Which is exactly why Buffalo reached and reached bad, and at what; 7th overall? Absolutely hilarious lol. He wasn't even worth anything more than a 4th/5th round draft pick to begin with; due to being nothing more than an NFL project/experiement type of question mark? Your Front Office simply fell for the ESPN "big arm" "media hype" ala JaMarcus Russell. He's a good 4-5 years away from being able to even see an NFL field. He's horrible. Couldn't even beat the likes of and/or lost against no name schools such as... North Dakota = Loss. Eastern Michigan = Loss. Nevada-Las Vegas = Loss. New Mexico = Loss. San Diego State = Loss. Brigham Young = Loss. lol Finished his college career with a laughable completion percentage of only 56.2% (that's disgusting and embarrassing). And once he finally seen and faced NCAA teams with above average defenses? He shit the bed (ala he is no "leader amongst men"). Iowa: 23/40 (57.5%), 174 yards, 0 TD's/2 INT's. 8 runs for -10 yards. QB Rating of only 84.0. Oregon: 9/24 (37.5%), 64 yards, 0 TD's/1 INT. QB Rating of only 51.6. Nebraska: 16/32 (50%), 189 yards, 1 TD/5 INT's. 7 runs for 7 yards. QB Rating of only 78.7. I hate to use God's name in vain but OMG what the fuck was Buffalo even THINKING when they drafted your little Racist piece of shit Redneck out of Wyoming?!? He is pure trailer park trash overall. And to make it worse... his own black teammates probably hate him too. "IF IT AINT WHITE IT AINT RIGHT". TG4SD 'Thank GOD for Sam Darnold'.
O.k. And, so what? They've also given up 3 Defensive TD's (and counting) thus far when in comparison to 0 Defensive TD's allowed by Gang Green.
You have BuffaloPhysco. . We have DefenseWinsChampionships. You could've come here with a less lame username however... .
Nah. • Career completion percentage (or lack thereof) while @ Wyoming of only 56.2% • North Dakota = Loss. Eastern Michigan = Loss. Nevada-Las Vegas = Loss. New Mexico = Loss. San Diego State = Loss. Brigham Young = Loss. • Iowa: 23/40 (57.5%), 174 yards, 0 TD's/2 INT's. 8 runs for -10 yards. QB Rating of only 84.0. Oregon: 9/24 (37.5%), 64 yards, 0 TD's/1 INT. QB Rating of only 51.6. Nebraska: 16/32 (50%), 189 yards, 1 TD/5 INT's. 7 runs for 7 yards. QB Rating of only 78.7. The only one's with issues are that of Josh Allen and his accuracy issues and Buffalo for trading up to 7th overall in order to draft a project of an NFL experiment (question mark). I'm pretty sure his black teammates in Buffalo also have an "issues" with his racist "if it ain't white it ain't right" remarks (no wonder he grew up on a farm and selected to play @ Wyoming).
Marqise Lee (Jaguars WR) out for the season with ligament damage after a low hit. There seems to be some controversy about it, but if you're going to legislate against high hits you'd better expect that players are going to get hurt on low hits. Playing football is definitely hazardous to your health. Edit: Oops, as pointed out below, he's on the Jaguars, not the Panthers. Edited. Sorry about that.
^^ Jaguars, but yeah it sucks to see a guy who was actually poised to have a decent year after Hurns left to Dallas. Honestly, the league is forcing these players to hit low and it is causing such an out rage with the players that I could see the owners and league say, "Hey you want us to get rid of the low hits, here sign this waiver so you can't come after us for brain damage later in life. You can hit high again."
Thats been the answer to this whole controversy all along.Sign a waiver or dont play.When 98% of players still sign the waiver to play its the end of the discussion
Signing a waiver doesn't really solve the problem for the NFL. Workers can't sign away their rights to a safe workplace; federal law says that "employers have the responsibility to provide a safe and healthful workplace that is free from serious recognized hazards." Construction workers aren't allowed to sign a waiver saying "I won't wear a hard hat and won't sue you if a brick falls on my head." If you are forcing players to sign a waiver you are explicitly acknowledging a hazard, and that means you have to make the workplace as safe from that hazard as you can. That is precisely why the NFL keeps instituting safety-related rules changes - so they can argue in court that they're not violating federal law if they get sued. Waivers wouldn't change that, and could even work against them. Another problem for the game is that if the NFL did something like this (if it was allowed) it would probably immediately become an NCAA requirement as well, and that could actually kill the sport. Plenty of parents don't think about long-term brain damage to their 18-year old high school senior son, but if a coach forced him to sign a waiver absolving the school from all damages before they'd give him a scholarship I think the attitude would be very different. And since players are clearly on the road to getting paid, you can bet universities would want a waiver for the same reasons the NFL would (they would be employers then, and subject to OSHA rules). The problem isn't filling a team now, or for the next 5 to 10 years; it's 25 years from now that worries NFL owners.
Ill take your word for it..i do know that labor law is typically held under strict liability..so they certainly dont want to create any grey area in terms of compliance. Theres certainly alot of posturing going on to appease any sort of factfinding body in the event of class action. If a waiver is not the solution their has to be a meeting of the minds between the NFLPA & the NFL to find one. A class action suit nor a dilluted on field product benefit anyone
I'm not a lawyer (and certainly not a labor lawyer), but I know that a lot of misunderstandings about labor law come from confusion as to what responsibilities are, and whether they're required or optional. The sentence I quoted comes directly from OSHA, and they're quite explicit about how various employer responsibilities are not optional, and can't be signed away. Obviously there is also a basic principle that adults should have the freedom to make their own choices, but the underlying philosophy is that workers are entitled to a living wage and safe working conditions (since ultimately people have to make a living) and therefore employers are required to provide them. As you say, it comes down to liability, which is all about legal responsibilities. Tackle football will never be truly safe, and that's why it's important for the NFL to be able to say that they've made it as safe as it can reasonably be, and they've made sure that participants understand the risk. It's the second part that has caused them a lot of trouble so far (with players claiming that the league was aware of risks and didn't tell the players or provide for their welfare in a reasonable manner), but I can see the first part being the ultimate doom of the sport. Can football be as safe as it can reasonably be and still be tackle football? I don't know.
