View Full Version : MoFo Fantasy Football 2014 - Week 2
I am undefeated!! WHOOT! WHOOT! :D
I am undefeated!! WHOOT! WHOOT! :D
Just like the Bills and I am 0-1 just like the Patriots. Which team would you rather be?:D
rauldc14
09-14-14, 11:42 AM
Packers better win.
Powdered Water
09-14-14, 04:18 PM
I am not undefeated. I am not a piece of iron.
24 points for the Pats D today? The one ranked 10th? Really?
jiraffejustin
09-14-14, 04:53 PM
Defenses are so unpredictable. The defensive point projections should just be this each week :shrug:
Yeah, outside of a few here and there it's a big crapshoot. Which means I whine when the crap from that chute lands on me in a given week.
jiraffejustin
09-14-14, 05:03 PM
That's why I usually just try to grab defenses that play against bad/turnover prone offenses. Sometimes it works out.
When the hell did the Peterson news break? I swear I looked at updates last night. Between that and Moreno getting hurt on the first carry of the game, I am screwed.
Something unintentional is providing me a great balance to my leagues. Im in four leagues this year - The MoFo, the Jungle, the MoFo $ league, and Freds league.
MoFo is 14 team league, Jungles 12, MoFo$ is 10, and Freds is 8. Pretty cool eh?! Eh?! :yup:
Jon Gruden just used the phrase "arm talent."
jiraffejustin
09-16-14, 12:27 AM
I don't think it's that dumb of a thing to say, I don't really know an easier, less dumb way to describe somebody who can put proper touch on passes and still have the cannon. I guess he could just say he has a strong arm coupled with accuracy, but that's a bit clunky.
I call it, being an NFL quarterback.
jiraffejustin
09-16-14, 12:33 AM
Tim Tebow was an NFL quarterback
Tim Tebow was an NFL quarterback
:nope: ;)
Just talent. The arm part is implied by the context.
Pretty much everything Gruden says is clunky.
rauldc14
09-16-14, 01:04 AM
Bye bye, AP.
Anyone that thinks the mob mentality has died in our "advanced society" should pay attention to the current predicament of Adrian Peterson. He spanked his 4 year old with a switch, leaving marks on his legs. No, I wouldnt do that to a 4 year old, but this was disciplinary actions from a parent. The same treatment AP got growing up.
Anyone thinking Adrian Peterson is a child abuser needs to talk with a single black mom raising a herd of kids. Ask them what value a father, and disciplinarian would be to her kids. What value was it to Peterson?
The point? The NFL, and its fans, just suck. We say as a society how invaluable a fathers presence is to youngsters growing up, especially impoverished minority families. Petersons family is far from impoverished, but I bet that 4 year olds not gonna grow up to be some bratty rich kid, or a criminal.
So when Adrian was a young child, and hit with a switch, should his Dad have been suspended from his employment? This whole situation is just sad and pathetic.
So when Adrian was a young child, and hit with a switch, should his Dad have been suspended from his employment?
You know, my parents have defended Peterson, talking recently about how they remember getting disciplined with a switch (and belts, and paddles, and everything else) when they were kids. But you know what I find to be pretty telling? They never disciplined me that way. They could have, but they chose not to.
It's a difficult thing to be sure. Who's to say how someone should discipline their own child? But there are lines that shouldn't be crossed. Obviously, those lines tend to be pretty subjective, depending on where you are. But having worked with children in the past, and seeing a lot of different examples of parents (both good and bad) disciplining their children, I tend to believe that common sense is the best path to follow on this stuff.
Peterson says he was only disciplining his son the way his father disciplined him, but I don't think that's very solid ground. Besides the fact that his father spent eight years in prison for being part of a crack ring, it's well known that he whipped Peterson pretty severely, including one instance in front of his classmates at school (http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/11540145/friends-family-recall-whippings-adrian-peterson-minnesota-vikings).
In other words, regardless of how accepted corporal punishment is, or has been, in any given time and place in the country, that doesn't necessarily make it right today. Or ever. I don't believe Peterson meant to harm his son so badly, but that doesn't absolve him. I can't see how anyone could look at those pictures and conclude that it's anything other than abuse. No child (much less a four year old) should be subjected to those kinds of injuries out of discipline.
I'm a Vikings fan, and I'm certainly grateful for the amazing things Peterson has done for the team over the years. But he should absolutely be released. And I think it's very possible that he will be.
I think this issue exposes what a lot of political debates are really about: the power of labels.
For example: most people, if there are no stakes, will admit that everyone has prejudices. And most people, if there are no stakes, will probably admit that what took place here crossed the line, even if they (like me) are perfectly fine with physical punishment.
But admitting these things is different than throwing around terms like "racist" or "child abuser." That's what the argument is really about: whether or not someone should be branded with a term that will inevitably follow them around the rest of their life. Notice, for example, that Peterson simultaneously admits he made a mistake, but also says he's "not a child abuser." It's not the criticism he objects to (not publicly, at least), it's the label. Because that label puts him in the same category as people who brazenly beat their children just because they're mad at them, and not because they hope to teach them. Just like the word "racist" can refer to both a member of the KKK and someone who thinks about crossing the street when they see a kid in a hoodie.
I think these larger cultural "discussions" (scare quotes intentional) make a heck of a lot more sense when looked at this way. They're usually not about the incidents they're about--they're about the indelicacy and reductiveness of the labels we use to describe them.
I think this issue exposes what a lot of political debates are really about: the power of labels.
For example: most people, if there are no stakes, will admit that everyone has prejudices. And most people, if there are no stakes, will probably admit that what took place here crossed the line, even if they (like me) are perfectly fine with physical punishment.
But admitting these things is different than throwing around terms like "racist" or "child abuser." That's what the argument is really about: whether or not someone should be branded with a term that will inevitably follow them around the rest of their life. Notice, for example, that Peterson simultaneously admits he made a mistake, but also says he's "not a child abuser." It's not the criticism he objects to (not publicly, at least), it's the label. Because that label puts him in the same category as people who brazenly beat their children just because they're mad at them, and not because they hope to teach them. Just like the word "racist" can refer to both a member of the KKK and someone who thinks about crossing the street when they see a kid in a hoodie.
I think these larger cultural "discussions" (scare quotes intentional) make a heck of a lot more sense when looked at this way. They're usually not about the incidents they're about--they're about the indelicacy and reductiveness of the labels we use to describe them.
:up::up:
This is very well said Yoda.
But admitting these things is different than throwing around terms like "racist" or "child abuser." That's what the argument is really about: whether or not someone should be branded with a term that will inevitably follow them around the rest of their life. Notice, for example, that Peterson simultaneously admits he made a mistake, but also says he's "not a child abuser." It's not the criticism he objects to (not publicly, at least), it's the label. Because that label puts him in the same category as people who brazenly beat their children just because they're mad at them, and not because they hope to teach them. Just like the word "racist" can refer to both a member of the KKK and someone who thinks about crossing the street when they see a kid in a hoodie.
Great points. I do feel like the "child abuser" label that seems to be sticking to Peterson is unfair; he obviously didn't intend to harm his son in the same way that child abusers very clearly and deliberately harm their children. And he's certainly no deadbeat when it comes to personal responsibility and character: by all accounts, he's exemplary as a professional player and has done a lot of community work off the field. (The Vikings seem to be giving him that benefit of the doubt, and rightfully so.)
But from a legal perspective, it's still an abuse case. The injuries warranted an investigation and, although you can expect that evidence to be interpreted differently depending on the cultural/social conventions of a given place, CPS typically takes these kinds of things very seriously. (I know when I worked with kids, despite the fact that I live in a very conservative state, they were extremely proactive about alleged abuse. Usually it was just a couple small bruises that a teacher saw and reported, but CPS was always there within a day or two.)
And I think Peterson himself, by virtue of the remorse he has expressed, knows that he went too far. He must accept that regardless of his intent, he still very possibly committed a crime.
Fair enough Sleezy but if you worked for CPS, then you know they take intent and severity into consideration as well. The punishment from the state could be as little as we are going to monitor you and your kids for a period of time all the way up to your never going to see your kids again and your going to prison, and lots of variables inbetween. What I think Yoda is rightfully pointing out is our culture in general and the media to a large extent want to hang a scarlet letter on these folks. Usually before we even know what side the law is going to come down on.
What I think Yoda is rightfully pointing out is our culture in general and the media to a large extent want to hang a scarlet letter on these folks. Usually before we even know what side the law is going to come down on.
Absolutely, and I particularly blame the media on this one. As disastrous as the Rick Spielman presser was, it sounded to me like the media folks were trying to get the Vikings to turn against their own player. (I'm sure that's largely because the pot continues to simmer on Ray Rice, et. al., but it's still not right.)
Child abuse versus acceptable punishment is neither Rick Spielman's nor the Wilfs' determination to make. And it's easy to jump to conclusions and say they were just finding justification to let him play, and that a winning team trumps the seriousness of alleged child abuse. But I really think the Vikings don't want to punish Peterson by holding him out of games if the court ultimately exonerates him.
Even so, the Vikings have a history of cutting players who have been charged with crimes and I think it's probably likely that Peterson gets a conviction. It's unfair that the media is tearing down his reputation before he's had his day in court, but we all know the media is scrutinizing and unforgiving--especially on high-profile people. That's not likely to change.
It'll be interesting to see what happens if Peterson isn't convicted.
vBulletin® v3.8.0, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.