Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

New policy requires on-field players, personnel to stand for anthem


Manther

Recommended Posts

Regardless of what side of the argument you're on, it seems like a reasonable agreement.  You can stay in the locker room if you want to and do whatever you want during the anthem.  No penalty or repercussions.  But if you're on the field during the anthem, you stand.

Both sides win.

/Issue

I wonder which side will be the first to take issue with a good old fashioned compromise?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, ECUPantherFan said:

Regardless of what side of the argument you're on, it seems like a reasonable agreement.  You can stay in the locker room if you want to and do whatever you want during the anthem.  No penalty or repercussions.  But if you're on the field during the anthem, you stand.

Both sides win.

/Issue

I wonder which side will be the first to take issue with a good old fashioned compromise?

 

Yeah. Peppers did this last year too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a better idea: don't get your panties in a wad over what someone else does during the national anthem. The real failure of American freedom is our inability to allow others to practice theirs in a way we disagree with without feeling like we have to vehemently abuse ours in retaliation. And that is how all of our "freedoms" end up as a farce.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now we just need a league personnel that works on the sideline to announce that he/she is a Jehovah's Witness or other religion that does not stand for the flag and this new policy, which effects league personel as well as the players, is discriminatory to his/her religious beliefs to blow this policy up. Make it all one big poo show.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • I feel like this trade just lives rent free in people's heads and keeps morphing into different things. First thing is that the rumored trade was for future firsts. They wouldn't have any extra picks in 2023; the firsts would have been for 2024 and 2025. With very few exceptions, NFL GMs don't value picks that far away. You have to have a lot of job security to pull that off. Like Chiefs, Eagles, Rams kinda stability. That's obviously not the case with David Tepper, especially since he'd just fired his head coach. No GM except for like Howie Roseman is going to trade an asset you have now for a future asset you probably get to use.  Second, at the time you'd have to assume these are first rounders late in the first round. Obviously currency is currency and the panthers need young players, but these weren't slam dunk top ten picks. At the end of the day there's one pick that separates a first and second round pick.  Lastly, the only place that ever reported this trade was the Rams. All the reporters just repeated what McVay said and it became gospel. We have no idea how serious the negotiations were, if they ever really happened, if the offer was real, etc. And I personally believe McVay and Sneed are the kind of guys who would make up rumors like that to fug up other teams, mostly because I assume if I've thought of it someone smarter than me has.  I don't know how you'd call it the greatest draft haul of all time. Firsts quickly lose their value the farther out they are and Burns had 16.5 sacks last season. And anyway those picks would probably just been tossed into the burning inferno of the Bryce trade up so it's a moot point anyway. 
×
×
  • Create New...