relative of mine from enlisting in the U.S. Armed Forces depending who the President was and what I expected the U.S. geopolitical posture to be during his/her enlistment period.

Marlow wrote:Of course some people want to be MMA fighters (or prostitutes, another career path that most people would not want their loved one to embark upon). I'm just saying that most people would agree those are 'bad choices'.

I'm very sympathetic to folks from dysfunctional families who end up being prostitutes and strippers. Though they may have been sane when they made these choices, many times these choices were made under duress. However, I'm sure even in professions like prostitution and "exotic dancing", there is a small percentage of sane individuals who chose those professions as adults without any duress due to such things as financial pressure and emotional baggage.

As for MMA, there are many folks in this world who I would describe as adrenaline junkies, who choose professions like this. I would also put daredevils (e.g. Evil Knievel), extreme sports athletes and even military special forces (e.g. Green Berets) in this category. I once heard an interview with a retired, middle-aged Navy Seal, who said that the thing he missed most is the adrenaline rush you get when you're scared out of your wits. Is this craving for adrenaline a form of insanity?
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10857
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Roger Staubach Calls Today's Players Wussies

Postby Marlow » Sat Sep 25, 2010 7:59 am

That was a very good post, jazz (IMO). I think you and I agree on much more than we disagree. As for your final question: an adrenaline junkie who wishes to take on imprudent risk (as opposed to calculated risk) is 'dysfunctional' in some ways. Have I ever done that? I'm sure I have and then my left-brain often scolds my right-brain for what it wants to do or has done. As I get older, the actual instances of 'have done' have diminished greatly, hence the phrase 'the folly of youth'. I'm a big fan of circumspection now. On the other hand, one of my favorite sayings is
"Moderation in all things, including moderation." :D
Marlow
 
Posts: 21076
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: Roger Staubach Calls Today's Players Wussies

Postby jazzcyclist » Sun Sep 26, 2010 9:00 am

Last week, Terrell Suggs was flagged for hitting Carson Palmer. This is a perfect example of the roughing-the-passer penalties that Staubach was talking about.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Z3AqTa-xig

After the game, Ray Lewis expressed his displeasure with the call.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkQaI0cW2dw

I'm sure Staubach said "Amen" when he heard Lewis' tirade.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10857
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Roger Staubach Calls Today's Players Wussies

Postby Marlow » Sun Sep 26, 2010 9:06 am

jazzcyclist wrote:Last week, Terrell Suggs was flagged for hitting Carson Palmer. This is a perfect example of the roughing-the-passer penalties that Staubach was talking about.

That was NOT RTP. That was wrapping up - pretty much what he's paid to do. Drilling the QB from the blind-side, after his release, is RTP. (the problem comes when the defender has already launched himself before the follow-thru, but hits after the ball is gone)
Marlow
 
Posts: 21076
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: Roger Staubach Calls Today's Players Wussies

Postby jazzcyclist » Mon Oct 18, 2010 1:31 pm

Evidently, NFL players took offense to Roger Staubach calling them wussies and set out to prove him wrong.
"This is crazy!'' Rodney Harrison said as we tried to process the sixth or seventh vicious NFL hit of the day in the NBC viewing room Sunday afternoon.

Then, almost under his breath, Harrison said quietly, "Thank God I retired.''

The games we watched Sunday seemed as violent a collection as I've seen. Judging from the tweets and e-mails I got as the day went on, the public was astonished too. The Dunta Robinson collision with DeSean Jackson in Philadelphia, concussing both the Atlanta corner and Eagles receiver and probably kayoing the invaluable Jackson for Sunday's game at Tennessee. Several shots in Pittsburgh, two vicious ones by James Harrison of the Steelers; his helmet-to-helmet shot against Browns receiver Mohamed Massaquoi will certainly draw a heavy fine, and it's incredible to me no official flagged what could be the textbook definition of hitting a defenseless receiver. In New England, Brandon Meriweather lighting up Baltimore's Todd Heap with a hit to the head so vicious that either a mouthguard or something flew high into the air at the moment of impact. And so on -- six or eight shots where you wondered, "Is that guy getting up?''


Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/w ... z12kSW9bnV

Are they wussies now Roger? Chuck Bednarik, who recently called today's NFL players soft, must be really proud.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10857
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Roger Staubach Calls Today's Players Wussies

Postby jazzcyclist » Tue Oct 19, 2010 3:38 am

The NFL is about to make the most significant rule change in the history of the sport of American football, and passions are high among many former football players who seem to agree with Roger Staubach that NFL is wussifying the game. Even former wide reciever Chris Carter and former quarterback Trent Dilfer are saying that the game is changing for the worse. On the other hand, former linebacker Tom Jackson says that he agrees with the rule change despite the fact that he admits that he would have been one of the worst offenders under this new rule.

The NFL will announce by Wednesday that, effective this weekend, even first-time offenders face suspension for "devastating hits" and "head shots," according to Ray Anderson, the league's executive vice president of football operations.

"We can't and won't tolerate what we saw Sunday," Anderson said Monday. "We've got to get the message to players that these devastating hits and head shots will be met with a very necessary higher standard of accountability. We have to dispel the notion that you get one free pass in these egregious or flagrant shots."


http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/stor ... LHeadlines
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10857
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Roger Staubach Calls Today's Players Wussies

Postby Marlow » Tue Oct 19, 2010 4:02 am

jazzcyclist wrote:many former football players who seem to agree with Roger Staubach that NFL is wussifying the game.

As they drool into their farina while staring into a vacant TV screen . . .

We are only now beginning to acknowledge the terrible toll that recurring concussions have on the brain. Modern football is all about producing brain damage (nice hit, Joe!).
Marlow
 
Posts: 21076
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: Roger Staubach Calls Today's Players Wussies

Postby jazzcyclist » Wed Oct 20, 2010 5:34 am

How's this for hypocrisy? Photos of the same hits from this past weekend that drew the heavy fines are being sold at nfl.com. Here are the links:

http://www.replayphotos.com/nflphotosto ... 321187.cfm

http://www.replayphotos.com/nflphotosto ... 323924.cfm
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10857
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Roger Staubach Calls Today's Players Wussies

Postby Marlow » Wed Oct 20, 2010 5:59 am

jazzcyclist wrote:How's this for hypocrisy? Photos of the same hits from this past weekend that drew the heavy fines are being sold at nfl.com. Here are the links:
http://www.replayphotos.com/nflphotosto ... 321187.cfm
http://www.replayphotos.com/nflphotosto ... 323924.cfm

Apparently they figured that out too - here's what's at the links now:

This photo is no longer available.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21076
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: Roger Staubach Calls Today's Players Wussies

Postby jazzcyclist » Wed Oct 20, 2010 6:14 am

Marlow wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:How's this for hypocrisy? Photos of the same hits from this past weekend that drew the heavy fines are being sold at nfl.com. Here are the links:
http://www.replayphotos.com/nflphotosto ... 321187.cfm
http://www.replayphotos.com/nflphotosto ... 323924.cfm

Apparently they figured that out too - here's what's at the links now:

This photo is no longer available.

Hopefully, somebody had the foresight to do a screen capture and will post it on a blog somewhere. In the meantime, I will say that the James Harrison photo was really graphic.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10857
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Roger Staubach Calls Today's Players Wussies

Postby Pego » Wed Oct 20, 2010 7:40 am

jazzcyclist wrote:Even former wide reciever Chris Carter and former quarterback Trent Dilfer are saying that the game is changing for the worse. On the other hand, former linebacker Tom Jackson says that he agrees with the rule


I did watch that part of the pre-game show. Jackson mixed no words stating that every defenseman's mind is set to hurt the guy.

This seems to be a good time to ask a question that I've had for a while. What exactly is a steel helmet for other than a weapon? Head injuries from hitting the ground (rather than being hit by a steel helmet) could be just as effectively prevented by softer (leather) helmets. So far, whenever I suggested it while talking to family/friends, everybody dismissed the idea out of the hand without being able to justify the dismissal. Am I smoking something?
Pego
 
Posts: 10196
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Re: Roger Staubach Calls Today's Players Wussies

Postby Marlow » Wed Oct 20, 2010 7:46 am

Pego wrote:This seems to be a good time to ask a question that I've had for a while. What exactly is a steel helmet for other than a weapon? Head injuries from hitting the ground (rather than being hit by a steel helmet) could be just as effectively prevented by softer (leather) helmets. So far, whenever I suggested it while talking to family/friends, everybody dismissed the idea out of the hand without being able to justify the dismissal. Am I smoking something?

Prolly. The paradox is that we need to protect the head with the greatest possible protection, but that also creates the greatest danger for others.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21076
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: Roger Staubach Calls Today's Players Wussies

Postby jazzcyclist » Wed Oct 20, 2010 8:02 am

Pego wrote:This seems to be a good time to ask a question that I've had for a while. What exactly is a steel helmet for other than a weapon? Head injuries from hitting the ground (rather than being hit by a steel helmet) could be just as effectively prevented by softer (leather) helmets. So far, whenever I suggested it while talking to family/friends, everybody dismissed the idea out of the hand without being able to justify the dismissal. Am I smoking something?

The helmets are made out of hard plastic, not steel, to protect the head. The facemasks are made of steel (coated with rubber), but not the helmet. The downside is that these more advanced helmets also make them better weapons than the old leather helmets that lacked facemasks.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10857
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Roger Staubach Calls Today's Players Wussies

Postby Pego » Wed Oct 20, 2010 9:32 am

I am quite certain, you could create a helmet made of soft, cushy top plus the face mask. I appreciate your correction about plastic rather than steel, but the bottom line is the same :wink: .
Pego
 
Posts: 10196
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Re: Roger Staubach Calls Today's Players Wussies

Postby Dutra » Wed Oct 20, 2010 10:55 am

The NFL has a problem.

The issue of concussions in football is a prominent one at all levels.

This past weekend was a particularly good weekend for those who love the headhunting aspect of the game....and I find it absolutely amazing at how many people are claiming the NFL is trying to "ruin" the game while posing serious threat to the players both on the giving and receiving side.

Not only did we have the hits....legal and illegal....in the games in the NFL, but there was the paralyzing hit the kid from Rutgers took. While that's not the NFL...I guarantee you it is having an affect on the sudden attempt to wean DBs from going for the "kill shot".

The NFL is being proactive in trying to keep a Congressional hearing from happening and raising even further negative publicity to the sport.

All I hear on the radio are people trying to justify the head hunting, explain it, blame it on others, claim it's not legislatable within the rules, etc. etc. Those people....including the players and coaches....don't get it.

The NFL MUST enforce a rule which states if you hit a guy in the head for whatever reason you're going to be penalized. That is why they are being almost arrogant with this issue.

With all the publicity regarding concussions and blows to the head, they absolutely do not want a situation in which a player is seriously injured or, heaven forbid, dies on the field.

It doesn't go any farther than that.
Dutra
 
Posts: 2288
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Roger Staubach Calls Today's Players Wussies

Postby jazzcyclist » Wed Oct 20, 2010 11:25 am

I guess it's 1905 all over again.

During the 1905 college football season the loosely regulated violent tactics of the era caused eighteen fatalities; that in a day when varsity squads generally numbered below forty and only a hundred or so colleges played. . . . .

Excessive violence and brutal tactics caused major injuries and damaged the reputation of the game. Even the Harvard-Yale rivalry, the sport’s premier event, suffered as a result of this harmful publicity. University administrations enforced a two-year hiatus after a disgustingly vicious spectacle in 1894. Through the 1905 season, as young men died unnecessarily on a weekly basis, college Presidents grew sympathetic toward public and press appeals for institutions of higher learning to drop football. . . . .

On October 9th, two days after the highly publicized brutal beating of Robert “Tiny” Maxwell in the Penn-Swarthmore game, Roosevelt hosted a meeting at the White House between the Presidents of Yale, Harvard, and Princeton. The public impetus this meeting gave the cause of reform grew in the following months. After the season, rule changes proposed by the University of Pennsylvania led to larger meetings between the representatives of more colleges in New York. In February 1906 colleges replaced the antiquated rule committee with a new body - the Intercollegiate Athletics Association of the United States (renamed the NCAA in 1910).

This move established a regulatory body to enforce the spirit of amateurism, maintain safety, and promote gentlemanly conduct. For all its ills, American college athletics would likely never have achieved such prominent, lasting, cohesive, and structured success without the NCAA. That organization might never have come into being without the leadership and applied political capital of a President who saw a popular and valuable national sport stranded in controversy and crying out for reform.

http://pigskinhistory.blogspot.com/2009 ... tball.html
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10857
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Roger Staubach Calls Today's Players Wussies

Postby Marlow » Wed Oct 20, 2010 1:08 pm

Dutra wrote:The NFL MUST enforce a rule which states if you hit a guy in the head for whatever reason you're going to be penalized.

Totally agree. Modern culture seems all about trying to build a safer world, and then we have boxing, MMA, and football, where the OBJECT is to inflict great bodily harm. In 200 years the world will look at this no differently than we do the Lions vs. Christians thing from ancient Rome (though those are also the mascots of two local HS football teams! :D )
Marlow
 
Posts: 21076
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: Roger Staubach Calls Today's Players Wussies

Postby jazzcyclist » Wed Nov 10, 2010 6:20 pm

Jim McMahaon is apparently not doing so well.
My memory's pretty much gone. There are a lot of times when I walk into a room and forget why I walked in there. I'm going through some studies right now and I am going to do a brain scan. It's unfortunate what the game does to you. . . . . You could only play the game one way. It was the only way I knew how to play. I wouldn't change anything. I'd do it again, even though I know it's going to hurt. . . . . I've been hit in the head so many times, it's hard to remember that far back. I don't remember specific games.

http://sports.espn.go.com/los-angeles/n ... id=5788514
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10857
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Roger Staubach Calls Today's Players Wussies

Postby jazzcyclist » Tue Nov 23, 2010 3:28 am

When I saw this play, I thought it was such an blatant example of on-the-field cowardice that it could not go unmentioned. I believe this is a perfect example of what Roger Staubach was talking about. I'm guessing even Randy "alligator arms" Moss would call LSU's Deangelo Peterson a wussy after seeing this play.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9fBBDYrbkk
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10857
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Roger Staubach Calls Today's Players Wussies

Postby gh » Tue Nov 23, 2010 11:47 pm

huh?! I'm not sure he even saw the ball; play isn't remotely looking like a short-arm pullup to me. (and as an old-school dude, I love to rip on today's wusses)
gh
 
Posts: 46295
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: Roger Staubach Calls Today's Players Wussies

Postby jazzcyclist » Wed Nov 24, 2010 4:38 am

gh wrote:huh?! I'm not sure he even saw the ball; play isn't remotely looking like a short-arm pullup to me. (and as an old-school dude, I love to rip on today's wusses)

He saw the ball. Look at it again and you'll see that when he saw the safety coming up, he made a hesitation/studder step, hence the "he pulled up" accusation by the commentators. Furthermore, most receivers will extend their arms and/or dive in a futile attempt to catch passes that are a lot further away from them that one. The Ole Miss players would not have been taunting him if the pass was truly uncatchable. Probably the reason that he pushed the safety (#6), who hadn't laid a finger on him, is because he immediately knew how bad it looked and his pride was hurt. And if there is any doubt about what happened, all you have to do is look at the body language of his teammates.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10857
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Roger Staubach Calls Today's Players Wussies

Postby Dutra » Thu Nov 25, 2010 8:20 am

jazzcyclist wrote: I believe this is a perfect example of what Roger Staubach was talking about.


It isn't.
Dutra
 
Posts: 2288
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Roger Staubach Calls Today's Players Wussies

Postby jazzcyclist » Thu Nov 25, 2010 8:53 am

Dutra wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote: I believe this is a perfect example of what Roger Staubach was talking about.


It isn't.

In the sense that it's not related to football rule changes and penalty enforcement, I guess you're right. I guess there were football players back in Staubach's day who were afraid of contact also. But I had to post this somewhere. Perhaps I should have started another thread and called it Football Wussies.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10857
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Roger Staubach Calls Today's Players Wussies

Postby Dutra » Thu Nov 25, 2010 9:19 am

jazzcyclist wrote:
Dutra wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote: I believe this is a perfect example of what Roger Staubach was talking about.


It isn't.

In the sense that it's not related to football rule changes and penalty enforcement, I guess you're right. I guess there were football players back in Staubach's day who were afraid of contact also. But I had to post this somewhere. Perhaps I should have started another thread and called it Football Wussies.


If Staubach really believes what he was quoted as saying then he's lost all sense of reality.
Dutra
 
Posts: 2288
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Roger Staubach Calls Today's Players Wussies

Postby jazzcyclist » Thu Nov 25, 2010 8:33 pm

Dutra wrote:If Staubach really believes what he was quoted as saying then he's lost all sense of reality.

A lot of retired football players, including some of the NFL talking heads, feel the same way he does. Have they all lost their sense of reality or is it more likely that they're nostalgic for the good ole days when quarterbacks weren't wearing aprons?
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10857
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Roger Staubach Calls Today's Players Wussies

Postby jazzcyclist » Mon Dec 27, 2010 6:59 pm

At least Staubach only called modern football players wussies, but Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell has called the entire nation wussies after the postponement of last night's Vikings-Eagles game.

It goes against everything that football is all about. My biggest beef is that this is part of what's happened in this country. . . . . We've become a nation of wusses. The Chinese are kicking our butt in everything. If this was in China do you think the Chinese would have called off the game? People would have been marching down to the stadium, they would have walked and they would have been doing calculus on the way down.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=5960674

Maybe this is the kind old school politician we need in the White House.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10857
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Roger Staubach Calls Today's Players Wussies

Postby Marlow » Mon Dec 27, 2010 7:06 pm

jazzcyclist wrote:
It goes against everything that football is all about. My biggest beef is that this is part of what's happened in this country. . . . . We've become a nation of wusses. The Chinese are kicking our butt in everything. If this was in China do you think the Chinese would have called off the game? People would have been marching down to the stadium, they would have walked and they would have been doing calculus on the way down.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=5960674

Maybe this is the kind old school politician we need in the White House.

A raving lunatic? I think not.

As for the 'apron' crack, you DO realize that a concussion is a nice name for brain damage, yes? Trying to minimize brain damage is for wusses? Really? The helmet-to-helmet rulings were long overdue.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21076
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: Roger Staubach Calls Today's Players Wussies

Postby guru » Mon Dec 27, 2010 7:40 pm

I'm glad Rendell took the NFL to task. The mayor of Philly made it clear there would be no problems holding the game, and 5 inches of snow at game time is hardly Armageddon. The NFL's two PR guys have been taking a roasting on twitter ever since the decision was made yesterday. As I tweeted to Greg Aiello - is this baseball or football?

Of course, the safety-first NFL thought it was just fine for the Vikes and Bears to play on a frozen college field last week, leading to Brett Favre's concussion when his head hit the turf on a sack...
guru
 
Posts: 10265
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Strava, racking KOMs https://tinyurl.com/qf2ntch

Re: Roger Staubach Calls Today's Players Wussies

Postby jazzcyclist » Tue Dec 28, 2010 7:02 am

Marlow wrote:As for the 'apron' crack, you DO realize that a concussion is a nice name for brain damage, yes? Trying to minimize brain damage is for wusses? Really? The helmet-to-helmet rulings were long overdue.

I'm all for minimizing concussions and punishing the headhunters, but I don't think you should punish folks for incidental contact. Dick "Night Train" Lane never tackled below the head, and therefore, he couldn't play in the NFL if I were charge, and neither could Geirge Atkinson. However, I saw an Eagles defensive linemen get penalized for stripping the ball from Peyton Manning when the tip of his finger barely touched Manning's helmet. I saw Ray Lewis get penalized when a Bengals offensive lineman blocked him into Carson Palmer and his feet hit Palmer's feet causing Palmer to trip after he had already thrown the ball. It seems that Roger Goodell, who never played football at any level, has sent out a directive to all referees to conflate incidental contact with deliberate contact, and anyone who has ever played the game knows how ridiculous that is. Race car drivers don't get penalized for causing crashes unless their actions were deliberate and malicious and that's the way it should be. No one was punished when Dale Earhardt got killed because it is the life that they have chosen.

Another thing that's not being addressed is ball carriers who put their heads down in order to take on a tackler the way Adrian Peterson does. Why should running backs be exempt from being penalized and fined for helmet-to-helmet contact when they're the ones causing it many times?
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10857
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Roger Staubach Calls Today's Players Wussies

Postby Marlow » Tue Dec 28, 2010 7:13 am

jazzcyclist wrote: I saw an Eagles defensive linemen get penalized for stripping the ball from Peyton Manning when the tip of his finger barely touched Manning's helmet. I saw Ray Lewis get penalized when a Bengals offensive lineman blocked him into Carson Palmer and his feet hit Palmer's feet causing Palmer to trip after he had already thrown the ball.

There will be some bad calls as the league adjusts to the new rules.

jazzcyclist wrote:Another thing that's not being addressed is ball carriers who put their heads down in order to take on a tackler the way Adrian Peterson does. Why should running backs be exempt from being penalized and fined for helmet-to-helmet contact when they're the ones causing it many times?

If they initiate the head-to-head contact, and that's pretty obvious from the sudden lunging into the tackler to knock him down first, then they should get called, but just running with your head down is fine.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21076
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: Roger Staubach Calls Today's Players Wussies

Postby bambam » Tue Dec 28, 2010 8:41 am

jazzcyclist wrote:
Marlow wrote:As for the 'apron' crack, you DO realize that a concussion is a nice name for brain damage, yes? Trying to minimize brain damage is for wusses? Really? The helmet-to-helmet rulings were long overdue.

I'm all for minimizing concussions and punishing the headhunters, but I don't think you should punish folks for incidental contact. Dick "Night Train" Lane never tackled below the head, and therefore, he couldn't play in the NFL if I were charge, and neither could Geirge Atkinson. However, I saw an Eagles defensive linemen get penalized for stripping the ball from Peyton Manning when the tip of his finger barely touched Manning's helmet. I saw Ray Lewis get penalized when a Bengals offensive lineman blocked him into Carson Palmer and his feet hit Palmer's feet causing Palmer to trip after he had already thrown the ball. It seems that Roger Goodell, who never played football at any level, has sent out a directive to all referees to conflate incidental contact with deliberate contact, and anyone who has ever played the game knows how ridiculous that is. Race car drivers don't get penalized for causing crashes unless their actions were deliberate and malicious and that's the way it should be. No one was punished when Dale Earhardt got killed because it is the life that they have chosen.

Another thing that's not being addressed is ball carriers who put their heads down in order to take on a tackler the way Adrian Peterson does. Why should running backs be exempt from being penalized and fined for helmet-to-helmet contact when they're the ones causing it many times?


What he said.

As usual, Jazzy and I agree almost completely on this.
bambam
 
Posts: 3847
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Durham, NC

Re: Roger Staubach Calls Today's Players Wussies

Postby Avante » Tue Dec 28, 2010 9:59 am

When football came about guys didn't have 4.3 speed on a 200 plus pound body. There wasn't fake and hard grass. Things are different than when even Roger the Dodger played. Size with speed again.....big difference. I think the players today take far more punishment week in week out than they ever have and it's only going to get worst. Roger wasn't running from linebackers who could out run him. The players today are bigger, faster, meaner, tuffer, stronger than ever before. So yes somethings have to change to keep them able to play. Put these guys today in with those that Roger played with/against and I doubt they wuss out.
Avante
 
Posts: 2650
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 8:31 am

Re: Roger Staubach Calls Today's Players Wussies

Postby Marlow » Tue Dec 28, 2010 10:07 am

Avante wrote:The players today are bigger, faster, meaner, tuffer, stronger than ever before. So yes somethings have to change to keep them able to play. Put these guys today in with those that Roger played with/against and I doubt they wuss out.

The problem is that the soft tissues in knees and the fragility of brains have stayed the same, while the rest of the body got MUCH bigger and faster. If you hit an at-speed (4.7) Cam Newton (6-6, 250 pounds) with any large (6-6, 260) fast (4.7) middle linebacker at full speed, the weaker parts will have to pay the price. Knees and brains, knees and brains.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21076
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: Roger Staubach Calls Today's Players Wussies

Postby Avante » Tue Dec 28, 2010 10:37 am

Marlow wrote:
Avante wrote:The players today are bigger, faster, meaner, tuffer, stronger than ever before. So yes somethings have to change to keep them able to play. Put these guys today in with those that Roger played with/against and I doubt they wuss out.

The problem is that the soft tissues in knees and the fragility of brains have stayed the same, while the rest of the body got MUCH bigger and faster. If you hit an at-speed (4.7) Cam Newton (6-6, 250 pounds) with any large (6-6, 260) fast (4.7) middle linebacker at full speed, the weaker parts will have to pay the price. Knees and brains, knees and brains.


I think that's pretty obvious.

The thing is that Roger never played vs the kind of defenders out there right now. There's a big difference banging 320 pounds than 280 pounders. So good old Rog needs to cool the wuss talk.
Avante
 
Posts: 2650
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 8:31 am

Re: Roger Staubach Calls Today's Players Wussies

Postby jazzcyclist » Tue Dec 28, 2010 11:21 am

Avante wrote:The thing is that Roger never played vs the kind of defenders out there right now. There's a big difference banging 320 pounds than 280 pounders. So good old Rog needs to cool the wuss talk.

I'll tell you a few things that Roger did played with:

    1) Cornerbacks like Mel Blount who were allowed to mug his receivers all the way down the field because bump-and-run coverage hadn't been outlawed yet.
    2) Defensive lineman like Deacon Jones who were allowed to throw brain-rattling head-slaps to the head of his offensive lineman because that hadn't been outlawed yet either.
    3) Offensive lineman who didn't have the benefit of playing with today's very liberal pass blocking rules that would have been called holding every time back in the 60's and 70's.
    4) Defensive players that had the freedom to do whatever they wanted to do to quarterback until the quarterback had thrown the ball or was on the ground, because they didn't have the fear of a five or six-figure fine lurking around in the back of their heads, or even worse, fear of being suspended for a game and taking a six or seven-figure financial hit.
By the way, while we're talking about Roger Staubach, I've come upon a very fair and analytical way to compare quarterbacks from different generations by comparing his career passer efficiency rating to the NFL's average passer efficiency rating during the time he played. I'll provide the data later, but I will tell you that Steve Young was #1, Staubach #2 and Joe Montana #3. Young and Staubach had career ratings 20+ points above the league average while Montana was just under them at 19+ points. Johnny Unitas and Bart Starr were ranked right behind Montana in the 15-16 point range. Two quarterbacks that were very mediocre using this criteria were John Elway and Terry Bradshaw, both barely above the league average for their careers.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10857
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests