Go Back   New Orleans Saints - blackandgold.com > Blogs
Shop Horizontal
  1. Old Comment
    homerj07's Avatar

    Hipocrisy in the mainstream media

    Media is "for profit". This means it works for a business entity & that entity has its own agenda.

    MSNBC won't report poorly on (I think) GE

    ABC/ESPN won't say anything against Disney

    Fox... Well I can't figure them out. Are the just stupid OR are they stupid like a Fox? (Hah - I kill me)
    permalink
    Posted 05-11-2013 at 03:55 PM by homerj07 homerj07 is offline
  2. Old Comment
    the-commish's Avatar

    Upon further review: OLB Eric Martin, Nebraska

    I agree with the OP's analysis of Martin. In the highlight video of him, I saw him rush the passer well; play the run well, and cover on special teams. I did not see him drop back into coverage one time, and that will be the make or break for this player. If he can pick up on the coverage responsibilities of playing OLB, he has a chance. If he can't, at 245, he's way too small to play DE, especially in a 3-4.
    permalink
    Posted 05-07-2013 at 06:57 PM by the-commish the-commish is offline
  3. Old Comment
    jeanpierre's Avatar

    Upon further review: OLB Eric Martin, Nebraska

    At the least, he should be primed to be an excellent kicking game player...
    permalink
    Posted 05-02-2013 at 10:04 PM by jeanpierre jeanpierre is offline
  4. Old Comment

    Upon further review: OLB Eric Martin, Nebraska

    This is very good. And hey, we had another player named Eric Martin once upon a time and he worked out very well. Let's add another! I can totally see this guy making the team.
    permalink
    Posted 05-02-2013 at 09:19 AM by ClintSaints ClintSaints is offline
  5. Old Comment

    Upon further review: OLB Eric Martin, Nebraska

    I YouTube-ed this guy last night.....Man, he FLIES around the field! I agree....INSTANT FAN FAV! Again I say, we picked up some gems in the UDFAs!!!
    permalink
    Posted 04-29-2013 at 08:54 AM by KevSears KevSears is offline
  6. Old Comment
    Mardigras9's Avatar

    Saints' Kobayashi Maru: Drew Brees Contract

    This year there will be a reckoning and these conversations will not exist.
    permalink
    Posted 03-05-2013 at 02:22 PM by Mardigras9 Mardigras9 is offline
  7. Old Comment
    xan's Avatar

    Saints' Kobayashi Maru: Drew Brees Contract

    Let's just say that last season should be thrown out due to it's unusual circumstance. It may have happened, but it's not likely to be an issue going forward.

    The circumstances on the ground today is that the offense has a lot of highly paid players, and that relative to performance, they may not really deserve that level of pay. The same can be said of the defense, probably more than the offense. The issue is that, contractually, the team has so little wiggle room it will be near impossible to make the necessary personnel moves to realize the new strategy over the next 2-3 years.

    As fans, we want to field the best team possible. For players, they want to make the most money they can over their limited playing careers. Those two goals only meet when the team has leverage over the salaries. Once the ability of the team to leverage the cap is gone, so too is the likelihood of success.

    Teams who are perennial winners never give up leverage in salaries.
    permalink
    Posted 03-05-2013 at 07:01 AM by xan xan is offline
  8. Old Comment
    TheOak's Avatar

    Sanity Zone 1-19-2013 Positive Rights

    Xan - if you wish to look at the economic costs associated with guns, dont just focus on where the guns are. Try looking where they are not, at the costs associated with low gun ownership in the UK but having somewhere near a 5x-10x crime rate.
    permalink
    Posted 03-04-2013 at 03:12 PM by TheOak TheOak is offline
  9. Old Comment
    TheOak's Avatar

    Sanity Zone 1-19-2013 Positive Rights

    Which is why the Bill of Rights should only be amended with positive rights.
    permalink
    Posted 03-04-2013 at 03:08 PM by TheOak TheOak is offline
  10. Old Comment

    Saints' Kobayashi Maru: Drew Brees Contract

    No one forgot about the defense. But how do you buy a defense with no salary cap room? You can blame whoever you want for the losses, but the Saints made a decision of what was more important, and you can't blame them for wanting to keep their franchise QB. The amount of money it took to keep him is going to put the onus on the coaches to find a way to do more with less, on defense. If we can at least get one impact player on D this off season, be it through the draft or otherwise, that would help.
    permalink
    Posted 03-03-2013 at 11:09 PM by burningmetal burningmetal is offline
  11. Old Comment
    saintsfan403's Avatar

    Saints' Kobayashi Maru: Drew Brees Contract

    He did throw a lot of picks, but he still threw the most td's last season. But the offense just couldn't make up for how piss poor the defense was, why has everyone forgotten that? Or has all this bull **** about salary caps turned everyone into a stammering idiot?
    permalink
    Posted 03-03-2013 at 05:52 PM by saintsfan403 saintsfan403 is offline
  12. Old Comment
    saintsfan403's Avatar

    Saints' Kobayashi Maru: Drew Brees Contract

    Stop ****ing blaming brees, we have an overpaid ****ty defense. That's why we lost 7 games last year.
    permalink
    Posted 03-03-2013 at 05:48 PM by saintsfan403 saintsfan403 is offline
  13. Old Comment

    Saints' Kobayashi Maru: Drew Brees Contract

    Just kills me that they invested all that money into the offense, thinking it would be okay. We saw how that worked out last season.
    permalink
    Posted 03-03-2013 at 05:05 PM by gvicknair gvicknair is offline
  14. Old Comment

    Sanity Zone 2-6-2013 I Want a New Drug

    Yet again, you refuse to answer a question. I'm not even arguing with you, necessarily. I'm asking what your view is. Should they remain banned? Yes or no will do.

    Again, PED's HAVE been studied for years. Is there more to learn about them? Sure, I would think so. But everyone knows the main risks of these drugs, and there is a reason you have to have a prescription. In the case of athletes, it is seen as an unfair advantage. Whether or not you believe it gives an athlete any advantage, I think in the case of rehabilitating, it should be allowed. If you are being supervised, where your doses are being charted, then you can regulate how much an athlete is using. You're not going to gain an advantage unless you use constantly. That is where the line should be drawn between use, and abuse.

    Doctors would not prescribe these drugs to patients without first testing them for effectiveness. I think you are making a grand assumption by suggesting we don't know enough about these drugs. I think we know plenty. But it has been deemed immoral for athletes to EVER use these drugs. Why, I don't know. That is the issue. And that should be the conversation.

    Not more testing.
    permalink
    Posted 02-15-2013 at 10:09 AM by burningmetal burningmetal is offline
  15. Old Comment
    xan's Avatar

    Sanity Zone 2-6-2013 I Want a New Drug

    To begin, I don't believe any discussion about the role of drugs in regenerative health should be limited to steroids. There are many other classes of immunoregulators that are banned or severely restricted that don't operated on the same pathways. The ultimate issue is the ethics of investigation. How do we study a therapy in isolation without being able to verify its efficacy in the context in which it will be used. One can't tell if a drug improves health but doesn't improve performance without allowing the competitor to engage in the activity that causes the injury. I think that there are a lot of myths about any drug's potential because there is simply no peer reviewed active controlled data to support or refute any claim. What we wind up getting is an underground of misuse and misrepresentation that puts the athlete at risk and derails advancement of potentially viable therapies.

    If we can move beyond the parochialness of willful ignorance, there may be ways to advance the science without compromising the integrity of fair sportsmanship. Until we actually study it and remove the stigmas, we can rely on the same frustrating cycle of masking and evading and "cheating" because the economic incentives are too great to not.
    permalink
    Posted 02-15-2013 at 07:43 AM by xan xan is offline
  16. Old Comment

    Sanity Zone 2-6-2013 I Want a New Drug

    Well what is your opinion on the use of steroids, as of now, without studying it? Do you think it's good or bad? Or do you believe it can be good if used in proper increments?

    As I said above, I think it's fine to use steroids to recover from injury. I think it should be legal for that use only. The fact that it's totally banned from sports seems rather self righteous of these sports entities. There are negative side effects, and that as already been established. I don't think more research is really necessary to determine whether or not steroids should be legalized.

    If regular citizens can use it, so should athletes. If you take steroids after your rehabilitation is completed, then you deserve to be punished. Aside from advantages, it's just plain not smart, health wise, to use these drugs over an extended period of time.
    permalink
    Posted 02-14-2013 at 10:33 AM by burningmetal burningmetal is offline
  17. Old Comment
    xan's Avatar

    Sanity Zone 2-6-2013 I Want a New Drug

    For most players, repetitive task injuries and sudden impact trauma injuries are the primary reason for taking steroids. Faster recovery means performing at a higher level longer. Strength training simultaneously builds muscle while tearing it down, which requires a recovery period. The longer the recovery period, the less benefit one gets from the training. The steroids, especially for older players, for whom deterioration of their immune systems has accellerated thereby lengthening the recovery period, minimize the effects of injury so that muscle mass can be retained and/or built.

    The average Joe/Jane experiences the same issues as the professional athlete, but the urgency to address the issues don't arise until later in life, sometimes when it is too late to manage. Dedicating a rational clinical methodology to studying the syndromes rather than "criminalize" them may benefit everyone in the long run and reduce the potential for negative consequences for the professional athlete in the short run.
    permalink
    Posted 02-14-2013 at 08:52 AM by xan xan is offline
  18. Old Comment
    saintfan's Avatar

    Sanity Zone 1-19-2013 Positive Rights

    I didn't read the whole thread. I can tell from the first post you're leading up to a requirement that those who own guns purchase some sort of liability insurance.

    Well, who's going to buy insurance for all the illegal guns - you know, the ones used in most crime? You idea just added yet another financial burden to "we the people".

    You got anything else? Because this idea is bunk...
    permalink
    Posted 02-13-2013 at 05:43 PM by saintfan saintfan is offline
  19. Old Comment
    saintfan's Avatar

    Sanity Zone 2-6-2013 I Want a New Drug

    So, is this about recovery or is this about an advantage on the field? If recovery then I think, as you suggest, it's a no-brainer.

    But, if it's about an on-the-field-advantage (think Barry Bonds) then it's different.

    Then again, I'm less bothered by Barry's roiding than I am by his wearing of armor at the plate because he's chicken ****. Personally I would have thrown at his head at least once an at-bat to remind him how owns the inner half.
    permalink
    Posted 02-13-2013 at 05:30 PM by saintfan saintfan is offline
  20. Old Comment

    Sanity Zone 1-19-2013 Positive Rights

    I'm not speaking about morality of guns, specifically. I have touched on that some, as it pertains to the overall argument used by anti-gun people. As far as your point, you are telling me one minute that you're concerned about social cost, and then it switches to economic loss.

    Circular reasoning will get this discussion nowhere.

    I stated that we cannot accurately measure social cost of guns anymore than we can measure the effects of the internet. There are pro's and cons, and my point is that if we're going to shift the greater burden on the gun owners (which they already do bear the greatest burden, considering they are paying for their guns), then we better go down the line with everything else.

    Like it or not, morality is part of this equation. So please don't repeat to me that you don't care about morality. I get that you don't. The fact of the matter is that while you might be able to look at some numbers that show negative effect, you are ignoring the positive effects. There are not enough police to protect and serve the ENTIRE public at all times. Taking away that security from the those who would like to be able to protect themselves could lead to an enormous spike in crime, should guns be banned. That would certainly be in the category of social cost.

    With this in mind, I think it is absurd to suggest that people who only want to protect themselves, should bear the brunt of the burden when a disaster happens. That is effectively linking all gun owners together as murderers.

    Case in point: I did not ask Barack Obama to give a 750 billion dollar bailout to a failing car company, and I don't know anyone personally who thinks that was a good idea. And yet, we are all bearing that burden, are we not? That's the way the economy works, we all bear the burden for everything, with the top 2 or 3 percent obviously paying more than everyone else.

    So why, then, should JUST gun owners be responsible for bearing the burden of others mistakes? No person who is not personally involved in a shooting is directly paying the price, but yes, there are overall economic impacts. I have not, and would not deny that. But anytime something happens, be it a shooting, a flood, an increase in car accidents, there is always economic backlash. Insurance rates go up, there are more laws added for safety and you have to pay for various courses, etc. The theme with all these instances is that they effect everyone in some way, and we all know that.

    The problem I have is the implication that gun owners are somehow different. Why should they be singled out for something that for something that they didn't cause? Why should the burden not be balanced out? On the surface, it seems wrong that we should ever have to pay for anything that doesn't directly involve us, but it unfortunately has to, otherwise there would be widespread poverty.

    Theoretically, You could force gun owners to pay insurance, but that would penalize far too many people who don't deserve it. More people own cars than those who own guns. The vast majority of those who own guns are well versed in the laws and keep their guns hidden and often unloaded. There is a reason you are not allowed to carry a concealed weapon. It's not something you just tote around. Whereas with cars, every time we get in our vehicles we have a possibility of causing a massive amount of damage and/or death. Regardless of our intentions. That is why insurance is necessary for car owners.

    If you try to quantify the risk of owning a gun to that of car owners by simply looking at the numbers of deaths, then you would have to pay even higher insurance rates than you do for vehicles, simply because there are less gun owners to bear the burden. Hundreds of dollars for a little piece of metal?

    Here is the point I would most like for you to take from this: Guns do not bear near the risk of vehicles. It is the person owning it who can make it dangerous. They don't fire themselves sitting on a shelf or in a case, and accidents are far more rare. One does not randomly fire, and HIT an innocent bystander on accident very often. Almost never. Cars are an immediate risk every single time they are used. There are countless ways of being distracted and accidentally hitting someone.

    This is why I believe it is ridiculous to suggest insurance on guns. And without insurance, there is no way to shift the burden. We don't have to agree with everything in this country, and we certainly don't, but we either share our economic burden (without socialistic tax hikes on the wealthy, bringing down the job market), or we can watch ourselves implode.

    I get your point, and I can see that you are apparently of the belief that if you don't purchase something, you shouldn't bear any consequences from it. I am simply saying that we have always had to bear the burdens of things that we maybe didn't condone, or simply had no personal stake in. To change that now, would cause consequences that I'm not sure anyone is ready for.
    permalink
    Posted 02-08-2013 at 09:25 AM by burningmetal burningmetal is offline

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:39 AM.


Copyright 1997 - 2013 - BlackandGold.com