Luke Links: The Clyde Christensen Edition
by KingRichard on May 19, 2009 8:15 AM EDT
in NFL General
22 comments
|
The new OC Clyde Christensen. |
- I'm not so sure DeAngelo Hall has much room to make fun of anyone, but he nailed it when making fun of Al Davis.
- Coach Singletary isn't pleased with how his team is performing to date. It appears that not everyone on that team is afraid to piss him off just yet. Singletary is a perfectionist, which is why he'll make such a great coach.
- John Madden denied rumors of him returning to coaching or becoming a consultant.
- Jon Gruden says he's thrilled about working on the MNF crew. He did say a very interesting thing though about the job itself, "If I do a good enough job, maybe I can hang in there and keep this job for a while."
- Eagles defensive coordinator Jim Johnson is taking a leave of absence to undergo treatment for cancer. This is pretty sad news. Jim Johnson is my favorite DC in the league. His defenses were always the most entertaining to watch. Get well soon!
- The Bears GM Jerry Angelo denies claims that he is pursuing Plaxico Burress.
- Donald Brown speaks his mind about the rookie wage scale:
"If you look at it, it’s kind of a shame for the guys who have been in the league for eight, nine years and have really established themselves," Brown told the Times. "The rookies come in and they haven’t done anything. . . . But it’s part of the game."
- The Patriots are guilty of concealing injury report information. This also just in, the sun is really hot. Is anyone really suprised that the Patriots are guilty of doing something extremely shady?
- James Harrison is officially a moron. I don't care who you are, who you know, what your party affiliation is or whatever. When the PRESIDENT of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA invites you to the WHITE HOUSE for your accomplishments, YOU GO TO THE STINKIN WHITE HOUSE! I almost feel bad for Steeler fans having to root for this guy. Btw, I recommend watching the video in that link too. It breaks down the Harrison interception at the goal line in the Super Bowl.
- There seems to be some bad blood between Joshua Cribbs and the Brown stains. I hope it escalates so much that they end up cutting him and then Polian goes out and signs him. Great idea!
- The Redskins won another suit regarding their team name. A group of Native Americans thought the name Redskins was racially offensive and sought legal action against the Redskins organization to have it changed. They failed.
- "The executive director of the NFL coaches association is upset with the way the league has handled a change in assistant coaches' leaguewide pension plan." Well that makes 698345698696 of us.
- Legendary Buffalo Bills player Bruce Smith was charged with a DUI.
0 recs |
22 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
Vick deserves another shot in the NFL. However, for me as a GM to take him he’d have to .
1. Sign a VERY incentive laiden contract
2. Be willing to be a back-up
3. Be willing to play as a “wild-cat” QB
4. Have a standard, consistant time to meet with a mentor that is agreeable to both sides.
Yeah, I'm Shure.
by Music Man on May 19, 2009 9:44 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Absolutely could not disagree more
What Vick “deserves” is to be in prison for the rest of his life. This was not a case of “oops I made a couple of bad youthful decisions,” this was an adult man engaging in illegal, sadistic, psychopathic behavior in a pre-meditated way over the course of years. Many who do not feel as strongly about animal rights as I do may be willing to forgive this; I am not. Some things are too far beyond the pale to warrant a second chance. And for all of you saying, “hey wait a minute, everybody deserves a second chance,” would you same the same about Jeffrey Dahmer? How about Saddam Hussein? Or Osama bin Laden? You get the idea: there are many crimes that warrant removing the offender from society permanently. I believe Vick deserves such treatment. I understand many or most will disagree with me; that does not change my mind one iota.
Having said that, Vick will not be in prison for life (until he does something else, anyway). So he must have an opportunity to support himself. But why must that opportunity come from the NFL? Nobody has an inalienable right to work in the NFL. The NFL has the same right to deny Vick employment based on his character issues as does any other company in the country. I believe Vick has forfeited his opportunity. Let him work in the real world; there are many people who cannot work in the NFL and yet they somehow manage to survive.
Unfortunately, he will probably be picked up by some owner short on morals and long on greed. When this happens, I will fervently root for nothing but bad things and miserable failures for Vick.
by ctnyc on May 19, 2009 12:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wow
Comparing Michael Vick to…
1. A cannibalistic serial killer
2. A cruel dictator who has been executed for war crimes
3. And the most notorious terrorist in the world
Seriously? Just think about what you’re saying.
Fair enough though, you’re entitled to your opinion. I’m not going to argue with you, I just think you’re exaggerating an eensy bit here. But whatever.
Here’s the way I see it: What Vick did as a football player is the equivalent to a teacher molesting a student. He should get his right to play football taken away. Not because I’m an animal rights activist, so much as a “don’t break the law and go away to prison for two years when my kids are watching your every move” activist. But the NFL is an interesting league. Where a teacher who got caught messing around with a student would be fired and stripped of his/her license, football playres are routinely given second and third chances. Teachers are a dime a dozen. These athletes aren’t. They’re specially trained to only play football. There’s just so little else that many (not all) could go out there and do for a living besides football, and such a small window that they’ll be talented enough to play the game professionally, that teams make ethically questionable calls to bring them back DURING those windows.
That said, Vick served his time. Him being signed ought to be between him and the team that chooses to take a chance on him. We don’t have to agree with it or like it, but it’s legal and fair (in the eyes of the court system, anyway).
"You're hitting the wrong person. Don't you know you're hitting Ron Artest?"
by LukeNukem on May 19, 2009 3:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not an exaggeration
at least in my eyes. Again, I don’t expect that many will agree with me. I know it’s probably human nature not to put deliberate cruelty towards animals in the same category as deliberate cruelty towards humans. But we know dogs can feel pain and suffer; in my opinion deliberate cruelty is deliberate cruelty. In my view, what Vick did is almost exactly what Dahmer and Hussein did; Vick just did it to dogs instead of people. Seriously, even some of the techniques used to torture were exactly the same. Vick is a torturer and serial killer of dogs (although to be fair, I doubt he ate the dogs).
We agree that he should not be allowed back in the NFL, and that he probably will. I disagree, however, with the idea that, “there’s just so little else that many (not all) could go out there and do for a living besides football….” I don’t know if Vick got his college degree, but he has at least some college, putting him ahead of many Americans. He could certainly finish if he wanted to. There are 300 million Americans that manage to survive in this world without playing professional football. As I said before: let him work in the real world. Just not in the NFL.
by ctnyc on May 19, 2009 6:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
He will at least get a "taste":
I understand that while Vick is on house arrest, he will be working a 40 hour per week construction job that pays $10 per hour.
(I’m thinking there are alot of Americans that are out of work right now who would jump at that)
I wouldn’t put Vick in the same catagory as Dahmer, Hussain or bin Laden. However, I agree that he shouldn’t be reinstated. I am a dog lover, so I’m not exactly objective.
"I throw, you catch. It's NOT that hard!"
Peyton Manning, SNL, 2007
by peytonsthebest on May 19, 2009 6:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
A Very Specific Contract
It would depend on the team. Is the team in a place to gamble perception? Raiders? Yes! Not many other teams though.
This would have to be heavy on the incentive side and would have a minimal signing bonus with very strict behavioral guidelines – as in, he lives at the coaches house.
If I were Al Davis, I would sign this guy. I would also sign Pacman Jones and any other thug I could find. I would get back to the “mean” days! That is where their fans want them to be anyway.
by SupermanWearsBobSander'sPJs on May 19, 2009 10:17 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
agreed
Personally, I have absolutely no problem with Vick playing in the NFL again. He went to jail and served his time. I see no reason why the NFL should have stricter standards than the government about the punishment for crimes, unless the crime is directly related to football. The league doesn’t exactly have a precedent for being a guardian of moral values. (I was going to say ‘being a moral watchdog,’ but thought better of it)
Anyway, any team that signs Vick would need to be ready for the negative PR that would come with him. The list of teams that would want that is, I assume, pretty short. The Raiders seem like the obvious choice. If the Lions hadn’t just drafted a QB #1, it might’ve been a decent gamble for them. I mean, how much more fan support could they lose? Overall, if Vick could come in and lead them to, say 4 wins, I think the net impact would be positive. Other than that, I can’t think of a situation where bringing him in makes much sense at all.
by DustinDawind on May 20, 2009 11:44 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I vote maybe on Vick
It would depend on the team. For instance, if I’m Al Davis, I’d probably have him run a 40 and sign him based on how fast he did it.
If I’m Dan Snyder, I sign him and give him a guaranteed $70 million to play wide receiver.
If I’m Bud Adams I hope the Colts sign him and cut him, then I sign him off of waivers.
If I’m the Simons brothers or Larry Bird, I’d sign him as a point guard and pay him to stay away from the team.
The possibilities are endless.
"You're hitting the wrong person. Don't you know you're hitting Ron Artest?"
by LukeNukem on May 19, 2009 11:56 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
More...
If I’m the Patriots, I sign him and then trade him for 12 draft picks.
If I’m the Colts, I sign him and immediately discover his remarkable ability at linebacker. He then goes on to the Hall of Fame.
If I’m the Broncos, I sign him and make him our 14 running back.
If I’m the Bucs, I sign him as our 8th quarterback.
That’s all I got for the moment.
Now a proud annoyance on Stampede Blue, 18to88, Indy Football Report, and Phil B's blog.
Man, I need a life...
Random fact of the week from the empty void that is my mind: I would do nothing for a Klondike bar.
by Cassieper on May 19, 2009 1:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Even more
If I’m Isiah Thomas I don’t bother waiting to see how in shape he is, and make him the highest paid player in league history, then when his contract’s about to expire, I trade him for a guy with a longer, more lucrative contract, who is in equal dubiously bad shape.
If I’m the Bills I sign him just to see how fast he can accelerate the impending TO lockerroom cancer.
If I’m Albert Haynesworth I stomp on his face.
If I’m coach Mike Dunleavy Sr. I start him until he gets really good, then pull him out, for no apparent reason, in the middle of a dramatic fourth quarter comeback with a playoff spot on the line and replace him with Greg Paulus.
If I’m Ryan Secrest I make an awkward dog joke during my first interview with him.
If I’m Bo Scifres I beat him out in training camp as the Chargers backup QB, because I can punt more accurately than he can throw.
"You're hitting the wrong person. Don't you know you're hitting Ron Artest?"
by LukeNukem on May 19, 2009 3:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I wouldn't play him at normal QB
if I was a GM trying to save my job, I’d sign him as a returnman/gadget player. He wasn’t a good QB before he spent 2 years away from the game
by shake n bake on May 19, 2009 12:34 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Enough about friggin MIke Vick already!
There were other things in the post above, such as James Harrison. I actually like his lame-brained logic about snubbing the POTUS (i.e. it doesn’t matter to him who won, he’d just invite any old winner. True enough. Along the lines of, “You’re not taking me to the proom because you love me. You’d take any cheerleader. sniff sniff.”). In terms of presidential dissing, nobody holds a candle to Mark “Can I hot tub with your daughter” Chmura. At least Harrison is unlikely to be shunned by society for an act of boneheaded hypocracy.
Donald Brown is one smart cat—walking a good tightrope there saying it’s nuts to pay rookies so much before they have contributed… but, well, it’s part of the game. The lad’s got a future in politics.
I hate Joe Namath. That's how long I've been a Colts fan.
by Bobman on May 19, 2009 4:14 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Harrison
Didn’t he turn down the same trip to the White House in ‘06 after they won that super bowl and George Bush invited him? Yes? Where was the outrage that time that I’ve heard a few places this time? Isn’t it the same thing? Just curious.
Donald Brown impresses me with that comment.
by coltsfanawalt on May 19, 2009 5:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Harrison
I don’t think it’s so much outrage as bewilderment at how someone could be so clueless. As we all know, the President doesn’t just randomly invite professional teams to the White House; there is a well-established tradition of inviting the world champions of various sports for a photo op. That’s one of the perks of being the champs. So when Harrison indignantly asserts that had the Cardinals won, they would probably have been invited, the rest of us say, “Uhhh, yeah. That’s kind of the point. Were you dropped on your head as a child, James?”
by ctnyc on May 19, 2009 6:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Agreed.
My only point is that those (KR, Warren Sapp. and a few others that I’ve heard) who are calling him out for it now were silent in ‘06. Rich Eisen even pointed out that this was something that Harrison had done before to the request of the previous president and no one batted an eye. I just don’t see why it is a big deal only this time. And I only comment here about it after hearing about it several times because this is the only time I have heard it mentioned where there is an opportunity to comment. I just wonder why this old news is suddenly newsworthy everywhere and so disdained this time.
by coltsfanawalt on May 20, 2009 1:05 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Let me add this.
Despite Harrison’s goofy reasoning (I’d have gone both times), I at least respect his consistency with the decision. Refusing once while going the other, either way, would have been politically motivated. Then his strange reason would’ve been a lie. But he held consistent twice, and though I find it odd, at least he means it as he said it, apparantly.
I just think that to those of us analyzing his call, we need to note that it was either a dumb choice both times or a sound one both times. And KR pointed that out well in his commentary. If only he wouldn’t be so scrutinized only this time by some in a political light. I wold have lost respect for him to have done it one way only, but I respect him more now, though I disagree with his reasoning, because he was consistent with his principles. And that is a solid character trait.
Now his personal foul in the super bowl, not so much…
by coltsfanawalt on May 20, 2009 1:16 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think you may be reading too much into this
I haven’t read all of what’s flying around on the blogosphere, but my sense is that people are mocking Harrison for his idiocy, not his politics (if he has any). This is not a political issue in its nature. I’m sure there are some who will try to make it political; this always happens. But his resaoning was not politically motivated, it just showed a profound and embarassing lack of understanding of the circumstances. That’s what people are reacting to. As for why there was no criticism of his previous decision, my guess is that it’s because his woefully ignorant “reasoning” was not on display last time. KR notwithstanding, most of the criticism of Harrison that I’ve heard is about his reasoning, not his decision.
by ctnyc on May 20, 2009 9:13 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
No doubt.
His reasoning is off. I question why it is so publicized this time. Since it is, I guess the only positive thing to say about Harrison is that he is consistent. There seems to be no politics here with him. Just odd reasoning. Unfortunately, as you said, this will be made political by some, and that is my point. That would be sad.
by coltsfanawalt on May 20, 2009 9:50 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Harrison
I don’t get why anyone cares whether or not Harrison chooses to go to DC. He’s right that the trip is just some stupid PR event and the president obviously isn’t doing it because he has a specific personal interest in meeting Steelers. So he skips the trip. Big deal.
by DustinDawind on May 20, 2009 11:20 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
