Jump to content

The NFL Thread


Soapsuds

Recommended Posts

  • Members

The NFL, and especially Roger Goodell, is like low hanging fruit and it's become safe for those who constantly must've been holding their noses to swoop in and point out the stench. I've heard over and over again how it's a microcosm or reflection of society and I'm inclined to disagree. It exists because there is extreme entertainment value and a lot of money to be made for a select group. The players may be people too but I don't know of any "regular" jobs in which the employer would knowingly hire guys with drug issues, rapists, and other criminals by reasoning that their talent trumps their "extracurricular activiies."

ESPN hired Ray Lewis. Do they care about the families who lost their loved ones to murder and his possible involvement (or at the very least his obsruction of justice) and how it must feel to see him on their staff? Or do they brush that off because he made a financial settlement with them? They certainly don't care about having him commenting on either Ray Rice or Adrian Peterson.

While I understand that Hannah Storm is not ESPN, I still can't feel much for her asking what the NFL stands for when she should ask the same of her employers. The NFL and applicable owners have been hiding behind "due process" as justification for their inaction and ESPN is probably hiding behind "giving you the public what you want," though I doubt a bunch of people asked for the analysis of Ray Lewis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 179
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Members

I'm not saying this to be controversial but I honestly don't understand why the NFL is being targeted for this and why Morning Joe and the Media at large is so hell bent on destroying the League and the possibility of enjoying football season this year. I don't support or condone domestic violence but this situation isn't as clear cut black and white as some would like to make it seem. And I don't think Roger Goodell should be fired.

Bottom line though is that the ratings speak for themselves. The fans speak for themselves. They're the ones showing up to the games and still watching. And from what I've seen there are still women wearing Ray Rice jerseys and plenty of people on the Russ Parr Morning Show defending Adrian Peterson's actions towards that poor son of his.

In short this is just another storm that will eventually pass on. Happens with every shooting rampage this country experiences. It happens with almost every so called "scandal". A lot of uproar and indignation but it all eventually dies out....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I don't think Roger Goodell should be fired either. He works for a bunch of owners, some of whom knowingly hire criminals to play for their teams. I don't see how a player's behavior is his fault. Teams have the ability to discipline players if they want and those who don't use him as a scapegoat (which is part of the reason they pay him $44 million a year besides his increasing their profits).

Maybe some of the people who flat out hate the NFL want to see it destroyed, but I don't think everyone who is complaining wants that. I'm sure there are a wide range of reasons including those who want to feel better about watching and cheering for a team, even if it's merely cosmetic. The video and pictures present a moral dilemma for some and even when this blows over, the dilemma is still going to exist and will resurface if some other "in your face" images are brought to light.

Since TMZ has jumped into the sports arena, I find it hard to believe that they are not going to make a practice of digging up dirt to spring on the NFL at opportune spotlight moments. They released that video on opening weekend for the attention and managed to turn a day of football into mentions for TMZ.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

If the investigation that is being conducted, Ray Rice's appeal, and/or other evidence reveals that Roger Goodell lied about what he knew prior to issuing Ray Rice's suspension, he will more than likely step down or be fired. I cannot see how he or the owners would be able to get around something like that without removing him.

Outside of that, I don't see why he should be fired to appease people who didn't seem to care that much about the practices of the NFL when it comes to punishment (except when it impacts their gambling including Fantasy Football). I don't know the extent to which the owner of the Ravens influenced the length of the suspension. The spotlight is on Roger Goodell but I don't see any group demanding anyone from the Ravens be fired. They are the ones who quickly got behind Ray Rice and put out statements about the events. They also held that press conference in which they trotted out his wife to show all is well. If the fruit on the tree is rotten then they're at the root of that mess.

And the owner of the Carolina Panthers cried freely while still planning to play someone who was already convicted, by acting as though he had no choice. Then lo and behold they deactivated him for a game. Then they let him return and were hiding behind "due process" until "due process" became a leave because of the external pressure.

So far the "zero tolerance" 49ers haven't been shamed into deactivating, suspending or sitting the player they have who is accused of domestic violence against his pregnant fiancee.

The only owner anyone seems to be willing to complain about is Dan Snyder over the Redskins. All the Hugh Hefner wannabes skate and the crocodile tears seem sufficient from the owners who want to do the right thing but cannot because of "due process" because they are paying those guys millions and why should domestic issues cost them? Roger Goodell might ultimately need to go but I don't think that little band aid takes care of anything until those owners are made accountable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
  • 3 months later...
  • Administrator

Yeah!!!!!!!!!!!!!! What a crazy ending!!!! I couldn't believe that insane catch by Seattle....I couldn't believe it was happening again (helmet catch and sideline catch). Then a miracle happened....Seattle decided to throw from the one yard line??!! What??!! Interception!!!! Yes!!!!! That was one of the best Super Bowl ever. I laugh at Sherman who was talking smack about Revis with his "two" "four" to the camera after Seattle's last TD. Hey Sherman, you mad bro??!!!

And congrats to (in a Denzel Washington voice) "my man," Tom Brady on his fourth ring and 3rd Super Bowl MVP. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrator

People are just trying to come up with reasons why they decided to throw instead of running. I highly doubt the coaches were thinking about MVPs on that situation. It was just a terrible play call, the worst in Super Bowl history.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



  • Recent Posts

    • I've always considered that Paul Avila Mayer was hired by Ellen on her way out the door, but I also wondered if NBC was trying to keep Mayer in their writers' stable after he failed to work out on "Santa Barbara."  Mayer and Braxton were fined for writing during the strike. I believe there is an article mentioning it somewhere in this thread.  I don't hate Mayer and Braxton's run. I found Jeanne Glynn's run very dry in what I've seen until about her final month or so when she starts to focus on the reveal that T.R. is the lost Rebecca Kendall. Mayer and Braxton didn't always have amazing stories, but I found the characterization was deeper (if not always true to who the person had been). There were some scenes I really enjoyed.  The misogyny comment is interesting and is something I hadn't considered. I found the tail end of Braxton and Mayer's run interesting when the all male board at Tourneur Instruments gave Liza grief for shacking up with Hogan, which seemed to be broaching the subject in a way that showed it was wrong. I will say, however, there is a scene much earlier in their run where Liza starts to think of herself as aging because of having a teenage daughter that now makes me lean to agree with you.  I thought Liza and Hogan had nice chemistry and I loved the fact that Hogan was clearly more into Liza than Liza was into Hogan. Sunny's fate in that story was awful. Sunny rarely had good stories once Hogan left the first time.  Bassett played Selina McCulla, a nurse who worked at the Riverfront Clinic. Her brother was Joseph Phillips' Cruiser McCulla, who was Ryder's pal. They were introduced in early 1985 by Jeanne Glynn and written out very quickly in Braxton and Mayer's run. Cruiser got a formal write out; he was sent off to study computers out of town. Selina appeared at the clinic in some situation after Cruiser left and then was never seen or mentioned again.  I want to say they sent TR off to college, but a later post says she went to Switzerland. I think Krakowski was in some play at the time. Maybe it was Starlight Express. The chemistry is still there for me in October, 1985, when Hogan and Sunny are investigating the poisoned water storyline that dovetails back into Hogan / Liza / Lloyd.  I am a Gary Tomlin apologist but his second run is frenetic, not always in a good way.  Evie was probably going to be revealed to be someone's daughter. Stone was her stepfather, wasn't he? I don't think introducing a younger female from the lower class was a bad idea, but I don't know if I would have gone with Evie / Quinn. I was briefly intrigued by the chemistry test between Adair and Ryder.  I don't mind Jeffrey Meek, but I find him very attractive so maybe I am biased in my appreciation of his work.  I definitely felt the Kendall reset in October with Chase going to the paper and the mystery of San Marcos leading to Estelle and the return of Steve. I don't like Lloyd Bautista much as an actor, but he would have been better off playing Martin Tourneur by that point but not as a crime boss. When does John Whitsell takeover? Is it November? When I watched these episodes a few years back, October, November, and December seemed like almost three different shows. November was a glaring jump from the material Tomlin started to set up in October and by December it seemed like everything from October was gone.  Stephanie / Wendy / Bela is a horrid story. I thought the initial concept of the story was smart (Wendy trying to prove that Bela was a cad by luring him into bed but I couldn't see Wendy actually falling for Bela). The only direction I would have accepted was a Stephanie / Wendy / Bela story that ended with both women murdering Bela and getting away with it.  I didn't know they had already set up Liza's exit. Thanks for sharing a new detail. I struggle to watch the November-December 1986 episodes when they are online. It just seems like such a different show. I don't think the decision about T.R. was that noble. I think it was clear that Jane Krakowski wasn't staying and Robert Reed as Lloyd wasn't going to work out.  I think the show wanted to go full steam ahead with Evie / Cagney and Suzi was considered expendable.  Tomlin was writer for both Sarah's death and Patti's arrival. I don't know if the producer change had happened yet or which producer approved those decisions. I'm pretty sure Nicholson was out in November at some point. Sarah's death is the impetus for Patti's return; she comes back to Henderson to find her daughter's murderer.  I think details get lost to history. For years, Tracey's existence was never mentioned on soap opera message boards when I first started. Interesting, Sarah Whiting was also rarely mentioned and I am not sure Michelle Joyner is listed in cast lists for most of the soap books that cover the final years of "Search for Tomorrow." I cannot remember if Tracey was mentioned from the beginning. I know she is mentioned by July, 1985, when Sarah is at the McCleary family dinner. I think Kate asks Sarah about her family and she mentions her sister and brother.  I think Sarah's adoption was mentioned only under Tomlin, but I might be wrong on that. I feel like it was stated by Jo in explaining to Suzi (or maybe someone else) about why Sarah had a constant need for approval.  Lundquist didn't work for me as Steve, but I was disappointed how quickly Steve was dumped a second time.  I have never understood why the show dropped Phillip Brown as Steve or why there wasn't an immediate recast given the importance of the character to the narrative. Clearly, it was a Ellen Barrett issue because Tomlin brings Steve back less than two months into his 1985 return.  I think the shift to the twins, Chase and Alec, was probably to skew the show younger and keep Lloyd involved as there was part two of the Kendall vs. Tourneur/Sentell story to play out with Travis and Liza raising a Kendall. Originally, from what I've pieces together, it looked like Adair was the mother of Elan and one of the Kendall boys was the father. I wonder what this meant was the plan for T.R. or if she and Elan were both intended to be Kendalls, which would have been overkill.   I agree that the deconstruction of the Wendy / Quinn / Sarah story was a mistake. I think Tomlin leaned into one of his favorite tropes (turning the uninspired heroine into the bad girl) and used it with Sarah, though it seemed like Mayer and Braxton may have already been heading in that direction. I didn't love the music angle of the story all that much, but I loved that it pitted Quinn against Chase and I would have enjoyed that rivalry a bit more. When did Quinn become Stephanie's assistant? Was that under Tomlin? I thought that was a smart move.  I think Stephanie/Wendy/Bela is one of the worst story choices. When Stephanie called Wendy a slut, I was like we've reached a point where I no longer recognize anyone involved.  The Suzi / Wendy stuff falls apart very early in Mayer / Braxton as I think Jeanne Glynn was gearing up for a longer Wendy / Suzi custody suit over Jonah as Suzi's mental health continued to collapse. I felt Braxton and Mayer even hinted that they might go with Wendy pursuing Cagney for a moment, but instead we got Wendy / Quinn / Sarah, which I really liked. I felt Sarah being the Jo's granddaughter and a manipulator against Wendy's more mature and adult complicated heroine was an interesting choice that should have been allowed to play longer.  I felt that Jeanne Glynn built a lot of potential, but never really lit the match and was able to use it in stories. That may be because she didn't have enough time. I felt her last month or so was very solid and was finally going somewhere after mostly not going anywhere. Justine's departure didn't bother me. They had played a lot of Justine / Chase as well and Wendy / Alec. There was a lot of building of foundation, but the story never got anywhere.  The shifts in story are remarkable and depressing to consider. Lots of the potential was intriguing, it just rarely reached a productive stage because, as you have said, a writer or a producer was always coming in and making their mark. 
    • Just had a random thought that Vanessa Bell Calloway would be good casting for Sharon (The Articulette who hung up on Anita). She usually plays nice, but if you saw the Temptations biopic you'll remember she was pretty good playing that crooked manager that ripped them off. She might also sing because in Polly and Polly Comin' Home her character sang but I can't tell if it was a dub or not. Lastly, she did AMC and DAYS for short stints so she is no stranger to soaps.
    • I don't know if this counts for you but Bill Bell did a terrible short plot with an overweight character (Joann) who tried to French kiss Kay Chancellor.....if you google you'll find a link called Lezwatch.tv that has an article about it.
    • https://www.instagram.com/p/DJxpFaAp_UY/ Roman vs. Stefano, Cliff top, Beach Below This is one of the most important scenes on DAYS in the 80s. After this nothing was ever the same. DAYS 11-23-84   @JAS0N47Closing Credits roll & it's complete silence. Isn't that unusual?
    • Mack was the show's moral compass and his groundedness complimented Karen's hysteria perfectly. Also, Kevin Dobson was the best looking male cast member with a huge fan base. He was never going to be killed off...
    • As others (I think) have said, Long just didn't get Nola and Quint. I guess it would've been hard to write them into adventure type stories with two kids, but they just fell off the map after AJ's birth. (or even the wedding/honeymoon) Long would've had to rewrite something, because Alex forced the Chamberlains out of Spaulding in the fall of '84. Not that she couldn't have just ignored it and written Quint and Henry being involved at the firm. I swear there was some plot point she just literally ignored that surprised me, but as I'm floating around between years, I can't recall what it was. lol Has anyone found the first day of the Kyle/Lewis dinner party up in English? After he took over Lewis Oil, Kyle arranged a dinner party. All hell breaks loose--Mindy admits to shooting Kyle, Vanessa remembers Reva's accident, and Billy and Reva get into a screaming match and she tells HB that Billy blackmailed her out of her Lewis shares. The last three minutes (or so) of the episode are up, where Kyle tells the assembled that HB's his father. And the next episode picks up with Sally entering the fray. Y'all know I'm dying to hear Billy and Reva go at it. As dicey as '85 is, I love it anytime when Billy isn't Reva's bitch.  
    • The original premise of "Santa Barbara" was that a Lockridge (Warren) killed a Capwell (Channing), who loved an Andrade (Santana), while a Perkins (Joe) went to jail for the crime. I think once the show started to pull away the threads by eliminating Joe and naming a new killer a lot of the show's original potential was lost. I contend, like others, that the fault lied in the uninspiring casting, which leads me to wonder if that's why the show became so keen on casting soap veterans for nearly every pivotal role.  The failure of the Perkins family was definitely a casting issue followed by a lack of interest in committing to the original onscreen characterization. I was fascinated watching the early episodes and realizing that the Perkins had been financially wiped out by the trial, which was an underlying current towards John's animosity towards his son. Then, the additional complication of Marissa's nearly incestual affection for Joe that led to her cutting off John sexually was a wild moment to witness, but not as strong as it could have been with a stronger actor in the role of John Perkins. Melissa Brennan wasn't the right choice for the aspiring young vixen that Jade was intended to be. Brennan may have breathed life into Laken, but I'm not sure how Julia Ronnie would have done in the role of Jade.  Despite the recorded history, Christina Robertson and Sarah Gallagher weren't sisters; they were aunt and niece.  I don't think it would have hurt to make Marissa and Augusta sisters, but I think it would have made the Joe / Augusta seduction impossible unless you truly mimick "Rituals" and make Joe Sarah's stepson. I think a childhood friendship between the two women would have worked. It would have also given Augusta someone to confide in about the situation involving Peter Flint and herself as Marissa would have been aware of Peter from her work at the pre school. As childhood friends that were estranged by class differences, I think a relationship between Augusta and Joe (and later Augusta and a sexually frustrated John) would have had multiple layers to play out giving a deeper impact on Augusta's involvement in both of the men in Marissa's life. And because I have thought about this all too much, I would have Augusta and Marissa square off again when Jade, after marrying Ted while pregnant, learned that the little Capwell heir was in fact an imprisoned Warren's son only for Augusta to ultimately keep mum because with Ted married to Jade he wasn't free to pursue Laken.  I imagine the Andrades would have slowly been withdrawn from the Capwell inner circle as the truth about Santana, Channing, Jr., and the baby came to light for everyone. In what I seen in the 1980s, Rosa confronts C.C. once about the baby and then seems to move on. Early in the run, the actor playing Reuben claims he and Bridget Dobson had a falling out and implied that she was racist which led to the character fading into the woodwork.  I know I am like maybe one of two people who liked the 1990s run of the Dobsons, but I loved the set up for Santana / C.C. with the Andrades having owned the land that Oasis sat on years earlier posing Santana to come into money while also potentially landing a position where she could raise Gina's son with C.C. if C.C. and Santana could have secured custody of the child. With Eden gone, I would have gone back to Santana and Cruz, but if not, I think Brick should have returned to be Santana's conscience and potential love interest.     
    • Well, I'm not going to shoot you, so no worries there. If it's subpar i hate hearing that. It was an old DVD not even mine a former partner. I thought why not make use of it. Serves me right for thinking. But to be clear, white label, www.radiomemory.com 
    • Just compared the open on Friday's episode with the first week episodes. I think the difference is that the bass line is much more apparent -- stronger and harder.
    • Phew, that was close to disaster!

      Please register in order to view this content

      I suspect we would have had a few withdrawals next year if Israel had won. I don't think many people would relish going to Jerusalem as things stand now. Not to mention it would have been a prime target for terrorist attacks.   
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy