Array title="pczach has a reputation beyond repute">
Originally Posted by 86WARD
I don't think that his celebrations are excessive. The problem is that the NFL does. That's all I'm saying.
I don't think they have to show no emotion and hand the ball to the ref. However, as long as the rules state that what he is doing is going to cost the team, he shouldn't do it. It's that simple.
If you don't think that all his behavior falls under the title of the thread, I guess we disagree on that, but I agree that there should be some celebrating allowed.
Array title="pczach has a reputation beyond repute">
If you don't care about winning, why follow a football team?
If you enjoy the celebrations and dancing, you can get just as much excitement from Dancing with the Stars.
As long as sports are played at a professional level and players are compensated to play, they are playing to win whether you think that or not. It's a reality of life. Ask the Steelers organization if winning is the most important thing and get back to me with their position on the subject.
When winning is no longer the primary goal, it is no longer a professional sport.....it's WWF.
He did what he thought was a dance. A different version of all the other dances he does. The NFL thought it was too sexual and that's what the problem was.
I'm gonna have to disagree with you, winning is important in the NFL.
it is a game, but it's also a multi-billion dollar industry...
For the entertainment value it brings alone should be a sufficient enough answer. There are many other valuable qualities to the sport of football beyond just 'winning'.
Are you 12?
No, they are playing to get paid. Getting paid comes first, almost always. If winning was the first thing, all free agents would sign with the most competitive teams keeping them at the top of the food chain to 'win', WITHOUT EXCEPTION, for less than their independent value and what they would get signing with a 'losing' team. Only a handful of players do that later in their careers, and it is usually after they have already signed a 'big time' contract.
Winning is nice, but it is a business first for every single person involved, from the towel boys to the owners.
Winning does not come first, ever, in the NFL. They aren't in High School or College where the only success they can find is by 'winning' and there is no involvement at the player level of 'money'. You only believe winning is the most important thing because that is what coaches beat into your mind from the age of 4 on up because 'THEIR' success is dependent on 'YOU' winning. If 'YOU' lose, they have the potential to LOSE their job. It IS about MONEY and SELF INTEREST at the end no matter how you try to spin it.
Do you understand what you just said? The only difference between 'professional' and 'amateur' is a 'professional' is getting paid and compensated for their performance.
I never said it wasn't important. I said it is not the most important. There is a difference.
Array title="pczach has a reputation beyond repute">
There's only one of us here acting like they're 12 and it's not me.
I don't know how you're reading my posts to yourself, but I'm not screaming into my computer. I'm simply stating what I believe. You're the one getting aggressive.
If you don't understand that the object of any sport where they keep score is to win, then I don't know what to say to you. It is something that is universally understood and practiced.
I'm really not trying to get into a pissing contest with you. I even stated in a post above that I agree with you that players should be allowed to celebrate. It's just that the rules say they can't do certain things, and by breaking those rules they hurt the team. Just like many think weed should be legalized. Just because you think it should be allowed doesn't mean you should do it because you will be punished for it. Also, the team that pays that player to help them win games gets punished, so it's something that player shouldn't do.
You're looking at this from only a player's point of view. Every NFL team's #1 objective is to win.
Does that make sense? That's all I'm saying.
IMO the ref was in on it. Seriously. Notice how he didn't throw the flag until the THIRD pump.
Array title="pczach has a reputation beyond repute">
Not trying to argue either, just having a discussion. I did feel your 'dancing with the stars' comment was unnecessary.
When you first got into sports, was your sole objective to experience winning and you decided football would be the avenue you chose to experience 'winning'? Or was the objective to play 'football' and winning would be a by-product of that?
Teams are in the business to make money, that is the objective. If they can't make money, they can't operate. Football is the avenue they chose to accomplish that goal. When the Houston Texans franchise launched, the goal was never to win at football, winning was only a byproduct, and may not even be necessary if they could make enough profit through merchandising the brand. The franchise launched to make money by using football as a revenue source.
in the post I responded to earlier you stated that winning wasn't important to you, and you certainly are entitled to having that opinion.
my point is that winning is important to NFL teams, which is what we are discussing here.
If teams don't care about winning why do 20/32 teams spend within 10 M of the salary cap? Shouldn't they be like Cleveland or Jacksonville who are pocketing 30 M less than other teams by shorting on players salaries?
Imagine making 30 M a year extra just by not caring if you are competitive. Hell the Browns pay 46 M less to their players than Arizona which has the highest cap. That's winning the lottery every single year. And with revenue sharing there is less incentive to field a competitive team.
Every team tries to win. That is first and foremost. That is why bad teams cycle through coaching staffs and QBs every year or two.
Name a team that has been a bottom dweller over the last 10 years that hasn't been through at least 3 coaching staffs. Maybe Jeff Fisher is an axe dodger. Who else?
John Fox got fired for losing the Super Bowl! That wasn't a competitive enough team!
The reality is teams make money off paying little back to cities for extravagant now multi-billion dollar stadiums. It is actually a bit sickening when you get into how good the NFL has it replete with tax breaks as they are classified as "entertainment" not sport.
If you're cynical Lipps you can depve a lot deeper into the shady side of the NFL. But if winning isn't important... why play players with head injuries? Why pay for high price FA? Why cheat with steroids, PEDs, taping other teams, deflating balls etc? Why cut players so frequently for younger players with higher ceilings? Etc etc etc
Winning is the only thing. What else could make grown men cry? Belichick make out with his daughter in jubilation? Coaches be happy to have Gatorade dumped on them? Coaches trip players on the field like Tomlin and Cowher too was going to take a swing at a guy after an INT? Munchak fight Bengals? Do you need the Herm Edwards clip?
I don't think there are a lot of succesful non-competitive pro athletes... or any. You think MJ and Bird played for the money?
Array title="tube517 has a reputation beyond repute">
Uh, maybe that is a normal thing???Belichick make out with his daughter in jubilation?
You are trying to twist my words into making me say something I have never said.
I never said they don't care about winning. I said it was not as important as making money to most. Winning is not the primary motivating force to do what they do.
Just like my question to pczach. Pczach played football to play football, winning was secondary to playing football. Otherwise, if he just cared to win, baseball or basketball is a lot easier on the body than football. Heck, he could have just won at darts if all he cared about was winning. Winning wasn't his motivation to play football, playing football was his motivation. Winning didn't really have anything to do with his choosing to play. He played because he wanted to play.
Just answer this question and I will move on. You and nobody else will answer because they know exactly what the answer is.
What was the primary purpose of the owners purchasing and establishing the Houston Texans? Was the primary purpose to win football games, or for the owners to profit on their investment?
I await anyones response, but I fully expect the question to be ignored but maybe someone out there will surprise me.
Array title="pczach has a reputation beyond repute">
I used the Dancing with the Stars comment after reading you bring up stopping terrorists, curing cancer, solving the hunger problem, creating jobs for the homeless, dying children, and reindeer extinction.I guess we both got carried away.
When I first got into sports, I wanted to play because I loved to play the game......no doubt about it. But as soon as I started playing organized sports, it quickly became about winning.
The further you go in sports, the more important winning becomes. The love of playing was always there for me, and I would imagine for most players of any sport. But the understood goal is always to win. When I played pickup games in basketball, sandlot games in baseball, tackle football games in a field anywhere, or any other non-organized sport.......I played to win.
It wasn't about the money, because there was no money. I played as hard as I could because I loved the game and I absolutely had to win at everything I played. It is something built into many of us I guess, but competitive people play sports. The drive and desire to win at everything is so strong it is uncontrollable. I think that mindset is hard wired into most people that play sports, because I was always surrounded by people just like that in every sport I ever played. It doesn't matter that you don't win every time, but it matters more than anything that you tried to win every single time and made every effort imaginable to make that happen in any situation. There is always going to be a winner and a loser, but the need to win is overriding in everyone. That's why watching sports is so compelling.
To me, getting paid is a byproduct of the hard work you put into the game. I also think that teams pay those athletes based on talent and production that gives the team the best opportunity to win.
Sure there's money involved for everyone, but it is winning that is the ultimate driving force in all of sports.
It's why there is cheating at all levels of sports.
It's why schools break recruiting rules to bring in talented players.
It's why players continue to play when injured and risk further damage to their bodies, even when they aren't getting paid to play.
Some players only play for the money, because they don't love the game as much or they just don't care, but that was always the exception...not the rule.
Money is the business side of the equation. Owners make money, and their employees make money. Just like any other job. In sports however, the product is a game played on a field by people that have been competing their entire lives in an effort to win as often as possible. Yes they get paid to play, but playing football is not like shoveling coal into a furnace. There is a love of the game and a fire that is hard to describe if you haven't played sports or haven't been in that environment, but it's real.
Ultimately, NFL teams acquire players through the draft, in trades, and in free agency that they believe give them the best chance to win a Super Bowl. It is the pursuit of victory that has always been the
driving force in any sport once you get past the compensation part of it. It is understood, because that desire was always there before any money was ever involved for playing any amateur sport.
There is a different dynamic when playing a sport for a living. You should want to win for the sake of winning. You get paid based on how talented you are, but you get paid more if your team is a winning team. That's why super bowl championship teams have a hard time staying together. Other teams are trying to get players that win championships. They are also willing to pay more for that player because of the environment of winning that they hope the player brings with them.
It is all about winning. Always has been....always will be.
I hope I answered in a way that you can understand where I'm coming from.
It's simple: Owning a football team brings in money. Owning a WINNING football team brings in a lot more money.
Also keep in mind, these teams have to spend a certain amount of salary cap so they aren't penny pinching as much as you'd like to think they are.
It's about money. Pure and simple. Colleges break recruiting rules so they can win. But winning only matters because of financial pressure from boosters.
Most athletes want to be the "best". Read about Jordan - it wasn't records for him it was being the best and winning was a byproduct of that drive.
In the NFL most guys measure who is the best by contract dollars. That is why they can get swindled into signing goofy non guaranteed funny money deals. So they can say they are the best at their position because they are paid the most.
if it was actually about winning, everyone would sign for a million or so less per year still be set for life and have a loaded squad to make a run at a championship. That doesn't happen. If it wasn't about money, no one would contemplate cutting veterans like Harrison and Timmons. If it wasn't about money, there wouldn't be strikes every time the CBA runs out. If it wasn't about money, AB wouldn't get fined for brings the sexy back. If it wasn't about money the NFL wouldn't drug test and worry about defending the shield from player conduct.
Maybe sports aren't about money in high school, but after that - follow the money and you can usually find everyone's motivation there.
You have. I completely get where you are coming from. The only point I ever tried to make is that there is almost always going to be a primary motivation other than winning. Winning is just an effect of what it is someone is actually trying to do. The cause is the primary motivation and factor.
The cause must always precede the effect. Nothing in the universe could function if effect preceded cause.
And of course people will always strive to win. To be the best. It is a part of human nature to do so. In part of chasing that effect, it is natural to forget what the cause was in the first place. However, that cause must be and always will be present though even if it is forgotten.
You can see it in the players actual play on the field. In any sport.
As they lose the desire to play, their play itself is impacted. Winning (effect) becomes less important the more the desire to play is lost (cause). They will still try until they give up altogether, but effort put out will not be 100%.
Are you starting to see where I am coming from?
Array title="pczach has a reputation beyond repute">
I get what you're saying. We just see it from different perspectives.
It's a cause and effect thing. You see money as the motivator of everything, everything else is secondary. You are looking at things from the side of the player, and see making a living and getting the most money possible as the #1 goal.
I believe that money is what comes when you work to be the best you can be and strive to win. It is the culmination of a lifetime of work playing the sport you love, and if you play the game from the mindset of winning at all costs, everything else will follow. From an ownership perspective, they make money just for owning a team but the ultimate goal is to win. Winning will make them far more money and increase the value of their team.
I guess it's a chicken and egg type of thing.
I'm only stating my personal beliefs and the position of the majority of the teammates I have been around in locker rooms and in life.
Unfortunately, I was never good enough at anything to earn a living playing a sport for a living. Would have loved to, but like 99.99% of us.....wasn't talented enough.
We agree to disagree, but respect your position.
Array title="Craic has a reputation beyond repute">
Sorry for necro'ing this thread . . . but I just saw this.
Teegre, I'm wondering if you'd enlighten me . . . are you saying "jig" is the same as the previous word? I've never associated the two, so I'm somewhat, well, not surprised, but it's definitely a new association for me. Do you have any insights on the etymology of how it got shortened? I'm asking because, although I'd never use the previous word, I have referred to "the jig" as a dance without any other referent, so if the referent well known and racist and I'm just ignorant of it, then I want to learn.
I'm good with you responding in PM as well.
I apologize for any confusion. That movie quote was for the entire thread, not directed specifically at you. In fact, I was agreeing with you, in that I feel that Edman accidentally used the word "jigaboo", when he meant to say "jig"... therefore, the use of: "I do not think it means what you think it means."
A jig is indeed a dance.
Array title="Craic has a reputation beyond repute">
Ah . . . thanks—and appreciate the clarification.
Array title="GBMelBlount has a reputation beyond repute">
All I want is for Antonio to make plays also.
"With love, with patience, and with Faith
....She'll make her way" ~ Natalie Merchant
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
