Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Pro bowl, awards and suspensions (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Two Deep
- Start date
No I mean within the year that you are suspended should you be eligible for awards.
Serenity Now
Footballguy
I agree that this should be the rule, but since it's not in place right now, I don't think it could be enforced this year. I bet this will come up in future bargaining sessions though.
Despyzer
Lousy Attention Whore
Why is it that I don't remember all this righteous indignation when Julius Peppers won Defensive Rookie of the Year?
Personally, Merriman kind of annoys me, and that "Lights Out" dance is the height of ridiculousness, but I do think we are holding him to a new standard that never used to apply.
Personally, Merriman kind of annoys me, and that "Lights Out" dance is the height of ridiculousness, but I do think we are holding him to a new standard that never used to apply.
Every player is eligible or every starter on openning day or somesuch. It's easy enough for savvy fans to just not vote for someone.Moss wasn't giving a full effort and said as such with the Vikes and was still voted to the pro bowl, right? I would imagine the casual fan votes for highlight reels, to a degree. I don't imagine any "don't vote for player X" articles coming out in the future. They'll still vote for the guy that made the incredible catch they just can't forget from the highlight reel.Two Deep said:
I'm not trying to be righteous I'm just trying to see if anyone else is surprised at how the NFL handles rule breakers, accused criminals etc. I mean Chris Henry has single handedly made a mockery of the league (he is the Mike Tyson of football..) I think at the very least if you have been suspended you shouldn't be awarded that same year.
That would probably not happen. Maybe cease voting for a player once an incident occurs but after the fact, that's a "hard sell" for the NFL.I don't disagree with ya Two Deep I just don't think there's anyway to get that casual fan to not vote for Moss in the above instance
Mahoney
Footballguy
I don't think players should be eligible for awards during the same season they were suspended, specifically for performance enhancers, and the reason why is a fact I hear overlooked all the time when Steroids are discussed.
We'll take a rough blue print of what Merriman did this year as the fresh example:
Guy plays a bunch of games.
Gets caught.
Misses four games
Comes back and still plays in this case in particular "lights out"
Now here is where I think most people miss it. They excuse the act by pointing out the guy "served his time" and now he is clean. That logic is faulty. Steroids are performance enhancing. They are not a drug like weed, coke, or greenies, that after you stop taking them you sober up and you are right back to normal. After you take steroids.....YOU ARE STILL STRONGER AND FASTER THAN YOU WERE IF YOU NEVER TOOK THEM! Your physical advantages you gained from these performance enhancers don't disappear just because you stop taking them. So the real example of a Merriman or anybody else looks like this and this is why awards and accolades going to them in the same season is a bad message:
Guy plays a bunch of games- HE IS ON STEROIDS AND HAS AN UNFAIR ADVANTAGE.
Gets caught.
Misses four games. FROM A SUSPENSION BECAUSE HE GOT CAUGHT CHEATING.
Comes back and plays well- AFTER A MONTH OFF OF DOING NOTHING BUT WORKING OUT, HE IS FRESHER, AND STILL MORE JACKED AND FASTER THAN HE NORMALLY WOULD BE BECASUE HE JUST GOT DONE CYCLING JUICE A MONTH AGO!!!
Just becasue the league tells a guy to sit out 4 games because that is the punishment a pair of unions arbitrarily decided was a just punishment for this type of act doesn't mean when you come back you aren't still feeling the benefits of your performance enhancers you took. In the case of steroids, you absolutely do.
That's why I think that rewards that usually trigger performance bonuses shouldn't be issued to those players.
It sends a crummy message to kids, and in my book, due to the lasting physical effect steroids have on the body you can't be deemed on a level playing field any time soon after you have taken them. Certainly not 4 weeks.
We'll take a rough blue print of what Merriman did this year as the fresh example:
Guy plays a bunch of games.
Gets caught.
Misses four games
Comes back and still plays in this case in particular "lights out"
Now here is where I think most people miss it. They excuse the act by pointing out the guy "served his time" and now he is clean. That logic is faulty. Steroids are performance enhancing. They are not a drug like weed, coke, or greenies, that after you stop taking them you sober up and you are right back to normal. After you take steroids.....YOU ARE STILL STRONGER AND FASTER THAN YOU WERE IF YOU NEVER TOOK THEM! Your physical advantages you gained from these performance enhancers don't disappear just because you stop taking them. So the real example of a Merriman or anybody else looks like this and this is why awards and accolades going to them in the same season is a bad message:
Guy plays a bunch of games- HE IS ON STEROIDS AND HAS AN UNFAIR ADVANTAGE.
Gets caught.
Misses four games. FROM A SUSPENSION BECAUSE HE GOT CAUGHT CHEATING.
Comes back and plays well- AFTER A MONTH OFF OF DOING NOTHING BUT WORKING OUT, HE IS FRESHER, AND STILL MORE JACKED AND FASTER THAN HE NORMALLY WOULD BE BECASUE HE JUST GOT DONE CYCLING JUICE A MONTH AGO!!!
Just becasue the league tells a guy to sit out 4 games because that is the punishment a pair of unions arbitrarily decided was a just punishment for this type of act doesn't mean when you come back you aren't still feeling the benefits of your performance enhancers you took. In the case of steroids, you absolutely do.
That's why I think that rewards that usually trigger performance bonuses shouldn't be issued to those players.
It sends a crummy message to kids, and in my book, due to the lasting physical effect steroids have on the body you can't be deemed on a level playing field any time soon after you have taken them. Certainly not 4 weeks.
Last edited by a moderator:
massraider
Footballguy
If you are asking if anyone is surprised that the NFL seems to be going easy on these kinds of players, the answer is:They shouldn't be surprised. Why would they be surprised? This has been the way it's been done for years.Chris Henry has only made a mockery of the league to people that actually thought the NFL was full of swell guys. The NFL is exactly the same as it always was. The only thing Chris Henry has made a mockery of is Marvin Lewis' rep as a disciplinarian.
I don't recall anyone getting into so much trouble so fast nor the commish calling to offer help disciplinning. Henry better get himself together if he plans to keep playing. He gets a warning(suspension) and returns from it only to get arrested. I don't know how he could be any more clear about showing a disrespect for the rules+penalties.
-- Drug Policy Busters to be Banned from Pro Bowl --
Sun Feb 4, 2007 --from FFMastermind.com
Players who fail the NFL's substance abuse policy next season likely will be banned from playing in the 2008 Pro Bowl. Sources tell ESPN's Chris Mortensen that commissioner Roger Goodell and NFL Players Association executive director Gene Upshaw have agreed to ban any player who tests positive for performance-enhancing drugs from playing in the Pro Bowl that same season. The policy would take effect beginning with the 2007 regular season. Upshaw met Monday in Miami with player reps, who supported the ban, union and league sources told Mortensen. One more discussion is planned at the winter scouting combine in late February, with a formal announcement no later than March, Mortensen reported. A ban also would have financial implications for some players, because some have Pro Bowl bonuses and base-pay escalators tied to the Pro Bowl that would be negatively affected.
Sun Feb 4, 2007 --from FFMastermind.com
Players who fail the NFL's substance abuse policy next season likely will be banned from playing in the 2008 Pro Bowl. Sources tell ESPN's Chris Mortensen that commissioner Roger Goodell and NFL Players Association executive director Gene Upshaw have agreed to ban any player who tests positive for performance-enhancing drugs from playing in the Pro Bowl that same season. The policy would take effect beginning with the 2007 regular season. Upshaw met Monday in Miami with player reps, who supported the ban, union and league sources told Mortensen. One more discussion is planned at the winter scouting combine in late February, with a formal announcement no later than March, Mortensen reported. A ban also would have financial implications for some players, because some have Pro Bowl bonuses and base-pay escalators tied to the Pro Bowl that would be negatively affected.
Similar threads
