It is currently Thu Nov 28, 2024 3:55 am

View unanswered posts | View active topics


Board index » SHOWS & MEDIA » DAN OR BERNSIE (DON'T CALL HIM BERNSTEIN) & WHOEVER

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]



Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 2 of 5
  [ 123 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
  Print view Previous topic | Next topic 
Author Message
Beardown
PostPosted: Wed Dec 27, 2017 3:44 pm 
Offline
1000 CLUB

Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2006 4:29 pm
Posts: 33998
FavreFan wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
FavreFan wrote:
I don't know. I haven't looked into it much since it's obvious Rodgers isn't going anywhere.

It's a huge story if the NFL is giving preferential treatment around a star player that broke a clear rule. I agree they aren't likely to force him to be released but you have to understand why this would be talked about.

The NFL has ruled otherwise in other situations regarding improper transactions.

Unless someone wants to make a convincing case that Rodgers will be playing for the Browns next year, no I do not understand why this would be talked about. Slow news week, I guess.


The NFL won't make them release Rodgers. I'm simply saying if the Browns decided to sue, the judge would rule in their favor, forcing the NFL to make the Packers release him, and he would be on the Browns.

Once again, if I'm the fucking Cleveland Browns, I'm gonna go ahead sue. Hell, the owner of the Browns would make tens of millions by this move. He could double his ticket prices with Aaron Rodgers.
Top
 Profile  
 
Frank Coztansa
PostPosted: Wed Dec 27, 2017 3:45 pm 
Offline
100000 CLUB
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2006 6:17 pm
Posts: 102657
pizza_Place: Vito & Nick's
FavreFan wrote:
Frank Coztansa wrote:
Why? Why all of a sudden should the NFL chose what rules to enforce and not enforce?

And I noticed you cherry picked and did not quote this statement;
Frank Coztansa wrote:
The catch rule(s) is/are dumb too, but that doesn't stop the NFL from enforcing them they way they are written in the rule book.

I didn't quote that statement because it was irrelevent to me making fun of you for thinking the NFL grants special favor to the Packers.
The Packers violated a rule. If they aren't made to release Rodgers, that is the very definition of preferential treatment.

_________________
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
It's more fun to be a victim
Caller Bob wrote:
There will never be an effective vaccine. I'll never get one anyway.
Top
 Profile  
 
Brick
PostPosted: Wed Dec 27, 2017 3:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 92099
Location: To the left of my post
FavreFan wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
FavreFan wrote:
I don't know. I haven't looked into it much since it's obvious Rodgers isn't going anywhere.

It's a huge story if the NFL is giving preferential treatment around a star player that broke a clear rule. I agree they aren't likely to force him to be released but you have to understand why this would be talked about.

The NFL has ruled otherwise in other situations regarding improper transactions.

Unless someone wants to make a convincing case that Rodgers will be playing for the Browns next year, no I do not understand why this would be talked about. Slow news week, I guess.
When Green Bay got screwed on that call in Seattle, it was talked about a lot even though there is no chance the league was going to change the outcome of the game. It's the same thing.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!
Top
 Profile  
 
FavreFan
PostPosted: Wed Dec 27, 2017 3:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 11:17 am
Posts: 72380
Location: Palatine
pizza_Place: Lou Malnatis
Frank Coztansa wrote:
FavreFan wrote:
Frank Coztansa wrote:
Why? Why all of a sudden should the NFL chose what rules to enforce and not enforce?

And I noticed you cherry picked and did not quote this statement;
Frank Coztansa wrote:
The catch rule(s) is/are dumb too, but that doesn't stop the NFL from enforcing them they way they are written in the rule book.

I didn't quote that statement because it was irrelevent to me making fun of you for thinking the NFL grants special favor to the Packers.
The Packers violated a rule. If they aren't made to release Rodgers, that is the very definition of preferential treatment.

FOCUS here, Frank.

This is the post I made fun of you for:

Frank Coztansa wrote:
It is a rule, but because its the Packers the NFL will allow them to do whatever they want.


In that post, you are implying that BECAUSE its the Packers and NO ONE ELSE, Rodgers is gonna stay on the team.

Do you honestly think the NFL would force teams like the Rams, Patriots, Steelers, or Falcons to release guys like Gurley, Brady, Brown, and Jones if the situation occurred there? The answer is of course not.

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul
Top
 Profile  
 
FavreFan
PostPosted: Wed Dec 27, 2017 3:51 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 11:17 am
Posts: 72380
Location: Palatine
pizza_Place: Lou Malnatis
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
FavreFan wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
FavreFan wrote:
I don't know. I haven't looked into it much since it's obvious Rodgers isn't going anywhere.

It's a huge story if the NFL is giving preferential treatment around a star player that broke a clear rule. I agree they aren't likely to force him to be released but you have to understand why this would be talked about.

The NFL has ruled otherwise in other situations regarding improper transactions.

Unless someone wants to make a convincing case that Rodgers will be playing for the Browns next year, no I do not understand why this would be talked about. Slow news week, I guess.
When Green Bay got screwed on that call in Seattle, it was talked about a lot even though there is no chance the league was going to change the outcome of the game. It's the same thing.

It's not the same thing. In that analogy, Seattle wouldn't be forced to hand over Russell Wilson to the worst team in the league.

Anyway, this doesn't seem like a big story. Can't even find it on ESPN's NFL page.

http://www.espn.com/nfl/

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul
Top
 Profile  
 
Beardown
PostPosted: Wed Dec 27, 2017 3:52 pm 
Offline
1000 CLUB

Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2006 4:29 pm
Posts: 33998
It is the same thing when the Bears lost a player because Jerry Angelo didn't check a box.

Favrefan doesn't want to address that.
Top
 Profile  
 
Tall Midget
PostPosted: Wed Dec 27, 2017 3:54 pm 
Offline
1000 CLUB
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 12:55 pm
Posts: 29461
pizza_Place: Zaffiro's
FavreFan wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
FavreFan wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
FavreFan wrote:
I don't know. I haven't looked into it much since it's obvious Rodgers isn't going anywhere.

It's a huge story if the NFL is giving preferential treatment around a star player that broke a clear rule. I agree they aren't likely to force him to be released but you have to understand why this would be talked about.

The NFL has ruled otherwise in other situations regarding improper transactions.

Unless someone wants to make a convincing case that Rodgers will be playing for the Browns next year, no I do not understand why this would be talked about. Slow news week, I guess.
When Green Bay got screwed on that call in Seattle, it was talked about a lot even though there is no chance the league was going to change the outcome of the game. It's the same thing.

It's not the same thing. In that analogy, Seattle wouldn't be forced to hand over Russell Wilson to the worst team in the league.

Anyway, this doesn't seem like a big story. Can't even find it on ESPN's NFL page.

http://www.espn.com/nfl/


COVER UP!

_________________
Antonio Gramsci wrote:
The crisis consists precisely in the fact that the old is dying and the new cannot be born; in this interregnum a great variety of morbid symptoms appear.
Top
 Profile  
 
FavreFan
PostPosted: Wed Dec 27, 2017 3:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 11:17 am
Posts: 72380
Location: Palatine
pizza_Place: Lou Malnatis
Beardown wrote:
It is the same thing when the Bears lost a player because Jerry Angelo didn't check a box.

Favrefan doesn't want to address that.

Let me be clear here. I think any star player on any team would get the "preferential treatment" of not being forced to be released. If it's just a guy nobody gives a shit about then I'm sure the rule would be upheld.

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul
Top
 Profile  
 
KDdidit
PostPosted: Wed Dec 27, 2017 3:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2006 11:28 am
Posts: 23858
Location: Boofoo Zoo
pizza_Place: Chuck E Cheese
FavreFan wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
FavreFan wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
FavreFan wrote:
I don't know. I haven't looked into it much since it's obvious Rodgers isn't going anywhere.

It's a huge story if the NFL is giving preferential treatment around a star player that broke a clear rule. I agree they aren't likely to force him to be released but you have to understand why this would be talked about.

The NFL has ruled otherwise in other situations regarding improper transactions.

Unless someone wants to make a convincing case that Rodgers will be playing for the Browns next year, no I do not understand why this would be talked about. Slow news week, I guess.
When Green Bay got screwed on that call in Seattle, it was talked about a lot even though there is no chance the league was going to change the outcome of the game. It's the same thing.

It's not the same thing. In that analogy, Seattle wouldn't be forced to hand over Russell Wilson to the worst team in the league.

Anyway, this doesn't seem like a big story. Can't even find it on ESPN's NFL page.

http://www.espn.com/nfl/


It was on the Packers page a few days ago

http://www.espn.com/blog/nflnation/post ... fl-scandal
Top
 Profile  
 
Brick
PostPosted: Wed Dec 27, 2017 3:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 92099
Location: To the left of my post
FavreFan wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
FavreFan wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
FavreFan wrote:
I don't know. I haven't looked into it much since it's obvious Rodgers isn't going anywhere.

It's a huge story if the NFL is giving preferential treatment around a star player that broke a clear rule. I agree they aren't likely to force him to be released but you have to understand why this would be talked about.

The NFL has ruled otherwise in other situations regarding improper transactions.

Unless someone wants to make a convincing case that Rodgers will be playing for the Browns next year, no I do not understand why this would be talked about. Slow news week, I guess.
When Green Bay got screwed on that call in Seattle, it was talked about a lot even though there is no chance the league was going to change the outcome of the game. It's the same thing.

It's not the same thing. In that analogy, Seattle wouldn't be forced to hand over Russell Wilson to the worst team in the league.

Anyway, this doesn't seem like a big story. Can't even find it on ESPN's NFL page.

http://www.espn.com/nfl/
For a guy who has complained previously about me being too literal, you certainly take the same liberties when discussing analogies.

We all understand that the NFL is highly unlikely to follow through on this, and we understood the NFL is highly unlikely to ever change a game based on a rule violation in the game, but that doesn't mean it can't be talked about.

ESPN posted the story three days ago so I'm not sure what you mean.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!
Top
 Profile  
 
Beardown
PostPosted: Wed Dec 27, 2017 3:56 pm 
Offline
1000 CLUB

Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2006 4:29 pm
Posts: 33998
FavreFan wrote:
Beardown wrote:
It is the same thing when the Bears lost a player because Jerry Angelo didn't check a box.

Favrefan doesn't want to address that.

Let me be clear here. I think any star player on any team would get the "preferential treatment" of not being forced to be released. If it's just a guy nobody gives a shit about then I'm sure the rule would be upheld.


I agree. Let me be clear. I think the Browns should go to court to force the issue. A judge would rule in their favor.
Top
 Profile  
 
FavreFan
PostPosted: Wed Dec 27, 2017 3:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 11:17 am
Posts: 72380
Location: Palatine
pizza_Place: Lou Malnatis
Beardown wrote:
FavreFan wrote:
Beardown wrote:
It is the same thing when the Bears lost a player because Jerry Angelo didn't check a box.

Favrefan doesn't want to address that.

Let me be clear here. I think any star player on any team would get the "preferential treatment" of not being forced to be released. If it's just a guy nobody gives a shit about then I'm sure the rule would be upheld.


I agree. Let me be clear. I think the Browns should go to court to force the issue. A judge would rule in their favor.

I disagree that a judge would rule in their favor. I agree they would be dumb not to pursue this aggressively though. Worth a shot.

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul
Top
 Profile  
 
FavreFan
PostPosted: Wed Dec 27, 2017 3:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 11:17 am
Posts: 72380
Location: Palatine
pizza_Place: Lou Malnatis
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
ESPN posted the story three days ago so I'm not sure what you mean.

Click on the link. Hold Ctl + F. Type in Rodgers. Let me know the results.

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul
Top
 Profile  
 
Frank Coztansa
PostPosted: Wed Dec 27, 2017 3:58 pm 
Offline
100000 CLUB
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2006 6:17 pm
Posts: 102657
pizza_Place: Vito & Nick's
FavreFan wrote:
Frank Coztansa wrote:
FavreFan wrote:
Frank Coztansa wrote:
Why? Why all of a sudden should the NFL chose what rules to enforce and not enforce?

And I noticed you cherry picked and did not quote this statement;
Frank Coztansa wrote:
The catch rule(s) is/are dumb too, but that doesn't stop the NFL from enforcing them they way they are written in the rule book.

I didn't quote that statement because it was irrelevent to me making fun of you for thinking the NFL grants special favor to the Packers.
The Packers violated a rule. If they aren't made to release Rodgers, that is the very definition of preferential treatment.

FOCUS here, Frank.

This is the post I made fun of you for:

Frank Coztansa wrote:
It is a rule, but because its the Packers the NFL will allow them to do whatever they want.


In that post, you are implying that BECAUSE its the Packers and NO ONE ELSE, Rodgers is gonna stay on the team.

Do you honestly think the NFL would force teams like the Rams, Patriots, Steelers, or Falcons to release guys like Gurley, Brady, Brown, and Jones if the situation occurred there? The answer is of course not.
Than those teams would be getting preferential treatment. Just like the Packers are.

Also given Goodell's history with Tom Brady, I am not sure he would let them get off with nothing.

_________________
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
It's more fun to be a victim
Caller Bob wrote:
There will never be an effective vaccine. I'll never get one anyway.
Top
 Profile  
 
Curious Hair
PostPosted: Wed Dec 27, 2017 3:58 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 6:29 pm
Posts: 55968
pizza_Place: Barstool One Bite Frozen
FavreFan wrote:
Unless someone wants to make a convincing case that Rodgers will be playing for the Browns next year, no I do not understand why this would be talked about. Slow news week, I guess.

Think. About. Lawyers.

_________________
Molly Lambert wrote:
The future holds the possibility to be great or terrible, and since it has not yet occurred it remains simultaneously both.
Top
 Profile  
 
FavreFan
PostPosted: Wed Dec 27, 2017 3:59 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 11:17 am
Posts: 72380
Location: Palatine
pizza_Place: Lou Malnatis
Frank Coztansa wrote:
Also given Goodell's history with Tom Brady, I am not sure he would let them get off with nothing.

And I am sure that he would not force the Patriots to release Brady :lol:

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul
Top
 Profile  
 
Curious Hair
PostPosted: Wed Dec 27, 2017 4:00 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 6:29 pm
Posts: 55968
pizza_Place: Barstool One Bite Frozen
Beardown wrote:
The Bears once lost a free agent because Jerry Angelo didn't check a box when they sent it into the league.

In the area under "do not write under this space," he wrote, "okay."

_________________
Molly Lambert wrote:
The future holds the possibility to be great or terrible, and since it has not yet occurred it remains simultaneously both.
Top
 Profile  
 
Beardown
PostPosted: Wed Dec 27, 2017 4:01 pm 
Offline
1000 CLUB

Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2006 4:29 pm
Posts: 33998
FavreFan wrote:
Beardown wrote:
FavreFan wrote:
Beardown wrote:
It is the same thing when the Bears lost a player because Jerry Angelo didn't check a box.

Favrefan doesn't want to address that.

Let me be clear here. I think any star player on any team would get the "preferential treatment" of not being forced to be released. If it's just a guy nobody gives a shit about then I'm sure the rule would be upheld.


I agree. Let me be clear. I think the Browns should go to court to force the issue. A judge would rule in their favor.

I disagree that a judge would rule in their favor. I agree they would be dumb not to pursue this aggressively though. Worth a shot.


Why do you not think a judge would rule in their favor? It's not even a complicated case. It's a rule in the NFL. Judge sees that, gives the judgement to the Browns and goes to lunch.
Top
 Profile  
 
Frank Coztansa
PostPosted: Wed Dec 27, 2017 4:01 pm 
Offline
100000 CLUB
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2006 6:17 pm
Posts: 102657
pizza_Place: Vito & Nick's
FavreFan wrote:
Frank Coztansa wrote:
Also given Goodell's history with Tom Brady, I am not sure he would let them get off with nothing.

And I am sure that he would not force the Patriots to release Brady :lol:
He might force them release Brady. I don't know for sure.

But I think that is a moot point because I am sure that Belichick would not be dumb enough to have this even be a story.

_________________
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
It's more fun to be a victim
Caller Bob wrote:
There will never be an effective vaccine. I'll never get one anyway.
Top
 Profile  
 
FavreFan
PostPosted: Wed Dec 27, 2017 4:03 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 11:17 am
Posts: 72380
Location: Palatine
pizza_Place: Lou Malnatis
Beardown wrote:
FavreFan wrote:
Beardown wrote:
FavreFan wrote:
Beardown wrote:
It is the same thing when the Bears lost a player because Jerry Angelo didn't check a box.

Favrefan doesn't want to address that.

Let me be clear here. I think any star player on any team would get the "preferential treatment" of not being forced to be released. If it's just a guy nobody gives a shit about then I'm sure the rule would be upheld.


I agree. Let me be clear. I think the Browns should go to court to force the issue. A judge would rule in their favor.

I disagree that a judge would rule in their favor. I agree they would be dumb not to pursue this aggressively though. Worth a shot.


Why do you not think a judge would rule in their favor? It's not even a complicated case. It's a rule in the NFL. Judge sees that, gives the judgement to the Browns and goes to lunch.

Packers lawyers would argue they simply fucked up which injury it was, and that it was a hamstring or some shit all along. Or something else. I'm not a lawyer, and either are you, so we don't really have the slightest idea how it would actually play out. I just don't see any scenario in which Rodgers plays for the Browns next year. Cuz I have common sense.

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul
Top
 Profile  
 
FavreFan
PostPosted: Wed Dec 27, 2017 4:03 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 11:17 am
Posts: 72380
Location: Palatine
pizza_Place: Lou Malnatis
Frank Coztansa wrote:
FavreFan wrote:
Frank Coztansa wrote:
Also given Goodell's history with Tom Brady, I am not sure he would let them get off with nothing.

And I am sure that he would not force the Patriots to release Brady :lol:
He might force them release Brady. I don't know for sure.

:lol: :lol:

You crack me up, Frank.

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul
Top
 Profile  
 
Frank Coztansa
PostPosted: Wed Dec 27, 2017 4:05 pm 
Offline
100000 CLUB
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2006 6:17 pm
Posts: 102657
pizza_Place: Vito & Nick's
I'm sorry your team broke a rule and you can't seem to grasp that concept.

_________________
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
It's more fun to be a victim
Caller Bob wrote:
There will never be an effective vaccine. I'll never get one anyway.
Top
 Profile  
 
FavreFan
PostPosted: Wed Dec 27, 2017 4:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 11:17 am
Posts: 72380
Location: Palatine
pizza_Place: Lou Malnatis
Frank Coztansa wrote:
I'm sorry your team broke a rule and you can't seem to grasp that concept.

Grasp?

You're struggling with comprehension in this thread.

I never denied they broke a rule. I'm saying I don't give a shit because it doesn't matter.

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul
Top
 Profile  
 
Frank Coztansa
PostPosted: Wed Dec 27, 2017 4:08 pm 
Offline
100000 CLUB
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2006 6:17 pm
Posts: 102657
pizza_Place: Vito & Nick's
It should matter. And it does matter. If the NFL ignores this, then why don't they ignore other rules?

_________________
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
It's more fun to be a victim
Caller Bob wrote:
There will never be an effective vaccine. I'll never get one anyway.
Top
 Profile  
 
FavreFan
PostPosted: Wed Dec 27, 2017 4:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 11:17 am
Posts: 72380
Location: Palatine
pizza_Place: Lou Malnatis
Frank Coztansa wrote:
It should matter. And it does matter. If the NFL ignores this, then why don't they ignore other rules?

I don't know. I'll let you cry about that stuff.

It was clear to most of us this was a non-story when it came out a few days ago.

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul
Top
 Profile  
 
Frank Coztansa
PostPosted: Wed Dec 27, 2017 4:11 pm 
Offline
100000 CLUB
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2006 6:17 pm
Posts: 102657
pizza_Place: Vito & Nick's
It is a non-story for you because its the Packers. This isn't 'Nam, there are rules here.

_________________
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
It's more fun to be a victim
Caller Bob wrote:
There will never be an effective vaccine. I'll never get one anyway.
Top
 Profile  
 
FavreFan
PostPosted: Wed Dec 27, 2017 4:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 11:17 am
Posts: 72380
Location: Palatine
pizza_Place: Lou Malnatis
Frank Coztansa wrote:
It is a non-story for you because its the Packers. This isn't 'Nam, there are rules here.

As I said, it's a non-story because it involves one of the best and most marketable stars in the league. This would be a non-story if it was Todd Gurley too.

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul
Top
 Profile  
 
Jaw Breaker
PostPosted: Wed Dec 27, 2017 4:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2010 3:40 pm
Posts: 16490
pizza_Place: Boni Vino
Why the hell would they have to make up a "new" injury to a different body part? Isn't it obvious that he could have re-injured the same thing that put him on IR the first time? Why is that so hard to understand? Does the rule actually state that players are not allowed to re-injure the same body part?

_________________
To IkeSouth, bigfan wrote:
Are you stoned or pissed off, or both, when you create these postings?
Top
 Profile  
 
FavreFan
PostPosted: Wed Dec 27, 2017 4:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 11:17 am
Posts: 72380
Location: Palatine
pizza_Place: Lou Malnatis
Jaw Breaker wrote:
Does the rule actually state that players are not allowed to re-injure the same body part?

:lol:

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul
Top
 Profile  
 
Seacrest
PostPosted: Wed Dec 27, 2017 4:17 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2005 6:45 pm
Posts: 38362
Location: Lovetron
pizza_Place: Malnati's
FavreFan wrote:
Frank Coztansa wrote:
It is a non-story for you because its the Packers. This isn't 'Nam, there are rules here.

As I said, it's a non-story because it involves one of the best and most marketable stars in the league. This would be a non-story if it was Todd Gurley too.


So, if they had to release him, couldn't they just re-sign right away?

_________________
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
The victims are the American People and the Republic itself.
Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 2 of 5
  [ 123 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

Board index » SHOWS & MEDIA » DAN OR BERNSIE (DON'T CALL HIM BERNSTEIN) & WHOEVER

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group