Smack talk thread.

[WizardHawk]

He was 2 percentage points on one of the three tests in this guideline. The other two he passed. RGIII was two points shy on the wonderlic of passing this as well, and most people think he's going to turn out ok. You can tout this all you want, but the fact is that RGIII and Kaep both failed this test by two points on one of the criteria and both had pretty good years.

Pretty good years, but their potential upside isn't up to what Wilson's is. 2% points for a QB with as many games as Kaepernick had with most of his games coming from sub standard mid-major teams is huge. If he can't manage to complete over 60% against teams at that level, what are the long term hopes vs pro level competition?

The facts speak for themselves: Wilson > Kaepernick and it isn't even close.

 

[WizardHawk]

And yet kaepernick took the team to within 5 yards of a super bowl win despite coming in after the middle of the season. Fact. And he scored higher than Wilson on the wonderlic. Fact.

And in the link to the NFL article you posted on another Seattle thread was this:

Kaepernick also can work on his timing and anticipation. As you can see in the play below, he sometimes has to "see" the throw before he makes it. His incredible arm strength usually makes up for it. However, that occasionally causes Kaepernick to pump fake, and the ball arrives late. This happened a few times in the Super Bowl, and it cost the 49ers points

So which is it, you want to take credit for Kaepernick nearly winning the SB, or put the blame on his issues for actually not winning it? Looks to me like he's the reason your team doesn't have rings this year.

 

[yossarian]

Pretty good years, but their potential upside isn't up to what Wilson's is. 2% points for a QB with as many games as Kaepernick had with most of his games coming from sub standard mid-major teams is huge. If he can't manage to complete over 60% against teams at that level, what are the long term hopes vs pro level competition?

The facts speak for themselves: Wilson > Kaepernick and it isn't even close.

It's funny you're so possessed with this one test. Kaepernick had a great year and took his team farther than Wilson did. This is what kills me about some homer seahawk fans, I think it's a legitimate debate over which qb is better, but no matter what they're pretty close, saying it isn't even close and Wilson is so much better than kaepernick is just idiotic and pure homer talk.

 

[yossarian]

And in the link to the NFL article you posted on another Seattle thread was this:



So which is it, you want to take credit for Kaepernick nearly winning the SB, or put the blame on his issues for actually not winning it? Looks to me like he's the reason your team doesn't have rings this year.

And yet this same article had kaepernick over Wilson.

 

[WizardHawk]

It's funny you're so possessed with this one test. Kaepernick had a great year and took his team farther than Wilson did. This is what kills me about some homer seahawk fans, I think it's a legitimate debate over which qb is better, but no matter what they're pretty close, saying it isn't even close and Wilson is so much better than kaepernick is just idiotic and pure homer talk.

You did see the topic of this thread no? (Hint: It's a trash talking thread. It's supposed to be over the top). Since you have your panties all up in a wad I'll give you the straight version. They are both pretty good as is RGIII and Luck. Best QB class in at least 20 years.

Do I run around in my daily life talking about either QB and how they rate against anyone else? No. If you asked me which of the QB's I'd take if I had my choice and I just became owner of a team I'd say it depends on the offense we are running. Luck would probably be the choice in a pure pocket passing offense, but he isn't miles ahead of the others in passing. RGIII might be your choice if you want to fully feature the QB run threat, but he did make some pretty good passes as well. Kaepernick can run a little and pass a little, but to me isn't tops in either compared to the other 3 and Wilson just excels at team leadership and his work ethic. In the end I'd take Wilson over Kaepernick because I think he is the better passer of the two given the limited history of both so far. You'd take either if you wanted more balance than RGIII or Luck bring.

Still, it's rather funny that a 9'r fan is all riled up over his QB failing the 26-27-60 criteria. Even more funny that one would then question why a fan would take a QB that had better stats over his. But you just go ahead and hold on to your homerism and pick your QB over everyone else just because of that. Doesn't bother me in the least.

 

[yossarian]

You did see the topic of this thread no? (Hint: It's a trash talking thread. It's supposed to be over the top). Since you have your panties all up in a wad I'll give you the straight version. They are both pretty good as is RGIII and Luck. Best QB class in at least 20 years.

Do I run around in my daily life talking about either QB and how they rate against anyone else? No. If you asked me which of the QB's I'd take if I had my choice and I just became owner of a team I'd say it depends on the offense we are running. Luck would probably be the choice in a pure pocket passing offense, but he isn't miles ahead of the others in passing. RGIII might be your choice if you want to fully feature the QB run threat, but he did make some pretty good passes as well. Kaepernick can run a little and pass a little, but to me isn't tops in either compared to the other 3 and Wilson just excels at team leadership and his work ethic. In the end I'd take Wilson over Kaepernick because I think he is the better passer of the two given the limited history of both so far. You'd take either if you wanted more balance than RGIII or Luck bring.

Still, it's rather funny that a 9'r fan is all riled up over his QB failing the 26-27-60 criteria. Even more funny that one would then question why a fan would take a QB that had better stats over his. But you just go ahead and hold on to your homerism and pick your QB over everyone else just because of that. Doesn't bother me in the least.

You were the one trumpeting the criteria, I was the one saying him failing it didn't matter. And I never said I would pick Kaepernick over Luck, RGIII, Wilson or anyone else. If you want my honest opinion I think after the first year of starting for any of them it's too early to tell, especially since they are all pretty equal so far. A lot of it will depend on coaching, the surrounding team, etc.

As far as the trash talking thread, I admit, it's a trash talking thread, but I had thought the most of the ESPN board refugees were coming here to get away from Superbowl, juice, and their trash talking, if you guys like over the top trash talking I'm sure those two and others will be happy to bring it over.

 

[HaroldSeattle]

You were the one trumpeting the criteria, I was the one saying him failing it didn't matter. And I never said I would pick Kaepernick over Luck, RGIII, Wilson or anyone else. If you want my honest opinion I think after the first year of starting for any of them it's too early to tell, especially since they are all pretty equal so far. A lot of it will depend on coaching, the surrounding team, etc.

As far as the trash talking thread, I admit, it's a trash talking thread, but I had thought the most of the ESPN board refugees were coming here to get away from Superbowl, juice, and their trash talking, if you guys like over the top trash talking I'm sure those two and others will be happy to bring it over.

You don't see the difference between the trolls on ESPN and a smack talk thread here between NFL SportsHoopla posters? Was it RVnight18 that suggested Seahawks fans should move over here so we talk a little smack?
I think it was.

 

[geneh_33]

Nobody likes peaches. They taste terrible. The only reason anyone thinks they like peaches is the song by POT USA

Huh?

Dude, are you stoned? What in the Sam Hill are you talking about?

 

[HaroldSeattle]

You were the one trumpeting the criteria, I was the one saying him failing it didn't matter. And I never said I would pick Kaepernick over Luck, RGIII, Wilson or anyone else. If you want my honest opinion I think after the first year of starting for any of them it's too early to tell, especially since they are all pretty equal so far. A lot of it will depend on coaching, the surrounding team, etc.

As far as the trash talking thread, I admit, it's a trash talking thread, but I had thought the most of the ESPN board refugees were coming here to get away from Superbowl, juice, and their trash talking, if you guys like over the top trash talking I'm sure those two and others will be happy to bring it over.

Another thing, since this board came alive there has been about 90 threads and about 86 are good football threads and not a one has gotten blown up into garbage ( of the other four, one is a welcome thread, and one is guideline thread one is an off topic thread) I like to see you find that happening on ESPN. This thread is just for yuks

 

[geneh_33]

What's a yuk?

 

[WizardHawk]

You were the one trumpeting the criteria, I was the one saying him failing it didn't matter. And I never said I would pick Kaepernick over Luck, RGIII, Wilson or anyone else. If you want my honest opinion I think after the first year of starting for any of them it's too early to tell, especially since they are all pretty equal so far. A lot of it will depend on coaching, the surrounding team, etc.

As far as the trash talking thread, I admit, it's a trash talking thread, but I had thought the most of the ESPN board refugees were coming here to get away from Superbowl, juice, and their trash talking, if you guys like over the top trash talking I'm sure those two and others will be happy to bring it over.

Why the fuck should I care about the ESPN refugees or what they were escaping? And what does that have to do with a thread devoted to smack talk and *shock* actually finding smack talk on it? I'm not one of them and I'm not sensitive to taunting or harsh rhetoric. They want the main hawk board to be more sterile and I've accommodated them. Come to this thread and all bets are off. Want a thoughtful and honest break down of division players then I'd stick to the main board topics.

 

[dredinis21]

And yet nothing you said speaks to the questions of whether or not PC and JS are accountable for what players put into their bodies. Saying teams can be accountable for multiple brushes with the law by the same players isn't the same thing as different players being caught for PED's.

The players have the incentive to take drugs to further make gains on the career and the team has plenty of incentive to prevent it. Given those two facts it's difficult to see how anyone blames the staff for the actions of the players unless you consider the source and chalk them up to just being haters.

There are several other teams in the league with 3 or more players caught over the last several years. There have been 50 players suspended in all which leaves Seattle as having 10% of the total. What that says is the problem is league wide and Seattle has had more than its share. Why? Isn't it more likely that the cause is one or more players on the team either making it very accessible and/or promoting the use?

If you are going to hold the staff responsible then you need to have some tools they can use to prevent it. What tools are you suggesting they have that they are not using and what proof do you have? Saying simply because they have had 5 over 2 years is too many isn't proof of any wrong doing. It just isn't.

Whether it be multiple offenses breaking the law or multiple drug tests in a short period of time, what is really the difference? The organization cannot be with players 24/7 so why punish the organization for what players do on their off time, such as domestic violence or, oh I don't know, failed drug tests? It is irrelevant in terms of quantifiable evidence for one player vs quantifiable evidence for multiple players. It's the same premise based on your argument that PC and the Seahawks cannot be held accountable for brushes with the law any more then they can with failed drug tests. But the league currently punishes one more then the other. Failed drug test, the individual player misses 4 games and a quarter of their annual salary. Six players in two years, same punishment assuming they are all first time offenders. No penalty beyond the individual that I am aware of. Multiple brushes with the law in an off-season brings big-time fines to the club. I think the Bengals in their Chris Henry glory years paid out almost half a mil in fines because of player conduct.

Maybe there aren't any current solutions out there now. In the next CBA, mandate that at least 60% of salaries agreed upon in all contracts signed must be guaranteed, but also add mandatory conduct clauses that allow contracts to be voided and bonuses to be paid back in full if players test positive for drugs or have brushes with the law. If teams allows said player to remain in his contract, the league reserves the right to penalize the team further should there be any more incidents with any player within, say, three years. From there, draft pick forfeitures and GM/HC suspensions. To me, that is fair. We will guarantee more of your money in exchange for good behavior and clean piss tests. If the organization allows a problem player to stay on the team, they are vouching for him and the rest of the team and the league reserves the right to protect the shield from that point forward.

 

[packerzrule]

What's a yuk?

those who live in Yukaslavia

 

[dredinis21]

Seahawks? Moffitt was banned from mall before urination arrest | ProFootballTalk

Apparently, SEA players have problems with urine in general.

 

[Rvnight18]

Hi everybody! You all suck and should shut your mouths when you are talking to me. You insolent swines! Hahahahahahaha. But seriously, I like a little smack talk, like it was mentioned. But I also think that perspective needs to have a place too. God those damn pests of trolls from espn were bad. I like talking with rivals. It's fun. During game weeks even better.

Just remember you all suck major ball sacks. And niners rule. Ohh and your QB is a midget.

I nailed this thread.

 

[geneh_33]

Hi everybody! You all suck and should shut your mouths when you are talking to me. You insolent swines! Hahahahahahaha. But seriously, I like a little smack talk, like it was mentioned. But I also think that perspective needs to have a place too. God those damn pests of trolls from espn were bad. I like talking with rivals. It's fun. During game weeks even better.

Just remember you all suck major ball sacks. And niners rule. Ohh and your QB is a midget.

I nailed this thread.

HEY, CHIK FIL-A HERE

NINERS SUCK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!

 

[WizardHawk]

Whether it be multiple offenses breaking the law or multiple drug tests in a short period of time, what is really the difference? The organization cannot be with players 24/7 so why punish the organization for what players do on their off time, such as domestic violence or, oh I don't know, failed drug tests? It is irrelevant in terms of quantifiable evidence for one player vs quantifiable evidence for multiple players. It's the same premise based on your argument that PC and the Seahawks cannot be held accountable for brushes with the law any more then they can with failed drug tests. But the league currently punishes one more then the other. Failed drug test, the individual player misses 4 games and a quarter of their annual salary. Six players in two years, same punishment assuming they are all first time offenders. No penalty beyond the individual that I am aware of. Multiple brushes with the law in an off-season brings big-time fines to the club. I think the Bengals in their Chris Henry glory years paid out almost half a mil in fines because of player conduct.

Maybe there aren't any current solutions out there now. In the next CBA, mandate that at least 60% of salaries agreed upon in all contracts signed must be guaranteed, but also add mandatory conduct clauses that allow contracts to be voided and bonuses to be paid back in full if players test positive for drugs or have brushes with the law. If teams allows said player to remain in his contract, the league reserves the right to penalize the team further should there be any more incidents with any player within, say, three years. From there, draft pick forfeitures and GM/HC suspensions. To me, that is fair. We will guarantee more of your money in exchange for good behavior and clean piss tests. If the organization allows a problem player to stay on the team, they are vouching for him and the rest of the team and the league reserves the right to protect the shield from that point forward.

You aren't going to find many (any?) fans that support the current CBA for PED's and the fact that the league isn't really interested in putting a stop to it. Look how long it took baseball to address their issues. It took the serious tarnishing of the accomplishments of the players known to do steroids and what it did to fan support before anything was even started. The NFL is an entirely different critter as it seems the fans will support the league no matter how many felons or drug violations are on each team. The fans may not agree with it, but they will still pay to go to games and buy merchandise. As long as that is the case I doubt there will be any changes coming.

The cheating is done by the players to support their drive for more money and the league isn't really hurt by it. Once it has an effect on the leagues bottom line something will be done to change it. Not one day earlier.

As for the difference between a dirty PED test and those in trouble with the law. You don't see ANY difference? Have any of the 50 that were suspended for PED violations been arrested and charged with anything? Even 1 player? And if the league wanted to start turning in players to the legal system what would the be charged with? You don't see a difference between a felony DUI and a misdemeanor drug use charge? Violent battery charges are just as bad to you as a guy snorting a line and getting caught? It's fine if you feel that way, but I dare say you are in the minority and I wonder if your views would change if it was your team in the spotlight. Funny how that happens.

As I already said, Seattle isn't alone with this problem. The giants, pats, rams, bucks, and skins have all had multiple suspensions in just the last couple of years.

Again, you can't blame the program unless there are tools available to them that you can say they failed to use. I'm not aware of anything available to PC and JS that they have failed to use to stop this or deal with those busted under it. Until you can show me something that meets that criteria any mention of the staff being at fault is pure bullshit.

And last, but not least, you honestly don't see a difference between what you do with repeat offenders vs first time offenses? You REALLY don't see a difference between someone getting busted in the legal system more than once and the first time a player comes up dirty on a test? The quantity doesn't matter? So every time a player gets in trouble with the law you believe they should be thrown out of football no questions asked. Well, the world doesn't see things the same way as you and thank God for it.

 

[BloodType49]

So is Lynch gonna be suspended or not? I think that would even the table for our week 2 match up with us losing Crabs.

 

[WizardHawk]

Losing a WR isn't as bad as losing your starting/feature back. It just isn't.

 

[dredinis21]

You aren't going to find many (any?) fans that support the current CBA for PED's and the fact that the league isn't really interested in putting a stop to it. Look how long it took baseball to address their issues. It took the serious tarnishing of the accomplishments of the players known to do steroids and what it did to fan support before anything was even started. The NFL is an entirely different critter as it seems the fans will support the league no matter how many felons or drug violations are on each team. The fans may not agree with it, but they will still pay to go to games and buy merchandise. As long as that is the case I doubt there will be any changes coming.

The cheating is done by the players to support their drive for more money and the league isn't really hurt by it. Once it has an effect on the leagues bottom line something will be done to change it. Not one day earlier.

As for the difference between a dirty PED test and those in trouble with the law. You don't see ANY difference? Have any of the 50 that were suspended for PED violations been arrested and charged with anything? Even 1 player? And if the league wanted to start turning in players to the legal system what would the be charged with? You don't see a difference between a felony DUI and a misdemeanor drug use charge? Violent battery charges are just as bad to you as a guy snorting a line and getting caught? It's fine if you feel that way, but I dare say you are in the minority and I wonder if your views would change if it was your team in the spotlight. Funny how that happens.

As I already said, Seattle isn't alone with this problem. The giants, pats, rams, bucks, and skins have all had multiple suspensions in just the last couple of years.

Again, you can't blame the program unless there are tools available to them that you can say they failed to use. I'm not aware of anything available to PC and JS that they have failed to use to stop this or deal with those busted under it. Until you can show me something that meets that criteria any mention of the staff being at fault is pure bullshit.

And last, but not least, you honestly don't see a difference between what you do with repeat offenders vs first time offenses? You REALLY don't see a difference between someone getting busted in the legal system more than once and the first time a player comes up dirty on a test? The quantity doesn't matter? So every time a player gets in trouble with the law you believe they should be thrown out of football no questions asked. Well, the world doesn't see things the same way as you and thank God for it.

Of course I see the difference with regards to the law. I am talking about the NFL's stance as a business separate from our legal system. I believe that if you are committing felonies or repeatedly getting in trouble with the law....or you are failing drug tests which affects the integrity of the sport, yes, there should be repercussions. I outlined it already. In terms of the legal system, I absolutely see the difference. But we aren't talking legal. We are talking advertising, marketing, image, representation of the NFL brand while offering fans as honest a competition as you will see out of any sport.