bud29

Leveon Bell facing suspension after skipped drug test

49 posts in this topic

dumb, dumb, dumb, why are NFL player so dumb?

 

 

It's like...these kids went to college and didn't study or anything ..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently he posted on Instagram saying he will not miss any games and will win his appeal.. must know something we anyone else does..

 

https://www.google.ca/amp/www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/leveon-bell-on-instagram-ill-win-the-appeal-and-wont-miss-any-games/amp/?client=ms-android-samsung#

 

Or he could just be blowing smoke...

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Or he could just be blowing smoke...

No pun intended ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this is getting past ridiculous. let these guys learn responsibility on their own and stop moralizing. the NFL ≠ their mommy.

 

if a player chooses to "abuse" whatever substance (we all know which one it is in the vast majority of cases), and is still in fine shape, good enough to play, and can earn/keep his job, then great, let them earn/keep their jobs.

 

if a guy chooses to "abuse" a substance and they get out of shape and lose their athleticim, then fine, let them lose their jobs and learn real responsibility.

 

and of course if they're arrested for possession or whatever else, then they'll go to jail and miss time of course. when they get out of jail, they can come back and compete for their job again (like vick or plaxico).

 

but i suspect a great majority of players would fall into the first category (they will use occasionally and still keep their jobs)

 

what this is really about - stop moralizing

 

 

(i know many - most? - people disagree with me here but c'mon this is getting so ridiculous is it not?)

 

one last note: PEDs are a completely separate issue - i of course think they should continue to test for steroids, HGH, etc because it gives athletes a competitive advantage.

 

So we should change the rules because "it's getting ridiculous"? Yes, let's let 20 idiots change the standards of behavior for all of society. How long until enough guys beat their women until THAT gets ridiculous and we stop "moralizing" and allow players to engage in domestic abuse to their hearts' content. :rolleyes:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

So we should change the rules because "it's getting ridiculous"? Yes, let's let 20 idiots change the standards of behavior for all of society. How long until enough guys beat their women until THAT gets ridiculous and we stop "moralizing" and allow players to engage in domestic abuse to their hearts' content. :rolleyes:

 

 

You're comparing beating a woman to smoking Josh Gordon.. That's the worst comparison i've ever heard.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...that being said, i'm not siding with the offenders. Follow the room of your employers or look for work elsewhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

You're comparing beating a woman to smoking Josh Gordon.. That's the worst comparison i've ever heard.

 

No.

 

What I am doing is illustrating how idiotic it is to change rules "because it's getting ridiculous" that fewer than 1% of NFLPA members can't comply with a policy.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's ridiculous primarily because it's a rule that has no positive affect. It would be no big deal if the penalties weren't so extreme but the number of suspensions has rocketed up to 55 iirc last year and still climbing. Saying it'd change standards of behavior for all of society is a bit of a reach. I don't think NFL suspensions carry that much weight. Society is way ahead of the NFL on this one, anyway, not much to change.

 

Exactly, players agree to a set of rules, then break them and we have fans saying "so what its pot"

 

I can only speak for myself (obviously), but I don't think anyone's arguing for Bell (or any other player) to "get a pass" or something like that just because he's a star player. I'm not talking about changing anything retroactively. I think the rule should be changed and applied to future cases only.

 

I think businesses should be able to set and enforce whatever policies they want within the terms of federal and local labor laws. I think its fair for these businesses to expect you to follow these policies or face consequences since that is what was agreed upon when you accepted the position.

 

pretty much agree with you entirely Def - the NFL is a business and can do whatever it pleases. I just don't think it's very good business to force so many players to miss games over a rule that I, at least, find outdated and unnecessary. putting all the issues about personal freedom and whatnot aside, limiting it just to my perspective as a "customer," with whatever minute amount of influence my voice carries - I don't want players missing games for doing something that doesn't negatively impact the game. and my hope would be that the more people make it clear they don't want players missing games over something that shouldn't be a rule in the first place, then that voice would carry more weight and public opinion would lead the NFL to change the rule. of course there'd have to be rules against using before a game or practice (like there are with alcohol, i'd expect? can't say I know the specific rules regarding alcohol), but it's not worth getting into the nitty gritty details of a hypothetical situation.

 

I mean, these rules only exist in the first place because the NFL thinks the consumer wants them to (Rozelle 101). when the consumer eventually shows they don't want them (or don't want players to miss games over it, anyway), the rules will be changed.

Edited by pun
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's ridiculous primarily because it's a rule that has no positive affect. It would be no big deal if barely anyone got suspended for it but the number has rocketed up to 55 iirc last year and still climbing. Saying it'd change standards of behavior for all of society is a bit of a reach. I don't think NFL suspensions carry that much weight. Society is way ahead of the NFL on this one, anyway, not much to change.

 

 

I can only speak for myself (obviously), but I don't think anyone's arguing for Bell (or any other player) to "get a pass" or something like that just because he's a star player. I'm not talking about changing anything retroactively. I think the rule should be changed and applied to future cases only.

 

 

pretty much agree with you entirely Def - the NFL is a business and it can do whatever it pleases. I just don't think it's very good business to force so many players to miss games over a rule that I, at least, find outdated and uneccesary. putting all the issues about personal freedom and whatnot aside, limiting it just to my perspective as a "customer," with whatever minute amount of influence my voice carries - I don't want players missing games for doing something that doesn't negatively impact the game. and my hope would be that the more people make it clear they don't want players missing games over something that shouldn't be a rule in the first place, then that voice would carry more weight and public opinion would lead the NFL to change the rule. of course there'd have to be rules against using before a game or practice (like there are with alcohol, i'd expect? can't say I know the specific rules regarding alcohol), but it's not worth getting into the nitty gritty details of a hypothetical situation.

 

I mean, these rules only exist in the first place because the NFL thinks the consumer wants them to (Rozelle 101). when the consumer eventually shows they don't want them (or don't want players to miss games over it, anyway), the rules will be changed.

you do realize that in most starts smoking pot is against the law...right? :unsure:
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

pun,

 

You do realize that pot is still illegal in most places, and that most players using pot are breaking the law. HowAbout beat me to it... That to me (and the owners, and many others) can negatively impact the game. Same as a DUI does, you can drink, you can drive, you shouldn't do both. So saying these guys are suspended for something that cannot negatively impact the game is BS (IMHO).

 

I do think some are asking for Bell and others to get a pass, expecially the "so what it is just pot" crowd. I get it, many people smoke pot, not just hippies and losers, but people with good jobs, making good money and just choose to smoke a little instead of or along with their alcohol. Its become more accepted in society as it becomes legal in more places. But that doesn't mean "the NFL rule is stupid".

 

The rules against using illegal drugs are there because they are ILLEGAL. Sure when the time comes that a very large percentage (super majority) of NFL fans use pot, and its legal in most states, the NFL may decide to change the rules.

 

Until then, players must follow the rules, or be suspended. Not sure why this always needs to be questioned, and made into "the evil NFL overlords keeping the NFL players down" type of debate. Maybe its the segment of society that doesn't think we need rules to function as a society, everybody can just do what they want as long as they believe they're not harming others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You do realize that pot is still illegal in most places, and that most players using pot are breaking the law. That to me (and the owners, and many others) can negatively impact the game. Same as a DUI does, you can drink, you can drive, you shouldn't do both. So saying these guys are suspended for something that cannot negatively impact the game is BS (IMHO).

 

Not all professions test their employees. They can simply decide not to, like all the other businesses out there that don't test. Right, it's illegal (but simple first time possession is a misdemeanor that rarely results in jail time, and on top of that it's been decriminalized to the point of a traffic ticket in almost half of states). So, if the reason it negatively affects the game is because it's illegal, then they should investigate and suspend players for all crimes right? Tax evasion is illegal. DUI is illegal. Should the NFL audit every player and put built-in breathalyzers in their cars to prevent those crimes and stop them from negatively impacting the game? Why use preventive measures on one crime but not others? They defer every other crime to the criminal justice system (including domestic, and non-domestic, violence).

 

I do think some are asking for Bell and others to get a pass, expecially the "so what it is just pot" crowd.

 

as I said I can only speak for myself (but just to be clear, i'm not talking about any particular substance. unless it's a PED that gives them a competitive advantage, I don't think it's necessary for the NFL to take preventive measures against players)

 

The rules against using illegal drugs are there because they are ILLEGAL. Sure when the time comes that a very large percentage (super majority) of NFL fans use pot, and its legal in most states, the NFL may decide to change the rules.

 

I don't think fans need to actually use it for that to happen haha, they just need to think it's not worth suspending people over (I would fall into this category of fan). Majority, large majority, super majority.....idk. If you polled today's fans I think you'd find at least 50%. But what's really more important is that it gets recognized by the NFL.

 

"the evil NFL overlords keeping the NFL players down" type of debate. Maybe its the segment of society that doesn't think we need rules to function as a society, everybody can just do what they want as long as they believe they're not harming others.

 

Really? nobody said anything like this. evil overlords? no need for rule of law? the idea is to let it be handled by the criminal justice system like anything else, the way many other businesses do it.

 

Look, this is not a ridiculous opinion and I would actually guess that most fans think the substance abuse policy needs some changes. Literally 10 mins ago I was listening to Around the NFL and they called the rules "antiquated." You don't have to agree with me, but if the argument pretty much boils down to "you realize pot is against the law right?"... that's not very convincing. I'm not sure how much more there is to say about it man.

Edited by pun
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll still be willing to draft Le'Veon in the first round. Championships are won in weeks 13-17, not weeks 1-4.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

No.

 

What I am doing is illustrating how idiotic it is to change rules "because it's getting ridiculous" that fewer than 1% of NFLPA members can't comply with a policy.

 

Alright, I get that. I just believe the stance and mindset of Josh Gordon is everchanging, whereas I don't think domestic abuse will ever be anything close to acceptable.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still some hope for Bell to win appeal. Apparently the testing service was a little bit at fault here. We'll see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll still be willing to draft Le'Veon in the first round. Championships are won in weeks 13-17, not weeks 1-4.

 

Gotta make it there first! Had I started the first four games last year 0-4, I could have been seeded differently and lost out, or not even made playoffs instead of winning like I did.. There's definitely a huge risk there if you aren't playing with homers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Gotta make it there first! Had I started the first four games last year 0-4, I could have been seeded differently and lost out, or not even made playoffs instead of winning like I did.. There's definitely a huge risk there if you aren't playing with homers.

 

Starting off 1-3 or 0-4 does hurt. But I think having a difference-maker like Le'Veon is worth the 5% less chance you'll have of making the playoffs. It might not even be a 5% less chance of making the playoffs since Le'Veon has the potential of scoring more in 12 weeks than any other running back in 16 weeks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Starting off 1-3 or 0-4 does hurt. But I think having a difference-maker like Le'Veon is worth the 5% less chance you'll have of making the playoffs. It might not even be a 5% less chance of making the playoffs since Le'Veon has the potential of scoring more in 12 weeks than any other running back in 16 weeks.

 

I wish Yahoo let you go back and look at last year's leagues. I drafted Bell in the 1st, knowing full well I'd have every opportunity to get D-Will (which I did) to cover Weeks 1-2.

 

And how'd Williams perform? Hard to say Bell would have done any better. 14.2 against the Pats opening week and a healthy 31.2 against the Niners the next week.

 

Gotta think that you'll be able to do the same here this year. Is there risk associated with doing this? Sure. There could be some owner that takes D-Will in the 6th or 7th round or something crazy like that.

 

Williams is going to be the starter on a top offense for 1/4 of the season, backing up an injury (and off-field mistake) prone RB. Someone may roll the dice that Williams is the Steeler starter for more than just Weeks 1-4.

 

Bottom line, risk all over the place but if you play it right it's a situation you can mitigate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I wish Yahoo let you go back and look at last year's leagues. I drafted Bell in the 1st, knowing full well I'd have every opportunity to get D-Will (which I did) to cover Weeks 1-2.

 

And how'd Williams perform? Hard to say Bell would have done any better. 14.2 against the Pats opening week and a healthy 31.2 against the Niners the next week.

 

Gotta think that you'll be able to do the same here this year. Is there risk associated with doing this? Sure. There could be some owner that takes D-Will in the 6th or 7th round or something crazy like that.

 

Williams is going to be the starter on a top offense for 1/4 of the season, backing up an injury (and off-field mistake) prone RB. Someone may roll the dice that Williams is the Steeler starter for more than just Weeks 1-4.

 

Bottom line, risk all over the place but if you play it right it's a situation you can mitigate.

 

That's true, and it was smart of you to pick up DWill. However, a lot of people weren't thinking he was going to flourish like he did even when given the starting role the first couple weeks of last year. The way he performed last year WILL resonate with people this coming draft and I doubt he'll slide that far. I'll be one of those people looking to snatch him up and have a great first couple weeks with him

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gotta think that you'll be able to do the same here this year. Is there risk associated with doing this? Sure. There could be some owner that takes D-Will in the 6th or 7th round or something crazy like that.

Agree with everything you said but I'd highlight this part - I think the 6th or 7th round is more a guarantee than a crazy outlier. A consistent RB for 4 games is going to make people overpay.

 

Personally it's nuts but if you play in any type of a division format where games against your division mates are a tiebreaker then having an RB1 for the first games will be valuable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree with everything you said but I'd highlight this part - I think the 6th or 7th round is more a guarantee than a crazy outlier. A consistent RB for 4 games is going to make people overpay.

 

Personally it's nuts but if you play in any type of a division format where games against your division mates are a tiebreaker then having an RB1 for the first games will be valuable.

Agree. Imo last yr people weren't sure how deangelo would play in bells place, now everyone knows he SHOULD do very well

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree. Imo last yr people weren't sure how deangelo would play in bells place, now everyone knows he SHOULD do very well

 

Right, I was able to nab D-Will with my very last pick last year after taking Bell in the 1st. I was actually quite shocked the 11 other dorks in the league didn't grab him earlier to make my pick look bad.

 

This year, you know someone's gonna overpay just based on what he did last year, the fact that it's 4 games, and the fact that Bell has not been the most healthy.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I mentioned on the podcast, it's pure madness that these guys can't stop using drugs. It's a real shame because these guys are role models to the youth. Hopefully Josh will be a positive story when it's all said and done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

" Jones likewise urged an end to the practice of investigating off-field misconduct. "

 

Nope, he just has Zeke on his team.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.