NFL - Are You Ready For Some Football?!! - Post SuperBowl

[-Jrabbit]

There's no rage from me because the Bears benefited.
What do I care if the 49ers are stupid?

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by Donegeal
So there is no rage because everybody does it?

Why should there be rage? It happened during the offseason, unlike the Pats, it didn't and couldn't affect games. The 49ers got what they deserved, The Pats lost a draft choice, so they got what they deserve.

ACK!

[Donegeal]

So cheating during the off season doesn't bother you?

And the only reason this didn't/couldn't affect any games is because the cheating ultimately failed. Don't even try to tell me that if the 49ers had managed to sign him that it wouldn't have affected any games this season. Hell, it could be easily argued that tampering has far greater effects than taping.

[Theben]

If someone got bilked out of their life savings, got killed, or similar, I'd be outraged. But it's a game, and this crime is pretty mild. If you're asking for rage wrt the Pats scandal, I didn't care much about that either, but it was amusing and also sad to see how the Pats reacted to it.

[Donegeal]

Sorry Tehben. The 'rage' thing is not directed at you. It's directed to all those that were screaming "CHEATERS!!!" at the Pats, and saying "I hate the Pats because they cheat!" and now that a team that sucks gets causght, they don't seem to mind.

[snoopy369]

I do think that the issue is 'in-game cheating' versus 'tampering with players'. Of things of equivalent magnitude, the former bothers me much more than the latter. Certainly significant tampering would be more annoying than a minor in-game cheating incident; but this was a pretty minor (and unsuccessful...) tampering issue, so it's not a big deal. If they did it with a lot of players... that could be different.

[SlowwHand]

Originally posted by Tuberski


Why should there be rage? It happened during the offseason, unlike the Pats, it didn't and couldn't affect games. The 49ers got what they deserved, The Pats lost a draft choice, so they got what they deserve.

ACK!

Not exactly. They didn't lose the pick that SF traded to them; they lost the next to last pick in the 1st round.
Pats came out smelling like roses.

[Lord Avalon]

While I don't think it's insignificant to lose a first rounder, even if it's a late one, it does seem odd that Goodell didn't take away the earlier one.

[snoopy369]

Presumably it's because they're losing THEIR first rounder, which is the latter one. He may feel that it is appropriate to penalize them based on what they are entitled to (particularly considering other penalties levied for other offenses). The penalty "Lose the highest draft pick you are entitled to based on previous trades" is more significant - much more so - than "Lose the draft pick you are entitled to based on your record last year", after all.

[-Jrabbit]

Presumably it's because they're losing THEIR first rounder

That logic suggests that good teams would get lesser penalties than bad teams, who presumably would lose a top-10 pick, for the same crime. Makes no sense.

[SlowwHand]

It certainly doesn't, Ollie.

[-Jrabbit]

Former Hawaii QB Colt Brennan will undergo surgery on April 7 to repair a torn labrum in his right hip and be sidelined for 8-12 weeks.

The injury was apparently suffered during the first practice for the Senior Bowl in January, but doctors originally thought it would heal by itself. The hip continued to bother him, however, prompting a second opinion. Brennan was projected to go in the late rounds of the draft, but the surgery could cause him to slip out of it completely.

Source: SportsIllustrated.com

[SlowwHand]

Nice one.

[snoopy369]

Interesting. I'd still like to see him as a Bear, if only as the #4 QB (practice squad)...

[-Jrabbit]

Looks like he'd be a good 7th-rounder with one of the 3 compensatory picks they were awarded. Low risk, decent upside, no pressure.