NFL 2014 Season Thread

[Tuberski]

No, it means that Garrard was better than Leftwych.

ACK!

[Ben Kenobi]

No, it means that Garrard was better than Leftwych.

I believe Garrard is the highest player drafted in a poly fantasy league to get cut before the season started.

[SlowwHand]

Who are both better than Ryan Leaf.

[Al B. Sure!]

Which means that Garrard WAS providing a service to the team as a serviceable if not spectacular starter. They cut Garrard on the assumption that Gabbart was an adequate replacement. They were wrong.

Gabbert was a rookie 1st rounder. Garrard was 32 years old and had a herniated disk that required surgery.

There was never an argument about 'adequate replacement'. It was a decision about the long-term future of the team.

It's called an investment, Ben. Why do teams even start rookie QB's when you got guys like Orton and Jason Campbell bouncing around who can be adequate game managers and likely better than most rookies?

In retrospect, Gabbert was a bad investment but it took starting him for the Jags to realize that. What point would there have been in continuing to ride a declining Garrard to .500 and sub-.500 seasons marginally better than what they wound up with starting Henne/Gabbert? Only to start Gabbert after a few years and still find out that he sucked.

[Ben Kenobi]

Gabbert was a rookie 1st rounder. Garrard was 32 years old and had a herniated disk that required surgery.

There was never an argument about 'adequate replacement'. It was a decision about the long-term future of the team.

We evaluate decisions by their consequences. How did that decision work for the Jags? Poorly. They could have held onto Garrard again for a year and kept Gabbert.

It's called an investment, Ben. Why do teams even start rookie QB's when you got guys like Orton and Jason Campbell bouncing around who can be adequate game managers and likely better than most rookies?

Because like Mike Shanahan, they don't give a damn about the future of the player. How did it work out for RGIII?

[rah]

So what do people think of the latest legal battle?
As much as I like to side with the players, this one looks little weak and more of money grab.
Dent complaining about an injury his rookie season. Hard to think that it had a negative life long effect on him considering he made the hall of fame.

And why are they suing the league. This seems much more team oriented.

[-Jrabbit]

I think if they had all appropriate warnings and full disclosure of what opiates are and their long-term effects, that the players would have gladly taken the drugs regardless.

[Sava]

This is one of those situations where the players should've known better... but regardless, it seems like there was a lot of impropriety. In medical situations, a higher standard than dumb common sense exists... and the offending parties should be held accountable.

I'm not really aware of any specific people named as "wrong doers" in this whole thing, though. Without a decent boogeyman, I'm mostly left with relying on the players' status as "victims".

NFL players don't make good victims.

[Ming]

Gee... the players lined up to take illegal drugs... So sue the league?
I didn't see anywhere where the TEAMS demanded that they take the drugs. Sure it could be implied, but no one seems to be saying they were forced (unless I missed that in one of the stories) Yeah, they were afraid to lose their jobs to pain and injuries, but it seems like they took them willingly.

Both sides seem at fault on this one.

And I kind of agree with Sava... Rich athletes taking illegal drugs for pain doesn't really make for good "victims"

[rah]

Especially when the everyday common joe has to go to work despite illness or injuries because he can't afford to take a day without pay.

That and whenever I've seen an ex-player asked one of those if you knew then what you know now would you have still done it to play, they always seem to say "of course".

[Sava]

The reality is (and I'm not exactly breaking new ground here), rich athletes often get "justice" for themselves because their talent gives them leverage over ownership. It's not that they don't deserve their "justice"... it's that... I'd prioritize "justice" for athletes (in any story) near the bottom of my give-a-**** list.

Even though athletes make terrible victims, the plight of billionaire sports owners being forced to compensate athletes is something I absolutely give no ****s about. Screw them just on principle.

[MRT144]

The cases where there was injury present but medication was provided over long term treatment is definitely a red flag for me.

[-Jrabbit]

This was all about getting player on the field now/this Sunday. The fact that opiates were being distributed by trainers - not medical doctors - is a pretty big institutional red flag.

[Imran Siddiqui]

And if you don't think there was pressure by the higher ups to take these drugs, then you are kidding yourself.

[rah]

It was a two way thing. Players were afraid of losing their jobs to younger cheaper players and taking them. And other players were trying to protect future contracts.
If you think it was all one way then you're the one kidding yourself.

When you get paid to play many decide that playing is the only option.