Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 5 of 13 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 191
  1. #61
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    12,187
    Quote Originally Posted by warfelg View Post
    Those are both less an issue with voting and more an issue with communication of the action at hand.

    So let me ask you this:
    Do you have an issue with 17 games and 3 WC teams? It wasn't a unanimous vote. What about the CBA? it wasn't ratified by every team. Wasn't voted yes by every player. What about last year's PI rule? IIRC 3 teams voted against it.

    Your basically if something isn't unanimous then you can't do it if you are saying that 1 contrary vote means we shouldn't do something.
    That's not what I'm saying at all. The NFLPA and NFL have a contractual obligation in place that determines how, when, and where players (employees) will play (work). This is a legally binding vote that is then incorporated in player contracts.

    AV's situation is not contractual, but instead a matter of the team making a meaningless, non-enforceable mob rule vote to try to force unity where it clearly didn't exist. If the goal was "unity" then if even one player wasn't on board, they should've scrapped the idea, because that's the difference between unity and a majority vote. I imagine we've all been in a scenario where everyone around us wanted to do something (the majority) that we didn't want to do, yet didn't care about how we (the minority) felt about it. Then when sometime in the minority doesn't participate or deviates from the majority plan: "hey what happened, we all agreed!!" even though they probably didn't ALL agree.

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    Posts
    60,329
    So **** the team amiright?

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    Posts
    60,329
    Quote Originally Posted by manbearchef View Post
    That's not what I'm saying at all. The NFLPA and NFL have a contractual obligation in place that determines how, when, and where players (employees) will play (work). This is a legally binding vote that is then incorporated in player contracts.

    AV's situation is not contractual, but instead a matter of the team making a meaningless, non-enforceable mob rule vote to try to force unity where it clearly didn't exist. If the goal was "unity" then if even one player wasn't on board, they should've scrapped the idea, because that's the difference between unity and a majority vote. I imagine we've all been in a scenario where everyone around us wanted to do something (the majority) that we didn't want to do, yet didn't care about how we (the minority) felt about it. Then when sometime in the minority doesn't participate or deviates from the majority plan: "hey what happened, we all agreed!!" even though they probably didn't ALL agree.
    That is not what I was talking about.

    The players have no contractual obligation to have to vote on a CBA or ratify it. The second part is what exactly happens with every CBA vote. It's what happened with the 17th game, the 3rd WC team. Not every team was for it.

    So let me ask again, when it came out that AB was allowed to do things that other players weren't, when Big Ben was allowed to, when Bell was allowed to; did you have a problem with the team allowing them to? AB wasn't contractually obligated to stay in the dorms at training camp. Ben isn't contractually obligated to practice more than what the team did. Bell wasn't contractually obligated to only play football and not work on his rap career during the season. Yet those are places the Steelers got ripped for letting other players do something the rest of the team wasn't doing.

    But in this case they should let someone do something completely different. And not just from the team, but from what the NFL is allowing. Again, Sgt 1st Class Cashe's name wasn't part of the list of names the NFL had approved for putting on the back of the helmet. So not only was AV going against what the players agreed on, he was going against what the NFL approved, the NFPA approved, and picked a name that had nothing to do with social injustice.

    Frankly I don't give a **** if some of the players didn't vote for this name being on there. They were told that they were to put forth a unified message and all wear the same name. What's funny about this is it's highly likely that more than just AV didn't agree with having Antwon Rose Jr's name on there; but they didn't feel the need to do something completely different. If you are told to do something as a team, you do it.

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    88,139
    Quote Originally Posted by warfelg View Post
    That is not what I was talking about.

    The players have no contractual obligation to have to vote on a CBA or ratify it. The second part is what exactly happens with every CBA vote. It's what happened with the 17th game, the 3rd WC team. Not every team was for it.

    So let me ask again, when it came out that AB was allowed to do things that other players weren't, when Big Ben was allowed to, when Bell was allowed to; did you have a problem with the team allowing them to? AB wasn't contractually obligated to stay in the dorms at training camp. Ben isn't contractually obligated to practice more than what the team did. Bell wasn't contractually obligated to only play football and not work on his rap career during the season. Yet those are places the Steelers got ripped for letting other players do something the rest of the team wasn't doing.

    But in this case they should let someone do something completely different. And not just from the team, but from what the NFL is allowing. Again, Sgt 1st Class Cashe's name wasn't part of the list of names the NFL had approved for putting on the back of the helmet. So not only was AV going against what the players agreed on, he was going against what the NFL approved, the NFPA approved, and picked a name that had nothing to do with social injustice.

    Frankly I don't give a **** if some of the players didn't vote for this name being on there. They were told that they were to put forth a unified message and all wear the same name. What's funny about this is it's highly likely that more than just AV didn't agree with having Antwon Rose Jr's name on there; but they didn't feel the need to do something completely different. If you are told to do something as a team, you do it.
    To your last sentence, yes, IF it has to do with football. This doesnít.

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    Posts
    60,329
    Quote Originally Posted by BDawk4Prez View Post
    To your last sentence, yes, IF it has to do with football. This doesnít.
    So then you are sorry for ripping the Steelers last year for allowing Ben, AB, Bell and other star players leeway in non-onfield things?

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    88,139
    Quote Originally Posted by warfelg View Post
    So then you are sorry for ripping the Steelers last year for allowing Ben, AB, Bell and other star players leeway in non-onfield things?
    I believe my biggest rip was the way they allowed AB to act.

    That's a football issue. Wearing a name on a helmet isn't.

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    12,187
    Quote Originally Posted by warfelg View Post
    So **** the team amiright?
    If they want to bully him into supporting a cause he doesn't want to participate in, Absolutely, **** the team. But I haven't seen any teammates **** on him for doing what he did, so I the team has done the right thing so far.

    Quote Originally Posted by warfelg View Post
    That is not what I was talking about.

    The players have no contractual obligation to have to vote on a CBA or ratify it. The second part is what exactly happens with every CBA vote. It's what happened with the 17th game, the 3rd WC team. Not every team was for it.

    So let me ask again, when it came out that AB was allowed to do things that other players weren't, when Big Ben was allowed to, when Bell was allowed to; did you have a problem with the team allowing them to? AB wasn't contractually obligated to stay in the dorms at training camp. Ben isn't contractually obligated to practice more than what the team did. Bell wasn't contractually obligated to only play football and not work on his rap career during the season. Yet those are places the Steelers got ripped for letting other players do something the rest of the team wasn't doing.

    But in this case they should let someone do something completely different. And not just from the team, but from what the NFL is allowing. Again, Sgt 1st Class Cashe's name wasn't part of the list of names the NFL had approved for putting on the back of the helmet. So not only was AV going against what the players agreed on, he was going against what the NFL approved, the NFPA approved, and picked a name that had nothing to do with social injustice.

    Frankly I don't give a **** if some of the players didn't vote for this name being on there. They were told that they were to put forth a unified message and all wear the same name. What's funny about this is it's highly likely that more than just AV didn't agree with having Antwon Rose Jr's name on there; but they didn't feel the need to do something completely different. If you are told to do something as a team, you do it.
    Players are contractually obligated to play within the realm of the CBA that is non-unanimously voted upon. So regardless of if they disagree with game 17, they're bound by the CBA. That's not a matter of some random team vote that had no contractual requirements.

    How the Steelers run their team is their choice. If you don't contractually obligate your players to do things, you can't make them do what you want.

    I agree, AV went against the NFL when choosing to write a different name, but don't you think this would be much worse if he simply covered it rather than choosing a different person? It's pretty ****** the NFL is only allowing select names in the first place, hopefully this opens up the discussion to allow players to support other causes, similar to Marshall's mental awareness cleats a few years ago.

  8. #68
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    Posts
    60,329
    Quote Originally Posted by manbearchef View Post
    If they want to bully him into supporting a cause he doesn't want to participate in, Absolutely, **** the team. But I haven't seen any teammates **** on him for doing what he did, so I the team has done the right thing so far.



    Players are contractually obligated to play within the realm of the CBA that is non-unanimously voted upon. So regardless of if they disagree with game 17, they're bound by the CBA. That's not a matter of some random team vote that had no contractual requirements.

    How the Steelers run their team is their choice. If you don't contractually obligate your players to do things, you can't make them do what you want.

    I agree, AV went against the NFL when choosing to write a different name, but don't you think this would be much worse if he simply covered it rather than choosing a different person? It's pretty ****** the NFL is only allowing select names in the first place, hopefully this opens up the discussion to allow players to support other causes, similar to Marshall's mental awareness cleats a few years ago.
    1 - No one bullied him. They said he did it unknowing to them. Thatís the part I take an issue with. He didnít even talk to them that he wanted to do that.

    2 - Again with the game or CBA thing, you arenít having the same conversation I am. Iím asking because they arenít unanimous in voting then they shouldnít have happened.

    3 - They didnít contractually obligate anyone to to anything with this. Heís not breaking a contract. Now he might have broken the trust with some players for not saying this was his choice, but there was no contract that said he had to.

    4 - I think covering it completely or putting an unapproved name is ******. I donít 100% agree with the NFLís list or what the NBAís list is. But if I were a player and thatís what I had to chose from I would pick from it.

    5 - NFL has been open to other causes for a while. William Gay wore purple for domestic violence for years after breast cancer awareness month because his dad used to beat his mom. He got fined yearly for it. Brandon Marshall did the mental health thing. Now the NFL has a ďMy Cause My CleatsĒ week where the players can wear any cleats or any color for an issue of their choosing. I think they ought to do a full month of that rather than a week.

    6 - So hereís why I take the big issue of AV doing this. Every November the NFL does the armed services salute where things are the colors of fatigues, or camo. AV hasnít done much in any November he played to bring awareness to war heroís. Hasnít pushed for their names on end zones, hasnít painted it on his cleats, doesnít talk about it with the media. Thatís a month yearly that he should be at the forefront of it. But when media asks him to talk about it he just says heís a member of the Steelers and his focus is on that. But suddenly now, itís important to tell the story of a war vet. To his credit I looks up Cashes story, but why hasnít this been something that heís been at the forefront of in the past?

  9. #69
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    Posts
    60,329
    Quote Originally Posted by BDawk4Prez View Post
    I believe my biggest rip was the way they allowed AB to act.

    That's a football issue. Wearing a name on a helmet isn't.
    How is staying in a house instead of a dorm a football issue?

    Iím curious. Your daughters softball team decides as a team that they will wear pink because one of the teammates moms has bread cancer on the bus to an away game. Everyone gets there and one girl is wearing is wearing orange and says itís because a cousin has leukemia. Your fine with that? I wouldnít be.

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    IL
    Posts
    27,407
    Quote Originally Posted by dbroncsinmo View Post
    PSD. Where mods are trolls.
    What a bad take lol. Imagine calling being against righty rhetoric "trolling" when you're the one trolling me.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack the Ripper View Post
    Imagine being a 14-year old victim of sexual assault and seeing an entire professional football team wearing your assaulterís name on their helmet and then having bleeding heart liberals who claim to be the party of womenís rights make him their personal hero and say that his criminal actions are irrelevant.

    You canít make this stuff up. lol
    Imagine not understanding what I'm saying and going back to righty rhetoric about "thugs!". Then continuing to troll me, and calling me the troll. lmao.

    Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
    Last edited by blams; 09-17-2020 at 10:08 AM.

    Click here to register!

    Hope to see some new posters around here soon.

  11. #71
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    Posts
    60,329

  12. #72
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    Posts
    60,329
    FWIW since the point I was making is seemingly getting twisted a bit:

    My issue is that once again AV singled himself out by not voicing his intentions to teammates before doing something. If he wanted to honor Cashe, then fine, but do it when itís the right time or go to the captains after and have a discussion.

    Iím not a fan of Mark Madden but he made the comment that is seems AV still plays for the US Army and does think of himself as a Steeler. Now I think that first part is rather inflammatory because once a soldier always a soldier for the good. But the second part rings true. It seems because of these choices that he doesnít really care for the team and itís frustrating that heís done something like this twice, no matter how well intended.

  13. #73
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    12,187
    Quote Originally Posted by warfelg View Post
    1 - No one bullied him. They said he did it unknowing to them. Thatís the part I take an issue with. He didnít even talk to them that he wanted to do that.

    Agreed, I'm saying, if a teammate starts **** with him over this, **** the team. I highly doubt his teammates never saw his helmet before the game. I'm also doubting he did this in secret; anyone ballsy enough to stand for what he believes in by himself in front of 53 teammates probably isn't going along with it to begin with.

    2 - Again with the game or CBA thing, you arenít having the same conversation I am. Iím asking because they arenít unanimous in voting then they shouldnít have happened.

    I'm explaining the difference between the two scenarios. If a player is upset about the CBA/union negotiations, their option is to play or to not play and try to raise awareness for the next CBA. When you have a CBA, you don't get to have the individual freedom that you get when a team is trying to make a non-contractually obligated statement. As an individual, AV has no obligation to be a sheep with his team on a social justice issue of he doesn't agree with it.

    3 - They didnít contractually obligate anyone to to anything with this. Heís not breaking a contract. Now he might have broken the trust with some players for not saying this was his choice, but there was no contract that said he had to.

    And that's the choice he made. If you're teammates can't handle differing opinions, then they're not your friends/brothers, they're your coworkers. So far, his teammates haven't turned on him publicly.

    4 - I think covering it completely or putting an unapproved name is ******. I donít 100% agree with the NFLís list or what the NBAís list is. But if I were a player and thatís what I had to chose from I would pick from it.

    It would be better if he didn't go rogue from the list, but even if he did pick a different approved name, he's going to be asked why he didn't wear Rose's name, to which anything indicating his lack of support for Rose is going to be criticized.

    6 - So hereís why I take the big issue of AV doing this. Every November the NFL does the armed services salute where things are the colors of fatigues, or camo. AV hasnít done much in any November he played to bring awareness to war heroís. Hasnít pushed for their names on end zones, hasnít painted it on his cleats, doesnít talk about it with the media. Thatís a month yearly that he should be at the forefront of it. But when media asks him to talk about it he just says heís a member of the Steelers and his focus is on that. But suddenly now, itís important to tell the story of a war vet. To his credit I looks up Cashes story, but why hasnít this been something that heís been at the forefront of in the past?

    How have you missed his USAA commercials. And I'm almost certain I remember him doing a pre-recorded segment during a game last year about the military.

    I think it's possible maybe he wants to be a Steeler 1st, but is seeing all of his teammates play SJW and has now decided he will also start putting his causes in front of the team. It's just something to think about, if someone's going to try to make me partake in a cause, I'd probably just find my own cause.
    Unless the teams start incorporating this into their contacts (which they won't because the union already threatened them when the idea of mandatory standing for the anthem was played with), it's a non-issue.

  14. #74
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    Posts
    60,329
    Quote Originally Posted by manbearchef View Post
    Unless the teams start incorporating this into their contacts (which they won't because the union already threatened them when the idea of mandatory standing for the anthem was played with), it's a non-issue.
    On the first point up there:
    No one has called him out as a teammate. All they said is they were off guard. So you were saying bad things about the team then for something they didnít do?

    I personally think itís a bad teammate thing to do in not at least giving anyone the heads up you want to do this.

    As for the Rose story, more players said today that they didnít fully research it. They saw a name from East Pittsburgh and wanted to recognize that it happened in their city.

  15. #75
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    88,139
    Quote Originally Posted by warfelg View Post
    How is staying in a house instead of a dorm a football issue?

    Iím curious. Your daughters softball team decides as a team that they will wear pink because one of the teammates moms has bread cancer on the bus to an away game. Everyone gets there and one girl is wearing is wearing orange and says itís because a cousin has leukemia. Your fine with that? I wouldnít be.
    1. If it's a team rule that everyone stays together then it's a football issue. It's part of the "football" side of things. You're examples, thus far, are poor, imo.

    2. High school sports is probably a bit different. If the teammate chose to do that though, that's within her right.

Page 5 of 13 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •