Octopus Overlords

tjg_marantz wrote:

Isgrimnur wrote:

tjg_marantz wrote:

I never thought of that.

tjg_marantz wrote:And even if he isn't, the point itself is valid.

tjg_marantz wrote:

Isgrimnur wrote:

tjg_marantz wrote:

I never thought of that.

It was a copy paste from my mobile so I guess something got lost, hehe. This is what it was supposed to say:

"I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color. To me, this is bigger than football and it would be selfish on my part to look the other way. There are bodies in the street and people getting paid leave and getting away with murder."

That last sentence couldn't be more spot on. It's not that everyone is rotten. But those that are have been and continue to "get away with it". Until that changes, and I think we are headed in the right direction with all the videotaping, I completely understand his frustration and stance and I won't assume he's being anything but honest at this point.

And even if he isn't, the point itself is valid.

noxiousdog wrote:

tjg_marantz wrote:

Isgrimnur wrote:

tjg_marantz wrote:

I never thought of that.

It was a copy paste from my mobile so I guess something got lost, hehe. This is what it was supposed to say:

"I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color. To me, this is bigger than football and it would be selfish on my part to look the other way. There are bodies in the street and people getting paid leave and getting away with murder."

That last sentence couldn't be more spot on. It's not that everyone is rotten. But those that are have been and continue to "get away with it". Until that changes, and I think we are headed in the right direction with all the videotaping, I completely understand his frustration and stance and I won't assume he's being anything but honest at this point.

And even if he isn't, the point itself is valid.

Saying "I don't want to be an American" is about the worst possible way to get other Americans to want to support your cause.

tjg_marantz wrote:

noxiousdog wrote:

tjg_marantz wrote:

Isgrimnur wrote:

tjg_marantz wrote:

I never thought of that.

It was a copy paste from my mobile so I guess something got lost, hehe. This is what it was supposed to say:

"I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color. To me, this is bigger than football and it would be selfish on my part to look the other way. There are bodies in the street and people getting paid leave and getting away with murder."

That last sentence couldn't be more spot on. It's not that everyone is rotten. But those that are have been and continue to "get away with it". Until that changes, and I think we are headed in the right direction with all the videotaping, I completely understand his frustration and stance and I won't assume he's being anything but honest at this point.

And even if he isn't, the point itself is valid.

Saying "I don't want to be an American" is about the worst possible way to get other Americans to want to support your cause.

Where did he say that? I may have missed it.

One of the most significant changes to this year's rules were how any player who garners 2 personal foul penalties, like Odell Beckham Jr. and Josh Norman did this year, would be ejected from the game.
...
The rule change will be for a one-year trial basis, just like the extra point being moved back was a one-year trial for the 2015 season. However, the extra point has been moved permanently back to the 15-yard line from 2016 and beyond.

The other significant rule change, on a one-year trial, was placing the football at the 25-yard line after a touchback. With the kickoffs being moved up to the 35-yard line a few years ago, the amount of touchbacks skyrocketed in the NFL. Moving the football to the 25-yard line is certainly more appealing for return teams than trying to advance the ball 8-yards deep out of their own endzone.
...
2. By Competition Committee; Permits the offensive and defensive play callers on the coaching staffs to use the coach-to-player communication system regardless of whether they are on the field or in the coaches' booth.

3. By Competition Committee; Makes all chop blocks illegal. "It is not one that has overwhelmed us in injury data, but it is not one we feel good about," McKay said.

4. By Competition Committee; Disqualifies a player who is penalized twice in one game for certain types of unsportsmanlike conduct fouls. Amended to one-year only.
...
6. By Competition Committee; Expands the horse collar rule to include when a defender grabs the jersey at the name plate or above and pulls a runner toward the ground.

7. By Competition Committee; Makes it a foul for delay of game when a team attempts to call a timeout when it is not permitted to do so

8. By Competition Committee; Eliminates the five-yard penalty for an eligible receiver illegally touching a forward pass after being out of bounds and re-establishing himself inbounds, and makes it a loss of down.

9. By Competition Committee; Eliminates multiple spots of enforcement for a double foul after a change of possession.

As it was written in the 2015 rulebook:

A Chop Block is a block by the offense in which one offensive player (designated as A1 for purposes of this rule) blocks a defensive player in the area of the thigh or lower while another offensive player (A2) engages that same defensive player above the waist.

A Chop Block is a legal block in the following situations on Running Plays:

-- Offensive players A1 and A2, who are initially aligned adjacent to each other on the line of scrimmage, may chop a defensive player.

-- Offensive players A1 and A2, who are initially aligned more than one position away from each other on the line of scrimmage, may chop a defensive player when the flow of the play is toward the block.

gameoverman wrote:I think the anthem thing is a 'pick your battles' moment. For a guy who hasn't been all that successful lately to pick this battle at this moment is strange to me. The season is about to start, his position on his team is not secure, and instead of his focus being on football it's on this effort to pick a new national anthem? That's the message I get from this, this anthem is inappropriate so we need a new one or he won't stand for it. I'm open to that discussion but do we need to do this now and like this?

tjg_marantz wrote:So next time you decide to act on something, we'll make sure to invalidate how you feel and piss all over your efforts because you didn't do it sooner. Got it.

If you don't see what's wrong with that type of thinking, enjoy your narrow world vision.

tjg_marantz wrote:So next time you decide to act on something, we'll make sure to invalidate how you feel and piss all over your efforts because you didn't do it sooner. Got it.

If you don't see what's wrong with that type of thinking, enjoy your narrow world vision.

noxiousdog wrote:

tjg_marantz wrote:So next time you decide to act on something, we'll make sure to invalidate how you feel and piss all over your efforts because you didn't do it sooner. Got it.

If you don't see what's wrong with that type of thinking, enjoy your narrow world vision.

The ends don't justify the means.

LordMortis wrote:

noxiousdog wrote:

tjg_marantz wrote:So next time you decide to act on something, we'll make sure to invalidate how you feel and piss all over your efforts because you didn't do it sooner. Got it.

If you don't see what's wrong with that type of thinking, enjoy your narrow world vision.

The ends don't justify the means.

I don't understand. I think I'm missing something you are implying.

The ends seem to be keep awareness of problems of inequity and inappropriateness in the way justice is dealt in the US in the public eye as a strategy to enact change.
The means seem to be a nonviolent protest across of exposure across mass media by not doing something that is optional anyway.

The outrage is baffling to me, but at least it keeps the news cycle on this going and I'm all for that. This topic can't die because there is shitstorm across social media today about police gunning down another unarmed black man or no affluent college athlete rapist doesn't need his life ruined today. Much like the topic of gun violence dies every week we don't report someone gunning down 10 or more people in a single bout of insanity.

...

I also don't understand why the conversation has to turn to what he had done or what his motivations might be. That seems a wholly separate topic.

Isgrimnur wrote:How about those new touchback rules, huh?

noxiousdog wrote:
He's not saying anything new or profound. He's not doing it charismatically. He's doing it while wearing a Fidel Castro shirt for crying out loud.

noxiousdog wrote:He's making himself a story instead of police brutality.

McNutt wrote:

noxiousdog wrote:He's making himself a story instead of police brutality.

Isn't there a degree of that in any protest?

We might be bitching about him right now, but we're also talking about police brutality because of him.

He knows he's going to catch a lot of grief for not doing something that a whole lot of people think is offensive. So I admire his convictions because I sure as hell wouldn't want to paint that kind of target on my back. I wish he had found a different way to protest because it pisses me off too to see someone show no respect for the national anthem. But hypocrite? I just don't buy it.

noxiousdog wrote: I have yet to hear anyone talk about police brutality in reference to him.

noxiousdog wrote: I don't think he's a hypocrite. I think he's being counterproductive to his cause.

noxiousdog wrote:I happily endorsed Simone Manuel when she spoke out. Kaepernick, not as much.

McNutt wrote:To an extent, you just did. He's keeping it from being forgotten, if even just to a small degree.

LordMortis wrote:

noxiousdog wrote:I happily endorsed Simone Manuel when she spoke out. Kaepernick, not as much.

He has been speaking out and now he is performing pseudo civil disobedience as symbolic speech to amplify his speech. That's where I don't get the don't justify the means. He didn't break any rules or laws. While he did call attention to himself, he was using his celebrity to keep the news cycle on things like police brutality precisely because culturally, we let ourselves quickly slip in to the mode of not talking about it.

I will freely admit that I'm a hypocrite when it comes to these things, though. I get when celebrities use their celebrity to endorse political things I don't think strongly about or disagree with and most especially when they appear to hypocrites themselves. I have learned to keep my mouth more or less closed about them though.

noxiousdog wrote:

McNutt wrote:

noxiousdog wrote:He's making himself a story instead of police brutality.

Isn't there a degree of that in any protest?

Sure, but it's not binary either.

We might be bitching about him right now, but we're also talking about police brutality because of him.

I have yet to hear anyone talk about police brutality in reference to him.

He knows he's going to catch a lot of grief for not doing something that a whole lot of people think is offensive. So I admire his convictions because I sure as hell wouldn't want to paint that kind of target on my back. I wish he had found a different way to protest because it pisses me off too to see someone show no respect for the national anthem. But hypocrite? I just don't buy it.

I don't think he's a hypocrite. I think he's being counterproductive to his cause.

I happily endorsed Simone Manuel when she spoke out. Kaepernick, not as much.

Pyperkub wrote: I don't think he's being counterproductive at all. I think it's been very productive, more so than any thing a backup QB could do. The topic is dominating the news cycle, especially in sports.

stessier wrote:Did you guys hear Brady was suspended for the first four games?

LordMortis wrote:

stessier wrote:Did you guys hear Brady was suspended for the first four games?

Is he happy or upset that it's not all about him right now?

Isgrimnur wrote:

LordMortis wrote:

stessier wrote:Did you guys hear Brady was suspended for the first four games?

Is he happy or upset that it's not all about him right now?

I wonder what his thoughts are on the new chop block rules.

stessier wrote:Did you guys hear Brady was suspended for the first four games?

naednek wrote:

stessier wrote:Did you guys hear Brady was suspended for the first four games?

Hey just gotta say this pales in comparison about the 10 page Cutler talk.

naednek wrote:

stessier wrote:Did you guys hear Brady was suspended for the first four games?

Hey just gotta say this pales in comparison about the 10 page Cutler talk.

stessier wrote:

Isgrimnur wrote:

LordMortis wrote:

stessier wrote:Did you guys hear Brady was suspended for the first four games?

Is he happy or upset that it's not all about him right now?

I wonder what his thoughts are on the new chop block rules.

Or how about the new kickoff rule? How do you think it will effect concussions?

Jeff V wrote:

stessier wrote:

Isgrimnur wrote:

LordMortis wrote:

stessier wrote:Did you guys hear Brady was suspended for the first four games?

Is he happy or upset that it's not all about him right now?

I wonder what his thoughts are on the new chop block rules.

Or how about the new kickoff rule? How do you think it will effect concussions?

Why yes,Tom, I think over-inflating the ball on kickoffs would potentially create more concussions.