Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

Tyreek Hill is DONE


Recommended Posts

18 hours ago, MikeCurtis said:

There is enough on the tape, as well as a previous pleading of guilty

 

The guy is a piece of crap

 

It shows a pattern

'

It will be interesting to see if the NFL does something

 

Remember when Peterson was thrown out for using a switch on his kid?

 

This guy is on tape admitting to hitting the kid....

 

GIVE ME A BREAK.... BE CONSISTENT

 

Minimum ONE year suspension

 

 

Is using a switch to discipline your child against NFL personal conduct policy?

Is snapping a towel on his butt?

Is cursing at him.....under the age of say 13, but okay to curse over the age of 13?

Is sticking out your tongue at him okay?

 

As a prospective player, I would have a hard time understanding how far I could go in disciplining my kid before Roger Goodell disapproved.

 

Where should he draw the line?  As a player, how would I know where to draw the line? 

 

What is legal and what isn't seems to be a a fairly bright line for everyone to see.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 148
  • Created
  • Last Reply
28 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Is using a switch to discipline your child against NFL personal conduct policy?

Is snapping a towel on his butt?

Is cursing at him.....under the age of say 13, but okay to curse over the age of 13?

Is sticking out your tongue at him okay?

 

As a prospective player, I would have a hard time understanding how far I could go in disciplining my kid before Roger Goodell disapproved.

 

Where should he draw the line?  As a player, how would I know where to draw the line? 

 

What is legal and what isn't seems to be a a fairly bright line for everyone to see.

Great points, there clearly ISNT a hard rule to follow

 

But do you just let it sit where its at?

 

 

 

 

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

I REALLY think you missed my point

 

I was switched growing up, spanked , smacked, etc..........  

 

I was taught manners and respect

 

I also taught my kids respect ...... we used a wooden spoon for a quick swat

 

I was making a comparison 

 

AP's kids had some welts (I know them well) Four years old seems a little young for welts

 

Tyreeks kid had a BROKEN ARM

 

He didnt deny hitting the kid in the chest with his fist

 

AP's activity is questionable at worse..........  He was suspended

 

Tyreek is worse.....

 

 

Tyreek didn’t break his kids arm, it’s been proven many times. Also, the allegations that he punches his kid in the chest were brought up once again by Espinal, who is every bit, if not more, crazy as Hill is. Who knows who to trust there. Regardless, I just really want continuity with Goodell’s decisions, and I’m sure you can agree with that. Either don’t suspend them at all, or suspend all of them

Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, WarGhost21 said:

Regardless, I just really want continuity with Goodell’s decisions, and I’m sure you can agree with that. Either don’t suspend them at all, or suspend all of them

 

People say they want that, but I don't believe it. Every situation is different, and should be handled differently.

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

 

People say they want that, but I don't believe it. Every situation is different, and should be handled differently.

No no, I agree with that statement entirely, but it’s just outrageous that Goodell seemingly changes his stance all the time. As I said earlier in this thread, we don’t have all the information, so I’m not one to judge, but from what we do have it just seems like it should be similar to Zeke’s incident. It’s just maddening how Goodell is always so “on-again, off-again”, ya know?

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, WarGhost21 said:

No no, I agree with that statement entirely, but it’s just outrageous that Goodell seemingly changes his stance all the time. As I said earlier in this thread, we don’t have all the information, so I’m not one to judge, but from what we do have it just seems like it should be similar to Zeke’s incident. It’s just maddening how Goodell is always so “on-again, off-again”, ya know?

 

What people want is to criticize Goodell and the league, and they'll do that no matter what. 

 

The NFL said they cannot conclude that Hill violated the conduct policy. There's significant doubt cast on whether Hill harmed the child at all. I think what Hill said on the phone call with his ex-partner was terrible, but I don't think that saying something terrible rises to the level of being worthy of a suspension.

 

And let's say the league did suspend him over this matter, based on what they know so far. If further information came out, would they be able to suspend him again? I think that's a major legal consideration.

 

To me, it's hypocritical to make an issue over how the NFL handles player conduct, because the fans and media are quite literally NEVER happy with what happens. If a player is suspended, Goodell is being unfair, and everyone says the league shouldn't be punishing players for off the field actions. If a player is not suspended, Goodell is being inconsistent, and everyone says they should treat each situation the same. 

 

The NFL is now using a committee to give input and help make determinations on these matters. It's not Roger Goodell sitting at his desk and deciding on a whim whether to suspend a player or not. But the popular and seemingly automatic reaction is 'Goodell is an *,' and it doesn't matter what the decision is. It's always about how awful Goodell is.

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

 

What people want is to criticize Goodell and the league, and they'll do that no matter what. 

 

The NFL said they cannot conclude that Hill violated the conduct policy. There's significant doubt cast on whether Hill harmed the child at all. I think what Hill said on the phone call with his ex-partner was terrible, but I don't think that saying something terrible rises to the level of being worthy of a suspension.

 

And let's say the league did suspend him over this matter, based on what they know so far. If further information came out, would they be able to suspend him again? I think that's a major legal consideration.

 

To me, it's hypocritical to make an issue over how the NFL handles player conduct, because the fans and media are quite literally NEVER happy with what happens. If a player is suspended, Goodell is being unfair, and everyone says the league shouldn't be punishing players for off the field actions. If a player is not suspended, Goodell is being inconsistent, and everyone says they should treat each situation the same. 

 

The NFL is now using a committee to give input and help make determinations on these matters. It's not Roger Goodell sitting at his desk and deciding on a whim whether to suspend a player or not. But the popular and seemingly automatic reaction is 'Goodell is an *,' and it doesn't matter what the decision is. It's always about how awful Goodell is.

Right, I agree with you, I’m saying it’s not up to us to pass judgement and none of us should blame anyone for any decision. I guess I could have phrased it better, but what I mean is that we can’t be sure about anything that has been said or has surfaced, so why are we even arguing over it and getting upset about decisions when we have minimal insight into it. I just want everyone to let it go and leave decision making to the people who get it, yet that will never happen and people will always want justice. I agree though, Goodell catches way too much flak, and we all prance around acting like we know better. 

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

Great points, there clearly ISNT a hard rule to follow

 

But do you just let it sit where its at?

 

 

 

 

If Hill broke the law according to the people who get paid to determine those things, then I think Goodell has enough facts to go with.  If charges get dropped, its usually due to murky evidence, and I would think it would be hard to justify disciplinary action.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Southside Hoosier Fan said:

My bad, let me summarize better. I have a good friend who while only about 5"11 190 and over 50, is former military,  who flat out told me,  If I ever see that piece of crap in public I will pummel him into oblivion and let them arrest me. There is no doubt in my mind he would do it, and can do it.

 

He'd have to catch him first.  :funny:

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, DougDew said:

If Hill broke the law according to the people who get paid to determine those things, then I think Goodell has enough facts to go with.  If charges get dropped, its usually due to murky evidence, and I would think it would be hard to justify disciplinary action.

 

It could easily be due to the accuser / alleged victim deciding not to cooperate with the investigation. Or maybe in this case, the DA doesn't consider the accuser to be credible.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems like video evidence is needed for the NFL to do anything. There was video of Rice and Hunt, there was not of Hill. What she could do is set up a small camera in their house without him knowing. It is legal in every state. Then if anything happened to her or the kid it would be on video for the police and the NFL to see. Like certain people do with nanny cams when they fear their kids are being abused.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

It seems like video evidence is needed for the NFL to do anything. There was video of Rice and Hunt, there was not of Hill. What she could do is set up a small camera in their house without him knowing. It is legal in every state. Then if anything happened to her or the kid it would be on video for the police and the NFL to see. Like certain people do with nanny cams when they fear their kids are being abused.

 

There's no video of Jarran Reed, that I know of.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

There's no video of Jarran Reed, that I know of.

The NFL is too inconsistent with their punishments. I am pretty sure though if their was video of Hill abusing his wife or son then he would be in huge trouble. I am surprised just based off his past and the audio we heard he didn't get 4 games.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

The NFL is too inconsistent with their punishments. I am pretty sure though if their was video of Hill abusing his wife or son then he would be in huge trouble. I am surprised just based off his past and the audio we heard he didn't get 4 games.

 

Video would be proof, right? That's kind of the reason the case was closed, and why the NFL didn't suspend him. It's unclear whether he did any of the stuff he's been accused of, besides speak harshly to the woman.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Video would be proof, right? That's kind of the reason the case was closed, and why the NFL didn't suspend him. It's unclear whether he did any of the stuff he's been accused of, besides speak harshly to the woman.

Video would be concrete proof, at least I think so. That audio was awful though and in the past he pleaded guilty to abusing her.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Video would be concrete proof, at least I think so. That audio was awful though and in the past he pleaded guilty to abusing her.

 

The previous guilty plea was before he got to the NFL. The audio was awful, but I don't think a player should be suspended for an occasion of abusive speech. It's certainly not proof of anything other than that.

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

 

It could easily be due to the accuser / alleged victim deciding not to cooperate with the investigation. Or maybe in this case, the DA doesn't consider the accuser to be credible.

But if Goodell suspended Hill, then he would be saying the accuser is credible "enough" even though the DA doesn't think so.  That seems to go beyond the duties of a commissioner.  That seems like a self appointed King Solomon.  

 

I think what really happens is the NFL, like many companies, sticks their finger in the air and tries to gauge how much public image enhancement they would get by taking various actions in the social arena.  If they think they can enhance their image by suspending a player simply because they see enough smoke, they will, if they can get away with it.  If the NFL thinks there isn't enough public support or their may be a lawsuit, they do something minor.  I think the enforcement of their personal conduct policy is based upon that simple equation.

 

And here we are trying to talk about facts and apply some sort action based upon morals, as if that's the way the NFL approaches it.

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

But if Goodell suspended Hill, then he would be saying the accuser is credible "enough" even though the DA doesn't think so.  That seems to go beyond the duties of a commissioner.  That seems like a self appointed King Solomon.  

 

I think what really happens is the NFL, like many companies, sticks their finger in the air and tries to gauge how much public image enhancement they would get by taking various actions in the social arena.  If they think they can enhance their image by suspending a player simply because they see enough smoke, they will, if they can get away with it.  If the NFL thinks there isn't enough public support or their may be a lawsuit, they do something minor.  I think the enforcement of their personal conduct policy is based upon that simple equation.

 

And here we are trying to talk about facts and apply some sort action based upon morals, as if that's the way the NFL approaches it.

 

I'm saying that murky evidence isn't he only reason charges might be dropped. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Pathetic thread and topic.

 

When I was little (growing up in the 80s-90s), my dad would give me bloody noses if I spoke Mandarin Chinese in the household and not English.

 

It's very common for him to kick the chair out from under me if I was doing my homework too slow.

 

Or take a belt, hit me across the back a dozen times for the same reason.

 

One time (I was playing with a painting on the wall and ruined it), he punched me in the mouth, knocked out a baby tooth.

 

Not once did I think he was abusive or thought about calling the police.

 

Current generation is turning into a bunch of wussies who love to pile on others, smoke marijuana, and act morally superior.

 

Suddenly in 2019, disciplining your kids has become a government (and NFL) issue.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, rock8591 said:

Pathetic thread and topic.

 

When I was little (growing up in the 80s-90s), my dad would give me bloody noses if I spoke Mandarin Chinese in the household and not English.

 

It's very common for him to kick the chair out from under me if I was doing my homework too slow.

 

Or take a belt, hit me across the back a dozen times for the same reason.

 

One time (I was playing with a painting on the wall and ruined it), he punched me in the mouth, knocked out a baby tooth.

 

Not once did I think he was abusive or thought about calling the police.

 

Current generation is turning into a bunch of wussies who love to pile on others, smoke marijuana, and act morally superior.

 

Suddenly in 2019, disciplining your kids has become a government (and NFL) issue.

I'm sorry that happened to you.  It should not happen to any child

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, rock8591 said:

Pathetic thread and topic.

 

When I was little (growing up in the 80s-90s), my dad would give me bloody noses if I spoke Mandarin Chinese in the household and not English.

 

It's very common for him to kick the chair out from under me if I was doing my homework too slow.

 

Or take a belt, hit me across the back a dozen times for the same reason.

 

One time (I was playing with a painting on the wall and ruined it), he punched me in the mouth, knocked out a baby tooth.

 

Not once did I think he was abusive or thought about calling the police.

 

Current generation is turning into a bunch of wussies who love to pile on others, smoke marijuana, and act morally superior.

 

Suddenly in 2019, disciplining your kids has become a government (and NFL) issue.

What you describe here is child abuse.   Hopefully you dont discipline your children this way

Link to post
Share on other sites

And here we are.  The NFL chooses to get into the middle of  things not football related and take's sides.  It doesn't have to do that.

 

And it seems comfortable in applying their own standards of evidence by which they then apply their own morals.  It projects an element of elitism that seems inconsistent with a traditionally  blue-collar sport.

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

And here we are.  The NFL chooses to get into the middle of  things not football related and take's sides.  It doesn't have to do that.

 

And it seems comfortable in applying their own standards of evidence by which they then apply their own morals.  It projects an element of elitism that seems inconsistent with a traditionally  blue-collar sport.

The NFL isn't suspending him.   Had it been proven that he broke his child's arm,  he would have been.   And should have been

Link to post
Share on other sites

My newest stance on those cases - the NFL should be out of the business of punishing players for off-the-field stuff. Let the legal system do its thing and let the teams decide whether they want players with questionable character represent their organizations. I'm sick of arbitrary decision by the commissioner. If a player gets charged and convicted for something let that be his punishment. If he doesn't get convicted but the preponderance of evidence shows he's probably guilty put it on the teams to make a decision on whether they should keep him and if they do whether or not they would punish him or suspended due to internal rules and let the fans of each team show their approval or disapproval of those decisions through their wallets. 

 

Whatever evidence there is in the public for the player's horrible conduct off the field let it stand on its merits and let him suffer the social and marketability consequences. Quite honestly I'm done trying to understand what the league wants to do. IMO there is no foresight and no principled position here. It's all desire to do PR damage control... this is not about some deeply held belief by NFL owners about morals or behavior. This is all about avoiding public backlash and redirecting that decision onto the commissioner's hands rather than on the teams that want to play that player. I'm shocked Goodell has not given up that privilege already. The weight of those decisions should be given back to the teams with all the consequences that might follow... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sometimes when I talk online after a few drinks, I overstate things slightly to make a point.

 

What I'm trying to say is this; regardless if Tyreek Hill accidentally broke his son's arm, the fact that the government (and the NFL) trying to teach the people how to raise their kids is 10x the crime.

 

NFL's "personal conduct" policy is a joke, and just a way for them to force their own politics on people, without ever a crime being committed (in the legal sense), charges pressed, or arrests made. Imagine a workplace that found out that you went fishing this weekend and the CEO of the company is a fish lover, finds your behavior to be abominable (despite no laws broken), and deciding to suspend you from work for that reason.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, jvan1973 said:

The NFL isn't suspending him.   Had it been proven that he broke his child's arm,  he would have been.   And should have been

Then there would be the matter of whether or not it was intentional.

 

If he's not in jail, then the justice system must have weighed the facts and found the crime to be not that serious.  If he is in jail, suspending a player when he's sitting in jail seems like grandstanding to me. 

 

Its kind of like announcing you're cutting a player for rape after he was just sentenced to 10 years in prison.

 

Hopefully, people understand that not suspending a player is not the same thing as condoning questionable behavior.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, rock8591 said:

just a way for them to force their own politics on people

 

"Don't break your toddler's arm" = politics. Got it.

 

19 hours ago, rock8591 said:

Imagine a workplace that found out that you went fishing this weekend and the CEO of the company is a fish lover, finds your behavior to be abominable (despite no laws broken), and deciding to suspend you from work for that reason.

 

Imagine equating fishing to child abuse.

 

Good heavens...

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

If he's not in jail, then the justice system must have weighed the facts and found the crime to be not that serious.

 

You understand that this statement is not factually accurate, right?

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

 

You understand that this statement is not factually accurate, right?

In what material way is it not? 

 

I'm not a legal scholar, and I'm thinking about this in terms of the NFL policy.  I assume guilty pleas or something to that effect means the prosecutors feel the punishment (sentence) is consistent enough with the supportability of the facts.  Or, no prosecution means they have considered the facts to be not supportable, so they become discarded as being no facts at all, essentially.

 

I'm trying to figure out why there seems to be support for the NFL to then take it upon themselves to try to figure out what the facts are despite the NFL not having standards for facts being supportable enough to administer discipline. (Goodell interviews the player?). It seems like discipline could simply be based upon sticking a finger in the air and trying (successfully) to read the climate, but then saying the facts of the case compelled them to administer discipline. 

 

Not that the NFL is doing that in this case.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, DougDew said:

In what material way is it not? 

 

 

I mentioned it earlier. Just because the DA decides not to pursue a criminal case doesn't mean they've determined that no crime was committed, or that the crime possibly committed was not serious.

 

There are many reasons a prosecutor might decide not to pursue a case. If they decide that way, it should not be considered an indication that they don't think a crime was committed. That's a serious misrepresentation. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I mentioned it earlier. Just because the DA decides not to pursue a criminal case doesn't mean they've determined that no crime was committed, or that the crime possibly committed was not serious.

 

There are many reasons a prosecutor might decide not to pursue a case. If they decide that way, it should not be considered an indication that they don't think a crime was committed. That's a serious misrepresentation. 

I understand what the DA might think, but its the ruling of the adjudication process that define's if a crime has been committed, not what the DA thinks, IMO.  If the DA didn't take it that far, then no crime has been committed, unless we're speaking in terms of a commonly-accepted moral violation; to which I'm told I should be tolerant of other's way's, and those are rooted in their morals.    

 

I don't know why the NFL chooses to adjudicate situations of personal conduct.  It has no standards for the quality of evidence.  It has no explicit rules governing player's child disciplinary tactics.  It appears to not be interested in establishing such standards. It seems like the process could rely heavily upon Goodell's opinion about social media reaction to an internet video.  

 

I think choosing to adjudicate is a bad decision for the NFL.

 

I've stated my opinion on that many times, so I'll stop now.

 

 

 

 

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

its the ruling of the adjudication process that define's if a crime has been committed, not what the DA thinks, IMO.  If the DA didn't take it that far, then no crime has been committed

 

This is objectively false. It doesn't matter whether the legal system takes up a case or not, a crime is committed when a crime is committed, not when that crime is investigated, charged and tried.

 

Quote

 

I think choosing to adjudicate is a bad decision for the NFL.

 

I've stated my opinion on that many times, so I'll stop now.

 

 

I wasn't objecting to that opinion. I disagree, but I think that's predictable. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

This is objectively false. It doesn't matter whether the legal system takes up a case or not, a crime is committed when a crime is committed, not when that crime is investigated, charged and tried.

 

 

I wasn't objecting to that opinion. I disagree, but I think that's predictable. 

A crime is committed when its committed, but who decides a crime has been committed and how do they make that judgment.  I don't want to argue.  The policy is what it is, and doesn't apply that often.

 

I have a question for you and the group.  No right answer, just interested in opinions.

 

Did Jesse Smollett commit a crime?  Should he be suspended from his livelihood right now by his employer under their poorly defined personal conduct policy (assume he was a NFL player, should he be suspended by Goodell?)

 

Should Smollett's attackers, or "attacker's", however you want to look at it, be suspended by the NFL if they were players?

 

 

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

Did Jesse Smollett commit a crime?

 

I don't know the facts about what happened there, just like I don't know for sure what happened with Tyreek Hill and Crystal Espinal. If he did pay to have an attack staged, and then reported it as if he were really attacked, then he's guilty of multiple crimes.

 

Quote

Should he be suspended right now by his employer under their poorly defined personal conduct policy (assume he was a NFL player, should he be suspended by Goodell?)

 

That depends on his employer, the terms of his employment, and whether those terms are legally enforceable. 

 

Let me ask you a question in return. If you ran a private TV network with programming that focuses on safe driving, and your advertisers are all drawn to your network to advertise to your target demographic, but your highest profile TV personality was arrested for DUI and reckless driving, would you continue to employ that person?

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, DougDew said:

I have a question for you and the group.

 

Counter-question:

 

What do you think would happen if OJ was a current player and that whole murder drama played out right now?  Did he commit a crime?  Criminal court says no, civil court says yes.  What should Goodell do?

Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, DougDew said:

A crime is committed when its committed, but who decides a crime has been committed and how do they make that judgment.  I don't want to argue.  The policy is what it is, and doesn't apply that often.

 

I have a question for you and the group.  No right answer, just interested in opinions.

 

Did Jesse Smollett commit a crime?  Should he be suspended from his livelihood right now by his employer under their poorly defined personal conduct policy (assume he was a NFL player, should he be suspended by Goodell?)

 

Should Smollett's attackers, or "attacker's", however you want to look at it, be suspended by the NFL if they were players?

 

 

Jussie Smollett committed a crime by False Reporting to police. That is a Class 4 Felony in Illinois and a Class B Misdemeanor here in Indiana. Punishable upto 6 months in jail and hefty court fines. He clearly lied and everyone knows it. He had his charges dropped because he has a lot of money. The evidence was right there to prosecute him. His employers know he lied so they said goodbye. They aren't dumb. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

If I'm ever tried for a crime, I hope you aren't on the jury.

If you think Jussie Smollett is innocent or OJ is I hope you aren't on the jury anywhere. I guess with OJ you did not need to be because he got off haha .

 

Your comment is really off base with me and surprising because I do not think everyone is necessarily guilty. When the evidence is overwhelming it is tough to ignore though in certain cases.

 

Also it depends on your case and what evidence I see. I think Smollett and OJ's was pretty overwhelming but yet charges were dropped against Smollett and OJ was proven innocent of murder. Law is the law I guess. Like I think Mike Tyson was innocent of rape and he was proven guilty. I do not think everyone is lying or guilty but in Smollett's and OJ's case to me it was clear. In Tyson's case it was his word vs hers. She went up to his room at 2am to have coffee I guess - yeah right. It was all about money there. Some things are just common sense.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Thread of the Week

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Wow, I don't think anyone can match Mahomes skill set at QB at this stage.  To beat the Ravens, who's favored to go to the Super Bowl was taken to school by Mahomes.  The rate he's going, the Chiefs will beat out Brady's 6 Super Bowl rings before he retires. This guy is a generational talent, great future ahead of him...
    • We only ran more than passed the last two games, and overall, we've still thrown it slightly more than running.  We've not played any good Os thus far, and when we do, we'll need to throw more.   And Rivers is nothing like Grossman.    So no, not the 2006 Bears. I'm not really sure what we are yet. I don't think Reich knows either based on the extreme swings in game plans from W1 to W3.
    • Look at the Ravens with the flying V  
    • No.  Rivers isn't a game manager like Grossman, he's much better than that. Our OL is better than Chicago's 2006 OL was, but we don't really know we're a 'run first' team right now.  We threw 46 times in week 1, and were certainly a pass first team in at least 1/3 of our games so far.   Yes, we do have an old WR (TY) and some young WRs (though our top 2 are hurt in Pittman and Campbell).     Yes, we do have a solid front 7 (Okereke is the only one who has worried me much so far, and I think we'll get even better should Turay come back).  Hopefully our DBs can keep taking the ball away, but we had 0 picks in game 1... so I'm skeptical about saying we're going to be consistent in doing that (especially considering Cousins had a very bad game and the Jets stink).     We're missing the best returner in NFL history (Hester), though I think Dulin/Rodgers/Hines have potential to be good - I highly doubt any of them are going to be close to Hester.     In short, it's way too early in the season to compare us to any other team from the past... our D was awful in week 1, it's looked good since but against the Jets (arguably worst team in NFL) and the Vikes who definitely had an off day.  Frankly, I think we have potential to be significantly better than the 2006 Bears (regardless of if we make the SB or not), but this is a totally different NFL than it was 14 years ago.
    • Yup, like I said, wish we used the speed like they did. Just not that. The way they attack the edges is awesome. It really opens up the middle. 
  • Members

×
×
  • Create New...