Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

indyagent17

NFL adopts new Anthem policy

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, stitches said:

I stand corrected on the players part, then. Still the part about the DoD paying for anthems and staging of military displays of patriotism is well documented. 

I didn't disagree. The military tried to use that stuff more for recruiting than anything else. It was a hey, look at me thing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, csmopar said:

I have a feeling this thread is gonna get locked very soon

So far so good.  A bit of fabrication and some unnecessary testiness. But, generally ok.

 

Hope everyone is happy now and don't look for more reasons to be enraged by player or poster opinions

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, jskinnz said:

 

I think the characterization of this being a compromise is not accurate at all in a couple of different areas.  First it seems to have been forced upon the players.  Plus is it free speech if they are only allowed to do it where no one else can see, i.e the locker room? 

 

 

Free speech only applies to the government not a private employer.   The government can't force the players,  but the NFL may be able to if it doesn't violate the CBA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lots of people protest in lots of ways and for the most part its either the wrong way ( negative publicity, riots ect) and then they move on. The protests come to an end and then its old news or in the wash. Some people will even protest and not even know the reason why they are protesting. 

What they fail to do is to continue the process in the right and constructive way in my opinion. I personally quit watching the news because rarely do you see anything POSITIVE. There are lots of positive things in this world and country but what we get fed is mainly negative. And what i have seen is negativity breeds negativity.  

 

Even in a perfect world there will always be somebody who doesn't feel equal  FOR WHATEVER REASON. I believe it is just us as humans. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, DougDew said:

I've generally stayed out of the kneeling threads because the issue is just so stupid, but these are my thoughts:

 

This whole thing started the Sunday morning Kaepernick was told he was no longer the starter.  He throws a temper tantrum by kneeling for the Anthem in defiance of his coach.  After the game and he's calmed down a bit, some reporter sticks a mic in his face about why he knelt, and he fabricates some canned issue that generally gets unwavering popular support, some sort of persistent inequality in our country.   He didn't say it was about police or a racist slave owner song writer writing the anthem.  It was the generic feeling of inequality.  An easy way to get support.

 

(Edit:  You know, if I was a QB "of color" and got benched in favor of Blaine Gabbert, I'd probably come up with all sorts of wild excuses about how racist the country is just so I wouldn't have to admit to myself I was worse than Blaine Gabbert)

 

Because the concept of existing inequality must always be brought out in the public forum,  unrelenting for decades, there are groups of people who are triggered into giving unconditional support for that concept even when a person does something really stupid to raise the issue.  With that mindset, others come to his defense.

 

Realizing that protesting the anthem has nothing to do with inequality, the whole group, who have now embarrassed themselves by defending the reason for Kaep's protest, have to come up with another reason for the protest that tries to make sense of it.  They fabricate the lame excuse that a verse originally written by slave owner Key alluded to ownership of people, and that the verse (that isn't part of the song) means the rest of the song that became the national anthem is a racist song. (Avoiding the obvious,  that politicians TOOK OUT that verse of the song in order to make it acceptable for the rest of the song to be the national anthem)  

 

Having taken yet another step down the rabbit hole of stupidity by fabricating yet a third lame excuse, these people finally grab some issue of the day worth protesting, police brutality, and then say that was/is the reason for the kneeling in the first place. 

 

Instead of just letting these people totally embarrass themselves with going down these rabbit holes of made up reasons for defending Kaep's original temper tantrum protest for being benched, politicians and the commissioner get involved, making the whole stupid temper tantrum  by Kaep some sort of national issue.

 

Having said that.  This policy does nothing.  Players are still protesting the anthem by staying in the locker room.  There is no difference between kneeling and staying back.  Its an irrelevant policy that we are supposed to think means something.  

 

So anybody who is offended by ignorant players protesting the NATIONAL anthem over police brutality committed by local municipalities' police forces (no such thing as a national police force, so maybe a Raven should protest the city of Baltimore instead?), or because the writer was a slave owner and the song was edited before it became the anthem, or because of general inequality, or simply because Kaep sucks and got benched, this policy shouldn't really appease anybody. 

 

They're still protesting by being absent.

tenor.gif?itemid=8654562

 

With regards to the policy, the NFL is in a no-win situation.  If they don't say anything, one group of fans will be upset that they're letting this continue.  If they take a side, fans of the opposing side will complain.  Then you have the NFLPA that is adamantly determined to simply disagree with anything and everything the NFL does.  I feel like this is far from over...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Nadine said:

just came across this

 

 

Great point by Sage

 

5 minutes ago, Nadine said:

and this

 

 

Terrible situation 

4 minutes ago, Nadine said:

and this

 

 

Very nice

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, PrincetonTiger said:

Great point by Sage

 

Terrible situation 

Very nice

 

I'm good with not selling concessions during the anthem. 

 

Johnson must be confused, the players aren't being fined the teams are.  So yes he will be paying the fine. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe what Johnson is trying to say is that he will gladly pay the fines if his players protest on the field. It is a way of the owner saying I understand your plight, I have your back. I respect that. How many others came out and said, " I have your back". Not many.

 

I also agree with Sage. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, HitStick21 said:

I believe what Johnson is trying to say is that he will gladly pay the fines if his players protest on the field. It is a way of the owner saying I understand your plight, I have your back. I respect that. How many others came out and said, " I have your back". Not many.

 

I also agree with Sage. 

That is the way I took it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, HitStick21 said:

I believe what Johnson is trying to say is that he will gladly pay the fines if his players protest on the field. It is a way of the owner saying I understand your plight, I have your back. I respect that. How many others came out and said, " I have your back". Not many.

 

I also agree with Sage. 

 

Could be,  but that's not what the tweet says.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Cynjin said:

 

No it's not. 

He said he would pay any fine his players would be subjected over the new rule

 

     Since he or his people were in the meetings over it I think he knows what he is saying

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, PrincetonTiger said:

He said he would pay any fine his players would be subjected over the new rule

 

     Since he or his people were in the meetings over it I think he knows what he is saying

 

Right, except the players aren't subjected to any fines, the teams are according to the reports.  Maybe he misspoke or was misquoted, or maybe he didn't know what he was saying. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Cynjin said:

 

Right, except the players aren't subjected to any fines, the teams are according to the reports.  Maybe he misspoke or was misquoted, or maybe he didn't know what he was saying. 

The players will be responsible for the cause of the fines

 

 

    I knew exactly what he meant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, PrincetonTiger said:

The players will be responsible for the cause of the fines

 

 

    I knew exactly what he meant

 

Maybe you did, but if the tweet is accurate, Johnson didn't. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Cynjin said:

 

Maybe you did, but if the tweet is accurate, Johnson didn't. 

Not at all

 

  he will be proud to pay.any fine a Jet would get over the rule

 

  Not sure why you are concerned about the meaning of this tweet

  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, PrincetonTiger said:

Not at all

 

  he will be proud to pay.any fine a Jet would get over the rule

 

  Not sure why you are concerned about the meaning of this tweet

  

 

All I said was that he may have meant that he would pay any fine that a player may caused the team, but that's not what the tweet said.  You quoted me saying it did and I correctly pointed out that it in fact the tweet did not say that. You seem to care about it much more than I do. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, stitches said:

Only in the US. In my neck of the woods(Europe) people ridicule that obsession with fake displays of patriotism in US sports(the anthem, the parroting of the military, etc.). I've been a fan of multiple sports and I cannot think of a single one in any country other than the US(and Canada?) that plays the national anthem before games of club teams. The only time they play the anthems is before national teams competitions/games/events. 

 

Same down here in New Zealand with the exception of a grand final

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, jskinnz said:

 

I think the characterization of this being a compromise is not accurate at all in a couple of different areas.  First it seems to have been forced upon the players.  Plus is it free speech if they are only allowed to do it where no one else can see, i.e the locker room? 

 

Its better than being forced on the field and standing, and yes it is free speech because you are still making a choice and expressing yourself. Not sure if you're aware that you don't actually have to be someplace to express yourself. A lack of presence by choice is still an expression. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, stitches said:

Of course there is hypocrisy - you are OK with NFL and NFL teams draping the flag horizontally before EVERY SINGLE GAME even though it's explicitly against the 'respect of the flag' code because their intention is not to disrespect, but you don't extend the same courtesy to the players, who do something that's advised against in the very same document, but they explicitly say they mean no disrespect . This is the embodiment and definition of hypocrisy 

 

You might very well be right about the prudence of their strategy, but this is not really what we are talking about. Also, it's worth pointing out that this is NOT the only way they are drawing attention and addressing the issues they seem to care about. I wonder if you knew that and purposely ignored it or if you didn't even know about it? 

Its not about the "issues,"  its about this issue. They don't go about inciting controversy for every issue they care about do they? 

 

For those of us who don't live in a black and white world, there is a difference between the horizontal flag and kneeling. One isn't about a personal agenda meant to incite controversy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, stitches said:

I stand corrected on the players part, then. Still the part about the DoD paying for anthems and staging of military displays of patriotism is well documented. 

That doesn't change that it existed for 70 years before that. You have yet to acknowledge that part. Somehow because the person who pays for it changes, the sincerity and value to those whom it matters changes as well? Ya that makes sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, csmopar said:

I didn't disagree. The military tried to use that stuff more for recruiting than anything else. It was a hey, look at me thing

But not the anthem, which is what were discussing. The anthem existed 70 years prior to the contract ever occurring. As part of the NFL allowing the marketing, the DoD had to take over paying for the performances as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, J@son said:

the first amendment and the right to free speech are irrelevant to the NFL's anthem policy.  The first amendment protects us from Congress passing laws that would prohibit our right to free speech.  This policy is about a private company's rules for conduct of their players.  

 

Now if Congress were trying to pass a law forcing players to stand during the anthem, then the first amendment would come into play.

This is true, that businesses have the right to make their own rules, but some choose when to acknowledge this. You have every right to express your opinion and views and no one should create rules that restrict this...so long as it fits within the approved spectrum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Nadine said:

So far so good.  A bit of fabrication and some unnecessary testiness. But, generally ok.

 

Hope everyone is happy now and don't look for more reasons to be enraged by player or poster opinions

I'll attempt to keep myself in check, as we all know how much of an agitator and instigator I am :76evil::drama::stir::poke:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Nadine said:

Another perspective

 

 

 

This wasn't the stated reason the movement was started. Not saying the George Takei is wrong, but Kaeps message evolved and changed over time. It started out about blaming the country for the actions of the police and then more on to this. The acts that he is protesting are disgusting and I often get into debates with people about the so called justification of many of these police actions. I believe people have to right to openly refuse to identify themselves as most times when you are asked to identify yourself, they have no reasonable cause or suspicion to detain you. I believe that the police of the U.S. often abuse their powers and have become too militaristic in their tactics and these people should be whole heartedly be held accountable and put in jail.

 

But I do not blame the entirety of the nation,  its people or the U.S. governments policies for the actions of the few and the corruption of those who justify the actions. The government and it's people for the most part do exemplify what the flag and the anthem, are supposed to represent. If they are suggesting that the U.S. government should take over every state, county, and municipalities jurisdictions for purpose of adjudication, then they are advocating for the eradication of individual states rights and peoples liberty to choose by election.  

 

You cannot eradicate evil people. Look how often acts of kindness by police go unnoticed. There are dozens of more stories about how police are helping people and going out of their way to buy people groceries, buy their children car seats, pay their rent, buy a new bike, help them find jobs, and the list goes on.  But that stuff doesn't get page hits and ratings.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3553973/Michigan-cop-buys-car-seat-struggling-father-pulling-over.html

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2871737/What-difference-week-makes-Cop-let-starving-mother-caught-stealing-eggs-just-hug-delivers-two-truckloads-food-feed-family-Christmas.html

 

https://edition.cnn.com/2017/07/27/us/cop-buys-diapers-trnd/index.html

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3687606/Pennsylvania-cop-picked-dinner-bill-couple-refused-sit-police-officers.html

 

https://edition.cnn.com/2016/10/01/us/california-police-bike-teen-trnd/index.html

 

 

 

 

You look at local media outlets any time something goes on, and you can find that every outlet from ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, to Fox parrot nearly the exact same statements verbatim. short example below.

 

News dominates public opinion, and even the news has its talking points and agenda. News outlets talk about unity, but these incidents are used to promote divisiveness than anything.

 

 

P.S. this is my "keep myself in check" version.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Land of the free, where children can shoot themselves and people defend their right to carry guns like they still live in the Wild West, where even Nazis can speak freely because of freedom of speech but some athletes kneeling during an anthem or kneeling in front of a piece of cloth? That's an absolutely no go... americans are killing me sometimes with that kind of hypocrisy and blind patriotism. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, austriancolt said:

Land of the free, where children can shoot themselves and people defend their right to carry guns like they still live in the Wild West, where even Nazis can speak freely because of freedom of speech but some athletes kneeling during an anthem or kneeling in front of a piece of cloth? That's an absolutely no go... americans are killing me sometimes with that kind of hypocrisy and blind patriotism. 

Children can shoot themselves yes, usually because of improper gun safety measures from adults. But we have never allowed ourselves to be take over by a tyrannical government because we disarmed ourselves.

 

Sure Nazi's can speak freely because they have the right, no one really agrees with them and that is why they are usually shut down. But we have never allowed a Nazi to be in power and slaughter millions of people because of their religion or political views.

 

Europeans are killing me with their down their nose judgements while hiding in a corners from their past.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Never got the connection between kneeling for the anthem and the problem they were protesting.  Seems ignorant.

 

I think I'll follow their lead.  My employer has a policy of no soft drinks at the work station.  Because this country has had a history of inequality, slave ownership, and now police brutality, I think I'll protest buy drinking a coke while I work today. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Narcosys said:

But not the anthem, which is what were discussing. The anthem existed 70 years prior to the contract ever occurring. As part of the NFL allowing the marketing, the DoD had to take over paying for the performances as well.

I know I was talking about the other stuff, like fly overs, repelling from choppers, purchasing ticket blocks etc. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, austriancolt said:

Land of the free, where children can shoot themselves and people defend their right to carry guns like they still live in the Wild West, where even Nazis can speak freely because of freedom of speech but some athletes kneeling during an anthem or kneeling in front of a piece of cloth? That's an absolutely no go... americans are killing me sometimes with that kind of hypocrisy and blind patriotism. 

Did we insult your country? No, so take that crap elsewhere before it creates a giant argument and thus a forum lock down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Narcosys said:

I'll attempt to keep myself in check, as we all know how much of an agitator and instigator I am :76evil::drama::stir::poke:

I'm trying too haha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Thread of the Week

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Remember,  we are not debating whether Spring is doable.   I've stated from the beginning that I agree.    It's not as bad as some here think it is.    It's doable,   No question.   We are debating whether Spring is preferable, or desireable.    So, when you write,  that you don't think you have to say more about an issue,  any issue,  I'm sorry,   but NO!     You DO have to say more.  A heckuva lot more.    Because YOU have the burden of proof.    My position is the Industry Standard.   Your's has, by comparison,  a handful of examples.   Some are recent.   That's great.   But I view that as a nod to the position that it's doable.    You view it as a possibility that it might soon become the norm.   I'm happy to wait until that actually happens.   As to your primary argument.....    that all the prep work has been done,  and if you make the changes in winter,  that the GM is not up to speed on what the current scouts and player personnel people have done.    Except there is this......   Your argument that you yourself use to others here who complain that changing in the spring is bad.   To quote you....   it's just one draft.    One free agency period.    And there will soon be another,  and then another....   and another.   One season is nothing in the grand scheme of things.   That is what you wrote (roughly) to posters who think making the GM change in the spring is outright terrible and stupid.    Which I strongly disagree with their positin.   Your argument makes my argument for me.    I want the new GM in the building ASAP.    So he can sooner evaluate his players.    His front office.    His scouts.    The entire program.   Waiting until May or June just delays that.    I want it to begin ASAP.   I'd expect that he can and would be able to make some level of difference in his first free agency and draft.    Plus,  I think you way, way over-dramatize the handicap the new GM has arriving in January.   He's the GM.    He's already got a ton of information in his head,  and in his notebooks, his binders.    He's not in as much of a bind as you like to portray.     So, with your desired scenario, this draft could be used for a system that the new GM doesn't even want to run.    Like Chuck running a 3-4,  when Ballard wants to run a 4-3.    Like Chuck wanted to run a power running game and a deep pattern passing game.    While Ballard favors a zone running game and a get rid of the ball quick, move the chains offense.     In your preferred scenario,  you're the one who is burning the first year the GM has,  not me.     I see little of the benefits and mostly an approach that screams....   "Gee,  I hope this works out."   By the way,  I didn't want this post to end without addressing one of your main points.   Your paragraph that starts with this:   My Point:  There are always good candidates...   same is true for head coaches and coordinators.    I'm sorry,  but I'm going to STRONGLY disagree with that argument.  And I think you'll retract that.    Every so often you'll see an article about how did the class of GM's from a previous year turn out?   Or head coach hires?    I used to tell posters here who hated Pagano that the class of head coaches that included Chuck,  that all of the other coaches got fired before Chuck.    That Chuck was the best of his class.   And that happens with GM's too.   A class gets hired,  and quite often most of them, sometimes all of them don't work out.   I believe my position has far more facts to back that up.    There isn't always a Sean McVey.  There isn't always a Kyle Shannahan.   There isn't always a Josh McDaniels.   There aren't 32 good GM's, or 32 good head coaches,  or 32 good offensive or defensive coordinators.   That's why so many teams struggle for years to get those spots right.   So, no, I absolutely reject the idea that there are always good candidates.    Sorry.   I know you believe what you're writing.   But honestly, this feels like one big thought experiment. Like you're trying to make a case for something you really don't believe,  but you're trying to see if you can make a good argument anyway.   And yet I know that's NOT the case.    That you really, honestly do believe this.    That's what I find so astonishing.    There's lots of opinion,  and not a lot of evidence to back this up.    As I've said from the get-go....   I think this is doable.    I just don't think it's desireable or preferable.  
    • To your last paragraph....   yes,  I agree that if a GM,  any GM, inherits a bad roster,  then no matter how OK his draft picks may be,   they will likely stick on the roster.   But if you're a GM inheriting a poor team,  and you draft players that are only somewhat better than what you originally had,  then the improvement in the team will only be so good.   Again,  from 4 wis,  to perhaps 6-7.    That wouldn't be bad.    That would be reasonable.   But when you suddenly pop to 10 wins,  including 9 of the last 10 in the regular season,  and you win on the road in the playoffs,   then there's got to be something more there than just the GM's new guys.    Those guys have got to be good.    You can't do that well simply because they're better than the previous guys.    They're much better.    Yes, the coaching staff is better and the systems the team is running are better,  but so are the players.    They have to execute.    And we did.   Better than we thought possible.    Certainly better than when we were 1-5 and looked like a candidate for a top-10 or even a top-5 draft pick.    The players are good.   They may not be great yet,  but they're really good and much better than what we had.    The results are all the proof you need.   Again,  thanks for the exchange....  
    • I missed the first couple innings, was keeping track on phone, didn’t realize things got chippy with the benches clearing after the Contreras HR! Seems the Cubs were playing with a little extra edge tonight, I love it!!! 
    • and then NE goes into KC and throws for 350 and Sony runs for 100+ on them. our O, and O game plan just sucked.   i get KC was good, but our O just sucked.
  • Members

    • Nadine

      Nadine 7,321

      Administrators
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • SOMDColtsfan

      SOMDColtsfan 420

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Nate!

      Nate! 44

      New Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Franklin County

      Franklin County 452

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • NFLfan

      NFLfan 7,668

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Smonroe

      Smonroe 9,354

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • DaveA1102

      DaveA1102 1,864

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
×
×
  • Create New...