TNF: Bears @ Packers

[Forge]

1 minute ago, pheltzbahr said:

Glennon is not good.  Discuss.

Actually think you pretty much summed it up there. 

[Forge]

1 minute ago, JustAnotherFan said:

Sure he is. He is guaranteeing a top pick for the Bears who desperately need it. Job well done.

And helping out the 49ers in the process. That third rounder is looking better and better. 

[pheltzbahr]

Maybe Glennon can donate some of his neck to Adams.

 

Probably too soon.

[jrry32]

3 minutes ago, Ragnarok said:

Just expanded on my comment.

I think suspensions should be decided after the game.  Because a hit like that deserves one.  But I don't agree with the in-game suspension for grazing a helmet.  Harsher punishments for the legitimately dangerous hits.  I think the system is too reactive in its current form.  

This guy gets it.

[Ragnarok]

1 minute ago, jrry32 said:

Dude, provide some actual evidence that it makes any difference for player safety to have ejections instead of personal fouls. You know what...I don't care. It's not worth the time to debate this. You'll throw a major temper tantrum the first time a key Packers player gets ejected for an unintentional hit to the head. Don't use player safety as a crutch for your weak argument.

You should probably delete all of this before a mod sees it.  

[Shady Slim]

the neck has struggled mightily against tampa's secondary who are pretty good, pittsburgh's who i think are underrated tho i'm biased, and now also frickin green bay's...

atlanta's too from memory tho they're pretty good too... so when does the lynch mob crack out the incredibly long rope they'll need?

[CWood21]

Just now, jrry32 said:

Dude, provide some actual evidence that it makes any difference for player safety to have ejections instead of personal fouls. You know what...I don't care. It's not worth the time to debate this. You'll throw a major temper tantrum the first time a key Packers player gets ejected for an unintentional hit to the head. Don't use player safety as a crutch for your weak argument.

Again, you have yet to post anything remotely coherent regarding your issue with the rule other than the fact that you feel that players getting ejected for poor implementation of the rule.  I proposed a valid, well-thought solution to the issue and you choose to sit here and tell me I'm throwing a temper tantrum because I think player safety trumps your favorite player being ejected.

[Kiwibrown]

Just now, Ragnarok said:

Um...how in the world can you make that statement with any sort of legitimacy?

Do you know what the spinal cord does? 
Do you know what happens if it takes severe damage? 
do you know what happens if a blood vessels ruptures in the spine? 

[Jetzger]

Kinda hoping Green Bay piles it on now.

[Ragnarok]

Just now, Kiwibrown said:

Do you know what the spinal cord does? 
Do you know what happens if it takes severe damage? 
do you know what happens if a blood vessels ruptures in the spine? 

I do.  But your statement was reactionary and..considering he gave a thumbs up...just untrue.  If you almost legitimately die...you don't give a thumbs up a few minutes later.

[Carmen Cygni]

1 minute ago, jrry32 said:

Dude, provide some actual evidence that it makes any difference for player safety to have ejections instead of personal fouls. You know what...I don't care. It's not worth the time to debate this. You'll throw a major temper tantrum the first time a key Packers player gets ejected for an unintentional hit to the head. Don't use player safety as a crutch for your weak argument.

Calling for an in-game ejection for such a violation is not a weak argument. Emotions overflow and then you have the opposition in a viable retaliation mode. Removing the guilty player from the field of play eliminates such possible overreactions. 

[CWood21]

1 minute ago, jrry32 said:

This guy gets it.

And you'll continue to ignore my very reasonable tweaking of the rule...but continue to play the whole emotions game.  I'd LOVE to hear what's wrong with my proposal.

[drd23]

There's also this rule that would apply

Quote

ARTICLE 7. PLAYERS IN A DEFENSELESS POSTURE

It is a foul if a player initiates unnecessary contact against a player who is in a defenseless posture.

1. Players in a defenseless posture are:
   1. A runner already in the grasp of a tackler and whose forward progress has been stopped
   .

 

[jrry32]

Just now, CWood21 said:

Again, you have yet to post anything remotely coherent regarding your issue with the rule other than the fact that you feel that players getting ejected for poor implementation of the rule.  I proposed a valid, well-thought solution to the issue and you choose to sit here and tell me I'm throwing a temper tantrum because I think player safety trumps your favorite player being ejected.

No, you didn't. You are overreacting to a Packer getting hurt by proposing the NFL implement a rule that is loathed in college. You have provided no evidence that your reasoning behind it is anything but pretext. You are upset about a dirty play and proposing a half-baked solution.

[Ragnarok]

4 minutes ago, Kiwibrown said:

use a sentence, moron. 

You probably wanna delete that too.