The Weird, Wacky and Awesome World of the NFL - General Banter thread V3

billr67

Foxtrol wrote: »

Yeah, if his performances start falling off there’ll be an even bigger issue for the team. At least Eli does his complaining to the media behind closed doors unlike Ben who instead goes in front of cameras to throw people under the bus for mistakes that he himself made. Never know when he is going to follow through on his threats to quit, maybe it’ll be if he finds next year tougher without Bell and AB.

Actually this is one of the funnier takes from AB and it was backed up by his hyenas in the national media, this line that Ben never takes the blame. A guy on Steelers Depot took 30 minutes and Google to find 14 examples of Ben taking ownership of losses, mistakes bad decisions etc.

Of course why tell the truth Antonio when you need the narrative to suit your "I have to get out of here" story.

Also don't forget Ben's I quit "threat" was also a form of taking the blame remember the "maybe I just don't have it any more" line which was then spun into a "Ben about to announce his retirement" story.

I'm not excusing everything he's done by the way, his blaming AB for the Denver loss last year was inexcusable and I'd love him to shut up on the radio, but never taking the blame that's ridiculous.

OOnegative

Foxtrol wrote: »

Yeah, if his performances start falling off there’ll be an even bigger issue for the team. At least Eli does his complaining to the media behind closed doors unlike Ben who instead goes in front of cameras to throw people under the bus for mistakes that he himself made. Never know when he is going to follow through on his threats to quit, maybe it’ll be if he finds next year tougher without Bell and AB.

He’s put his hands up on more than one occasion that fcuk ups were on him. His former teammates should take criticism on the chin like the grown men they are and cop on and realise maybe Ben is onto something here than throwing the toys out of the pram like they have done. He’ll quit when he’s ready i’m sure. As long as he’s under center for the Steelers they always have a chance of winning.

Christy42

billr67 wrote: »

Christy42 wrote: »

Bell wanted to see what he was worth on the market and the Steelers fought tooth and nail to prevent him from doing so. Hardly loyalty endearing stuff.

I don't quite get this, they tagged him to work out a long term deal (lots of teams do this). When he wouldn't sign the tag they retained his rights and freed him the following year so that they retained his comp pick value (probably a third rounder next year).

I don't think many teams would just free a guy who refused to sign the tag but "tooth and nail and loyalty endearing stuff" not sure what you mean.

Either way he backed himself and lost, I guess he wasn't to know that Connor and Samuels would work out, or that the Gurley arthritis situation would make teams change their minds on running back value but the 17.5 million he's missed out on he'll never get back.

I get most teams would have done the same. Most teams don't seem to have players who fully buy into the organisation either. Everyone knew Bell and is worth were going to be driven into the ground if he signed that tag. That is not loyalty. That is burning out a player's body while you can.

I don't get the comment about the billboard either. He owes Pittsburgh nothing. He worked there for a few years and the Steelers made the most of his rookie contract.

Bell obviously didn't trust their loyalty and they could have just offered the guaranteed money if they were going to pay it anyway. Aside from Shazier I am not sure how many players they could have walked away from but I am not sure too many would have the same cap hit as Bell.

OOnegative

Christy42 wrote: »

I get most teams would have done the same. Most teams don't seem to have players who fully buy into the organisation either. Everyone knew Bell and is worth were going to be driven into the ground if he signed that tag. That is not loyalty. That is burning out a player's body while you can.

I don't get the comment about the billboard either. He owes Pittsburgh nothing. He worked there for a few years and the Steelers made the most of his rookie contract.

Bell obviously didn't trust their loyalty and they could have just offered the guaranteed money if they were going to pay it anyway. Aside from Shazier I am not sure how many players they could have walked away from but I am not sure too many would have the same cap hit as Bell.

Your getting your players mixed up, comments re Billboard were regarding Brown.

Christy42

OOnegative wrote: »

Christy42 wrote: »

I get most teams would have done the same. Most teams don't seem to have players who fully buy into the organisation either. Everyone knew Bell and is worth were going to be driven into the ground if he signed that tag. That is not loyalty. That is burning out a player's body while you can.

I don't get the comment about the billboard either. He owes Pittsburgh nothing. He worked there for a few years and the Steelers made the most of his rookie contract.

Bell obviously didn't trust their loyalty and they could have just offered the guaranteed money if they were going to pay it anyway. Aside from Shazier I am not sure how many players they could have walked away from but I am not sure too many would have the same cap hit as Bell.

Your getting your players mixed up, comments re Billboard were regarding Brown.

Ah whoops. Thanks for the correction.

Foxtrol

billr67 wrote: »

You're misunderstanding me, the trust from the Steelers side wasn't that he wasn't going to get injured, it was that they'd stand by him if he did. As they had always done for every other player on their second contract. With that history why do you think they'd suddenly turn around and dump him just because it was Bell who got injured.

You said ‘the Steelers were trusting Bell and all he needed to do was trust them in return’, how were they trusting Bell? They were asking for trust and giving none.

OOnegative

Foxtrol wrote: »

You said ‘the Steelers were trusting Bell and all he needed to do was trust them in return’, how were they trusting Bell? They were asking for trust and giving none.

So sticking by a player who incurred multiple drug suspensions & suffers from knee issues is not sticking by a player and trusting them...... They could have cut him after the second drug violation like every other NFL organisation would have.

Foxtrol

billr67 wrote: »

Actually this is one of the funnier takes from AB and it was backed up by his hyenas in the national media, this line that Ben never takes the blame. A guy on Steelers Depot took 30 minutes and Google to find 14 examples of Ben taking ownership of losses, mistakes bad decisions etc.

Of course why tell the truth Antonio when you need the narrative to suit your "I have to get out of here" story.

Also don't forget Ben's I quit "threat" was also a form of taking the blame remember the "maybe I just don't have it any more" line which was then spun into a "Ben about to announce his retirement" story.

I'm not excusing everything he's done by the way, his blaming AB for the Denver loss last year was inexcusable and I'd love him to shut up on the radio, but never taking the blame that's ridiculous.

OOnegative wrote: »

He’s put his hands up on more than one occasion that fcuk ups were on him. His former teammates should take criticism on the chin like the grown men they are and cop on and realise maybe Ben is onto something here than throwing the toys out of the pram like they have done. He’ll quit when he’s ready i’m sure. As long as he’s under center for the Steelers they always have a chance of winning.

Great double strawman there, where did I say he never takes blame? I’ve seen him take blame and I’ve seen him throw team mates under the bus when he was the one at fault, like the Denver situation you pointed out.

AB or OBJ are treated like diva WR trouble makers while Ben’s sins are brushed under the carpet.

OOnegative

Foxtrol wrote: »

Great double strawman there, where did I say he never takes blame? I’ve seen him take blame and I’ve seen him throw team mates under the bus when he was the one at fault, like the Denver situation you pointed out.

AB or OBJ are treated like diva WR trouble makers while Ben’s sins are brushed under the carpet.

Picking what posts that suit your argument best, i’ve said Ben has had his fair share of controversy a while back. Fairly clear you don’t like the Steelers organisation.

Foxtrol

OOnegative wrote: »

So sticking by a player who incurred multiple drug suspensions & suffers from knee issues is not sticking by a player and trusting them...... They could have cut him after the second drug violation like every other NFL organisation would have.

In 2016, the year of his 2nd suspension, he was being paid 850k for the season and in 15 games made 1,600 yards rushing and 600 yards receiving.

He was on a guaranteed rookie contract and massively underpaid compared to his output so to act like the Steelers were offering some sort of charity to him is hilarious. They could have cut him but he wouldn’t have cleared waivers.

OOnegative

Foxtrol wrote: »

In 2016, the year of his 2nd suspension, he was being paid 850k for the season and in 15 games made 1,600 yards rushing and 600 yards receiving.

He was on a guaranteed rookie contract and massively underpaid compared to his output so to act like the Steelers were offering some sort of charity to him is hilarious. They could have cut him but he wouldn’t have cleared waivers.

No other team would have given a rookie in the same circumstances anything different so to try pin your argument on the Steelers is laughable.

The_Honeybadger

Christy42 wrote: »

I get most teams would have done the same. Most teams don't seem to have players who fully buy into the organisation either. Everyone knew Bell and is worth were going to be driven into the ground if he signed that tag. That is not loyalty. That is burning out a player's body while you can.

I don't get the comment about the billboard either. He owes Pittsburgh nothing. He worked there for a few years and the Steelers made the most of his rookie contract.

Bell obviously didn't trust their loyalty and they could have just offered the guaranteed money if they were going to pay it anyway. Aside from Shazier I am not sure how many players they could have walked away from but I am not sure too many would have the same cap hit as Bell.

He wouldn’t have been driven in to the ground, by the time it came to decision time Conner had emerged and was having a pro bowl season, they would have shared the load and been one of the best duos in the league.

There is a theory that he didn’t come back because he knew he’d be in trouble for substance abuse again. I don’t know if that’s true but it wouldn’t surprise me given his record.

Foxtrol

OOnegative wrote: »

Picking what posts that suit your argument best, i’ve said Ben has had his fair share of controversy a while back. Fairly clear you don’t like the Steelers organisation.

Calling what Ben has done and been accused of ‘his fair share of controversy’ is exactly what I’m talking about when I say brushing things under the carpet.

I think Ben is horrible excuse for a human, I think the organization treated Bell horribly by tagging him a second time, I think the organization/players/fans treated Bell during his hold out was uncalled for, I think the leniency they give Ben and the rest of the players is unwise, but other than that I quite like the Steelers.

Nice to see you’ve gone down the route of some Patriots fans on here, that questioning players or decisions equates to not liking a team.

OOnegative

Foxtrol wrote: »

Calling what Ben has done and been accused of ‘his fair share of controversy’ is exactly what I’m talking about when I say brushing things under the carpet.

I think Ben is horrible excuse for a human, I think the organization treated Bell horribly by tagging him a second time, I think the organization/players/fans treated Bell during his hold out was uncalled for, I think the leniency they give Ben and the rest of the players is unwise, but other than that I quite like the Steelers.

Nice to see you’ve gone down the route of some Patriots fans on here, that questioning players or decisions equates to not liking a team.

Not gone down any route of any team thanks very much, no need to be getting personal on it. You have your view on the situation I have mine, it’s a discussion forum at the end of the day, we’re not all going to agree. I think you being a 49ers fan, are just a small bit pissed Jimmy G ain’t going to be throwing to AB next year.....

Foxtrol

OOnegative wrote: »

No other team would have given a rookie in the same circumstances anything different so to try pin your argument on the Steelers is laughable.

The guy had already been selected to the pro bowl and wasn’t even getting $1m a year, few teams would have cut him for a 3 game suspension (and made another pro bowl that season). The Steelers weren’t being martyrs for keeping him while they had him on that deal.

Teams rarely cut talented guys on rookie deals unless they have to and even then they’ll get picked up.

j8wk2feszrnpao

Ah yes, the same person has to take a shot at Pats fans, in a non-Patriots discussion. Typically. The same infatuation as always.

OOnegative

munstermagic11 wrote: »

Ah yes, the same person has to take a shot at Pats fans, in a non-Patriots discussion. Typically. The same infatuation as always.

Possibly a 6 time Super Bowl winning thing!!!

Foxtrol

OOnegative wrote: »

Possibly a 6 time Super Bowl winning thing!!!

Have you found a correlation between winning and their fans not being able to deal with criticism of their team? :pac:

OOnegative

Foxtrol wrote: »

Have you found a correlation between winning and their fans not being able to deal with criticism of their team? :pac:

No problem you criticising the Steelers but take the blinkers off every now and then, your not always right.

Foxtrol

Changing subject, I'm not sure if Elway is just trolling at this stage but he came out today saying that Flacco is just coming into his prime...

Following on from his comments yesterday about college QBs not being ready for the NFL as they play too much shotgun when NFL average is 79% snaps from shotgun and Flacco played from 80% shotgun last year.

Paully D

https://twitter.com/sharpfootball/status/1106230792773165058?s=21

Foxtrol

OOnegative wrote: »

No problem you criticising the Steelers but take the blinkers off every now and then, your not always right.

Oh, I know I'm not always right and have admitted many times here when I'm proved wrong. A lot of this is opinion on how players and organizations use their leverage and there is no real 'right' answer, just opinions.

It is however just lazy to try to equate criticism with disliking a team.

Foxtrol

Paully D wrote: »

https://twitter.com/sharpfootball/status/1106230792773165058?s=21

Again, those Steelers numbers for guarantees have been proved repeatedly to be incorrect.

The Steelers need to promote whoever leaked them to the media.

OOnegative

Paully D wrote: »

https://twitter.com/sharpfootball/status/1106230792773165058?s=21

He seriously wanted out of the Steel City or his agent still uses fingers & toes to add!!

OOnegative

Foxtrol wrote: »

Oh, I know I'm not always right and have admitted many times here when I'm proved wrong. A lot of this is opinion on how players and organizations use their leverage and there is no real 'right' answer, just opinions.

It is however just lazy to try to equate criticism with disliking a team.

I’m not criticising you one bit, you just come across as a Steelers hater which you have said you are not. Good enough for me, we all have our opinions as you say, none always right.

Foxtrol

Tate signing with the Giants. Apparently $37.5m with $23m guaranteed.

Have no idea what they're trying to do signing him. Is there any sort of plan?

Paully D

Foxtrol wrote: »

Tate signing with the Giants. Apparently $37.5m with $23m guaranteed.

Have no idea what they're trying to do signing him. Is there any sort of plan?

They’ll be losing a comp pick so. Not the most clever idea when in rebuild mode to say the least!

OOnegative

Foxtrol wrote: »

Tate signing with the Giants. Apparently $37.5m with $23m guaranteed.

Have no idea what they're trying to do signing him. Is there any sort of plan?

Fcuk me he was linked with Steelers few hours back, that’s way to much money for him!!

OOnegative

Paully D wrote: »

They’ll be losing a comp pick so. Not the most clever idea when in rebuild mode to say the least!

Another brain fart by Gettleman by looks of things.

Realt Dearg Sec

Haha Clinton-Dix signed by the Bears, 1-year $3.5 million.

Was saying on the Bears thread earlier when this was rumoured, he obviously has great potential upside, but was dropped by the Packers with good reason, and didn't do anything with the Skins either (though to be fair he arrived there mid season). Not much to lose for the Bears with that contract though, I think it's worth it, in terms of pure potential he would be a step up from Amos, but I think Amos is a surer bet to perform. But on his 2016 form, alongside Jackson, could make for a very daunting secondary in Chicago again.