Steelers Cutting Draft Picks?

[Jom112]

After the 2007 draft was over many Steeler fans believed that they had the best draft in the division and there were endless threads about some kicker.

Now it appears that Tomlin will be cutting the 4th and 5th round selections:

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07243/813693-66.stm

"It appears he will cut another fourth-rounder, defensive end Ryan McBean, who was impressive early in camp but then fell way off. Fifth-rounder Cameron Stephenson, a guard from Rutgers, likely will be cut, as well"


Any thoughts from Steeler fans as to why two draft picks would be cut so soon?


(If anyone is wondering why I care about 4th and 5th round picks, just take a look at the other topics in the "Smack" forum...)

[Joe from Florence]

As long as they hang onto their shank punter they will be in the SB this year :nervous:

[calell83]

I remember Cower cutting tons of draft picsevery year and the team being ok...I will deal with it..

[Steely_J]

I'm gonna say they were cut because they didn't do as well as other players during camp.


That's my professional take on the situation.

That and McBean is dangeriously close to the new mascot's name, and they wanted to cut off as many ties as possible.

[Steely_J]

I remember Cower cutting tons of draft picsevery year and the team being ok...I will deal with it..

Are you sure you can deal with it? I mean this is a big set-back and all. Forget about Woodley, Sepulveda, and Gay having great camps... the real money was in McBean.

No wait.. Danny shanked a punt.. obviously he'll never go anywhere in the NFL.. he should just hang up the cleats and get into investment banking.

[Jom112]

Are you sure you can deal with it? I mean this is a big set-back and all. Forget about Woodley, Sepulveda, and Gay having great camps... the real money was in McBean.

No wait.. Danny shanked a punt.. obviously he'll never go anywhere in the NFL.. he should just hang up the cleats and get into investment banking.

No, Sepulveda should stick with the Steelers where the fans will give him a pass for his rookie season and another pass for injuring himself for his own stupid mistake.

Then he should go into investment banking...

[Steely_J]

No, Sepulveda should stick with the Steelers where the fans will give him a pass for his rookie season and another pass for injuring himself for his own stupid mistake.

Then he should go into investment banking...

As much as I enjoy asinine arguments,. I'm just not feelin' this one.

[yorkshirebengal]

That and McBean is dangeriously close to the new mascot's name, and they wanted to cut off as many ties as possible.

damm you steely you beat me to that one!

[Captain Obvious]

No, Sepulveda should stick with the Steelers where the fans will give him a pass for his rookie season and another pass for injuring himself for his own stupid mistake.

Then he should go into investment banking...

Yes because keeping a guy around and giving him a free pass for making stupid mistakes is worse than keeping a criminal around and giving him 20 free passes huh?

[Veteran Leadership]

Yes because keeping a guy around and giving him a free pass for making stupid mistakes is worse than keeping a criminal around and giving him 20 free passes huh?

Ask yourself how easy it is to cut a player for conduct in the NFL, and then ask yourself "why did I just post what I did". And no, I am not saying I think Sepuvlda or whatever his name is should be cut.

[Joe from Florence]

Yes because keeping a guy around and giving him a free pass for making stupid mistakes is worse than keeping a criminal around and giving him 20 free passes huh?
Wow!!! you just described your first round pick last year to a tee......made a ton of mistakes (dropping passes, fumbling punts, catching every punt inside the 5 or 10....and also all his off field troubles he had going into the draft and after the draft)
So you basically just described the steelers philosophy to a tee....we at least got rid of several of ours

[Whatever]

You forgot to throw in that 3rd round pick,TE Matt Spaeth,has been hampered with shoulder problems all through training camp after having problems with them in college,appearing in only 2 of the teams 5 preseason games.

It's too early to tell about this year's draft class,but it doesn't seem like the Steelers are going to get a ton of immediate help out of it.

I don't think cutting two mid-round draft picks like this is going to have a lot of immediate impact on the Steelers,but it will hurt them in the future by A:having less young talent developing on the roster and B:depth will have to be/stay filled by more expensive veterans,hurting the team's cap.

[Steely_J]

You forgot to throw in that 3rd round pick,TE Matt Spaeth,has been hampered with shoulder problems all through training camp after having problems with them in college,appearing in only 2 of the teams 5 preseason games.

It's too early to tell about this year's draft class,but it doesn't seem like the Steelers are going to get a ton of immediate help out of it.

I don't think cutting two mid-round draft picks like this is going to have a lot of immediate impact on the Steelers,but it will hurt them in the future by A:having less young talent developing on the roster and B:depth will have to be/stay filled by more expensive veterans,hurting the team's cap.

Honestly if Woodley continues his path he's on, I'd be just fine with that. Give Timmons some time to catch up and I'll say this draft was fine too.

What have the Bengals draft pics done? I'm asking because all these threads are concerning our team. Isn't this a Bengals board??? Hmm??? Damn Stooler fans... all over the place.... Why don't they just go back to their own site?!?! :D

[VCU Rams]

Damn Stooler fans... all over the place.... Why don't they just go back to their own site?!?! :D

:cool: http://operachic.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/haterade.jpg

[Captain Obvious]

Ask yourself how easy it is to cut a player for conduct in the NFL, and then ask yourself "why did I just post what I did". And no, I am not saying I think Sepuvlda or whatever his name is should be cut.


I never said it was easy. I was just commenting on Jom's post about the Steelers keeping a player around giving him free passes when every team does it and I would rather keep a player around because of the mistakes he makes on the field, rather than the mistakes he makes off the field. Sepuvlda's mistake on the field only cost the Steelers 3 points in the pre= season, and the Steelers still won. At least he's not costing them games that count. Every rookie makes mistakes, that's part of the learning process that Jom thinks is just part of the Steelers, and that he would be gone on any other team.

[Shockwave]

I never said it was easy. I was just commenting on Jom's post about the Steelers keeping a player around giving him free passes when every team does it and I would rather keep a player around because of the mistakes he makes on the field, rather than the mistakes he makes off the field. Sepuvlda's mistake on the field only cost the Steelers 3 points in the pre= season, and the Steelers still won. At least he's not costing them games that count. Every rookie makes mistakes, that's part of the learning process that Jom thinks is just part of the Steelers, and that he would be gone on any other team.

Yeah, and a player can be cut for making mistakes on the field... it is ridiculously hard to cut them for making mistakes off the field because clearly the most important thing about a football player must be that he plays football... who the **** cares that they break the law.(That was sarcasm aimed at the CBA and Union, not you btw.)

[Captain Obvious]

Yeah, and a player can be cut for making mistakes on the field... it is ridiculously hard to cut them for making mistakes off the field because clearly the most important thing about a football player must be that he plays football... who the **** cares that they break the law.(That was sarcasm aimed at the CBA and Union, not you btw.)

I agree with you 100%. It should be easier to cut a player in trouble off the field, than cut a rookie that made a few mistakes on the field. That sends out a bad message to the kids that look up to these guys that commit crimes and still have their jobs. If I would be working and go out and do something against the law I surely wouldn't have a job the next day, so why should they?

[Captain Obvious]

Yeah, and a player can be cut for making mistakes on the field... it is ridiculously hard to cut them for making mistakes off the field because clearly the most important thing about a football player must be that he plays football... who the **** cares that they break the law.(That was sarcasm aimed at the CBA and Union, not you btw.)

I wish someone would have enough guts to take one of these players that are having trouble off the field, and say "Oh their play is declining on the field, I want to trade this guy for a 6 pack of Bud Lite" or something like that. Just to make a statement that they won't take this crap any longer.

[Veteran Leadership]

Honestly if Woodley continues his path he's on, I'd be just fine with that. Give Timmons some time to catch up and I'll say this draft was fine too.

What have the Bengals draft pics done? I'm asking because all these threads are concerning our team. Isn't this a Bengals board??? Hmm??? Damn Stooler fans... all over the place.... Why don't they just go back to their own site?!?! :D

And the worst part about that is from what I have gathered that is a thing that newbies usually do. We had a guy with over 1k posts do it.........:angry::angry: I declare that from now on anyone who starts a "go back to your own website" thread is traded to the Ravens for.........a coke.:lol:

[Veteran Leadership]

I wish someone would have enough guts to take one of these players that are having trouble off the field, and say "Oh their play is declining on the field, I want to trade this guy for a 6 pack of Bud Lite" or something like that. Just to make a statement that they won't take this crap any longer.

I think your heart is in the right place, but that team would take a beating. The NFL Union would destroy that team. I mean, lets say that the Bengals did that with Henry, can you imagine how bad that would go? Well, ummm yeah this guy is bad......um er no he didn't lead our team with TD's last year. Yeah umm, his play has declined, oh god we are so dead.

[SteelTorch]

Honestly if Woodley continues his path he's on, I'd be just fine with that. Give Timmons some time to catch up and I'll say this draft was fine too.

What have the Bengals draft pics done? I'm asking because all these threads are concerning our team. Isn't this a Bengals board??? Hmm??? Damn Stooler fans... all over the place.... Why don't they just go back to their own site?!?! :D

Don't forget Gay! That 6th-rounder could end up being the biggest steal in our draft, if he continues the path he's on now. :D

[#1 Bengal Fan in KS]

Damn Stooler fans... all over the place.... Why don't they just go back to their own site?!?! :D

Uh, because this is the only place you guys can go to and engage in intelligent smack talk. Say something smart over on the Stoolers boards and they ban you (especially if you smack the Stoolers).

[Jom112]

I never said it was easy. I was just commenting on Jom's post about the Steelers keeping a player around giving him free passes when every team does it and I would rather keep a player around because of the mistakes he makes on the field, rather than the mistakes he makes off the field. Sepuvlda's mistake on the field only cost the Steelers 3 points in the pre= season, and the Steelers still won. At least he's not costing them games that count. Every rookie makes mistakes, that's part of the learning process that Jom thinks is just part of the Steelers, and that he would be gone on any other team.

Actually it was just a joke...:dry:

[Veteran Leadership]

Actually it was just a joke...:dry:

At least KSR is improving.......:lol:

[The Bat]

Don't forget Gay! That 6th-rounder could end up being the biggest steal in our draft, if he continues the path he's on now. :D

That's a good Louisville Cardinal there! Will is an outstanding football player.

[blkgld4lifer]

Wow!!! you just described your first round pick last year to a tee......made a ton of mistakes (dropping passes, fumbling punts, catching every punt inside the 5 or 10....and also all his off field troubles he had going into the draft and after the draft)
So you basically just described the steelers philosophy to a tee....we at least got rid of several of ours

Oh yeah! Santonio is just terrible. Did he drop that pass in overtime to send your boy carson home for the holidays? Did you forget about that one dawg? You are slipping big time dude. You're a serious idiot if you think santonio holmes is a bust. But i think you've proven all week that you already are.

[The Bat]

Oh yeah! Santonio is just terrible. Did he drop that pass in overtime to send your boy carson home for the holidays? Did you forget about that one dawg? You are slipping big time dude. You're a serious idiot if you think santonio holmes is a bust. But i think you've proven all week that you already are.

http://media.urbandictionary.com/image/large/wigger-15344.jpg

Represent "dawg" ... :rolleyes::rolleyes:

[CalSteeler]

Oh yeah! Santonio is just terrible. Did he drop that pass in overtime to send your boy carson home for the holidays? Did you forget about that one dawg? You are slipping big time dude. You're a serious idiot if you think santonio holmes is a bust. But i think you've proven all week that you already are.

Although not especially well put this is correct. I've proven in numerous other threads that even with the mistakes Holmes had an outstanding rookie campaign. His fumbled punts mean absolutely nothing to me since he was never drafted with fielding punts in mind. He was pressed into service when all other viable options proved flawed. Even so he still managed to take one to the house.

Joe and his ilk also like to forget that Santonio only started 4 games and still came close to a 1000 yard season. Holmes will be one of the better receivers in this league the upcoming season and better than that beyond. As a Steeler fan we've seen plenty of RD1 WR busts, Holmes is most assuredly not one of them.

[Whatever]

Although not especially well put this is correct. I've proven in numerous other threads that even with the mistakes Holmes had an outstanding rookie campaign. His fumbled punts mean absolutely nothing to me since he was never drafted with fielding punts in mind. He was pressed into service when all other viable options proved flawed. Even so he still managed to take one to the house.

Joe and his ilk also like to forget that Santonio only started 4 games and still came close to a 1000 yard season. Holmes will be one of the better receivers in this league the upcoming season and better than that beyond. As a Steeler fan we've seen plenty of RD1 WR busts, Holmes is most assuredly not one of them.

Holmes was a good PR at Ohio State and broke several big ones. However,there too,he had problems holding onto the ball,both as a receiver and in the return game. However,I remember him being drummed up as a PR when he was drafted.

I think Holmes will develop into a solid #2,but I find myself doubting that he can become a true #1 like a Hines Ward,mainly because of his hands. He's not terribly big,either. Time will tell on this one.

[Steely_J]

Holmes was a good PR at Ohio State and broke several big ones. However,there too,he had problems holding onto the ball,both as a receiver and in the return game. However,I remember him being drummed up as a PR when he was drafted.

I think Holmes will develop into a solid #2,but I find myself doubting that he can become a true #1 like a Hines Ward,mainly because of his hands. He's not terribly big,either. Time will tell on this one.

oh I definately see holmes being a goto number one some day. As cal said, we've seen bust wr picks in pgh, and holmes is anything but. He's gonna have a great season thisyear. And i dare say pro bowl posibility.

[Shockwave]

oh I definately see holmes being a goto number one some day. As cal said, we've seen bust wr picks in pgh, and holmes is anything but. He's gonna have a great season thisyear. And i dare say pro bowl posibility.

No, you don't dare. :P

[Whatever]

oh I definately see holmes being a goto number one some day. As cal said, we've seen bust wr picks in pgh, and holmes is anything but. He's gonna have a great season thisyear. And i dare say pro bowl posibility.

I think Holmes will likely break 1000 yards this year,and I think he can be a consistant 1000 yarder with Ward on the other side of him. However,I think he's a long shot to make the Pro Bowl. Unless they fall flat on their faces,Chad,Marvin Harrison,and Reggie Wayne are virtual locks for 3 out of 4 spots. Then there's Andre Johnson,Chris Chambers,Randy Moss(provided he can click in the Pats offense),and don't forget about Hines Ward and TJ,as well. Even if he puts up similar #'s to these guys,he just doesn' t have near the hype going for him to make it. Remember a few years back when Drew Bennett led the AFC in receiving yards and still got snubbed?

[BengalsAtOSU]

oh I definately see holmes being a goto number one some day. As cal said, we've seen bust wr picks in pgh, and holmes is anything but. He's gonna have a great season thisyear. And i dare say pro bowl posibility.

Couldn't have happened to a better Buckeye...shame really. :dry: :lol:

Why don't the Bengals ever take former Buckeyes anymore? Can we write it off to fear of future Dan Wilkinson repeats? Or are all the good ones already taken? We really could have used, for example, Bobby Carpenter.

[Whatever]

Couldn't have happened to a better Buckeye...shame really. :dry: :lol:

Why don't the Bengals ever take former Buckeyes anymore? Can we write it off to fear of future Dan Wilkinson repeats? Or are all the good ones already taken? We really could have used, for example, Bobby Carpenter.

Probably because so many OSU players are so overrated coming out of college. The talent pool there isn't even close to what it was in the Cooper days. The Big 10 as a whole is HIGHLY overrated right now. Appalachain St. proved that.

Carpenter didn't even start last year for the Cowboys until injuries forced him into the lineup for a few games. Even still,at that time,Pollack hadn't broken his neck and Thurman hadn't been suspended.

You look at the top Buckeyes that have come out this year,and they've struggled. Pittman is only averaging 3.09 ypc. Ginn has caught only 4 balls for 38 yards and hasn't done anything in the return game,avereging 18 yards on kickoffs and 1 yard on punts. Troy Smith has a 51.6 QB rating,compared to Jeff Rowe's 71.1,and many were complaining that we should've taken Smith over Rowe. The top OSU performer this year has been Gonzo,and he only has 6 grabs for 67 yards.

[Veteran Leadership]

Probably because so many OSU players are so overrated coming out of college. The talent pool there isn't even close to what it was in the Cooper days. The Big 10 as a whole is HIGHLY overrated right now. Appalachain St. proved that.

Carpenter didn't even start last year for the Cowboys until injuries forced him into the lineup for a few games. Even still,at that time,Pollack hadn't broken his neck and Thurman hadn't been suspended.

You look at the top Buckeyes that have come out this year,and they've struggled. Pittman is only averaging 3.09 ypc. Ginn has caught only 4 balls for 38 yards and hasn't done anything in the return game,avereging 18 yards on kickoffs and 1 yard on punts. Troy Smith has a 51.6 QB rating,compared to Jeff Rowe's 71.1,and many were complaining that we should've taken Smith over Rowe. The top OSU performer this year has been Gonzo,and he only has 6 grabs for 67 yards.

They are all umm rookies. Troy Smith is a QB,and historically they don't tend to do well, in fact one of the best QB rookie seasons of all time was Ben's, and it was a success cause he threw more TDs then INTs (that is not a hack at Ben). A.J. Hawk played very well out in his rookie year last year. I'm not a Buckeyes fan, go UK football:nervous:, but there are going to be alot of good players out of that list that you just gave.

[BengalsAtOSU]

The talent pool there isn't even close to what it was in the Cooper days.

I seem to remember a national championship won under Jim Tressel...not under John Cooper. And those weren't Cooper's players either, at least the stars of that year weren't.

[Whatever]

I seem to remember a national championship won under Jim Tressel...not under John Cooper. And those weren't Cooper's players either, at least the stars of that year weren't.

The only real star from that team that wasn't a Cooper recruit was Clarett,and we all saw how much of a character guy he was.

[BengalsAtOSU]

The only real star from that team that wasn't a Cooper recruit was Clarett,and we all saw how much of a character guy he was.

Who said anything about character? Clarett was a star. So was AJ Hawk, who was a freshman that year and a Tressel recruit. Tressel recruits talent just as well as, and maybe better than, John Cooper. And don't forget all those wins over Meeeechigan that Cooper didn't have. Teddy Ginn, Anthony Gonzalez, Donte Whitner...I could go on for days.

[Whatever]

Who said anything about character? Clarett was a star. So was AJ Hawk, who was a freshman that year and a Tressel recruit. Tressel recruits talent just as well as, and maybe better than, John Cooper. And don't forget all those wins over Meeeechigan that Cooper didn't have. Teddy Ginn, Anthony Gonzalez, Donte Whitner...I could go on for days.

I'm not saying Cooper was a tremendous coach,but he was/is much better at recruiting talent than Tressel is. Hawk was nothing but a role-player on that national championship team. That was Cie Grant and Mike Doss's defense. Everybody knows that.

Gee,Teddy "dropped ball" Ginn. Anthony "have to put me in the slot because I can't get open against starting Div-1A corners" Gonzales. Please. Neither of them even makes a pimple on Joey Galloway,Terry Glenn,or even juiced-up David Boston's xss. How about Shawn Springs,Antoine Winfield,Eddie George,Mike Vrabel,and Orlando Pace?

However,the main proof is the National Championship game from last year. Ohio St. came off of it's soft Big 10 schedule and had to play a team with some kids that could actually run and were completely outclassed. In fact,most all of the Big 10 schools have been outclassed in their bowl games the past couple of years. Also,traditional Big 10 power Michigan got knocked off by a Div-2 school. The best talent in college football right now,overall,is in the SEC. After all,there's a reason why OSU has been ducking the SEC with it's non-conference schedule for years.

[BamBamRubble]

I'm not saying Cooper was a tremendous coach,but he was/is much better at recruiting talent than Tressel is. Hawk was nothing but a role-player on that national championship team. That was Cie Grant and Mike Doss's defense. Everybody knows that.

Gee,Teddy "dropped ball" Ginn. Anthony "have to put me in the slot because I can't get open against starting Div-1A corners" Gonzales. Please. Neither of them even makes a pimple on Joey Galloway,Terry Glenn,or even juiced-up David Boston's xss. How about Shawn Springs,Antoine Winfield,Eddie George,Mike Vrabel,and Orlando Pace?

However,the main proof is the National Championship game from last year. Ohio St. came off of it's soft Big 10 schedule and had to play a team with some kids that could actually run and were completely outclassed. In fact,most all of the Big 10 schools have been outclassed in their bowl games the past couple of years. Also,traditional Big 10 power Michigan got knocked off by a Div-2 school. The best talent in college football right now,overall,is in the SEC. After all,there's a reason why OSU has been ducking the SEC with it's non-conference schedule for years.

It's all irrelevant.....West Virginia is going to win the National Championship, and they come from the Big East.

[Whatever]

It's all irrelevant.....West Virginia is going to win the National Championship, and they come from the Big East.

Very possible. I can definatley see WVU making it there,however,I don't see them winning it all if they have to play a team like USC.

[BamBamRubble]

Very possible. I can definatley see WVU making it there,however,I don't see them winning it all if they have to play a team like USC.

....and I don't see USC winning it all if they have to play a team like WVU. :dry:

[BengalsAtOSU]

I'm not saying Cooper was a tremendous coach,but he was/is much better at recruiting talent than Tressel is. Hawk was nothing but a role-player on that national championship team. That was Cie Grant and Mike Doss's defense. Everybody knows that.

Gee,Teddy "dropped ball" Ginn. Anthony "have to put me in the slot because I can't get open against starting Div-1A corners" Gonzales. Please. Neither of them even makes a pimple on Joey Galloway,Terry Glenn,or even juiced-up David Boston's xss. How about Shawn Springs,Antoine Winfield,Eddie George,Mike Vrabel,and Orlando Pace?

However,the main proof is the National Championship game from last year. Ohio St. came off of it's soft Big 10 schedule and had to play a team with some kids that could actually run and were completely outclassed. In fact,most all of the Big 10 schools have been outclassed in their bowl games the past couple of years. Also,traditional Big 10 power Michigan got knocked off by a Div-2 school. The best talent in college football right now,overall,is in the SEC. After all,there's a reason why OSU has been ducking the SEC with it's non-conference schedule for years.

Do you even WATCH football? At all? Ever? I don't think we're watching the same OSU teams. I'm no homer, I have no problem criticizing OSU, but either you're stupid or you're a Michigan fan (the terms not necessarily being mutually exclusive). And AJ Hawk has already turned out to be a better pro than Doss or Grant. I won't disagree that the Big 10 isn't where it used to be compared to the SEC but Ohio State has just as much talent as they did before if not more. You're totally wrong. Good day to you sir.

[Whatever]

Do you even WATCH football? At all? Ever? I don't think we're watching the same OSU teams. I'm no homer, I have no problem criticizing OSU, but either you're stupid or you're a Michigan fan (the terms not necessarily being mutually exclusive). And AJ Hawk has already turned out to be a better pro than Doss or Grant. I won't disagree that the Big 10 isn't where it used to be compared to the SEC but Ohio State has just as much talent as they did before if not more. You're totally wrong. Good day to you sir.

I watched OSU all last year,happy that they were racking up wins,but I always had this nagging feeling that they weren't near as good as what they were showing. After the Michigan game,I finally thought that they were truly the best team in the nation. Then Florida shattered everybody's world. OSU didn't have the team speed it takes to compete with a top SEC team. That's recruiting,plain and simple. OSU and the entire Big 10 are oversized and slow. Last year,OSU was the best team in that oversized and slow division,but playing weak competition all year doesn't make your players any better,it just makes them look better. Even with Smith,Gonzo,and Ginn,OSU still only ranked 6th in the Big 10 in passing yards. If they were so great,I'd think they could at least crack the top half of their own division.

[kmil579]

First off, McBean was signed to the practice squad. If all you can complain about this years draft for the Steelers is that they cut a 5th rounder, thats comical. Would you rather have to start those 4th and 5th rounders????

As far as it being tough to cut a player for off field issues, thats BS. Most, if not all of the recent NFL contracts have wording in them that prohibit conduct detrimental to the team. It is a lot easier to cut these players than you think. But when you draft players with shady characters, you dont want to have to cut half your team.

[Steely_J]

Probably because so many OSU players are so overrated coming out of college. The talent pool there isn't even close to what it was in the Cooper days. The Big 10 as a whole is HIGHLY overrated right now. Appalachain St. proved that.

Carpenter didn't even start last year for the Cowboys until injuries forced him into the lineup for a few games. Even still,at that time,Pollack hadn't broken his neck and Thurman hadn't been suspended.

You look at the top Buckeyes that have come out this year,and they've struggled. Pittman is only averaging 3.09 ypc. Ginn has caught only 4 balls for 38 yards and hasn't done anything in the return game,avereging 18 yards on kickoffs and 1 yard on punts. Troy Smith has a 51.6 QB rating,compared to Jeff Rowe's 71.1,and many were complaining that we should've taken Smith over Rowe. The top OSU performer this year has been Gonzo,and he only has 6 grabs for 67 yards.

And ASU is HOT! HOT! HOT! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pVENWl8uBeg) :rotf:

[Shockwave]

First off, McBean was signed to the practice squad. If all you can complain about this years draft for the Steelers is that they cut a 5th rounder, thats comical. Would you rather have to start those 4th and 5th rounders????

As far as it being tough to cut a player for off field issues, thats BS. Most, if not all of the recent NFL contracts have wording in them that prohibit conduct detrimental to the team. It is a lot easier to cut these players than you think. But when you draft players with shady characters, you dont want to have to cut half your team.

Do you know anything about the new CBA?? If you honestly think it is an easy thing to cut them for conduct then you don't. The new CBA clearly states that you can't cut a player for anything that isn't injury or talent related.

[Veteran Leadership]

First off, McBean was signed to the practice squad. If all you can complain about this years draft for the Steelers is that they cut a 5th rounder, thats comical. Would you rather have to start those 4th and 5th rounders????

As far as it being tough to cut a player for off field issues, thats BS. Most, if not all of the recent NFL contracts have wording in them that prohibit conduct detrimental to the team. It is a lot easier to cut these players than you think. But when you draft players with shady characters, you dont want to have to cut half your team.

Yes, because half of our team is shady. Seeing how one player accounted for half of our arrests you are ALREADY wrong, that is actually kind of depressing actually. Usually it takes more then a sentence for someone to be totally wrong on these boards, but you set a whole new standard.:lol::wacko:

[CalSteeler]

Yes, because half of our team is shady. Seeing how one player accounted for half of our arrests you are ALREADY wrong, that is actually kind of depressing actually. Usually it takes more then a sentence for someone to be totally wrong on these boards, but you set a whole new standard.:lol::wacko:

I'm reasonably sure that "half the team" was a deliberate exaggeration. He's absolutely correct in a certain sense too. You guys really gambled on some high talent, low character types and it bit you in the ***. Yes, Henry is responsible for a lions share of your arrests, but he's still on your roster so obviously that's not something that bothers your FO.

Bottom line is you guys played with fire and got burnt. Your team deserves to get called on it because it was a foolish move. If the Steelers had the same recent track record you guys would be whooping and hollering about it, believe me.

[Veteran Leadership]

I'm reasonably sure that "half the team" was a deliberate exaggeration. He's absolutely correct in a certain sense too. You guys really gambled on some high talent, low character types and it bit you in the ***. Yes, Henry is responsible for a lions share of your arrests, but he's still on your roster so obviously that's not something that bothers your FO.

Bottom line is you guys played with fire and got burnt. Your team deserves to get called on it because it was a foolish move. If the Steelers had the same recent track record you guys would be whooping and hollering about it, believe me.

For the record I am not trying to turn this into a semantics war, but no. The Bengals had bad timing more then anything. Did you ever actually take a look at what some of our guys got arrested for? Boating under the influence, Marijuania charges, are you kidding me? Seriously, when look at the entire picture and you see one amazingly bad apple and a slew of charges that are minor at best why should I really be worried? Oh man, I know that you Cal are a very smart football fan, but as far as whooping and hollering about it it should happen, this is a smack board. That does not change the fact that old boy that I quoted made such an exaggeration that it borders on utter stupidity.

[CalSteeler]

For the record I am not trying to turn this into a semantics war, but no. The Bengals had bad timing more then anything. Did you ever actually take a look at what some of our guys got arrested for? Boating under the influence, Marijuania charges, are you kidding me? Seriously, when look at the entire picture and you see one amazingly bad apple and a slew of charges that are minor at best why should I really be worried? Oh man, I know that you Cal are a very smart football fan, but as far as whooping and hollering about it it should happen, this is a smack board. That does not change the fact that old boy that I quoted made such an exaggeration that it borders on utter stupidity.



I don't think that the gravity of the offenses is of paramount importance. Sure, it would be far worse if someone murdered someone, but the point is that your FO gambled on guys with known character issues and got burnt. They should be rightfully criticized for that.

I stated previously that his "half the team" comment was a deliberate exaggeration. It is symptomatic of the way the Bengals are perceived now though. Fairly or not the public perception of the Bengals organization is that of a bunch of thugs.

[Veteran Leadership]

I don't think that the gravity of the offenses is of paramount importance. Sure, it would be far worse if someone murdered someone, but the point is that your FO gambled on guys with known character issues and got burnt. They should be rightfully criticized for that.

I stated previously that his "half the team" comment was a deliberate exaggeration. It is symptomatic of the way the Bengals are perceived now though. Fairly or not the public perception of the Bengals organization is that of a bunch of thugs.

I think it does Cal, and I think it matters a lot. For one extreme, would you really care if all the arrests where for jay walking? Another extreme, would it not be much worse if those arrests where all rape, murder, theft and things of those nature? Obviously those are huge extremes, but the answer of yes proves that the severity does matter, it has to matter a lot because not all crimes are remotely on the same level. I could care less about what people perceive, after reading some of the dumbest things I have ever read here that is not my concern. My concern is reality, and the reality is that the Bengals are not the team that they are made out to be concerning real criminal activity. As far as Henry goes, his knock in college was being uncoachable on the field, there was never any indication that he would become the man he is now. Cal, that is untimely bad luck for the Bengals, nothing more and nothing less.

[CalSteeler]

I think it does Cal, and I think it matters a lot. For one extreme, would you really care if all the arrests where for jay walking? Another extreme, would it not be much worse if those arrests where all rape, murder, theft and things of those nature? Obviously those are huge extremes, but the answer of yes proves that the severity does matter, it has to matter a lot because not all crimes are remotely on the same level. I could care less about what people perceive, after reading some of the dumbest things I have ever read here that is not my concern. My concern is reality, and the reality is that the Bengals are not the team that they are made out to be concerning real criminal activity. As far as Henry goes, his knock in college was being uncoachable on the field, there was never any indication that he would become the man he is now. Cal, that is untimely bad luck for the Bengals, nothing more and nothing less.


You misunderstand, of course the gravity of the offense matters in a real world, good vs. bad way. That wasn't my point. The point was that you've had highly picked players blow up in your face, whether due to felony arrests or not is inconsequential to the argument, which is the Bengals gambled and lost, big time.

Both Odell and Henry were red flagged going into the draft, many teams didn't even have them on their draft board. That the Bengals drafted them anyways speaks to the lack of importance your FO put on player character.

I don't think you can deny that drafting either of them was a mistake and if you'd only drafted one of them you could even make the argument that they were the exception and not the rule. However, you did draft them both, along with uber-miscreant Frostee Rucker and others, showing that the Bengals, for a two year period at least, didn't care much about their players being scumbags.

As for Henry, you're only partially correct, which means you're partiall wrong. He was seen as a major liability both on and off the field. I'm a huge draftnik and he was buried in red flags before the draft. I was genuinely surprised when you guys drafted him but in retrospect I shouldn't have been.

[Veteran Leadership]

You misunderstand, of course the gravity of the offense matters in a real world, good vs. bad way. That wasn't my point. The point was that you've had highly picked players blow up in your face, whether due to felony arrests or not is inconsequential to the argument, which is the Bengals gambled and lost, big time.

Both Odell and Henry were red flagged going into the draft, many teams didn't even have them on their draft board. That the Bengals drafted them anyways speaks to the lack of importance your FO put on player character.

I don't think you can deny that drafting either of them was a mistake and if you'd only drafted one of them you could even make the argument that they were the exception and not the rule. However, you did draft them both, along with uber-miscreant Frostee Rucker and others, showing that the Bengals, for a two year period at least, didn't care much about their players being scumbags.

As for Henry, you're only partially correct, which means you're partiall wrong. He was seen as a major liability both on and off the field. I'm a huge draftnik and he was buried in red flags before the draft. I was genuinely surprised when you guys drafted him but in retrospect I shouldn't have been.

I have never read anything that had Henry as an off the field issue Cal, you don't seem to be the "make stuff up to suite my argument" so I will take your word for it. However, I still cannot fault the Bengals organization for either picks. Odell showed that he could have become one of the very best linebackers in the league, he showed very rare sideline to sideline ability, great tackling skills, great hands. On a defense that was terrible how could we not take him? If we took another LBer they most likely would be producing alone the lines of the guys we have on the team now, the decision made sense for us. As far as Henry goes, maybe his pick was unnecessary since he is a WR, but think of it this way. If we did not take him we would have a WR on the team in his place that would not produce nearly as much, guys like Tab Perry and Antonio Chatman are dime a dozen. Even if Henry only plays the 8 games this year (chance that he could have his punishment reduced to6) he will still probably outproduce Perry or Chatman. This however is not my main argument, just some thoughts from someone who is very bored at the moment.

A good chunk of the Bengal's crimes are small things that don't matter, half of that chunk is from one guy. It is unlogical and honestly very stupid to consider this a team of "thugs". I know that most people just listen to what ESPN says, and that must people don't follow the NFL the way I do, but I cannot but help laugh at most of the idiots who spout off about the Bengals "criminals".

[philhos]

I stated previously that his "half the team" comment was a deliberate exaggeration. It is symptomatic of the way the Bengals are perceived now though. Fairly or not the public perception of the Bengals organization is that of a bunch of thugs.

Fairly or not, the public perception of the Steelers-Seahawks Super Bowl was that the officiating was horrible and borderline "bought-and-paid-for." ;)

[kmil579]

Do you know anything about the new CBA?? If you honestly think it is an easy thing to cut them for conduct then you don't. The new CBA clearly states that you can't cut a player for anything that isn't injury or talent related.

Not only do I understand the new CBA, but I have read it. Here is the link to the Notice of termination provided by the CBA, Appendix G:

http://www.nflpa.org/cba/cba_pdf/Appendix_G_Notice_of_Termination.pdf

It states reasons for termination as follows:

You have failed to establish or maintain your excellent physical condition to the satisfaction of the Club physician.
You have failed to make full and complete disclosure of your physical or mental condition during a physical examination.
In the judgment of the Club, your skill or performance has been unsatisfactory as compared with that of other players competing for positions on the Club’s roster.
You have engaged in personal conduct which, in the reasonable judgment of the Club, adversely affects or reflects on the Club.

Notice the bolded part.

Obviously it is you who doesnt understand the new CBA. See what the CBA says, it that you can only discipline a player the maximum of one weeks pay, and suspend them for 4 weeks for conduct detrimental to the team(If you pln on keeping them after the 4 weeks). This is basically in response to Terrell Owens and Philly basically wanting to sit him for the rest of the year and not release him. They could have released him at any time they wanted to but he could then get on with any other team and it would have all the cap ramifications the next year. This is in article VIII of the CBA and is stated as follows:

Conduct detrimental to Club—maximum fine of an amount equal to one week’s salary and/or suspension
without pay for a period not to exceed four (4) weeks. This maximum applies without limitation to any
deactivation of a player in response to player conduct (other than a deactivation in response to a player’s onfield
playing ability), and any such deactivation, even with pay, shall be considered discipline subject to the
limits set forth in this section. The Non-Injury Grievance Arbitrator’s decision in Terrell Owens (Nov. 23,
2005) is thus expressly overruled as to any Club decision to deactivate a player in response to the player’s
conduct.
The Club will promptly notify the player of any discipline; notice of any Club fine in a category subject to
a maximum of $14,000 or above and of any “conduct detrimental” fine or suspension will be sent to the
NFLPA.
(b) The amounts set forth in Section 1(a) above and Section 7 below shall be increased for the 2007
League Year, and each League Year thereafter during the term of this Agreement, at the rate of annual TR
growth, up to a maximum annual growth of 10% per year.

[kmil579]

Yes, because half of our team is shady. Seeing how one player accounted for half of our arrests you are ALREADY wrong, that is actually kind of depressing actually. Usually it takes more then a sentence for someone to be totally wrong on these boards, but you set a whole new standard.:lol::wacko:

Wow, just wow!!
Look up the word hyperbole in the dictionary and then get back to me.

[CalSteeler]

I have never read anything that had Henry as an off the field issue Cal, you don't seem to be the "make stuff up to suite my argument" so I will take your word for it. However, I still cannot fault the Bengals organization for either picks. Odell showed that he could have become one of the very best linebackers in the league, he showed very rare sideline to sideline ability, great tackling skills, great hands. On a defense that was terrible how could we not take him? If we took another LBer they most likely would be producing alone the lines of the guys we have on the team now, the decision made sense for us. As far as Henry goes, maybe his pick was unnecessary since he is a WR, but think of it this way. If we did not take him we would have a WR on the team in his place that would not produce nearly as much, guys like Tab Perry and Antonio Chatman are dime a dozen. Even if Henry only plays the 8 games this year (chance that he could have his punishment reduced to6) he will still probably outproduce Perry or Chatman. This however is not my main argument, just some thoughts from someone who is very bored at the moment.

A good chunk of the Bengal's crimes are small things that don't matter, half of that chunk is from one guy. It is unlogical and honestly very stupid to consider this a team of "thugs". I know that most people just listen to what ESPN says, and that must people don't follow the NFL the way I do, but I cannot but help laugh at most of the idiots who spout off about the Bengals "criminals".

I don't think the Bengals are "full of thugs". As I've been saying all along I think they made the proverbial deal with the devil and it blew up in thier faces. Not only in the 05 draft but even the next year when they dropped a 3rd on Rucker, a huge turd with a terrible rep out here.

All I'm saying, and it really can't be disputed, is that you guys made some horrible decisions and now you're living with the consequences, both public image wise and on the field. I really don't see how you can argue against that.

[CalSteeler]

Fairly or not, the public perception of the Steelers-Seahawks Super Bowl was that the officiating was horrible and borderline "bought-and-paid-for." ;)

If by "public perception" you mean fans of the Seachickens and our AFC North rivals than sure. Other than them I haven't run into any intelligent people who bought Maddens "There was no hold on that play" whiney BS.

BTW I know you're just trying to get a rise, go fishing somewheres else.

[Veteran Leadership]

Wow, just wow!!
Look up the word hyperbole in the dictionary and then get back to me.

Start learning about football and then get back to me.:rolleyes:

[Veteran Leadership]

I don't think the Bengals are "full of thugs". As I've been saying all along I think they made the proverbial deal with the devil and it blew up in thier faces. Not only in the 05 draft but even the next year when they dropped a 3rd on Rucker, a huge turd with a terrible rep out here.

All I'm saying, and it really can't be disputed, is that you guys made some horrible decisions and now you're living with the consequences, both public image wise and on the field. I really don't see how you can argue against that.

Cal I will defend the Thurman pick all day long. He was so good his rookie year that he put up pro bowl numbers. No, it is not a given that he will or would have played great for the rest of his career, but not many linebackers do that in their rookie year. I see your point on Henry, but he is already better then any of the Ravens wideouts:rotf::huh:. Rucker has not done anything poor as a Bengal, but his past is murky and rumors of rape are strong. Still, until he does something wrong I guess I cannot complain.

[kmil579]

Start learning about football and then get back to me.:rolleyes:

Is that the best you got junior? Here I thought I would get a challenge here on this board. Your smack is weak. All you can say is learn about football and throw up a smiley? Whining about a hyperbolous comment? Whats next, an "I know you are but what am I" comment? Veteran leadership LOL!!!

[Veteran Leadership]

Is that the best you got junior? Here I thought I would get a challenge here on this board. Your smack is weak. All you can say is learn about football and throw up a smiley? Whining about a hyperbolous comment? Whats next, an "I know you are but what am I" comment? Veteran leadership LOL!!!

Now why would I want take your "ace" up your sleeve. Tell you what, next time I see you make another stupid comment (odds are within the next five minutes) I will take the time out of my day and set you straight. And since we are on the subject of grammar, why don't you look up the definition (or lack thereof) of "hyperbolous".:rotf:

[Shockwave]

Not only do I understand the new CBA, but I have read it. Here is the link to the Notice of termination provided by the CBA, Appendix G:

http://www.nflpa.org/cba/cba_pdf/Appendix_G_Notice_of_Termination.pdf

It states reasons for termination as follows:

You have failed to establish or maintain your excellent physical condition to the satisfaction of the Club physician.
You have failed to make full and complete disclosure of your physical or mental condition during a physical examination.
In the judgment of the Club, your skill or performance has been unsatisfactory as compared with that of other players competing for positions on the Club’s roster.
You have engaged in personal conduct which, in the reasonable judgment of the Club, adversely affects or reflects on the Club.

Notice the bolded part.

Obviously it is you who doesnt understand the new CBA. See what the CBA says, it that you can only discipline a player the maximum of one weeks pay, and suspend them for 4 weeks for conduct detrimental to the team(If you pln on keeping them after the 4 weeks). This is basically in response to Terrell Owens and Philly basically wanting to sit him for the rest of the year and not release him. They could have released him at any time they wanted to but he could then get on with any other team and it would have all the cap ramifications the next year. This is in article VIII of the CBA and is stated as follows:

Conduct detrimental to Club—maximum fine of an amount equal to one week’s salary and/or suspension
without pay for a period not to exceed four (4) weeks. This maximum applies without limitation to any
deactivation of a player in response to player conduct (other than a deactivation in response to a player’s onfield
playing ability), and any such deactivation, even with pay, shall be considered discipline subject to the
limits set forth in this section. The Non-Injury Grievance Arbitrator’s decision in Terrell Owens (Nov. 23,
2005) is thus expressly overruled as to any Club decision to deactivate a player in response to the player’s
conduct.
The Club will promptly notify the player of any discipline; notice of any Club fine in a category subject to
a maximum of $14,000 or above and of any “conduct detrimental” fine or suspension will be sent to the
NFLPA.
(b) The amounts set forth in Section 1(a) above and Section 7 below shall be increased for the 2007
League Year, and each League Year thereafter during the term of this Agreement, at the rate of annual TR
growth, up to a maximum annual growth of 10% per year.

Don't tell me what I don't understand or what I should see is bolded when you fail to notice the exact thing I was referring to. Notice the newly bolded line in which it says that you are not allowed to suspend a player(without pay) or fine a player for more than 4 weeks based on his conduct. You can suspend him with pay, which then just kind of ends up hurting you and not doing a thing to him anyways, so it still makes your entire point moot.

[kmil579]

Don't tell me what I don't understand or what I should see is bolded when you fail to notice the exact thing I was referring to. Notice the newly bolded line in which it says that you are not allowed to suspend a player(without pay) or fine a player for more than 4 weeks based on his conduct. You can suspend him with pay, which then just kind of ends up hurting you and not doing a thing to him anyways, so it still makes your entire point moot.

Wait a minute, I thought we were talking about cutting a player. Wasnt it you who said that it was difficult for the Bengals to cut a player for conduct because of the new CBA??Yes I do believe it was you who said:

The new CBA clearly states that you can't cut a player for anything that isn't injury or talent related.

Now, the part you bolded only pertains to suspending a player. We are talking about your teams penchant for not wanting to cut players like Chris Henry. Or did you forget that. So instead of misreading the part of the CBA that pertains to suspensions/discipline. Maybe you should read the CBA and point out the part that "clearly states that you can't cut a player for anything that isn't injury or talent related." And while you are at it, have fun watching me be right once again when you see Michael Vick get dropped like a bad habit from the Falcons for his off the field issues. Clearly you dont think that they have anything to do with injury or talent do you????

[kmil579]

Now why would I want take your "ace" up your sleeve. Tell you what, next time I see you make another stupid comment (odds are within the next five minutes) I will take the time out of my day and set you straight. And since we are on the subject of grammar, why don't you look up the definition (or lack thereof) of "hyperbolous".:rotf:


Awe how cute. You actually did have to look up the definition didnt you? Definition or lackthereof for "hyperbolous"??? Let me help you out here. Tomorrow when school starts, ask your teacher to show you in the dictionary where "hyperbole" is. Then you can look up or ask him/her how to conjugate or inflect the word so that it goes from a noun, to an adjective. Then you will be able to understand it when grown ups talk about hyperbole.

[CalSteeler]

Cal I will defend the Thurman pick all day long. He was so good his rookie year that he put up pro bowl numbers. No, it is not a given that he will or would have played great for the rest of his career, but not many linebackers do that in their rookie year. I see your point on Henry, but he is already better then any of the Ravens wideouts:rotf::huh:. Rucker has not done anything poor as a Bengal, but his past is murky and rumors of rape are strong. Still, until he does something wrong I guess I cannot complain.

The Thurman pick is easy to defend from a talent standpoint. Of course the fact that he won't play for two season, and possibly never again, makes it hard to defend the pick from just about any other perspective. The signs were there and your FO chose to ignore them or take the risk as it were.

[kmil579]

View Profile: Veteran Leadership

Veteran Leadership
Waterboy
Last Activity: Today 04:07 AM
Replying to Thread Steelers Cutting Draft Picks? @ 012:07 AM

Better make it a good one.

[Veteran Leadership]

Awe how cute. You actually did have to look up the definition didnt you? Definition or lackthereof for "hyperbolous"??? Let me help you out here. Tomorrow when school starts, ask your teacher to show you in the dictionary where "hyperbole" is. Then you can look up or ask him/her how to conjugate or inflect the word so that it goes from a noun, to an adjective. Then you will be able to understand it when grown ups talk about hyperbole.

Exactly, it couldn't have anything to do with the fact that the word "hyperbolous" comes up red when you type it in with this post huh buddy? It is not a word, you are an idiot, and when it comes to football smack you want nothing to do with me.Why not tell me how much of an adult you are, that way I can laugh my arse off when mommy makes you get off the computer. Once again I start to laugh when someone who wants to use some "grammar" smack starts bumping their gums. Would you be a kind young man and do me a favor when the season begins Kmil? Please, every time you read one of my posts disagree with me, that way I can warm up on my smack before I start to argue with the big boys. Unfortunately, the only Steeler fans on this site that are worth my time are Calsteeler and Steely J. It is very unlikely that your name will be added to that list.:lol:

[Veteran Leadership]

View Profile: Veteran Leadership

Veteran Leadership
Waterboy
Last Activity: Today 04:07 AM
Replying to Thread Steelers Cutting Draft Picks? @ 012:07 AM

Better make it a good one.

You have had ten opportunities yourself to do that, keep trying buddy.

It's nice to know that you want to get me so bad that you are stalking me. Actually, on second thought that's kinda creepy.

[Veteran Leadership]

The Thurman pick is easy to defend from a talent standpoint. Of course the fact that he won't play for two season, and possibly never again, makes it hard to defend the pick from just about any other perspective. The signs were there and your FO chose to ignore them or take the risk as it were.

I don't think the Bengals where planning on Thurman catching one of the worst suspensions in sports history last year Cal. He never tested positive in any of his tests, and has done everything that was asked of him. Goodell is not as bad of a commissioner as people make him out to be, but his ruling was ludicrous.

[kmil579]

Exactly, it couldn't have anything to do with the fact that the word "hyperbolous" comes up red when you type it in with this post huh buddy? It is not a word, you are an idiot, and when it comes to football smack you want nothing to do with me.Why not tell me how much of an adult you are, that way I can laugh my arse off when mommy makes you get off the computer. Once again I start to laugh when someone who wants to use some "grammar" smack starts bumping their gums. Would you be a kind young man and do me a favor when the season begins Kmil? Please, every time you read one of my posts disagree with me, that way I can warm up on my smack before I start to argue with the big boys. Unfortunately, the only Steeler fans on this site that are worth my time are Calsteeler and Steely J. It is very unlikely that your name will be added to that list.:lol:

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a397/BucFanTexas/ITG.jpg

[Veteran Leadership]

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a397/BucFanTexas/ITG.jpg

Psst, it would help your cause if in the post you quoted I had actually said something that portrayed the "internet tough" mentality. If insulting your intelligence makes someone an internet tough guy you are in for a long long stay on this board.

[kmil579]

If insulting your intelligence makes someone an internet tough guy you are in for a long long stay on this board.

You may want to reread this part of your post and ask youself, What am I trying to say here???

[CalSteeler]

I don't think the Bengals where planning on Thurman catching one of the worst suspensions in sports history last year Cal. He never tested positive in any of his tests, and has done everything that was asked of him. Goodell is not as bad of a commissioner as people make him out to be, but his ruling was ludicrous.

Of course they weren't planning on it but his behavior causing problems comes as a surprise to no one. That's the whole point.


I've said all along Goodell has a good reason for denying Odell. If he didn't he's opening up the league to a lawsuit worth millions and one very likely to destroy the whole PC policy, which is Goodells baby. Nope, Odell did something wrong during the suspension or he'd be back on the field, I firmly believe that.

[Veteran Leadership]

You may want to reread this part of your post and ask youself, What am I trying to say here???

































































































































See the majority of the page that is blank Kmil? What does it have as far as content? The answer is nothing. Basically every time you post it amounts to that, but you have managed somehow to post nothing while using words. I am very impressed by this, and I hope people can get paid for being professional idiots, you would do very well in that field.

[Veteran Leadership]

Of course they weren't planning on it but his behavior causing problems comes as a surprise to no one. That's the whole point.


I've said all along Goodell has a good reason for denying Odell. If he didn't he's opening up the league to a lawsuit worth millions and one very likely to destroy the whole PC policy, which is Goodells baby. Nope, Odell did something wrong during the suspension or he'd be back on the field, I firmly believe that.

Cal give me a break here, if Odell messed up legally he would have been arrested or something along those lines. That is Odell's probation we are talking about now, and if he hasn't been arrested for breaking his parole then Goodell is screwing Odell out of a year of football. You really think that Goodell should have stricter standards then the law?

[CalSteeler]

Cal give me a break here, if Odell messed up legally he would have been arrested or something along those lines. That is Odell's probation we are talking about now, and if he hasn't been arrested for breaking his parole then Goodell is screwing Odell out of a year of football. You really think that Goodell should have stricter standards then the law?


Actually yes I do. The NFL is an employer, the burden of proof to fire someone, or in this case deny them employment, is far less than a criminal burden of proof. No one's taking away Odell's freedom, they just aren't letting him work for the NFL. I can be fired from my job for a myriad of acts that are legal for the general populace.

Bottom line is if your conduct reflects poorly on your employer and they have taken reasonable steps to warn you that your conduct endangers your employment you can be fired. Nothing illegal has to take place. Start looking at the NFL as just another employer and the picture becomes clearer.

Odell blew it and didn't do enough to prove to Goodell that he deserved to be rehired. He's more than welcome to play football for money somewhere else.

[Veteran Leadership]

Actually yes I do. The NFL is an employer, the burden of proof to fire someone, or in this case deny them employment, is far less than a criminal burden of proof. No one's taking away Odell's freedom, they just aren't letting him work for the NFL. I can be fired from my job for a myriad of acts that are legal for the general populace.

Bottom line is if your conduct reflects poorly on your employer and they have taken reasonable steps to warn you that your conduct endangers your employment you can be fired. Nothing illegal has to take place. Start looking at the NFL as just another employer and the picture becomes clearer.

Odell blew it and didn't do enough to prove to Goodell that he deserved to be rehired. He's more than welcome to play football for money somewhere else.

I have a hard time finding it acceptable for a company or corporation who makes millions of dollars every year off of alcohol suspending someone for alcohol abuse. Odell has not broken the law since he was suspended, the only thing Goodell COULD have on him is something that did not violate his parole. If he did something illegal that Goodell knows about then the cops know about it. It is hypocrisy Cal, plain and simple. And there is a player in the NFL with four DUI's, why isn't he being hammered on (I believe he is a Ram, and not by the name of Leonard Little)? The is no reasonable argument against Odell Cal, I happen to think that you are either stirring the pot around here, or that maybe a little of that Bengal hate is bubbling up.:nervous:

[CalSteeler]

I have a hard time finding it acceptable for a company or corporation who makes millions of dollars every year off of alcohol suspending someone for alcohol abuse. Odell has not broken the law since he was suspended, the only thing Goodell COULD have on him is something that did not violate his parole. If he did something illegal that Goodell knows about then the cops know about it. It is hypocrisy Cal, plain and simple. And there is a player in the NFL with four DUI's, why isn't he being hammered on (I believe he is a Ram, and not by the name of Leonard Little)? The is no reasonable argument against Odell Cal, I happen to think that you are either stirring the pot around here, or that maybe a little of that Bengal hate is bubbling up.:nervous:

Not at all. You're assuming Odell did nothing wrong. The whole story has yet to come out so you're operating on as much assumption as I am. If Odell failed to comply with the terms of his reinstatement it doesn't matter if he didn't break the law.

As for Little I agree with you, he shouldn't be playing. However, it's an apples and oranges comparison as Little's incidents occured before Goodell took over. It's a completely different era and comparisons with the past are completely invalid. I guarantee you if Little, or anyone else, killed someone drunk driving now they wouldn't be playing again for a long time, if ever.

Lastly you don't know if there's no reasonable argument against Odell. None of us do and Odell proclaiming his innocence means nothing. I'll say it again, Goodell had solid, legal reasons for the denial otherwise he set himself up for a huge lawsuit.

[kmil579]

See the majority of the page that is blank Kmil? What does it have as far as content? The answer is nothing.


It has about as much content as any of your posts. Keep up the good work there little buddy. See there was a bit of sarcasm. We really arent buddies you know. But maybe you will want to start a 100 page thread about how I am a liar because I called you buddy. Oops, there goes some hyperbole again. I know you didnt have a 100 page thread but I will have to work on dumbing down my posts so that you can understand them. Well I am off to bed as I have to get up for work in the morning. You might get to know what that feels like someday but for now just enjoy your parents basement and stay up on their computer as long as you like. Oh and dont forget to kiss your little Carson Palmer doll goodnight before you go to bed. Have fun.

[Veteran Leadership]

It has about as much content as any of your posts. Keep up the good work there little buddy. See there was a bit of sarcasm. We really arent buddies you know. But maybe you will want to start a 100 page thread about how I am a liar because I called you buddy. Oops, there goes some hyperbole again. I know you didnt have a 100 page thread but I will have to work on dumbing down my posts so that you can understand them. Well I am off to bed as I have to get up for work in the morning. You might get to know what that feels like someday but for now just enjoy your parents basement and stay up on their computer as long as you like. Oh and dont forget to kiss your little Carson Palmer doll goodnight before you go to bed. Have fun.

Glad to know that as long as it took you to come back with a post you still had a zero quality in your posts. Posters like you are why so many Bengal fans are convinced that Steeler fans are morons (can you blame them really).

[Veteran Leadership]

Not at all. You're assuming Odell did nothing wrong. The whole story has yet to come out so you're operating on as much assumption as I am. If Odell failed to comply with the terms of his reinstatement it doesn't matter if he didn't break the law.

As for Little I agree with you, he shouldn't be playing. However, it's an apples and oranges comparison as Little's incidents occured before Goodell took over. It's a completely different era and comparisons with the past are completely invalid. I guarantee you if Little, or anyone else, killed someone drunk driving now they wouldn't be playing again for a long time, if ever.

Lastly you don't know if there's no reasonable argument against Odell. None of us do and Odell proclaiming his innocence means nothing. I'll say it again, Goodell had solid, legal reasons for the denial otherwise he set himself up for a huge lawsuit.

Once again, if Odell broke the law then he would be in jail or have a hearing, that is a fact Cal. We know that Odell complied with his probation, that should be more then enough to get him back in the league.

[CalSteeler]

Once again, if Odell broke the law then he would be in jail or have a hearing, that is a fact Cal. We know that Odell complied with his probation, that should be more then enough to get him back in the league.

You're hung up on the distinction between something illegal and something that your employer can fire you for. They aren't the same, especially in a high profile job like playing in the NFL. Once again, Odell did something wrong (notice I said wrong, not illegal) that caused Goodell to deny him reinstatement. There really is no other logical alternative.

[Veteran Leadership]

You're hung up on the distinction between something illegal and something that your employer can fire you for. They aren't the same, especially in a high profile job like playing in the NFL. Once again, Odell did something wrong (notice I said wrong, not illegal) that caused Goodell to deny him reinstatement. There really is no other logical alternative.

And I am arguing that since Goodell would be denying Thurman his reinstatement based on something that happened with his probation it makes no sense for him to not be reinstated. The courts and legal system are far more thorough and much better then Goodell and the NFL could ever hope to be Cal. I understand that they are separate issues, but it makes no sense for Odell to not be reinstated. The courts are satisfied with Odell, and if they are the NFL should have more then enough to put him back in. I could care less if Odell cussed out his parole officer every damn time they spoke, Odell did what he was asked to do, if he did not then he would be in jail. If they are denying Odell admission back into the league for something else then that is just pure vindictiveness from a Commish who has no clue what he **** he is doing.

[CalSteeler]

And I am arguing that since Goodell would be denying Thurman his reinstatement based on something that happened with his probation it makes no sense for him to not be reinstated. The courts and legal system are far more thorough and much better then Goodell and the NFL could ever hope to be Cal. I understand that they are separate issues, but it makes no sense for Odell to not be reinstated. The courts are satisfied with Odell, and if they are the NFL should have more then enough to put him back in. I could care less if Odell cussed out his parole officer every damn time they spoke, Odell did what he was asked to do, if he did not then he would be in jail. If they are denying Odell admission back into the league for something else then that is just pure vindictiveness from a Commish who has no clue what he **** he is doing.


You're seriously not getting it dude. Odell may have done everything his probation officer required of him, that doesn't mean he complied with everything Goodell asked of him. They aren't mutually exclusive but they aren't exactly the same either.

It's not an either or scenario by any means. The only two options aren't Odell goes to jail or Odell get's reinstated. Odell complied with probation but not with Goodell. That's plenty fair because as I've said employers can, and frequently do, have stricter requirements of their employees than the penal code has of citizens.

You're angry because Odell's a Bengal and that's understandable. That doesn't make Goodells actions less valid. Again as you don't have the whole story you're making definitive judgements about something you don't have all the facts on.

[philhos]

It has about as much content as any of your posts.

Ahhhhhhhhh, the good ol' "I know you are but what am I" smack. :dry:

Oh, and by "good," I really meant stupid, immature, idiotic, and just plain uber-childish.

[The Bat]

Of course they weren't planning on it but his behavior causing problems comes as a surprise to no one. That's the whole point.


I've said all along Goodell has a good reason for denying Odell. If he didn't he's opening up the league to a lawsuit worth millions and one very likely to destroy the whole PC policy, which is Goodells baby. Nope, Odell did something wrong during the suspension or he'd be back on the field, I firmly believe that.

Agreed, but the thing that is ticking us off is "WHAT?". Not that it makes a difference in his status, it's more like the robber in Dirty Harry who "just gots (sic) to know" if there was 1 more bullet in that 44.

[Rayne]

And I am arguing that since Goodell would be denying Thurman his reinstatement based on something that happened with his probation it makes no sense for him to not be reinstated. The courts and legal system are far more thorough and much better then Goodell and the NFL could ever hope to be Cal. I understand that they are separate issues, but it makes no sense for Odell to not be reinstated. The courts are satisfied with Odell, and if they are the NFL should have more then enough to put him back in. I could care less if Odell cussed out his parole officer every damn time they spoke, Odell did what he was asked to do, if he did not then he would be in jail. If they are denying Odell admission back into the league for something else then that is just pure vindictiveness from a Commish who has no clue what he **** he is doing.

What bothers me about the Thurmann situation is that we don't know what he did to get suspended this year. Goodell just up and suspended him for this year - with really no explanation.

I think Goodell played the Vick situation about as well as he could have. Because of the seriousness of the charges, acting prematurely would have brought fire from the NFLPA. Don't forget about the power they have.

[Jom112]

What bothers me about the Thurmann situation is that we don't know what he did to get suspended this year. Goodell just up and suspended him for this year - with really no explanation.

I think Goodell played the Vick situation about as well as he could have. Because of the seriousness of the charges, acting prematurely would have brought fire from the NFLPA. Don't forget about the power they have.

That's because it's AGAINST THE LAW for Goodell to publicly speak about the details.

Odell is in a substance abuse rehab program. If he is not attending AA meetings (As it's rumoured) and is not complying fully, Goodell can't let us know that. All he can do is suspend Odell for another year and have us assume...

[Rayne]

That's because it's AGAINST THE LAW for Goodell to publicly speak about the details.

Odell is in a substance abuse rehab program. If he is not attending AA meetings (As it's rumoured) and is not complying fully, Goodell can't let us know that. All he can do is suspend Odell for another year and have us assume...

Is it really? I didn't know that.

Still he could say something, couldn't he?

[Jom112]

Is it really? I didn't know that.

Still he could say something, couldn't he?

The NFL can't give any details the only thing that can happen is the details can be "leaked". Some have already indicating that Odell missed some mandatory AA meetings, but it's just speculation.

The NFL just lets the media know what the length of the suspension is and what policy the player was suspended under (Substance abuse, banned substance, etc...). It's usually the players or the agents that provide additional details. Just look at Rodney Harrison, he was the one that came out publicly and said he took HGH not steroids; the NFL just stated what policy he was suspended under...

[BamBamRubble]

The NFL can't give any details the only thing that can happen is the details can be "leaked". Some have already indicating that Odell missed some mandatory AA meetings, but it's just speculation.

The NFL just lets the media know what the length of the suspension is and what policy the player was suspended under (Substance abuse, banned substance, etc...). It's usually the players or the agents that provide additional details. Just look at Rodney Harrison, he was the one that came out publicly and said he took HGH not steroids; the NFL just stated what policy he was suspended under...

I heard it was because Odell missed an appointment with his PO? :what:

[Jom112]

I heard it was because Odell missed an appointment with his PO? :what:

That incident happened after Goodell made his judgement. At least the probation violation wasn't publicized until after Goodells' judgement...

[kmil579]

Glad to know that as long as it took you to come back with a post you still had a zero quality in your posts. Posters like you are why so many Bengal fans are convinced that Steeler fans are morons (can you blame them really).

Sorry VL but I dont hang on your every word as you seem to do with me. Its funny really, you are like a lost little puppy that follows me around. You got all butt hurt because I said that your team didnt want to have to cut half of the roster. Fact is that the Bengals have had more arrests and more players arrested in the past 2 years than any other team. You can go ahead and respond now little buddy.

[BamBamRubble]

That incident happened after Goodell made his judgement. At least the probation violation was publicized after the judgement...

Oh...okay Gotcha...

I thought it was like a few days after he was eligible for "parole."

[kmil579]

Ahhhhhhhhh, the good ol' "I know you are but what am I" smack. :dry:

Oh, and by "good," I really meant stupid, immature, idiotic, and just plain uber-childish.


You having trouble thinking up your own smack so you need to recycle mine. Go back and read post #62.

Whats next, an "I know you are but what am I" comment?

[Veteran Leadership]

Sorry VL but I dont hang on your every word as you seem to do with me. Its funny really, you are like a lost little puppy that follows me around. You got all butt hurt because I said that your team didnt want to have to cut half of the roster. Fact is that the Bengals have had more arrests and more players arrested in the past 2 years than any other team. You can go ahead and respond now little buddy.

Right, because somehow I am just enthralled with you Kmil.:huh: Fact is that when I showed how you blew our issues out of proportion you realized just how stupid of a statement that was. I guess it is to much to ask for people to actually know what they are talking about, must be much easier for you to have ESPN tell you what to think huh?

[Steely_J]

Sorry VL but I dont hang on your every word as you seem to do with me. Its funny really, you are like a lost little puppy that follows me around. You got all butt hurt because I said that your team didnt want to have to cut half of the roster. Fact is that the Bengals have had more arrests and more players arrested in the past 2 years than any other team. You can go ahead and respond now little buddy.


You have 15 total posts and he "follows you around"?

:lol:

[Shockwave]

Wait a minute, I thought we were talking about cutting a player. Wasnt it you who said that it was difficult for the Bengals to cut a player for conduct because of the new CBA??Yes I do believe it was you who said:



Now, the part you bolded only pertains to suspending a player. We are talking about your teams penchant for not wanting to cut players like Chris Henry. Or did you forget that. So instead of misreading the part of the CBA that pertains to suspensions/discipline. Maybe you should read the CBA and point out the part that "clearly states that you can't cut a player for anything that isn't injury or talent related." And while you are at it, have fun watching me be right once again when you see Michael Vick get dropped like a bad habit from the Falcons for his off the field issues. Clearly you dont think that they have anything to do with injury or talent do you????

Suspending someone with pay... isn't cutting a player.

[Veteran Leadership]

You have 15 total posts and he "follows you around"?

:lol:

Meh, I guess it isn't so bad having a pet troll all to myself. Only issue is that I can't figure out what he eats, all he does is talk mindless *****.:smirk:

[philhos]

You having trouble thinking up your own smack so you need to recycle mine. Go back and read post #62.

You're the idiot who smacked himself. Observe:
See the majority of the page that is blank Kmil? What does it have as far as content? The answer is nothing.

It has about as much content as any of your posts.

Since you don't seem intelligent enough to understand without an explanation, allow me to explain: VL said your posts contain no content. You respond by saying that VL's posts contain no content.

Still with me so far?

So, seeing as how you claimed his posts contain no content after he already said your posts contain no content, you in effect stated "I know you are but what am I."

I hope you're still following me. This ain't brain surgery, you know.

Add in the fact that YOU already mentioned the "I know you are but what am I" smack comment, ipso facto, you handily smacked yourself.

Way to go, self-smacker. You're a regular master debater.:dry:

[kmil579]

Suspending someone with pay... isn't cutting a player.


Here, I will type slower for you. You said that the CBA makes it hard to release a player for non football issues. I showed where you were wrong. Either post a copy of the part of the CBA you are referring to or shut up. It is that simple. The CBA makes it impossible to suspend a player for more than 4 games for off field/behavior issues but it does not make it harder to cut a player. You are wrong.

[Shockwave]

Sorry VL but I dont hang on your every word as you seem to do with me. Its funny really, you are like a lost little puppy that follows me around. You got all butt hurt because I said that your team didnt want to have to cut half of the roster. Fact is that the Bengals have had more arrests and more players arrested in the past 2 years than any other team. You can go ahead and respond now little buddy.

So tell me... since you seem to know so much and believe the Bengals are the end all be all of arrests in the NFL... how many arrests did the Chargers have last year??

[Shockwave]

Here, I will type slower for you. You said that the CBA makes it hard to release a player for non football issues. I showed where you were wrong. Either post a copy of the part of the CBA you are referring to or shut up. It is that simple. The CBA makes it impossible to suspend a player for more than 4 games for off field/behavior issues but it does not make it harder to cut a player. You are wrong.

Considering you just posted the part of the CBA that deals with said actions... I don't believe I have anything else to prove/post to speak otherwise. You posted the different things that can be done to a player for off-field issues, and not one of them said anything about it being a possibility to cut a player, so unless you can show me where it says that it is as easy as you like to say it is... this argument is done.

[Veteran Leadership]

Here, I will type slower for you. You said that the CBA makes it hard to release a player for non football issues. I showed where you were wrong. Either post a copy of the part of the CBA you are referring to or shut up. It is that simple. The CBA makes it impossible to suspend a player for more than 4 games for off field/behavior issues but it does not make it harder to cut a player. You are wrong.


You are pretty familiar with that huh "little buddy".:lol::lol::lol:

[Veteran Leadership]

Considering you just posted the part of the CBA that deals with said actions... I don't believe I have anything else to prove/post to speak otherwise. You posted the different things that can be done to a player for off-field issues, and not one of them said anything about it being a possibility to cut a player, so unless you can show me where it says that it is as easy as you like to say it is... this argument is done.

Hey, Kmil is my personal punching bag, lay off.:lol::lol:

[kmil579]

Considering you just posted the part of the CBA that deals with said actions... I don't believe I have anything else to prove/post to speak otherwise. You posted the different things that can be done to a player for off-field issues, and not one of them said anything about it being a possibility to cut a player, so unless you can show me where it says that it is as easy as you like to say it is... this argument is done.

The fact is that the CBA does not prohibit a team from cutting a player due to behavior issues. That is the point dummy. You said that the new CBA makes it hard for teams to cut players for non football issues. This is simply not true. I cant show you where it says it in the CBA because your little fake bungle excuse just doesnt hold up whne checked against the facts. Face it your organization doesnt cut these players because they choose to let their indiscresions slide because they fewel their talent makes it ok. Classless organization.

[kmil579]

Hey, Kmil is my personal punching bag, lay off.:lol::lol:

You can say it a million times and it still wont make it true. You know the truth Nancy.

[philhos]

[QUOTE=kmil579;41321]Not only do I understand the new CBA, but I have read it. Here is the link to the Notice of termination provided by the CBA, Appendix G: http://www.nflpa.org/cba/cba_pdf/Appendix_G_Notice_of_Termination.pdfQUOTE]

kmil, after reading some of your other posts and realizing that you're not too bright, I decided to do a little research and discovered that you're wrong about the CBA.

See, the link you provided is just a form that they use. Sure it says that you may be released due to conduct detrimental to the team, but to find out what the rules governing what the "Club" (aka the TEAM) is allowed to due, you need to look at what the actual CBA says.

What's interesting is that you listed it. But, for the benefit of those who don't want to read all the way through these posts again, here's what the CBA says the "MAXIMUM Discipline" is for "Conduct detrimental to the team":
Conduct detrimental to Club—maximum fine of an amount equal to one week’s salary and/or suspension without pay for a period not to exceed four (4) weeks. This maximum applies without limitation to any deactivation of a player in response to player conduct (other than a deactivation in response to a player’s onfield playing ability), and any such deactivation, even with pay, shall be considered discipline subject to the limits set forth in this section. The Non-Injury Grievance Arbitrator’s decision in Terrell Owens (Nov. 23, 2005) is thus expressly overruled as to any Club decision to deactivate a player in response to the player’s conduct.

See the part I bolded? That states that the club is allowed to AT MOST suspend a player without pay for 4 weeks. This goes for ANY discipline as the result of conduct detrimental to the team.

Remember, boys and girls, this goes only for the TEAM. But, the TEAM is not able to cut a player for conduct. They can only suspend them without pay for 4 weeks.

[philhos]

Here, I will type slower for you. You said that the CBA makes it hard to release a player for non football issues. I showed where you were wrong. Either post a copy of the part of the CBA you are referring to or shut up. It is that simple. The CBA makes it impossible to suspend a player for more than 4 games for off field/behavior issues but it does not make it harder to cut a player. You are wrong.

From http://www.nflpa.org/cba/cba_pdf/Article_VIII_Club_Discipline.pdf

Conduct detrimental to Club—maximum fine of an amount equal to one week’s salary and/or suspension without pay for a period not to exceed four (4) weeks. This maximum applies without limitation to any deactivation of a player in response to player conduct (other than a deactivation in response to a player’s onfield playing ability), and any such deactivation, even with pay, shall be considered discipline subject to the limits set forth in this section. The Non-Injury Grievance Arbitrator’s decision in Terrell Owens (Nov. 23, 2005) is thus expressly overruled as to any Club decision to deactivate a player in response to the player’s conduct.

[Veteran Leadership]

The fact is that the CBA does not prohibit a team from cutting a player due to behavior issues. That is the point dummy. You said that the new CBA makes it hard for teams to cut players for non football issues. This is simply not true. I cant show you where it says it in the CBA because your little fake bungle excuse just doesnt hold up whne checked against the facts. Face it your organization doesnt cut these players because they choose to let their indiscresions slide because they fewel their talent makes it ok. Classless organization.

Man, for someone who is so obsessed about grammar that post is a little hard on the eyes, must be hard to not be able to live up to your own standards.....:rotf:

The first big non character guy that was cut in the league recently was Tank from the Bears. I guess you are a classless organization for not cutting Holmes right? I mean right off the bat old boy was a bad character guy right? Look at most of the guys we have on the roster and then look at all the charity work they do, tell me how we are classless again. The fact of the matter is that you are an idiot who is **** bent on trying to talk smack on the Bengals without actually knowing anything about it. We haven't cut Odell because maybe we aren't going to give the boot to a struggling alcoholic. Rucker has not done anything to deserve being let go, we already cut A.J. Nicholson earlier in the year, and Henry has done everything asked of him so far regarding legal issues. Notice how Tank Johnson was only cut after he came back from jail and messed up again, the Bengals are not the only team in the NFL to give players multiple chances.

[philhos]

Hey, kmil, who should we believe you? Or a professional journalist?

From http://www.mercurynews.com/sports/ci_6457885?nclick_check=1 in regards to Michael Vick:
Falcons Owner Arthur Blank acknowledged Tuesday that he had planned to suspend quarterback Michael Vick four games - the maximum allowed by the NFL's collective bargaining agreement - in the wake of Vick's indictment last week in a case involving illegal interstate dog-fighting.

Want me to keep going or do you realize you're wrong, yet?

[kmil579]

[QUOTE=kmil579;41321]Not only do I understand the new CBA, but I have read it. Here is the link to the Notice of termination provided by the CBA, Appendix G: http://www.nflpa.org/cba/cba_pdf/Appendix_G_Notice_of_Termination.pdfQUOTE]

kmil, after reading some of your other posts and realizing that you're not too bright, I decided to do a little research and discovered that you're wrong about the CBA.

See, the link you provided is just a form that they use. Sure it says that you may be released due to conduct detrimental to the team, but to find out what the rules governing what the "Club" (aka the TEAM) is allowed to due, you need to look at what the actual CBA says.

What's interesting is that you listed it. But, for the benefit of those who don't want to read all the way through these posts again, here's what the CBA says the "MAXIMUM Discipline" is for "Conduct detrimental to the team":
Conduct detrimental to Club—maximum fine of an amount equal to one week’s salary and/or suspension without pay for a period not to exceed four (4) weeks. This maximum applies without limitation to any deactivation of a player in response to player conduct (other than a deactivation in response to a player’s onfield playing ability), and any such deactivation, even with pay, shall be considered discipline subject to the limits set forth in this section. The Non-Injury Grievance Arbitrator’s decision in Terrell Owens (Nov. 23, 2005) is thus expressly overruled as to any Club decision to deactivate a player in response to the player’s conduct.

See the part I bolded? That states that the club is allowed to AT MOST suspend a player without pay for 4 weeks. This goes for ANY discipline as the result of conduct detrimental to the team.

Remember, boys and girls, this goes only for the TEAM. But, the TEAM is not able to cut a player for conduct. They can only suspend them without pay for 4 weeks.

See I love this. You call me not too bright but you cant even comprehend what you read. Do you know what a deactivation of a player is? The part you highlighted(which by the way if you read my earlier posts I posted this section of the CBA) pertains to discipline of a player that you are keeping on your roster. You can cut a player from your team for conduct detrimental to the team at any time. What you arent allowed to do is deactivate a player, or suspend a player for more than 4 weeks. This was in response to the TO situation when the eagles deactivated him because of the disruption to the team. They could have cut him at any time and chose to do so at the end of the year. Reading must not be taught in the Cincy area schools anymore huh?

[Veteran Leadership]

I hear this sound......it sounds like............it sounds like........it sounds like.....I am not too familiar with this at all but.....it sounds like someone got owned. Hold on a second, Hos did you really have to do that to him? My god, you smacked him so hard he may have actually gotten dumber. Kmil, please stop yourself now. Every time you make a post you embarrass yourself, and at this point the only thing you are doing is owning yourself.

[philhos]

[QUOTE=philhos;42026]

See I love this. You call me not too bright but you cant even comprehend what you read. Do you know what a deactivation of a player is? The part you highlighted(which by the way if you read my earlier posts I posted this section of the CBA) pertains to discipline of a player that you are keeping on your roster. You can cut a player from your team for conduct detrimental to the team at any time. What you arent allowed to do is deactivate a player, or suspend a player for more than 4 weeks. This was in response to the TO situation when the eagles deactivated him because of the disruption to the team. They could have cut him at any time and chose to do so at the end of the year. Reading must not be taught in the Cincy area schools anymore huh?

Are you legitimately ********? Cutting someone is MORE than suspending them for 4 weeks!!

Moron.

[kmil579]

Hey, kmil, who should we believe you? Or a professional journalist?

From http://www.mercurynews.com/sports/ci_6457885?nclick_check=1 in regards to Michael Vick:


Want me to keep going or do you realize you're wrong, yet?

The journalist is right as am I. You can only SUSPEND a player the maximum amount of 4 games. You can cut him at any time. What part of this dont you understand????? SUSPEND...........DEACTIVATE..............CUT/TERMINATE. Learn those words and what they mean as they pertain to the NFL.

[philhos]

I hear this sound......it sounds like............it sounds like........it sounds like.....I am not too familiar with this at all but.....it sounds like someone got owned. Hold on a second, Hos did you really have to do that to him? My god, you smacked him so hard he may have actually gotten dumber. Kmil, please stop yourself now. Every time you make a post you embarrass yourself, and at this point the only thing you are doing is owning yourself.

Thank you! Make sure to give me some rep points, please. :smirk:

[kmil579]

[QUOTE=kmil579;42031]

Are you legitimately ********? Cutting someone is MORE than suspending them for 4 weeks!!

Moron.

What part of this dont you understand. Suspension is a discipline action. Cutting is terminating that players employment with your company/team. Even VL just stated that Tank Johnson was cut by the Bears for continued off the field problems. Are you calling VL a liar?

[philhos]

The journalist is right as am I. You can only SUSPEND a player the maximum amount of 4 games. You can cut him at any time. What part of this dont you understand????? SUSPEND...........DEACTIVATE..............CUT/TERMINATE. Learn those words and what they mean as they pertain to the NFL.

It's true!! You ARE legitimately ********!!

First off, suspend=deactivate. The only difference is you can deactivate someone without it being a punishment (i.e. deactivating an injured person).

In terms of punishment, suspend and cut are two different levels of punishment, with cutting being more severe. Ergo, the most you are allowed to do is SUSPEND them for 4 weeks. You cannot go above and beyond that which is TERMINATION.

It really can't get more simpler than this, Einstein.

[kmil579]

I hear this sound......it sounds like............it sounds like........it sounds like.....I am not too familiar with this at all but.....it sounds like someone got owned. Hold on a second, Hos did you really have to do that to him? My god, you smacked him so hard he may have actually gotten dumber. Kmil, please stop yourself now. Every time you make a post you embarrass yourself, and at this point the only thing you are doing is owning yourself.


Owned?? Please tell me you arent that stupid. You yourself just said that the Bears cut Tank Johnson. Did they cut him for off the field issues??? I know you arent too familiar with things going on with the league outside of your beloved Bengals but please dont make yourself look stupid by contradicting yourself in subsequent posts.

[kmil579]

It's true!! You ARE legitimately ********!!

First off, suspend=deactivate. The only difference is you can deactivate someone without it being a punishment (i.e. deactivating an injured person).

In terms of punishment, suspend and cut are two different levels of punishment, with cutting being more severe. Ergo, the most you are allowed to do is SUSPEND them for 4 weeks. You cannot go above and beyond that which is TERMINATION.

It really can't get more simpler than this, Einstein.

Please shoe me where the CBA states that you can not cut/terminate a player for conduct detrimental to the team. If this were the case, Tank Johnson would still be on the team. Please tell me what he did on the field between the Superbowl and him being cut this offseason. You must be the onr who is ******** if you cant see that you are wrong. either show us all where the very long and lengthy CBA states that the you can not cut a player for conduct detrimental to the team or shut up. You cant can you?? Because it isnt in there. Do you need the link to the CBA???

[kmil579]

Thank you! Make sure to give me some rep points, please. :smirk:

Rep points? LOL How about some reading comprehension classes.

[philhos]

[QUOTE=philhos;42033]

What part of this dont you understand. Suspension is a discipline action. Cutting is terminating that players employment with your company/team. Even VL just stated that Tank Johnson was cut by the Bears for continued off the field problems. Are you calling VL a liar?

Tank Johnson was not CUT by the Bears. He was WAIVED. There is a difference.

However, if Tank Johnson was truly cut for those reasons and if he wanted to, he could take appeal the Bears' actions through the CBA. However, in Tank's case, judging by his comments immediately after he was WAIVED, it sounds to me like it was a mutual agreement. Tank allowed the club to terminate his contract, in other words.

By God, it's amazing for me to meet someone as stupid as you.

[philhos]

Please shoe me where the CBA states that you can not cut/terminate a player for conduct detrimental to the team. If this were the case, Tank Johnson would still be on the team. Please tell me what he did on the field between the Superbowl and him being cut this offseason. You must be the onr who is ******** if you cant see that you are wrong. either show us all where the very long and lengthy CBA states that the you can not cut a player for conduct detrimental to the team or shut up. You cant can you?? Because it isnt in there. Do you need the link to the CBA???

For the umpteenth time, here it is again:
http://www.nflpa.org/cba/cba_pdf/Article_VIII_Club_Discipline.pdf

Conduct detrimental to Club—maximum fine of an amount equal to one week’s salary and/or suspension without pay for a period not to exceed four (4) weeks. This maximum applies without limitation to any deactivation of a player in response to player conduct (other than a deactivation in response to a player’s onfield playing ability), and any such deactivation, even with pay, shall be considered discipline subject to the limits set forth in this section. The Non-Injury Grievance Arbitrator’s decision in Terrell Owens (Nov. 23, 2005) is thus expressly overruled as to any Club decision to deactivate a player in response to the player’s conduct.

The TEAM cannot punish a player any more than a 4 week suspension. Cutting him would amount to more than a 4 week suspension. THAT'S why it's hard to cut a player for anything other than his playing ability.

I find it hard to believe that you can't grasp this.

[philhos]

Rep points? LOL How about some reading comprehension classes.

You're the one that can't seem to comprehend the wording of the CBA. It's all their in black and white.

[kmil579]

[QUOTE=kmil579;42037]

Tank Johnson was not CUT by the Bears. He was WAIVED. There is a difference.

However, if Tank Johnson was truly cut for those reasons and if he wanted to, he could take appeal the Bears' actions through the CBA. However, in Tank's case, judging by his comments immediately after he was WAIVED, it sounds to me like it was a mutual agreement. Tank allowed the club to terminate his contract, in other words.

By God, it's amazing for me to meet someone as stupid as you.

HAHAHA. Are you kidding me? Why do I waste my time with knuckleheads like you who dont understand how simple things like how the waiver system works. A cut player is waived unless he is not subject to the waiver process by having 4 years of pension credit. Since Tank Johnson has only played 3 seasons, when he is cut, it is termed waived and a team can claim him off of waivers. Really you should get a book on this stuff because you dont know ****. Its funny that you call me stupid.

[kmil579]

For the umpteenth time, here it is again:
http://www.nflpa.org/cba/cba_pdf/Article_VIII_Club_Discipline.pdf



The TEAM cannot punish a player any more than a 4 week suspension. Cutting him would amount to more than a 4 week suspension. THAT'S why it's hard to cut a player for anything other than his playing ability.

I find it hard to believe that you can't grasp this.
Wow just wow!!!! So I guess the Falcons will have to keep Michael Vick on their roster because they wont be able to cut him because of his off the field issues. They will have to let him come back and play after he serves a 4 game suspension. LOL what an idiot you are. Do me a favor and take your head out of your *** and google Michael Vick cut. You will find many articles talking about how the Falcons want to cut Vick but cant do to the salary cap ramifications. They must pursue the money first, then cut him. Even their owner says that he could cut him right away but that wouldnt be a good long term solution for his club because the prorated portion of his signing bonus(approx. 22 million) would count against next years cap. Even your buddies have left you to yourself because they know you are wrong. I wish they would let you know though because you are only embarassing yourself.

[Jom112]

kmil is "technically" correct although his argument is a little off. It's not the NFLPA Player Conduct Policy that allows a team to cut/release/waive a player for "conduct detrimental" but "Paragraph 11 of Standard Player Contracts".

In every NFL contract there is a section that reads:

"if a player has engaged in conduct reasonably judged by club to adversely affect or reflect on club, then club may terminate this contract."

It was used in a case by the Carolina Panthers against Ray Carruth:
http://www.courttv.com/trials/carruth/football.html

Towards the end of the story it reads:

"Panthers executives said they had no choice and pointed to paragraph 11 of the standard NFL player contract which reads "if a player has engaged in conduct reasonably judged by club to adversely affect or reflect on club, then club may terminate this contract."

Although Kmil is not totally correct. Players can file a grievance against the team if they are cut for anything other than performance. Take the AJ Nicholson case. He was cut by the Bengals after getting arrested (again) and he was going to file a grievance which the players union was supporting. But AJ was jailed so he couldn't appeal. Tank Johnson didn't file a grievance.

So until a player is cut, files a grievance and loses the grievance then we can't say for certainty who is correct in this debate...

[kmil579]

kmil is "technically" correct although his argument is a little off. It's not the NFLPA Player Conduct Policy that allows a team to cut/release/waive a player for "conduct detrimental" but "Paragraph 11 of Standard Player Contracts".

In every NFL contract there is a section that reads:

"if a player has engaged in conduct reasonably judged by club to adversely affect or reflect on club, then club may terminate this contract."

It was used in a case by the Carolina Panthers against Ray Carruth:
http://www.courttv.com/trials/carruth/football.html

Towards the end of the story it reads:

"Panthers executives said they had no choice and pointed to paragraph 11 of the standard NFL player contract which reads "if a player has engaged in conduct reasonably judged by club to adversely affect or reflect on club, then club may terminate this contract."

Although Kmil is not totally correct. Players can file a grievance against the team if they are cut for anything other than performance. Take the AJ Nicholson case. He was cut by the Bengals after getting arrested (again) and he was going to file a grievance which the players union was supporting. But AJ was jailed so he couldn't appeal. Tank Johnson didn't file a grievance.

So until a player is cut, files a grievance and loses the grievance then we can't say for certainty who is correct in this debate...


Ummm....That is what I have said all along:


As far as it being tough to cut a player for off field issues, thats BS. Most, if not all of the recent NFL contracts have wording in them that prohibit conduct detrimental to the team. It is a lot easier to cut these players than you think. But when you draft players with shady characters, you dont want to have to cut half your team.

As you can see, I stated that NFL contracts have these clauses in them. I also pointed out that what Shockwave and Philhos are getting confused with, is the part of the CBA that deals with discipline limits. There is nothing in the CBA that says that a team cant cut a player due to off the field issues. PERIOD. Yes a player can file a grievance and yes the union will back up the player no matter what, but in most cases involving illegal activity, the player will lose the grievance. And most players cut wont file a grievance because they usually focus on getting on with a new team.

So much for my argumenmt being off. Maybe you bengals fans should brush up on some reading courses.

[Jom112]

Ummm....That is what I have said all along:



As you can see, I stated that NFL contracts have these clauses in them. I also pointed out that what Shockwave and Philhos are getting confused with, is the part of the CBA that deals with discipline limits. There is nothing in the CBA that says that a team cant cut a player due to off the field issues. PERIOD. Yes a player can file a grievance and yes the union will back up the player no matter what, but in most cases involving illegal activity, the player will lose the grievance. And most players cut wont file a grievance because they usually focus on getting on with a new team.

So much for my argumenmt being off. Maybe you bengals fans should brush up on some reading courses.

And as I didn't see, you didn't back up any of your arguments with valid links or specifics. Making generalizations means you'll end up arguing with someone over 3 or 4 pages, repeating the same thing over and over. If you wanted to talk about player contracts then why did you post the CBA? and then solely talk about the CBA for several pages genius?

Must be that great debating skill you learned in Pittsburgh...

[kmil579]

And as I didn't see, you didn't back up any of your arguments with valid links or specifics. Making generalizations means you'll end up arguing with someone over 3 or 4 pages, repeating the same thing over and over...

Come on man, this stuff isnt rocket science. The posters who wanted to argue with me dont know enough about the NFL and its policies to mount a counter argument. Then you have the peanut gallery chiming in on how I got owned. Who looks foolish now? I know a lot more than most about the CBA because I have read it and understand it. I didnt make any generalizations. I stated facts and then these knuckleheads tried to argue the facts with things that they think they hear in the media. LOL.

[kmil579]

And as I didn't see, you didn't back up any of your arguments with valid links or specifics. Making generalizations means you'll end up arguing with someone over 3 or 4 pages, repeating the same thing over and over. If you wanted to talk about player contracts then why did you post the CBA? and then solely talk about the CBA for several pages genius?

Must be that great debating skill you learned in Pittsburgh...

Because the poster stated that the CBA makes it tough to cut a player. This is simply not true and I was trying to be a nice guy and show him where he was confused. I linked to the CBA so that he could read it and see that he was wrong. There are a lot of big words in there and as he has demonstrated, he doesnt understand even the simple things.

And as I am sure you are aware, the poster didnt even debate the facts about players contracts. He was so sure that it was stated in the CBA which it is not.

[Shockwave]

Because the poster stated that the CBA makes it tough to cut a player. This is simply not true and I was trying to be a nice guy and show him where he was confused. I linked to the CBA so that he could read it and see that he was wrong. There are a lot of big words in there and as he has demonstrated, he doesnt understand even the simple things.

And as I am sure you are aware, the poster didnt even debate the facts about players contracts. He was so sure that it was stated in the CBA which it is not.

There you go... use the fact that we were talking about the CBA to try and hide the fact that you just don't have enough of a brain to argue what makes our argument irrelevant. If all you really wanted to get across was that it was in most contracts... then you should have, to try and use me talking about the CBA as a reason why you "couldn't" talk about contracts is more ridiculous than you actually doing it. Carry on in your little world of supposed genius because in the real world you are nothing but a moron who thinks he knows everything.

[philhos]

Because the poster stated that the CBA makes it tough to cut a player. This is simply not true

Didn't you just agree that the CBA allows players to file a greivance which the union almost always backs the player? That by definition means that it's difficult to cut a player due to the CBA. :rolleyes:

[Shockwave]

Didn't you just agree that the CBA allows players to file a greivance which the union almost always backs the player? That by definition means that it's difficult to cut a player due to the CBA. :rolleyes:

No Phil... didn't you know that it is easy to be able to beat the union in grievances??

[philhos]

No Phil... didn't you know that it is easy to be able to beat the union in grievances??

Is that because they don't look at the CBA but at the player's contract?

[Shockwave]

Is that because they don't look at the CBA but at the player's contract?

No it's because all they pointed out was the CBA and the league proceeded to ignore the contracts and told them that the CBA says you can suspend a player for 4 games without pay.

[kmil579]

There you go... use the fact that we were talking about the CBA to try and hide the fact that you just don't have enough of a brain to argue what makes our argument irrelevant. If all you really wanted to get across was that it was in most contracts... then you should have, to try and use me talking about the CBA as a reason why you "couldn't" talk about contracts is more ridiculous than you actually doing it. Carry on in your little world of supposed genius because in the real world you are nothing but a moron who thinks he knows everything.

What part of this dont you understand. I CLEARLY stated that it was in most NFL contracts that a player can be cut for conduct detrimental to the team. This never has been contested. Am I supposed to argue with myself over it? You Clearly stated that the NEW CBA made it hard to cut these players for conduct other than football related. This is not, was not, and is still not true. You are wrong. Admit it and move on.

As far as not being able to talk about contracts, if you go back and look. I was the only one who mentioned and talked about them until JOM did. It is you who doesnt know about them and cant discuss them due to your lack of knowledge.

[kmil579]

Didn't you just agree that the CBA allows players to file a greivance which the union almost always backs the player? That by definition means that it's difficult to cut a player due to the CBA. :rolleyes:

No that by definition is due process. The players have been allowed to file a grievance for a few of the CBAs now. The New one hasnt changed that as shockwave has alluded to. Filing a grievance is basically getting your day in court but in this case it is with an arbitrator. If you think you have been wronged, you can file a grievance. This doesnt mean that anything will come of it. Again this is nothing new to the league and it hasnt made it difficult to cut players at all. TO, Keyshawn, Tank Johnson, and soon to be Michael Vick have all been cut due to CDTT and have not had any problems doing so. Nice try philly.

[philhos]

No that by definition is due process. The players have been allowed to file a grievance for a few of the CBAs now. The New one hasnt changed that as shockwave has alluded to. Filing a grievance is basically getting your day in court but in this case it is with an arbitrator. If you think you have been wronged, you can file a grievance. This doesnt mean that anything will come of it. Again this is nothing new to the league and it hasnt made it difficult to cut players at all. TO, Keyshawn, Tank Johnson, and soon to be Michael Vick have all been cut due to CDTT and have not had any problems doing so. Nice try philly.

Explain why Michael Vick has not been cut right now. Guaranteed it's because the CBA is making it hard on the Falcons.

[neiser]

You can say it a million times and it still wont make it true. You know the truth Nancy.

is this coldfronts little sister? i knew something looked familiar.

[kmil579]

Explain why Michael Vick has not been cut right now. Guaranteed it's because the CBA is making it hard on the Falcons.

If the falcons were to cut Michael Vick right now, they would absorb the rest of his prorated signing bonus next year. That would be approximately 22 million dollars against next years cap of dead money. If they go after him for the unearned portion of his signing bonus(like the dolphins did with Ricky Williams), they will get that credited back to them and thus not have that cap hit. Arthur Blank even came out and said as much. Your guarantees arent worth **** as you dont know what you are talking about. How do you manage in Butler with a mind like yours?

[kmil579]

is this coldfronts little sister? i knew something looked familiar.

Wow, you are the queen of smack. Is that all you got?

[neiser]

Wow, you are the queen of smack. Is that all you got?

no, not at all. i make your big brother look like an idiot all the time. let me guess, are u an texans fan 2?

[kmil579]

no, not at all. i make your big brother look like an idiot all the time. let me guess, are u an texans fan 2?

Its not that hard to figure out that I am a Steelers fan. Right now all you are doing is making yourself look like an idiot.

Phil you have a PM.

[philhos]

If the falcons were to cut Michael Vick right now, they would absorb the rest of his prorated signing bonus next year. That would be approximately 22 million dollars against next years cap of dead money. If they go after him for the unearned portion of his signing bonus(like the dolphins did with Ricky Williams), they will get that credited back to them and thus not have that cap hit. Arthur Blank even came out and said as much. Your guarantees arent worth **** as you dont know what you are talking about. How do you manage in Butler with a mind like yours?

You do realize that all that financial talk has to do with the CBA, right? Thus, due to the CBA, the Falcons are finding it hard to cut Vick right now because of the financial ramifications.

[neiser]

Its not that hard to figure out that I am a Steelers fan. Right now all you are doing is making yourself look like an idiot.

Phil you have a PM.

if you couldnt tell that was sarcasm, then u my friend r the idiot.

[kmil579]

You do realize that all that financial talk has to do with the CBA, right? Thus, due to the CBA, the Falcons are finding it hard to cut Vick right now because of the financial ramifications.


Backpedaling is so not becoming of you. It is not hard to cut Michael Vick due to even cap ramifications. They could cut him at any time and would have to cut many other players and hire cheaper, usually less skilled ones. They choose not to do that. But the CBA doesnt make it tough to do it though. You are really reaching now.

[philhos]

Backpedaling is so not becoming of you. It is not hard to cut Michael Vick due to even cap ramifications. They could cut him at any time and would have to cut many other players and hire cheaper, usually less skilled ones. They choose not to do that. But the CBA doesnt make it tough to do it though. You are really reaching now.

Not reaching at all. Yes, the Falcons could just up and cut Vick, but then they have to worry about what that means to their financial outcomes. Plus, they also have to deal with any greivances filed. This is all due to the CBA.

A decision of cutting someone like Vick is never easy. Only a moron like you thinks a team can "easily" cut someone like him.

[kmil579]

Not reaching at all. Yes, the Falcons could just up and cut Vick, but then they have to worry about what that means to their financial outcomes. Plus, they also have to deal with any greivances filed. This is all due to the CBA.

A decision of cutting someone like Vick is never easy. Only a moron like you thinks a team can "easily" cut someone like him.


:Yawn: You really do need to get a book that explains to you how the NFL and its policies work. Dealing with grievances is no big thing. Its like a murderer who gets his day in court. It doesnt mean that he will get off, but he must be given his day in court regardless. Of course the falcons would and are making a decision on Vick based on financial considerations. The CBA also provides fo rthe falcons to get relief by going after Vick for the Signing bonus so it is the CBA that will ultimately make it easy to cut Vick once the judgement is awarded. So Try again. NEXT!!!

[Shockwave]

What part of this dont you understand. I CLEARLY stated that it was in most NFL contracts that a player can be cut for conduct detrimental to the team. This never has been contested. Am I supposed to argue with myself over it? You Clearly stated that the NEW CBA made it hard to cut these players for conduct other than football related. This is not, was not, and is still not true. You are wrong. Admit it and move on.

As far as not being able to talk about contracts, if you go back and look. I was the only one who mentioned and talked about them until JOM did. It is you who doesnt know about them and cant discuss them due to your lack of knowledge.

Grand you mentioned them first... if the basis of your entire argument was contracts then you should have stuck to them. Instead, you started arguing about the CBA and still haven't made one credible point to show that the CBA doesn't make it any harder to cut a player. The amount of crap a team will have to go through, and the high probability that they would also lose, should a player file a grievance for being cut over something that isn't talent related makes the fact that a contract says it is ok irrelevant. The union has way too much power right now and because of this whether the CBA says straight out that it isn't something that can be done... it has things in it that give the union a ridiculous amount of power should someone be cut for these reasons. Jesus you are possibly the most dense person I have ever come across on here.

As far as not being able to talk about contracts... I never disputed your contract point because I know it to be true, however to use the fact that I was talking about something else in order to defend you not using the only thing you had that actually backed up your argument is juvenile at best, and plain stupid as anything else. Don't use me because you couldn't figure out that the CBA doesn't say anything to back up your point, and therefore didn't use the one thing that did... that is your fault and your fault only.

[Jom112]

:Yawn: You really do need to get a book that explains to you how the NFL and its policies work. Dealing with grievances is no big thing. Its like a murderer who gets his day in court. It doesnt mean that he will get off, but he must be given his day in court regardless. Of course the falcons would and are making a decision on Vick based on financial considerations. The CBA also provides fo rthe falcons to get relief by going after Vick for the Signing bonus so it is the CBA that will ultimately make it easy to cut Vick once the judgement is awarded. So Try again. NEXT!!!

Here is where your starting to lose the argument kmil. When it comes to salaries the CBA does make it harder for teams to regain money lost due to releasing a player. Take the Vick situation:

"The key here is the extent to which $29.5 million paid to Vick as roster bonuses that were converted at the team's option to guaranteed payments are subject to forfeiture. Vick and the NFLPA will argue that it the roster bonuses are exempt; the NFL and the Falcons will argue that they are not.

If the converted roster bonus money is not included, and if the 2006 CBA is applied retroactively, the most the Falcons can get is the remaining three years' proration of his $7.5 million signing bonus, which equates to $3.75 million. If the prior CBA applies, the Falcons will be entitled to apply their formula that multiplies the bonus by the total remaining regular-season games under the deal (here, the number is 112), and then divides it by the total regular-season games covered by the contract (in this case, the number is 146). Under that equation, the Falcons can recover $5.75 million.

It's unknown how the Falcons came up with the $20 million. It could be that the Falcons believe that they can get more than that, but that they have made an opener of $20 million in an effort to negotiate a compromise between $3.75 million and $28 million."

This is similar to the Ashley Lelie situation:

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=jc-vickbonusmoney&prov=yhoo&type=lgns

"We believe their case is not valid and we certainly will fight to protect Michael from any action taken by the Falcons," union attorney Richard Berthelsen said Thursday. "The lion's share of the money he received was in roster bonuses and we believe to the extent the Ashley Lelie (http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/players/5905/;_ylt=A0WTeSgfIeBGKLwAOQHsYNAF) case dealt with performance-based bonuses, this subject is already covered in the collective bargaining agreement."

[kmil579]

Here is where your starting to lose the argument kmil. When it comes to salaries the CBA does make it harder for teams to regain money lost due to releasing a player. Take the Vick situation:

"The key here is the extent to which $29.5 million paid to Vick as roster bonuses that were converted at the team's option to guaranteed payments are subject to forfeiture. Vick and the NFLPA will argue that it the roster bonuses are exempt; the NFL and the Falcons will argue that they are not.

If the converted roster bonus money is not included, and if the 2006 CBA is applied retroactively, the most the Falcons can get is the remaining three years' proration of his $7.5 million signing bonus, which equates to $3.75 million. If the prior CBA applies, the Falcons will be entitled to apply their formula that multiplies the bonus by the total remaining regular-season games under the deal (here, the number is 112), and then divides it by the total regular-season games covered by the contract (in this case, the number is 146). Under that equation, the Falcons can recover $5.75 million.

It's unknown how the Falcons came up with the $20 million. It could be that the Falcons believe that they can get more than that, but that they have made an opener of $20 million in an effort to negotiate a compromise between $3.75 million and $28 million."

This is similar to the Ashley Lelie situation:

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=jc-vickbonusmoney&prov=yhoo&type=lgns

"We believe their case is not valid and we certainly will fight to protect Michael from any action taken by the Falcons," union attorney Richard Berthelsen said Thursday. "The lion's share of the money he received was in roster bonuses and we believe to the extent the Ashley Lelie (http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/players/5905/;_ylt=A0WTeSgfIeBGKLwAOQHsYNAF) case dealt with performance-based bonuses, this subject is already covered in the collective bargaining agreement."

You forgot to add this part of the article.

In the Vick case, the catch to the roster bonuses is that they were converted to fully guaranteed money at the time of payment, according to an NFLPA source. In principal, the roster bonuses were treated as signing bonus for salary-cap purposes. However, Berthelsen said the language in Vick's contract was never changed to call the money signing bonuses.

Why is this so hard to understand:

A: The players union will always represent the player and take up his side. It isnt an owners union it is a players union. no surprise here and this doesnt make it harder to cut a player.

B: Filing a grievance does not make it harder to cut a player. Please show me a case where a player was cut, filed a grievance, and was reinstated with his team. Most grievances are about one thing, Money. This does not make it harder to cut a player.

C: The Vick case is a special one and will get special attention by the league, the commisioner, and players union. The Falcons will go after the money and an arbitrator will decide how much they get back. if the Arbitrator says that they get nothing back, Vick will then be released and the Falcons will take their lumps. Nothing in the CBA will make it difficult to cut him. Period. He will no longer be a falcon. Your arguments get fnnier and funnier by the minute.

But what in all of this deflection has to do with the Bengals not wanting to cut players who have multiple offenses like Chris Henry. They could cut him at any time without any difficulty, and the CBA doesnt make it hard on the Bengals. His cap hit is minimal and if he filed a grievance he would lose. You guys dont honestly think that the Bengals organization is afraid of a player grievance do you?

[kmil579]

Grand you mentioned them first... if the basis of your entire argument was contracts then you should have stuck to them. Instead, you started arguing about the CBA and still haven't made one credible point to show that the CBA doesn't make it any harder to cut a player. The amount of crap a team will have to go through, and the high probability that they would also lose, should a player file a grievance for being cut over something that isn't talent related makes the fact that a contract says it is ok irrelevant. The union has way too much power right now and because of this whether the CBA says straight out that it isn't something that can be done... it has things in it that give the union a ridiculous amount of power should someone be cut for these reasons. Jesus you are possibly the most dense person I have ever come across on here.

As far as not being able to talk about contracts... I never disputed your contract point because I know it to be true, however to use the fact that I was talking about something else in order to defend you not using the only thing you had that actually backed up your argument is juvenile at best, and plain stupid as anything else. Don't use me because you couldn't figure out that the CBA doesn't say anything to back up your point, and therefore didn't use the one thing that did... that is your fault and your fault only.

Boy you are dense. You stated that the CBA makes it difficult to cut your Bengal Players because of off the field issues. Enough with the dancing around the issues. Show me how cutting Chris Henry would be tough on the Bengals due to the CBA.

[The Bat]

This has officially become the most boring thread ever...


http://www.problogger.net/wp-content/sleep.jpg

[Shockwave]

Boy you are dense. You stated that the CBA makes it difficult to cut your Bengal Players because of off the field issues. Enough with the dancing around the issues. Show me how cutting Chris Henry would be tough on the Bengals due to the CBA.

I don't have to post anything new... everything that I need to say has been posted if you don't like what I have said then that is your problem. I, however, am done with this argument because you clearly won't listen to reason.

[Murdock2420]

Boy you are dense. You stated that the CBA makes it difficult to cut your Bengal Players because of off the field issues. Enough with the dancing around the issues. Show me how cutting Chris Henry would be tough on the Bengals due to the CBA.

Ok here...let's see if you can comprehend this

"Conduct detrimental to Club—maximum fine of an amount equal to one week’s salary and/or suspension
without pay for a period not to exceed four (4) weeks. This maximum applies without limitation to any
deactivation of a player in response to player conduct (other than a deactivation in response to a player’s onfield
playing ability), and any such deactivation, even with pay, shall be considered discipline subject to the
limits set forth in this section. The Non-Injury Grievance Arbitrator’s decision in Terrell Owens (Nov. 23,
2005) is thus expressly overruled as to any Club decision to deactivate a player in response to the player’s
conduct.
The Club will promptly notify the player of any discipline; notice of any Club fine in a category subject to
a maximum of $14,000 or above and of any “conduct detrimental” fine or suspension will be sent to the
NFLPA.
(b) The amounts set forth in Section 1(a) above and Section 7 below shall be increased for the 2007
League Year, and each League Year thereafter during the term"

That is straight out of the NFL's CBA...you can find all the info on the CBA here http://www.nflpa.org/CBA/CBA_Complete.aspx

As you can see (as long as you can read) there is a maxium you are allowed to punish a player for off field problems, so if the Bengals had cut Chris Henry (who was producing on the field) the player's association would have come after them. We cut AJ Nicholson because he was not only a problem off the field, but was not producing on the field.

What the CBA has allowed is star players can do almost anything (unless the Federal Goverment gets after them) and the team is truely handcuffed.

So there I just showed you right out of the CBA why it's hard for the Bengals to cut these guys.

[BengalsAtOSU]

This has officially become the most boring thread ever...


http://www.problogger.net/wp-content/sleep.jpg

Hey, that guy sort of resembles me! In the hair...the way it sticks up...mehhhhhhhhhhhhhh

[Bengals_9]

ya i heard about that

[kmil579]

Ok here...let's see if you can comprehend this

"Conduct detrimental to Club—maximum fine of an amount equal to one week’s salary and/or suspension
without pay for a period not to exceed four (4) weeks. This maximum applies without limitation to any
deactivation of a player in response to player conduct (other than a deactivation in response to a player’s onfield
playing ability), and any such deactivation, even with pay, shall be considered discipline subject to the
limits set forth in this section. The Non-Injury Grievance Arbitrator’s decision in Terrell Owens (Nov. 23,
2005) is thus expressly overruled as to any Club decision to deactivate a player in response to the player’s
conduct.
The Club will promptly notify the player of any discipline; notice of any Club fine in a category subject to
a maximum of $14,000 or above and of any “conduct detrimental” fine or suspension will be sent to the
NFLPA.
(b) The amounts set forth in Section 1(a) above and Section 7 below shall be increased for the 2007
League Year, and each League Year thereafter during the term"

That is straight out of the NFL's CBA...you can find all the info on the CBA here http://www.nflpa.org/CBA/CBA_Complete.aspx

As you can see (as long as you can read) there is a maxium you are allowed to punish a player for off field problems, so if the Bengals had cut Chris Henry (who was producing on the field) the player's association would have come after them. We cut AJ Nicholson because he was not only a problem off the field, but was not producing on the field.

What the CBA has allowed is star players can do almost anything (unless the Federal Goverment gets after them) and the team is truely handcuffed.

So there I just showed you right out of the CBA why it's hard for the Bengals to cut these guys.

You have come in on the tail end of this argument and we have already covered that. That pertains to disciplining a player that you intend to keep. You can only suspend them for 4 games. You can cut that player whenever you want. The federal Government has nothing to do with it. The falcons arent allowed to cut michael vick because the federal government says so they are allowed to because the nfl says so. There is nothing in the cba that prohibits a team from cutting a player. If you can show me where it say that in the CBA........But you cant.

[kmil579]

I don't have to post anything new... everything that I need to say has been posted if you don't like what I have said then that is your problem. I, however, am done with this argument because you clearly won't listen to reason.

You are right, you dont have to post anything new. I question if you have ever posted anything new that wasnt a lie or something you thought you heard in the media. The fact is that you made a false statement and cant back it up. Unless you want to recant your statement then you can just stop posting on this subject. The damage is done.

[BengalsAtOSU]

You are right, you dont have to post anything new. I question if you have ever posted anything new that wasnt a lie or something you thought you heard in the media. The fact is that you made a false statement and cant back it up. Unless you want to recant your statement then you can just stop posting on this subject. The damage is done.

:zzz:

This could go on for days...:suicide:

nobody cares about this stupid argument/thread anymore!




















STOP IT.


You're DONE!

[kmil579]

:zzz:

This could go on for days...:suicide:

nobody cares about this stupid argument/thread anymore!


Then dont post in it.

[The Bat]

http://img206.imageshack.us/img206/9443/shipwreck3pf.jpg

[Murdock2420]

You have come in on the tail end of this argument and we have already covered that. That pertains to disciplining a player that you intend to keep. You can only suspend them for 4 games. You can cut that player whenever you want. The federal Government has nothing to do with it. The falcons arent allowed to cut michael vick because the federal government says so they are allowed to because the nfl says so. There is nothing in the cba that prohibits a team from cutting a player. If you can show me where it say that in the CBA........But you cant.

Here's a new twist for you, every other member of the board seems to understand it, Bengals Fans, Steeler fans, Raven fans, other teams stopping by fans, see they follow the game read the news stories and listen to the experts who say it isn't allowed, I'll get you links to articles about this, since you obviously didn't use the link to the CBA to read anything, but what I want you to do, is find parts in the CBA that show what the terms for termination of a contract are. They include, on field performance or lack there of, and a medical settlement...nothing about going to jail, so why don't you go find us the proof that it's ok to do it.

[Murdock2420]

http://img206.imageshack.us/img206/9443/shipwreck3pf.jpg

No doubt Bat, what we've got here is failure to communicate. Some men (I use that term loosely with this one) you just can't reach. So you get what we have here in this thread, which is the way he wants it. Well, he gets it.....a gigantic he's a TOOL award.

http://www.americanrhetoric.com/images/coolhandluke4.JPG

[kmil579]

Here's a new twist for you, every other member of the board seems to understand it, Bengals Fans, Steeler fans, Raven fans, other teams stopping by fans, see they follow the game read the news stories and listen to the experts who say it isn't allowed, I'll get you links to articles about this, since you obviously didn't use the link to the CBA to read anything, but what I want you to do, is find parts in the CBA that show what the terms for termination of a contract are. They include, on field performance or lack there of, and a medical settlement...nothing about going to jail, so why don't you go find us the proof that it's ok to do it.


Why dont you find me something in the CBA that states that you can not terminate a player for off the field issues??? I posted links to the CBA way before you did in this thread and have read it.

Yeah you cant cut a player because of continued off the field issues. Just ask Rae Carruth, Tank Johnson, and soon to be Michael Vick. They are living proof. If you dont think that the Falcons will cut Vick then you are ********. They arent going to go after the money and then keep him.

[bengals_in_miami]

http://img206.imageshack.us/img206/9443/shipwreck3pf.jpg:rotf::rotf:..................:rot f:

[Murdock2420]

Why dont you find me something in the CBA that states that you can not terminate a player for off the field issues??? I posted links to the CBA way before you did in this thread and have read it.

Yeah you cant cut a player because of continued off the field issues. Just ask Rae Carruth, Tank Johnson, and soon to be Michael Vick. They are living proof. If you dont think that the Falcons will cut Vick then you are ********. They arent going to go after the money and then keep him.

The difference between Rae Carruth, Mike Vike and Chris Henry is pretty big.

Caruth is in jail and going to stay there for sometime. Vick is also going to be headed off to jail for sometime, hard for the players union to fight for a guy that is in prison and not able to play. Henry isn't in jail, isn't headed off to do a 2 year or 25 year sentence. Your comparing felonies to misdemeanors.

I'm sure they will cut Vick, and the players union won't back him since he is guilty of a crime that had so many people turn on him.

Owens was deactivated by the Eagles for his stupid antics off the field and the players union filed a grievence against the Eagles for that, so if they can deactivated or cut a guy for bad behavior, how did the Eagles get a suit filed against them for their deal with Owens?

[BengalsAtOSU]

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y111/jrlvr8/stupid_thread.jpg

^^ OMG, immediately is spelled wrong.

[kmil579]

The difference between Rae Carruth, Mike Vike and Chris Henry is pretty big.

Caruth is in jail and going to stay there for sometime. Vick is also going to be headed off to jail for sometime, hard for the players union to fight for a guy that is in prison and not able to play. Henry isn't in jail, isn't headed off to do a 2 year or 25 year sentence. Your comparing felonies to misdemeanors.

I'm sure they will cut Vick, and the players union won't back him since he is guilty of a crime that had so many people turn on him.

Owens was deactivated by the Eagles for his stupid antics off the field and the players union filed a grievence against the Eagles for that, so if they can deactivated or cut a guy for bad behavior, how did the Eagles get a suit filed against them for their deal with Owens?

Because they wanted to deactivate him for the rest of the year which is not allowed. He said that he wanted to play or be released. It would have been ok if they had just released him mid season but I am sure that they didnt want him to get on with a rival club that year. They did however want him as far away from the club as possible which is why he didnt play after the denver game week 8.

You mentioned Vick and Carruth but left out Tank Johnson. He was cut and I am pretty sure he and Henry are about on par with charges. Why is it that the Bears could cut Johnson for his offseason antics but the Bengals and every other team cant seem to do the same?

[Murdock2420]

Because they wanted to deactivate him for the rest of the year which is not allowed. He said that he wanted to play or be released. It would have been ok if they had just released him mid season but I am sure that they didnt want him to get on with a rival club that year. They did however want him as far away from the club as possible which is why he didnt play after the denver game week 8.

You mentioned Vick and Carruth but left out Tank Johnson. He was cut and I am pretty sure he and Henry are about on par with charges. Why is it that the Bears could cut Johnson for his offseason antics but the Bengals and every other team cant seem to do the same?

Sorry..Tank also was arrested for FELONY gun charges. Once again a little more serious then DUI's.

[kmil579]

Sorry..Tank also was arrested for FELONY gun charges. Once again a little more serious then DUI's.

So what you are saying now is that the CBA allows for cutting a player if they commit a felony but not a misdemeanor. Am I correct???

[bengals_in_miami]

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y62/Dogbytes/Thread-Dumb.jpg

[BengalsAtOSU]

http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c140/Javadran/thread_dumb.jpg

[Veteran Leadership]

Wow, you are the queen of smack. Is that all you got?

Sigh, you basically replied to bad smack with even worse smack. Here is a hint, when you try to smack someone maybe you should say something witty, or funny or even football related. Your post was so bad you would have been better off just typing nothing or typing /fart sounds. If I said your content was lacking I would be a liar, your content is damn near unexistant.

[Whatever]

Tank Johnson was a 2nd tier starting DT. Easily replaceable. A WR of Henry's caliber or a "franchise" QB like Vick is much harder to replace. It's just like an everyday workplace. The "boss" is going to let more BS slide from workers that are more productive and/or have skills that aren't easily replaced.

In truth,the biggest reasons that Vick hasn't been cut are extremely simple. First,Vick still has trade value. Some losing team will be willing to cough up some picks for Vick,whip up a huge "Mike Vick has changed and we're giving him a second chance" PR campaign,and at least sell a boatload of jerseys. Second,the Falcons have to field a team this year. Vick's cap hit will be ridiculous,probably well over $10 mill with the huge mega-deal he has. It's also WAY past the deadline where that hit can be spread over two seasons. Do you think the Falcons' GM really wants to cut a bunch of veterans and replace them with waiver wire guys for league minimum and scuttle the season? Do you think the Falcon's want to tell these guys,"Sorry we had to cut you,but we HAD to cut Vick as a PR move because "the people" demand it. I hope you can find another team,a decent home,and hopefully the kids can get into a good school this late..."

[bengals_in_miami]

Tank Johnson was a 2nd tier starting DT. Easily replaceable. A WR of Henry's caliber or a "franchise" QB like Vick is much harder to replace. It's just like an everyday workplace. The "boss" is going to let more BS slide from workers that are more productive and/or have skills that aren't easily replaced.

In truth,the biggest reasons that Vick hasn't been cut are extremely simple. First,Vick still has trade value. Some losing team will be willing to cough up some picks for Vick,whip up a huge "Mike Vick has changed and we're giving him a second chance" PR campaign,and at least sell a boatload of jerseys. Second,the Falcons have to field a team this year. Vick's cap hit will be ridiculous,probably well over $10 mill with the huge mega-deal he has. It's also WAY past the deadline where that hit can be spread over two seasons. Do you think the Falcons' GM really wants to cut a bunch of veterans and replace them with waiver wire guys for league minimum and scuttle the season? Do you think the Falcon's want to tell these guys,"Sorry we had to cut you,but we HAD to cut Vick as a PR move because "the people" demand it. I hope you can find another team,a decent home,and hopefully the kids can get into a good school this late..."
MAKE IT STOP :suicide:

[kmil579]

Tank Johnson was a 2nd tier starting DT. Easily replaceable. A WR of Henry's caliber or a "franchise" QB like Vick is much harder to replace. It's just like an everyday workplace. The "boss" is going to let more BS slide from workers that are more productive and/or have skills that aren't easily replaced.

In truth,the biggest reasons that Vick hasn't been cut are extremely simple. First,Vick still has trade value. Some losing team will be willing to cough up some picks for Vick,whip up a huge "Mike Vick has changed and we're giving him a second chance" PR campaign,and at least sell a boatload of jerseys. Second,the Falcons have to field a team this year. Vick's cap hit will be ridiculous,probably well over $10 mill with the huge mega-deal he has. It's also WAY past the deadline where that hit can be spread over two seasons. Do you think the Falcons' GM really wants to cut a bunch of veterans and replace them with waiver wire guys for league minimum and scuttle the season? Do you think the Falcon's want to tell these guys,"Sorry we had to cut you,but we HAD to cut Vick as a PR move because "the people" demand it. I hope you can find another team,a decent home,and hopefully the kids can get into a good school this late..."


Make no mistake about it, Vick will be cut. His trade value is almost nothing and once a dollar amount is determined as to what he must give back, he will be gone. His cap hit would be the prorated portion of his SB already allotted to this year, and the rest would be accelerated to next year. The "deadline" for spreading put the hit is actually any time after June 1. This falls in line. This season will not be affected cap wise as they have already accounted for vicks portion of his SB and his salary which he wont get. They will get a credit for his salary next year because they have it on their cap charge this year.

[kmil579]

Sigh, you basically replied to bad smack with even worse smack. Here is a hint, when you try to smack someone maybe you should say something witty, or funny or even football related. Your post was so bad you would have been better off just typing nothing or typing /fart sounds. If I said your content was lacking I would be a liar, your content is damn near unexistant.

Awe you missed me and had to come back for more. Pitiful really.

[bengals_in_miami]

Awe you missed me and had to come back for more. Pitiful really.
wow. you're on a roll...

[The Bat]

Awe you missed me and had to come back for more. Pitiful really.

I'm sure you meant "aww" not "Awe" or maybe you are "in awe" of Vet's smack?

Main Entry: 1awe http://www.m-w.com/images/audio.gif (http://javascript%3Cb%3E%3C/b%3E:popWin%28%27/cgi-bin/audio.pl?awe00001.wav=awe%27%29)
Pronunciation: 'o
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old Norse agi; akin to Old English ege awe, Greek achos pain
1 : an emotion variously combining dread, veneration, and wonder that is inspired by authority or by the sacred or sublime <stood in awe of the king> <regard nature's wonders with awe>

So is English your second language then?

[Veteran Leadership]

I'm sure you meant "aww" not "Awe" or maybe you are "in awe" of Vet's smack?

Main Entry: 1awe http://www.m-w.com/images/audio.gif (http://javascript%3Cb%3E%3C/b%3E:popWin%28%27/cgi-bin/audio.pl?awe00001.wav=awe%27%29)
Pronunciation: 'o
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old Norse agi; akin to Old English ege awe, Greek achos pain
1 : an emotion variously combining dread, veneration, and wonder that is inspired by authority or by the sacred or sublime <stood in awe of the king> <regard nature's wonders with awe>

So is English your second language then?

Get your guard up Bat, he is going to attack you with his "hyerpbolousnessishonceaweekallthetimeingsquarepiet rianglesodapopstarsandbarsness" smack. I am still recovering from when he told me that I was an internet tough guy. God bless you bat.

[The Bat]

Get your guard up Bat, he is going to attack you with his "hyerpbolousnessishonceaweekallthetimeingsquarepiet rianglesodapopstarsandbarsness" smack. I am still recovering from when he told me that I was an internet tough guy. God bless you bat.

Not worried. I've got chunks of guys like him in my stool...
http://www.muzika.hr/images/Rubrika_21/20050911_sinatra.jpg

[Veteran Leadership]

Not worried. I've got chunks of guys like him in my stool...
http://www.muzika.hr/images/Rubrika_21/20050911_sinatra.jpg

You scared my troll off. )=

[Steely_J]

Not worried. I've got chunks of guys like him in my stool...
http://www.muzika.hr/images/Rubrika_21/20050911_sinatra.jpg

I eat pieces of 'crap' like you for breakfast...
http://www.movieprop.com/tvandmovie/reviews/happygilmoreshooter1aa.jpg

[Shockwave]

You are right, you dont have to post anything new. I question if you have ever posted anything new that wasnt a lie or something you thought you heard in the media. The fact is that you made a false statement and cant back it up. Unless you want to recant your statement then you can just stop posting on this subject. The damage is done.

I made a false statement... jesus you just love to backpedal don't you?? Instead of responding to my post with something that actually gives your posts any kind of validity you attack what I did and said in hopes that people just forgot the moronity with which you posted. Make no mistake, I am better at talking smack than you will ever be, and regardless of what you have to say you will never beat me in this. Whether you want to admit it or not, you debated this subject horrendously and now are trying to convince everyone that you were the one making sense rather than everyone else. The fact of the matter is... the CBA makes things harder for teams to cut players who have off-field issues, you don't have to actually admit it... it is just something everyone knows already. So keep trying to turn it around on me... I swear it will work sometime.

[philhos]

I eat pieces of 'crap' like you for breakfast...
http://www.movieprop.com/tvandmovie/reviews/happygilmoreshooter1aa.jpg

You eat pieces of 'crap' for breakfast?
http://smartlabs.lewiston.k12.id.us/Jenifer/WordExcelPaint/Excel/Celebrities/AdamSandler.bmp

[Steely_J]

You eat pieces of 'crap' for breakfast?
http://smartlabs.lewiston.k12.id.us/Jenifer/WordExcelPaint/Excel/Celebrities/AdamSandler.bmp

:rotf:

I love that movie...

[kmil579]

I made a false statement... jesus you just love to backpedal don't you?? Instead of responding to my post with something that actually gives your posts any kind of validity you attack what I did and said in hopes that people just forgot the moronity with which you posted. Make no mistake, I am better at talking smack than you will ever be, and regardless of what you have to say you will never beat me in this. Whether you want to admit it or not, you debated this subject horrendously and now are trying to convince everyone that you were the one making sense rather than everyone else. The fact of the matter is... the CBA makes things harder for teams to cut players who have off-field issues, you don't have to actually admit it... it is just something everyone knows already. So keep trying to turn it around on me... I swear it will work sometime.

Yes you did make a false statement. You seem to make many of them. The collective bargaining agreement does not make it tough for teams to cut players with conduct issues. PERIOD.

[Shockwave]

Yes you did make a false statement. You seem to make many of them. The collective bargaining agreement does not make it tough for teams to cut players with conduct issues. PERIOD.

That wasn't a statement genius, it was a question. The CBA does make it tough for teams... it has been shown over and over in this thread, you just continue to ignore it.

[kmil579]

That wasn't a statement genius, it was a question. The CBA does make it tough for teams... it has been shown over and over in this thread, you just continue to ignore it.

It has yet to be shown and will not be shown because it does not no matter how much you want to save face. Its over, finished. All you can do now is hold your ground and cling to your insane arguments. The CBA doesnt prohibit cutting a player for off field issues, dead money is expected when you cut any player to which a signing bonus was given so it is the signing bonus that may be a deterrant in some high profile cases but not the CBA. You have grasped at so many straws in this thread it is ridiculous.

[Veteran Leadership]

It has yet to be shown and will not be shown because it does not no matter how much you want to save face. Its over, finished. All you can do now is hold your ground and cling to your insane arguments. The CBA doesnt prohibit cutting a player for off field issues, dead money is expected when you cut any player to which a signing bonus was given so it is the signing bonus that may be a deterrant in some high profile cases but not the CBA. You have grasped at so many straws in this thread it is ridiculous.

I am impressed with you Kmil, you haven't made your own word up for quite some time now.:huh:

[kmil579]

I am impressed with you Kmil, you haven't made your own word up for quite some time now.:huh:

Cant stay away from me huh?

[Shockwave]

It has yet to be shown and will not be shown because it does not no matter how much you want to save face. Its over, finished. All you can do now is hold your ground and cling to your insane arguments. The CBA doesnt prohibit cutting a player for off field issues, dead money is expected when you cut any player to which a signing bonus was given so it is the signing bonus that may be a deterrant in some high profile cases but not the CBA. You have grasped at so many straws in this thread it is ridiculous.

You know what... you are extremely dense and nowhere near worth my time. Have fun trying to convince me of the same crap that has been disproven time and time again in this thread.

[Veteran Leadership]

Cant stay away from me huh?

I'm a sucker for easy victories, what can I say.:rolleyes:

[kmil579]

I'm a sucker for easy victories, what can I say.:rolleyes:


Come on. You cant seriously buy into any of the BS that these couple of posters have been spewing. Well maybe you can. Do you honestly think that the Collective Bargaining agreement makes it hard for a team to cut a player? It doesnt prohibit it as some have argued, dead money against the cap is expected when you cut a player and is done all the time. Give me your honest opinion.

[The Bat]

Come on. You cant seriously buy into any of the BS that these couple of posters have been spewing. Well maybe you can. Do you honestly think that the Collective Bargaining agreement makes it hard for a team to cut a player? It doesnt prohibit it as some have argued, dead money against the cap is expected when you cut a player and is done all the time. Give me your honest opinion.

LET IT GO!

Seriously, this is the most boring thread ever... :angry:

[Shockwave]

LET IT GO!

Seriously, this is the most boring thread ever... :angry:

Now I am sure there have been threads, and probably a lot of them, that are worse than this one... and I have probably been involved in them... and you have probably made this same statement.:lol:

[The Bat]

Now I am sure there have been threads, and probably a lot of them, that are worse than this one... and I have probably been involved in them... and you have probably made this same statement.:lol:

I'm sure you are right, but this one is even past "Beating a dead horse" bad...

[Shockwave]

I'm sure you are right, but this one is even past "Beating a dead horse" bad...

That I can't deny, but that's why I finally said I am done with the argument... some people just can't let things go.

[Veteran Leadership]

Come on. You cant seriously buy into any of the BS that these couple of posters have been spewing. Well maybe you can. Do you honestly think that the Collective Bargaining agreement makes it hard for a team to cut a player? It doesnt prohibit it as some have argued, dead money against the cap is expected when you cut a player and is done all the time. Give me your honest opinion.

I am not very familiar with the CBA, or contracts, or things of that ilk. What I can tell you is that with this new rush of bad player activity no team wants to have the image that the Bengals have. I think that getting rid of players is not as easy as you say, otherwise many of the Chargers would have been cut. Look, I don't think that it is impossible to get rid of bad behavior players, and I don't that it is as simple as you make it out to be. I mean seriously the Bengals lose nothing if the cut Thurman, he wont have played real football for TWO years, that is way to much rust for me to trust. I think the reason we have not cut Henry is that some of his charges are just kinda dumb. Like look at his charge where he had a party, and underage girls got in and drank. He never gave them alcohol, it was the equivalent of a twenty year old sneaking into a frat party and drinking, or an older brother buying beer for his younger siblings. The one where he "pulled a gun" on people was him having an illegal gun on him, that isn't cookie cutter stuff, but at the same time Henry is as much as a hardened criminal as I am. That is my honest opinion, and I'm down to debate it.

[kmil579]

I am not very familiar with the CBA, or contracts, or things of that ilk. What I can tell you is that with this new rush of bad player activity no team wants to have the image that the Bengals have. I think that getting rid of players is not as easy as you say, otherwise many of the Chargers would have been cut. Look, I don't think that it is impossible to get rid of bad behavior players, and I don't that it is as simple as you make it out to be. I mean seriously the Bengals lose nothing if the cut Thurman, he wont have played real football for TWO years, that is way to much rust for me to trust. I think the reason we have not cut Henry is that some of his charges are just kinda dumb. Like look at his charge where he had a party, and underage girls got in and drank. He never gave them alcohol, it was the equivalent of a twenty year old sneaking into a frat party and drinking, or an older brother buying beer for his younger siblings. The one where he "pulled a gun" on people was him having an illegal gun on him, that isn't cookie cutter stuff, but at the same time Henry is as much as a hardened criminal as I am. That is my honest opinion, and I'm down to debate it.


It is just as easy to cut a player for on the field issues as it is for off the field issues. There is nothing that forbids it in the CBA as was stated by others. It is that simple. Until someone shows where the CBA forbids it, the case should be closed. These knuckleheads who are saying that this thread is boring know that I have been right from my first post and dont want to admit that they cant back up their crap with any type of fact.

As far as Chris Henry, I think that the reason why the Bengals havent cut him is because they are willing to look the other way because they feel that his level of talent warrants it. He pled guilty to charges of providing alcohol to minors and was sentenced to 90 days in jail. All but 2 of those days were suspended. Maybe in Cincy Marijuana possession is looked at as a minor offense but its not where come from. Drug use is not accepted or tolerated. He pled guilty to driving without a license and auto insurance as well as the MJ possession for it being found in his shoe. He was charged with multiple gun charges including concealment and aggravated assault with a firearm to which he also pled guilty. I have no problem with someone having a gun but there are legal channels that must be gone through to carry one. I have a concealed carry permit and am able to carry a gun without a problem. He was also pulled over for a DUI and suspended twice by the league. As far as him being as much of a hardened criminal as you are, I surely hope you arent driving around drunk with marijuana stashed in your shoes with a gun illegally concealed on you while you are giving alcohol to minors.

[BengalsAtOSU]

JOE

PLEASE

http://www.symbian-freak.com/images/smilies/admin/locked.jpg

thanks.

Kill this thread before it becomes any more boring!