Are Fans and NFL teams too demanding of players?

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by ArtMonkDrillz

That's similiar to the way I was thinking. Basically, in my mind, I feel like him signing the contract is like becoming a dad. Once you have a kid you don't have to stop doing all the dumb stuff you could do pre-kid, but you probably should because now there are more people counting on you and your well being than there were before. Granted, I'm not a father yet, but I think some of you dad's out there will agree with me (happy early father's day).

Pretty solid analysis.

[LBrown43]

I doubt Ben would go on the football field without a helmet. Whats the difference? I can answer my own question by saying the NFL mandates it. If not, would Ben go helmetless then? I doubt it. He lacked sound common sense.
Yes fans expect alot from players. Is it unjustified? Hard to say. I do know that when I successfully settled a complex insurance claim at a good figure, no one was rushing to give me an endorsment deal. People did not wait outside to get my autograph and there was certainly not 80,000 people going crazy, chanting my name and ready to buy my shirt. My boss did nto even approach me to renegotiate my contract (what contract!!)
It is the nature of the game that much is expected from the players. It is the highest of high profile jobs.I don't think it is too much to expect them to use common sense. What is the shelf life of an NFL quarterback? 10-12 years? Hell ride your Harley naked if you want, but wait until the career is over and all you are hurting is yourself. Too many other people depend on players....thats just the way it is.

[TheInspector]

I have a question for you all: What is classified as "risky" behavior, and what exactly is "common-sense"?

I hear a lot of people saying things like, "he is obligated to prohibit from any 'risky' behavior which may result in injury," or, "he should use common-sense."

I do think that he was senseless by riding without a helmet, but I cannot say that he was lacking common-sense simply because his principles don't conform to mine. He could be injured horsing-around with his brother, or he could slip and fall. Does that mean he should avoid all behavior which could result in injury (like walking)? Of course not.

We should avoid making general statements like these. If he is bound by his contract to avoid riding motorcycles that is one thing--otherwise, we cannot say he is obligated to avoid risk. It would be better to say that he should avoid any risky behavior, within reason.

[ArtMonkDrillz]

Originally Posted by TheInspector

I have a question for you all: What is classified as "risky" behavior, and what exactly is "common-sense"?

I hear a lot of people saying things like, "he is obligated to prohibit from any 'risky' behavior which may result in injury," or, "he should use common-sense."

I do think that he was senseless by riding without a helmet, but I cannot say that he was lacking common-sense simply because his principles don't conform to mine. He could be injured horsing-around with his brother, or he could slip and fall. Does that mean he should avoid all behavior which could result in injury (like walking)? Of course not.

We should avoid making general statements like these. If he is bound by his contract to avoid riding motorcycles that is one thing--otherwise, we cannot say he is obligated to avoid risk. It would be better to say that he should avoid any risky behavior, within reason.

Good point. Brian Gresie (sp?) did get injured tripping over his dog a few years ago and no one was mad at him for having a dog. But in this situation I think everyone realizes that riding a motorcycle without a helmet is inheriantly more dangerous than horsing around.

[LBrown43]

Maybe because I have handled many motorcycle claims that have ended in death, I am not the biggest advocate of riding motorcycles. They are dangersous not so much because of the operator of the bike, but more for the others on the road that don't notice them. In many of the claims I have handled the cars that were involved almost always said they never saw the motorcycle.
But I don't think it takes a brain scientist or a rocket surgeon to figure that you put a human body on a 2 wheeled conveyance that can go over 100 mph, without any protection should; the vehicle fail in any way, you have a more than normal risk for injury. Yeah, I could get hit by a bus tomorrow but Ben is much more likely to have a motrocycle accident than I would be getting hit by a bus. Besides he proved my point by getting in the accident. I am still bus incident free.
Ben put himself in harms way by first riding a motrocycle and secondly by not wearing a helmet. He is lucky he is not dead because I have seen lesser damage to bikes and the rider has died.

[Longtimefan]

Originally Posted by TheInspector

I have a question for you all: What is classified as "risky" behavior, and what exactly is "common-sense"?

I hear a lot of people saying things like, "he is obligated to prohibit from any 'risky' behavior which may result in injury," or, "he should use common-sense."

I do think that he was senseless by riding without a helmet, but I cannot say that he was lacking
common-sense simply because his principles don't conform to mine. He could be injured horsing-around with his brother, or he could slip and fall. Does that mean he should avoid all behavior which could result in injury (like walking)? Of course not.

We should avoid making general statements like these. If he is bound by his contract to avoid riding motorcycles that is one thing--otherwise, we cannot say he is obligated to avoid risk. It would be better to say that he should avoid any risky behavior, within reason.

Ben just answered both your questions for you in his first public statement after being released from the hospital. It was perhaps what many wanted to hear, and he is taking full responsibility for his behavior and vows not to make the same mistake again. Even he now understands what risky behavior and common sense is, join the parade.

[Dogtag]

You mean there are jobs that don't have restrictions on your personal conduct. Most good jobs have morals clauses or standards of conduct clauses because what you do in your 'private' time can and does reflect upon your professional life.

If you think the NFL restrictions are strict, try thinking about the restrictions put on the clergy ....

It seems to me that if an orgainization has a vested interest in your physical abilities, then they should have a say in protecting that investment.

However, I don't believe fans have a vested interest in any specific player on a team.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by Dogtag

However, I don't believe fans have a vested interest in any specific player on a team.

The fans have an obvious emotional investment in the team. But the players are supposed to have the same emotional investment. Yes football is a business, and yes money talks, and of course that plays a big factor here. But in the end, these football players are in the game because they want to win a Superbowl and be the best they can be. Taking part in risky behavior puts your ability to accomplish those goals in jeopardy; and it lets down your coaches, teammates, and fans alike. All of them want to see the team win in the worst way. To me, doing what Roethlisberger did is a major let-down to coaches and teammates who work so hard to win games. Fans are right there, they pour a lot of their own money, but more importantly, their love into their team.

[joebert]

Are patrons too demanding of strippers ?
Are citizens too demanding of politicians ?
Just how many licks does it take to get to the center of a tootsie pop ?

The world, may never know.

[gibbsisgod]

Originally Posted by joebert

Are patrons too demanding of strippers ?
Are citizens too demanding of politicians ?
Just how many licks does it take to get to the center of a tootsie pop ?

The world, may never know.

welcome joebert. your not still mad about that playoff thing are you?

[joebert]

I guess not chuckisgod, I don't remember what you're talking about.

[gibbsisgod]

Originally Posted by joebert

I guess not chuckisgod, I don't remember what you're talking about.

i'll let that one slide just this once:cheeky-sm