The 2013-2014 NFL Offseason/Coaching/Free Agency (non-draft) Thread

[Butter]

Move to the American South and see if there is a stigma against those that hold strong religious views.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

Move to the American South and see if there is a stigma against those that hold strong religious views.

And move to San Fransisco if you think there's a stigma against homosexuality? What's your point?

I wouldn't admit to most of my peer group that I find value in religion and prayer. It'd be a little awkward after they've told me so often how stupid religion is and how people who find value in it are brain-dead lemmings and such. I believe they would also make assumptions about how I feel about gay marriage and other social issues. Maybe I'm being too cynical, and people on this board are far nicer and more outwardly tolerant about it than average, but from my experience, if you're in your 20s and 30's and live in either the northeast or some other progressive urban place, it's seen as weird to go to church or be religious. Geez, even in red Idaho, I certainly know of religious people at work, but among the 10-15 or so people I hang out with close to my age, none go to church and almost all have bad-mouthed religion generally. I wouldn't and can't compare it to any stigma homosexuality has in the south or anything, but at the very least, being young and religious can be considered a weird trait that people look down on in some places.

[Suburban Rhythm]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Hate, prejudice, whatever. There is a bias against those who hold religious views. I see it here in this thread. I see it on FB. I see it in the media.

And for the most part, I understand it. There are some really ridiculous views held by the religious right, and that turns off a lot of people, including myself, and it is part of the divisiveness this country has now.

But if you don't think there is a stigma on those who hold strong religious views, then we'll just have to agree to disagree. To me, it's blatantly obvious, and I am not even religious.

I don't think pointing out the hypocrisy of their alleged beliefs is hate or prejudice.

I agree there is a stigma of the fringe, fanatical religious (probably showed my prejudice right there), but I don't think questioning how, in this example, Dungy can reconcile leading the crusade to have Vick reinstated 3 years ago and, now, think "it" is too big of a distraction, is hate. Simply pointing out how silly it is.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Hate, prejudice, whatever. There is a bias against those who hold religious views. I see it here in this thread. I see it on FB. I see it in the media.

And for the most part, I understand it. There are some really ridiculous views held by the religious right, and that turns off a lot of people, including myself, and it is part of the divisiveness this country has now.

But if you don't think there is a stigma on those who hold strong religious views, then we'll just have to agree to disagree. To me, it's blatantly obvious, and I am not even religious.

But is anyone with these biases activly campaigning to not give equal rights to Catholics, Jews, etc...

How is there any equality where people like Dungy ACTIVELY come out and claim a certain section of society, gays, don't deserve the same rights and liberties as non gays? Then support, financialy or otherwise, movements to prevent them from obtaining those rights?

There may be a stigma against religous views, and again, people have a right to believe anything they want, but when you cross over to putting forth effort to deny others rights they shouldn't be denied that crosses into hate and intolerance.

Dungy doesn't want Sam on his team because he would be a distraction, wonder how Branch Rickey would have been perceived if he felt the same way about Jackie Robinson? He would be considered just another bigot. How is Dungy any different?

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by molson

And move to San Fransisco if you think there's a stigma against homosexuality? What's your point?

Mr. False Equivalency Man strikes again!

Prove to me that religious groups suffer anywhere near the same level of persecution that LGBT people / groups do, either institutional or not.

You're afraid that you can't tell your friends that you're religious because they'll make fun of you? Boo hoo. How about being under the threat of physical violence because you're gay?

There is no equivalence here. Christians in the United States who think they suffer from persecution don't know the first meaning of the word.

Prove me wrong.

Oh, and while we're at it, stop ignoring this question (which is similar, Mr. False Equivalency Man):

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Let's discuss an example.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Lathum

But is anyone with these biases activly campaigning to not give equal rights to Catholics, Jews, etc...

People actively campaign to prevent private expression of religious belief on public property that are open to other kinds of expression. The Courts have recognized that the First Amendment protects that expression (Capitol Square Review and Advisory Board v. Pinette), but people make those kinds of challenges every year. The people who bring those challenges would say that people are "forcing their religion on them", just like some less tolerant people are OK with the concept of homosexuality, but basically want people to keep it to themselves in private.

Edit: For flere-imsaho, I am not saying these challenge are in any way as bad of threats of violence and family alienation that being homosexual can have in some places, with some people. I'm just answering your question. Yes, some people do actively campaign to limit religious expression.

[molson]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Mr. False Equivalency Man strikes again!

Prove to me that religious groups suffer anywhere near the same level of persecution that LGBT people / groups do, either institutional or not.

I didn't argue that all. Ironic.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by molson

People actively campaign to prevent private expression of religious belief on public property that are open to other kinds of expression. The Courts have recognized that the First Amendment protects that expression (Capitol Square Review and Advisory Board v. Pinette), but people make those kinds of challenges every year. The people who bring those challenges would say that people are "forcing their religion on them", just like some less tolerant people are OK with the concept of homosexuality, but basically want people to keep it to themselves in private.

Gimme a break.

Do you really think campaigning to prevent expression of your beliefs is the same as denying people the right to marry, adopt, employment, access to healthcare, etc...?

[molson]

Originally Posted by Lathum

Gimme a break.

Do you really think campaigning to prevent expression of your beliefs is the same as denying people the right to marry, adopt, employment, access to healthcare, etc...?

I edited my post, but no, I don't think it's the same. (there are similarities in any kind of intolerance, that's the nature of intolerance, but obviously intolerance of some things has higher stakes than intolerance to other things). I was just answering your question.

[flere-imsaho]

OK, I've made a new thread: Bigotry, Gay Marriage, Michael Sam & Tony Dungy - Front Office Football Central

It also has a poll, so you're more-or-less obligated to use it.

[molson]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Oh, and while we're at it, stop ignoring this question (which is similar, Mr. False Equivalency Man):

You want me to write a book report with sources supporting my opinion that there are people who think that those who oppose gay marriage are the scum of the earth and worse than criminals?

I'm pretty sure I could do that if I spent time pulling together posts from this website and elsewhere, but rather than spend the time to do that, I'll just narrow the point to the one others have made which is really all I'm saying. I think people are too fast to use words like "bigot" and "fraud" and "hypocrite" and generally vilify people who have some of these opinions that are based on religious beliefs. I get the whole "I don't have to have tolerance for people who have tolerance thing", but I think it's more productive to try to understand the concepts of these things, why this is important to some people, how and why others of faith have changed and become more liberal, if only to understand the character flaw and the personal failings. It's just an opinion. You don't have to agree with it.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

OK, I've made a new thread: Bigotry, Gay Marriage, Michael Sam & Tony Dungy - Front Office Football Central

It also has a poll, so you're more-or-less obligated to use it.

So ummm......preseason starts in less than 2 weeks.

Anyone wanna talk about that?

[Warhammer]

The Rams will challenge for the NFC West title this year. Their defense will be dominant and their offense will cram the ball down everyone's throat. This will open up the passing game where they will be average, provided Bradford stays healthy.

[Matthean]

Actual NFL news, Rice is suspended for two games. Blackmon is charged for a third time.

[stevew]

Beat your wife up-2 games
Smoke some reefer or have a serious issue with chemical dependency-lifetime ban


I'm really thinking about taking a year off and figuring out what football actually means to me. Maybe I'll start an ultra pretensious blog about how I feel and what that means*

*though granted all blogs are like this.

[DanGarion]

I am Adrian Peterson, Pro Running back and Wheaties Cover Athlete : IAmA

Too late to ask questions, but a great read.

[mckerney]

Originally Posted by stevew

Beat your wife up-2 games
Smoke some reefer or have a serious issue with chemical dependency-lifetime ban


I'm really thinking about taking a year off and figuring out what football actually means to me. Maybe I'll start an ultra pretensious blog about how I feel and what that means*

*though granted all blogs are like this.

Yep, punching your wife in the face is only half as bad as smoking pot for the first time. Thanks for the clarification on that Mr. Goodell!

[mckerney]

Maybe Greg Hardy will get off with no suspension because the woman he punched had been using cocaine, there could be some sort of antidrug message in there that Goodell would like.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by mckerney

Yep, punching your wife in the face is only half as bad as smoking pot for the first time. Thanks for the clarification on that Mr. Goodell!

Isn't that all stuff that is collectivly bargained?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Then there's this

First-time offenders, like Rice, typically are suspended a month or less by the league. In the past three years, only 12 players have received more than four-game suspensions, and all were repeat offenders.

[Suburban Rhythm]

Originally Posted by Lathum

Isn't that all stuff that is collectivly bargained?

The 4 game ban for substance abuse, yes.

The X number of games for ______________________, no. Thought that all fell under the whole "protecting the shield" crap Goodell has spouted before. Basically, he reserves the right to suspend as he sees fit. Like a "conduct detrimental to the team" clause.

Roethlisberger was given 6 games after his issue in Georgia. Later reduced to 4. All by Goodell.

[BillJasper]

Maybe Goodell figured the less time Ray Rice is home, the less time he'll have to beat on women?

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by BillJasper

Maybe Goodell figured the less time Ray Rice is home, the less time he'll have to beat on women?

I would presume he lives with the woman he beat on, right? Since they're married? Maybe Goodell should have forced Rice to practice 24-7 for two weeks.

[CU Tiger]

supposedly there is a additional video that Goodel has seen that includes what happened in the elevator that hasnt been made public that resulted in the reduced suspension...at least that is what a voice on the radio was saying yesterday.

[NobodyHere]

Well Colts lost RB Vic Ballard again for the season.

Anyone wanna trade their starting running back for a first round pick?

[Arles]

Feeling good about Jordy Nelson's 4-year, $39 mil ($14 mil guaranteed) extension after seeing that marginal TE Kyle Rudolph just signed a 5-year, $40 mil deal ($19 mil guaranteed). Given Greg Jennings got 5-$45 mil ($18 mil guaranteed) on the open market last year, I think Jody's is a pretty team-friendly contract for GB. Since the Pack has almost $14 mil in cap space left, I'm guessing a big chunk will also count on this year's cap to help future years as well.

[stevew]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

Well Colts lost RB Vic Ballard again for the season.

Anyone wanna trade their starting running back for a first round pick?

Quite hilarious that Trent Richardson is also injured at this point as well with a gimpy hamstring. Staying healthy is apparently an underrated skill.

[MacroGuru]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

Well Colts lost RB Vic Ballard again for the season.

Anyone wanna trade their starting running back for a first round pick?

Rumor has it the Bills are shopping Spiller right now.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by MacroGuru

Rumor has it the Bills are shopping Spiller right now.

He seems like he would be a really interesting guy for a team to move in on. I don't think we know what his best role is, but he does have some wheels.

[Logan]

Cowboys and Tyron Smith agree to a 8 year, $110 million deal.

$40 million guaranteed and a $10MM bonus makes it seem like there's a whole lot of funny money there though.

[Matthean]

Originally Posted by MacroGuru

Rumor has it the Bills are shopping Spiller right now.

If the Colts pick him up for less than a first, we know Irsay's rehab is going well.

[Thomkal]

My beloved Cardinals have made CB Patrick Peterson the richest CB in the league. 5 year contract extension for $70 million with 48 mil guaranteed.

Arizona Cardinals sign Patrick Peterson to five-year contract extension - ESPN


Looks like fellow Cardinal John Abraham is now in trouble though:

John Abraham of Arizona Cardinals arrested on DUI in June - ESPN

Oh and did you see what defense Josh Gordon's lawyers are using: Secondhand smoke...yeah right Josh.

NFL issues warning ahead of Josh Gordon appeal - ESPN

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Thomkal

Oh and did you see what defense Josh Gordon's lawyers are using: Secondhand smoke...yeah right Josh.

NFL issues warning ahead of Josh Gordon appeal - ESPN

That was my first thought as well until I read up on the readings he got and how they compare to normal standard tests for pot smoking, and I am not sure he and his lawyers are wrong.

[NobodyHere]

Man facing charges for urinating on Art Modell's grave | FOX Sports

You stay classy Cleveland.

(although I support the sentiment)

[Matthean]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

That was my first thought as well until I read up on the readings he got and how they compare to normal standard tests for pot smoking, and I am not sure he and his lawyers are wrong.

How about being smart enough to not be around dope smoke.

[chadritt]

Originally Posted by Matthean

How about being smart enough to not be around dope smoke.

So hes not allowed to go to concerts? The highest I ever got was when I went to Coachella and didnt smoke at all.

[Matthean]

Originally Posted by chadritt

So hes not allowed to go to concerts? The highest I ever got was when I went to Coachella and didnt smoke at all.

With millions of dollars on the line, I think I could skip a concert.

[chadritt]

Originally Posted by Matthean

With millions of dollars on the line, I think I could skip a concert.

and public parks? and movie theaters? and sporting events? and anywhere in public where there might be someone you cant control?

[Matthean]

Originally Posted by chadritt

and public parks? and movie theaters? and sporting events? and anywhere in public where there might be someone you cant control?

I've never encountered someone smoking weed in a theater or sporting event. A public park you could simply walk away.

[whomario]

just you wait until the first player is locked up for playing a bad game. I mean, if the league punishes guys for stuff unrelated to football, it is only fair, right ?

[whomario]

Also, as far as i know, a negative b sample would clear an athlete under international rule (for example in the Olympics).

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Matthean

How about being smart enough to not be around dope smoke.

I'm not talking dumb or smart, just the legalities of the case. There's more there than just dismissing it as a ploy by the defense lawyers.

[molson]

Originally Posted by chadritt

So hes not allowed to go to concerts? The highest I ever got was when I went to Coachella and didnt smoke at all.

If you're an NFL player, or on criminal probation, you're not allowed to get high from second-hand smoke at concerts. And that's about the level of exposure that would be required to trigger a positive UA. It's not going to happen if you smell a little weed outside a house when you're walking the dog in the morning.

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by molson

If you're an NFL player, or on criminal probation, you're not allowed to get high from second-hand smoke at concerts. And that's about the level of exposure that would be required to trigger a positive UA. It's not going to happen if you smell a little weed outside a house when you're walking the dog in the morning.

As much as I don't think smoking marijuana is a big deal: a condition of his current employment was that he not test positive. He has tested positive. He put himself in a position to be exposed to marijuana smoke. I think it is a pretty open and shut case.

[Matthean]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

I'm not talking dumb or smart, just the legalities of the case. There's more there than just dismissing it as a ploy by the defense lawyers.

The NFL's stance is it is up to the players to control what goes into their bodies and that includes second hand smoke. The NFL is going to wonder why you were doing an activity that enabled you to fail a drug test even if you didn't directly consume the drug. Again, if you are signings deal worth millions, you should take the effort to be smart about it.

[BillJasper]

Though I've always questioned the logic that the best thing for a player with a substance abuse problem is to ban him from working. It seems to me the worst thing you could do is give someone whose already made a lot of money even more leisure time.

I think it would sting more to donate all the players salary and bonuses beyond the league minimum to drug prevention organizations. I think it would sting to be scheduled to make three million dollars and watch all of it go someplace other than your pocket.

[flere-imsaho]

I thought this sounded familiar: Breaking Down NFL Player Fines - Front Office Football Central

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Matthean

The NFL's stance is it is up to the players to control what goes into their bodies and that includes second hand smoke. The NFL is going to wonder why you were doing an activity that enabled you to fail a drug test even if you didn't directly consume the drug. Again, if you are signings deal worth millions, you should take the effort to be smart about it.

Again, I am talking about the legalities of his court case.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Again, I am talking about the legalities of his court case.

Then there is that pesky CBA...where you know laws and rights are waived and he must abide by the structure of the NFL.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

Then there is that pesky CBA...where you know laws and rights are waived and he must abide by the structure of the NFL.

Okay, now y'all are just trolling me right? Maybe I'll just put the stuff about talking about the legal court case only in my sig.