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!

     

Saints player says no NFL season .

Jeremy Igo

By Jeremy Igo,
in Carolina Panthers

Recommended Posts

Captroop Grand Master

Captroop

Posted
Posted

Yeah, I'm glad that every once in a while someone speaks up to put things back in perspective.

I want there to be sports. I want there to be football. But not matter how much I and a collective, demanding public are clamoring for it, ultimately someone needs to remind us that we are living in unprecedented times. And while a return of major team sports would give us a refreshing sense of long-missing normalcy, it would just be an illusion of normalcy.

The pandemic isn't over. It won't be over this summer. It probably won't be over in the fall. And it probably will be back with a vengeance in Winter. So as much as it will suck, it's just a year of our lives. We've lost a year of a sport before. There have been player strikes. There have been lockouts. Let's not put the players or the fans at risk. Bring football back when it's safe for everyone, and we won't be creating a petri dish for new cases that prolongs the pandemic.

Good for him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
musicman Proficient

musicman

Posted
Posted

The problem is can stadiums, some owners and businesses that support and make money off of football survive? He may be right but there may not be football to come back to with those losses. Too much invested to take a year off for some teams. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jase Apprentice

Jase

Posted
Posted

The 20% of the players who are vets and have made their money won't want to play. 

The 80% of the league that is young and hasn't made a lot of money yet will be more willing to take risks.

You see the same dynamic when it's time to make CBA negotiations.  It works to the owners' advantage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Captroop Grand Master

Captroop

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Panthera onca said:

Please explain it to me so I will be enlightened.

Okay. You're treating it like a work hazard. It's not like not wearing safety glasses, where if you make a decision, you put yourself at risk. Handling a virus isn't a "personal choice," because it puts other people at risk. Your decision to stay in the workforce isn't just putting you personally at risk. Because if you contract the virus, you can spread it to other people who can spread it to other people, etc. etc.

His "personal decision" to stay home doesn't really help matters, because as long as people are making the "personal decision" to go to work and act as though things are normal, the virus still has an opportunity to find hosts and spread.

And may I remind you, that's still happening. We've got new cases spiking like we haven't seen since April. And that's happening in spite of all the precautions we're supposed to be taking. And in spite of the fact that we've been living with this virus for months, know lots more about it than we did in April, and should be better prepared to stop the spread of the disease. 

image.png.317318660f5d995c74f677bb026765c9.png

^^^You know what that is? That's a poo-ton of "personal decisions" right there. ^^^

So the decision of some people to go back to work is ensuring the virus remains in the population and affects society, including the people who decide to not return to work. I mean, Malcolm can make the decision to not go to work, but he will still be in a society where he's at risk of contracting the virus because other people made the "personal decision" to return to work.  So, what you're suggesting isn't really, "don't go to work." In order for it to be effective, Malcolm would have to completely remove himself from society, which most people cannot do.

What your suggesting is less like work safety goggles, and a lot more more like treating drunk driving is a "personal choice." Yes, it's one person's decision, but it's putting himself and lots of other people at risk. Which is why it's illegal and people should abstain from doing it. The only difference it, if a drunk driver hits someone, they don't also turn into a drunk driver and start driving around drunk and hitting more people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

Go to topic listing

  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Panthers Fan 69
      Canes vs Panthers 7pm

      By Panthers Fan 69 · Posted

      Big opportunity for Nadeau if he gets called up. 
    • kungfoodude
      The Case for(or Against) Drafting/Signing a TE

      By kungfoodude · Posted

      I think OL is a pretty low overall concern but every single offseason there should be an attempt to upgrade through the draft. Edge rusher there are no easy answers, IMO. If a truly elite prospect falls to us in the 1st, that is fine. This draft seems to be much more heavy on 3-4 DE's or 4-3 DE's than it is on elite EDGE guys. You just have to keep plugging away every offseason and hope it works out. I don't think it's worth trading a ton of draft capital over at the moment, despite being a crucial roster weakness. Do the best you can and build a better roster and maybe eventually we will be in a position to be making a Parsons level trade.
    • strato
      The Case for(or Against) Drafting/Signing a TE

      By strato · Posted

      I understand that a capable OC is desirable but I also understand, or think I might, the dynamics with the staff and maybe I’m wrong but I do not see Canales firing his offensive right hand guy without significant pressure from Morgan or Tepper to do so.  So that, in addition to Canales stating pretty definitively, that he was keeping play calling.     I don’t know what you do in that circumstance. It would need to be important enough to you to make it worth firing Canales to get your OC play caller.    To that, if Canales not being good so far at play calling (and we only have the one year in TB to factor with what we have see here), is accepted as a given, it is only fair and honest to consider what an impediment having to construct and administer an offense around Bryce Young’s game would be to an OC. I would say it is a big complication, big surprise there.  You won’t know about Canales 100% until you remove Bryce from the equation and get him a clean slate to create from - without the Bryce restrictions.  And yeah you will likely end up without a top notch high flying offense. But it still *could* be much better than it is now. In the right hands.  So that is potentially what we’re looking at. I suppose we could keep Bryce and bring in a college style coach and design a Bryce rollout offense or something and see if that helped. I am not in favor of that, probably the last thing I would want.  We could do nothing, which I am not in favor of. We could fire Canales and keep Bryce (my least preferred option). We could get rid of both, which I would begrudgingly accept but would lament the interruption of the continuity that a 3rd year would provide.  You could get rid of Bryce and get a couple of new QB prospects in here, vets, drafts, whatever… that would be my choice.  I am afraid I know how it’s gonna go. All I can really say about that is, there has not been a single time in three years that I looked at the upcoming game and felt like we were gonna win because we have Bryce Young playing QB. Because of what he could do with the ball in his hands. Not once. Sure there have been a handful of games that he was part of the reason we won, a couple he was a big part, but not enough times to feel like that is my expectation. At best, it is cross your fingers and hope for good Bryce. 
×
×
  • Create New...