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!

     

Gronkowski is a moron


Mr. Scot

Recommended Posts

48 minutes ago, carolinanimal said:

When did not saying stupid stuff in public become "PC culture"?

over time the words "pc" came to just mean "being a good person," and there are a lot of people in this country who absolutely refuse to be a good person and get furious if you even suggest it. why do you think gilette caused a meltdown for making a commercial that said "be a good man?" because half the people alive right now are disgusting people and will be angered if you suggest they try to not be

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, rodeo said:

over time the words "pc" came to just mean "being a good person," and there are a lot of people in this country who absolutely refuse to be a good person and get furious if you even suggest it. why do you think gilette caused a meltdown for making a commercial that said "be a good man?" because half the people alive right now are disgusting people and will be angered if you suggest they try to not be

Maybe once, but I have to respectfully disagree.  PC morphed past not being an ogre and into "Somebody, somewhere might be offended, so I am offended, and you are an evil person for saying that."  Like pretty much everything else, it has gone to the extreme.  Frankly, you may want to look at your last sentence and see how that fits in.  Since half the people alive probably do not agree with you (which is pretty much normal for anything from anyone), they are disgusting people.  Really?  

You'll notice that I have not gone into the abyss of the Gillette commercial.  It was another shrug from me.  Anybody setting their moral compass off a television ad has enough problems.  As for companies running ad campaigns, they base those decisions on whatever they believe will sell more product after the ad than before, because of the ad.  There is a long history of companies claiming to take a moral high ground only to backtrack when the response is not what their advertising agency claimed it would be. 

The NFL is no different, BTW.  Putting PC aside, they were full bore into promoting big hits, and as ESPN used to say "all jacked up," right up until they weren't.  Taking any judgement of merits of that sudden shift aside, they turned on a dime.  Promoting the hits (legal or not per NFL rules) was great while they were perceived to attract a bigger audience, and then, overnight, they were evil and not to be talked about at all.  Moral compass change?  Nah, potential to pay out a huge settlement in litigation with the videos being one of the plaintiff's exhibits caused a "clarification."

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Sgt Schultz said:

Maybe once, but I have to respectfully disagree.  PC morphed past not being an ogre and into "Somebody, somewhere might be offended, so I am offended, and you are an evil person for saying that."  Like pretty much everything else, it has gone to the extreme.  Frankly, you may want to look at your last sentence and see how that fits in.  Since half the people alive probably do not agree with you (which is pretty much normal for anything from anyone), they are disgusting people.  Really?  

You'll notice that I have not gone into the abyss of the Gillette commercial.  It was another shrug from me.  Anybody setting their moral compass off a television ad has enough problems.  As for companies running ad campaigns, they base those decisions on whatever they believe will sell more product after the ad than before, because of the ad.  There is a long history of companies claiming to take a moral high ground only to backtrack when the response is not what their advertising agency claimed it would be. 

The NFL is no different, BTW.  Putting PC aside, they were full bore into promoting big hits, and as ESPN used to say "all jacked up," right up until they weren't.  Taking any judgement of merits of that sudden shift aside, they turned on a dime.  Promoting the hits (legal or not per NFL rules) was great while they were perceived to attract a bigger audience, and then, overnight, they were evil and not to be talked about at all.  Moral compass change?  Nah, potential to pay out a huge settlement in litigation with the videos being one of the plaintiff's exhibits caused a "clarification."

 

No one called Gronk evil, they called him stupid, which he is. He's been given countless opportunities to prove it. He shouldn't have made the joke. It wasn't even funny for an adult. It's something a fifth grader would say to his friends. 

Gillette and Nike have both posted positive financial results as a result of their commercials. Telling people they can be better, even through schlocky commercials isn't 'PC.' It's common sense advertising. I'll bet you can't name me five companies/instances in this long history of backtracking you refer to.

ESPN, not the NFL, came up with 'All Jacked Up', and if we learned anything from the short-lived series Playmakers, it's that ESPN and the NFL's interests are not always aligned. Having concussions brought into the national conversation helped force the NFL's hand, but working to reduce those big hits is to the NFL's long term benefit. Who cares why they did it as long as they're doing it now. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, PanthersBigD said:

No one called Gronk evil, they called him stupid, which he is. He's been given countless opportunities to prove it. He shouldn't have made the joke. It wasn't even funny for an adult. It's something a fifth grader would say to his friends. 

Correct.

But hey, that's just Gronk being Gronk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Mr. Scot said:

I was hoping this would take some of the light off of the Aints moaning and b*tching, but it has kind of fallen by the wayside.

Maybe we can get Cam Jordan and Vicodin Payton to start wearing #UsToo shirts for their cause to majorly change NFL rules because they were the 731st team in NFL history to get screwed by terrible reffing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Outside of cerrato, I do like our draft overall. Hard to get can't miss draft picks when you pick late in the draft
    • Very True--and I am a former HS English teacher.  
    • Not a Moore fan-but he had a few good games last year-but I want players that scare you--Renfrow's route running and intelligence, Legette's size, speed, and strength, AT's intelligence and route running, Coker's body control, strong hands, and abilty to win contested catches, and TMac's size, body control, and ability to find soft spots in zone coverages.  Horn gives them the ability to stretch the field and he plays special teams.   Moore has a nice smile and can dance.  He filled in well last season, but to get better as a team, you have to upgrade your players.  I think Moore is a bottom of the roster guy who got bumped when we drafted 2 WRs and signed a legit free agent.  Here is the thing--TMac makes us better because he is great against the zone--man?  Good luck with that.  AT's role can be reduced, and that is probably a good thing.  He can specialize in situational football. Coker?  Just getting started. XL?  Just getting started.  Drafting TMac was probably a bit of a wake up call, but XL will be better as the 2. Renfrow?  I see him splitting reps with AT--keeping both fresh and giving different looks. Horn?  Watch the safety cheat his side when he is in the game--I see a young Steve Smith type in him, but he has yet to play a game.  I hear that Morgan loves him.
×
×
  • Create New...