Christl blog : contentious

[motife]

THURSDAY, Sept. 14, 2006, 2:41 p.m.

The Cesspool Packers
If the Packers are going to bring someone to town who has shown that he has no regard for human life by driving drunk at more than 100 miles per hour, the least they could do is change their name and disassociate themselves from the many good people in Green Bay who are appalled and outraged by the move. Maybe they could change their name to the Minnesota Vikings East or the Cesspool Packers.

THURSDAY, Sept. 14, 2006, 12:35 p.m.

The Gado trade
The trade of running back Samkon Gado illustrates why changing coaches can set teams back before they can move forward. That's not to say that Mike Sherman shouldn't have been replaced. And Gado may go down as nothing more than one of the biggest flashes in the pan in Packers' history.

But this summer he looked like a square peg in a round hole trying to adapt to the Packers' new blocking scheme. So he no longer was a good fit. Maybe Vernand Morency will be a better back. But even then, it will take time for him to learn the system. And if he doesn't pan out, it's just one more place where the Packers will have to fill a new hole.

Had the old coaching staff and old system been in place, the Packers might have been set at backup running back for two, three years.

WEDNESDAY, Sept. 13, 2006, 3:45 p.m.

Why not Willie Ponder?
No doubt, the Packers needed to do something about their kickoff return game. It was pathetic Sunday. Not only were the numbers pathetic -- an 18.4-yard average per return -- but so was the effort.

Noah Herron's blocking looked to be half-hearted at best, especially on the kickoff to start the second half. In the fourth quarter, he should have been called for a holding penalty after another feeble effort to throw a block.

Anyway, there was absolutely no excuse for the Packers to enter a season opener with such an anemic return game. On Sept. 2, the final cutdown day, the New York Giants released Ponder, a fourth-year veteran who had averaged 26.4 yards on 71 kickoff returns during the 2004 and '05 seasons.

During the waiver process that weekend, general manager Ted Thompson put in eight claims, but none for Ponder, despite the Packers' desperate need for a return man. Three days later, the defending NFL champion Seattle Seahawks signed Ponder as a free agent even though they had a reliable return man in Josh Scobey.

In Sunday's season opener against Detroit, Ponder averaged 29.3 yards on three kickoff returns, including one of 41 yards.

It appears that if Thompson wasn't sleeping at the switch, he could have added Ponder in time to give the Packers a better chance of beating the Bears and also avoided the entire Koren Robinson fiasco.

WEDNESDAY, Sept. 13, 2006, 2:56 p.m.

A setback for Blackmon
Rookie cornerback and potential kick returner Will Blackmon aggravated his foot injury. Nevertheless, he's still listed as questionable, not out of Sunday's game.

WEDNESDAY, Sept. 13, 2006, 2:55 p.m.

The guard situation
The Packers have listed starting left guard Jason Spitz as questionable with a thigh injury. Fellow rookie Daryn Colledge worked in Spitz's place in Wednesday's practice and probably will start there Sunday if Spitz isn't able to practice by Friday.

Colledge lost the left guard job in training camp when his play didn't measure up.

"I think I'm a different player than I was back then," he said today.

WEDNESDAY, Sept. 13, 2006, 2:52 p.m.

The Bush factor
The Saints played Reggie Bush some in the same backfield with Deuce McAllister last week. But Coach Mike McCarthy seemed to say at his Wednesday press conference that even if Bush and McAllister are in the game together in a base offense, the Packers will be able to avoid matching up outside linebacker Brady Poppinga on Bush or at least that they'd be able to give Poppinga help.

Bush could line up not only as a running back, but also as a wide reciver and slotback.

WEDNESDAY, Sept. 13, 2006, 12:27 p.m.

'Letterman's' Look at the Robinson Signing
Here’s my David Letterman’s list of questions raised by the Packers’ decision to sign Koren Robinson.

10. If Ted Thompson gets this desperate after just one loss what’s next after say five or 10?

9. What if former pitcher Steve Howe was alive? Would the Packers be willing to sign him as their bullpen snapper, a position they formerly filled during training camp?

8. Seeing Ted Thompson probably couldn’t ask for a better boss than Bob Harlan, why is he willing to risk bringing Harlan’s tenure as president full cycle from the shadows of Mossy Cade to the shadows of Robinson?

7. What about Maurice Clarett? The Packers signed Robinson to replace Noah Herron as a kickoff returner. Now, they could sign Clarett to replace Herron as a running back.

6. If the Packers are going to start accepting the Vikings’ sick and troubled why not trade for the entire Love Boat cast?

5. Who stands to benefit the most from this signing? The bartenders of Green Bay, the lawyers of Green Bay or the Packers?

4. Will the Packers be hiring a 24-hour babysitter for Robinson so the streets are safe at night?

3. Is Robinson what Thompson and Mike McCarthy had in mind all along when they talked about “Packer People?” How do you spell the word hypocrite?

2. What’s worse: Having the Packers bring people into your neighborhood or having the state parole board planting them there?

1. Have the Packers ever before expectorated this much spit into the faces of the people of Green Bay?

TUESDAY, Sept. 12, 2006, 5:21 p.m.

A perspective on Green Bay
A friend who grew up in Green Bay and has lived in Milwaukee for many years sent the following email. And he couldn't be more on the money. I think the perception from the outside is that everybody in Green Bay is a gaga over the Packers. Having lived in the area for most of my 59 years, nothing could be further from the truth. The Packers are a constant topic of conversation in the city. But I can't tell you how many people I know who aren't fans and resent a lot of what the Packers stand for. That's why the Lambeau referendum was such a close vote. That partly explains why so many season-ticket holders live outside the Green Bay metropolitan area. That's also why I suspect the outrage over the Robinson signing will be much greater in Green Bay than anywhere else. And that's why I suspect that if this is a signing that goes bad, a lot of people in Green Bay will be unforgiving toward the Packers and make it all the more difficult if they ever have to go back to the community again for tax money.

Anyway here's what this transplanted Green Bay area native wrote:

"Most of my Milwaukee friends think the Robinson signing ... "is no big deal". I pointed out that their memories are short, or they're just too young to remember the embarrassment of the Lofton, Cade and Timmy Harris incidents. And I may be way off on this. But I've always contended that Green Bay area fans view the franchise with a different eye than other parts of Wisconsin ... especially Southeastern Wisconsin. Being 4-12 is one thing, but embarrassing, or criminal behavior is another. And I believe that many Packer fans in Green Bay, right or wrong, viewed that behavior as a reflection on their hometown.

"I agreed with today's column 100%."

TUESDAY, Sept. 12, 2006, 3:07 p.m.

A response to readers
My e-mail box was flooded today following my column on the Packers' signing of Koren Robinson. Here was the response I sent to readers.

As a writer for JS Online, I make a habit of answering all my e-mail. I feel I owe it to you for whatever effort you make or whatever cost you incur to read what I write. I’m honored that you’re interested. However, following my latest column, the amount of e-mail in my basket prevents me from answering each one individually. So for the most part, each of you is receiving the same response.

To those of you who read the column, whether you agreed with it or took issue with it, signed your name and offered praise or criticism in a sincere and professional manner, I appreciate it and respect your viewpoint. The same goes for people who simply fired off an email in a similar tone, even if it just included an address. It’s nice to know that most people who take opposite views can be civil about it and have the backbone to put their name behind it.

My guess is that some will wonder: Why is Robinson any different than any other troubled athlete that the Packers or other teams have signed? First of all, let me just say that I abhor the idea of playing park ranger. The moral police in this country, including those in the media, drive me nuts.

But Robinson’s transgressions go beyond what general manager Ted Thompson described as mistakes. This is someone who more than once, perhaps repeatedly, has put the lives of others in danger.

In an October 2004 article in the Tacoma News Tribune, Mike Sando reported on Robinson’s past troubles:

“A search of public records revealed 21 cases implicating Robinson for various misdeeds, including four allegations of negligent driving since 2003. The records show repeated failures to appear in court, cases going to collection and lawyers taking care of matters at the last minute.

“A negligent-driving conviction from April 2003 stemmed from a more serious charge of reckless driving, records show. There were 13 other traffic-related cases, including one from April of this year in which an officer cited Robinson for traveling 105 mph in a 60 zone. The most recent case was dated Aug. 12 (2004), four days before Seattle played an exhibition game at Green Bay. That case involved allegations of reckless and negligent driving. Six other incidents originated from Robinson's home state of North Carolina, including four in 1998.”

In his most recent incident this summer, Robinson didn’t just drive drunk. He allegedly was drunk and fleeing police at more than 100 miles per hour. Based on the News Tribune, this was at least the second time that Robinson allegedly had been caught speeding in excess of 100 mph.

How many times can somebody get away with driving that fast, especially with alcohol in their system, before they kill someone? And if that were to happen while Robinson was a member of the Green Bay Packers, it would be a tragedy mostly for the lives lost, but also for the devastation it would bring to one of the most storied franchises in sports.

And that was my main point.

What organization would be so stupid as to take this risk over a player who has been a disappointment for most of his career and so gullible as to think that based on the record there isn’t a high probability that it will happen again? Former Dallas coach Jimmy Johnson signed and kept his share of troubled players. His comments in colleague Tom Silverstein’s extremely well written and well reported news account of the Robinson signing are worth digesting.

Thanks for your interest

Cliff Christl

MONDAY, Sept. 11, 2006, 4:14 p.m.

Injury update
Guard Jason Spitz suffered a thigh bruise against Chicago and is expected to be listed on this week's injury report. The Packers don't have to classify the severity of the injury until Wednesday.

MONDAY, Sept. 11, 2006, 1:45 p.m.

Why playmakers matter
Had Antonio Gates or Tony Gonzales or one of the other few playmakers at tight end caught the second quarter pass down the middle from Brett Favre Sunday, it might have resulted in a 78-yard touchdown pass and turned the momentum of the game.

But Donald Lee stumbled and fell down at the Packers' 40-yard line as he caught the ball and wound up gaining only 25 yards. It was the longest play of the game for the Packers, other than Charles Woodson's 28-yard punt return, but it could have been so much bigger. At the time, the Bears were leading, 10-0.

The Packers were in a double tight end formation with a fullback and only one wide receiver. When outside linebacker Hunter Hillenmeyer and safety Mike Brown bit on Favre's play fake, the Bears had nine defenders in the box.

The line of scrimmage was the 22. When Lee caught the ball 18 yards downfield there wasn't a defender between him and the goal line. Safety Chris Harris might have had an angle and caught Lee from behind, but the trailing defender was seven yards behind the play at the time of the catch.

After the game, Favre shouldered much of the blame for the play not producing even bigger yardage. He said he should have thrown a little bit more in front of Lee. Even coach Mike McCarthy said he thought from field level on Sunday that the pass was slightly underthrown. And it was. But the key word there is slightly.

A second look at the play on television and the Packers' own tape showed that Lee should have been able to catch the ball without breaking stride and without falling down.

"I think Donald needs to run through that ball," said McCarthy. "I think he has a chance to score. It was a big-play opportunity."

MONDAY, Sept. 11, 2006, 11:49 a.m.

The sneak
I stand by my conviction that as laymen, both fans and media are unqualified to second-guess play-calling. But Mike McCarthy's decision to call for a quarterback sneak at a crucial point in Sunday's game certainly was a curious call for two reasons. One, Brett Favre said it had been so long that he couldn't remember the last time he ran a sneak. Two, I don't believe the Packers practiced the play all summer. At least, I never saw them work on a sneak and I was at every practice.

Had the Packers converted the fourth down play, they would have had a first down inside the Bears' 45-yard line, trailing 10-0. Instead, the Bears turned the failed sneak into another field goal and a 13-0 lead.

While it may have been a curious call, like any play, if it had been properly executed, it would have succeeded. Left guard Jason Spitz and center Scott Wells doubled defensive tackle Tommie Harris and submarined him out of the play. But defensive tackle Ian Scott crashed inside right guard Tony Moll and took out Favre's legs.

"There is probably an art to a quarterback sneak," said Favre, "and it has been so long since I did it, I probably lost the art."

From up top, it appeared that Favre didn't get much push. But it was the penetration inside Moll that derailed the play. Coach Mike McCarthy said at his Monday press conference that Moll's split was too wide and he played it too high.

McCarthy also defended the call. He said the sneak fit into their offense scheme and isn't a play that necessarily needs to be practiced.

"Well, quarterback sneaks, I would think with our quarterback, it's not something we need to practice a whole lot for his number of reps or his career," said McCarthy. "But it something you don't want to expose your offense or defense in a practice environment to injury. So it's all based on footwork. It's a wedge play, so it's another form of combination block. So I disagree with the fact we don't practice that. We're a one team, so combination blocks are things we do every single day."

[MJZiggy]

Christl has lost a little of his zip on the ball. He's gotten slower and his objectivity is suffering for it. He's just a curmudgeon spouting opinions. Should have retired two years ago. Hey, think we can trade him to a paper in Boise?

[Scott Campbell]

A good Top 10 lists needs at least a couple of superstars to contend.

[gbpackfan]

Christl is turning into a grumpy old man. Then again, he always has been one.

[mraynrand]

"Had the old coaching staff and old system been in place, the Packers might have been set at backup running back for two, three years. "

---

And as APB always points out, had Sherman remained, the Packers would have re-signed Wahle and drafted a lineman instead of A-rod. Walker would remain as the starting WR and perhaps this year they would have drafted a RB with their first or second round pick, instead of the desperation draft pick of Colledge.

[Packnut]

There was NO EXCUSE for TT to pass on Ponder. It's just another mistake on a very long list.

[falco]

Christl may be grumpy, but he's right on. This team sucks.

[Deputy Nutz]

It is nice to see a reporter take a stand on something. I thought it was important piece of journalism regardless if you agree with him or not.

[Rastak]

It is nice to see a reporter take a stand on something. I thought it was important piece of journalism regardless if you agree with him or not.


I agree with the KR stuff....except for all those Viking shots of course.....
where did that come from? Know your audience! (that's where)

[BallHawk]

Ok, so does Christl like the K-Rob signing or does he not?

My God, talk about :beat:

[MJZiggy]

It is nice to see a reporter take a stand on something. I thought it was important piece of journalism regardless if you agree with him or not.

Reporters aren't supposed to take a stand on stuff. They are supposed to report the unbiased truth. Objectively. They seem to do less of that as we go along.

[falco]

It is nice to see a reporter take a stand on something. I thought it was important piece of journalism regardless if you agree with him or not.

Reporters aren't supposed to take a stand on stuff. They are supposed to report the unbiased truth. Objectively. They seem to do less of that as we go along.

I think Christl's pieces are obviously more editoralized opinion pieces, as opposed to what you see in the daily articles.

[BallHawk]

THURSDAY, Sept. 14, 2006, 2:41 p.m.Had the old coaching staff and old system been in place, the Packers might have been set at backup running back for two, three years.

Yes, Cliff, Samkon Gado was the future of the Packers at running back. :roll:

Listen, Samkon is a great kid, and you couldn't find one person on this board not rooting for him, but truth is he's not a starter, not even close. Every player has a run where they're unnaturaly good.

[MJZiggy]

Not even just Christl's pieces. Quite frankly, not even just sports. Reporter opinions are sliding in everywhere as news becomes less about informing the public and more about entertaining them. We don't need to be entertained. We need to know the facts about what's going on no matter what the advertisers or the political administration or the fans want them to report.

[falco]

Not even just Christl's pieces. Quite frankly, not even just sports. Reporter opinions are sliding in everywhere as news becomes less about informing the public and more about entertaining them. We don't need to be entertained. We need to know the facts about what's going on no matter what the advertisers or the political administration or the fans want them to report.

I agree with that Ziggy. Journalism nowadays is taking someone from viewpoint A and one from viewpoint B and letting them yell over each other until the next commercial break.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Reporters aren't supposed to take a stand on stuff. They are supposed to report the unbiased truth. Objectively. They seem to do less of that as we go along.

Not really. Depends on what type of journalist you are. Christl is an opinion writer. You have him confused with a reporter.

[Rastak]

Reporters aren't supposed to take a stand on stuff. They are supposed to report the unbiased truth. Objectively. They seem to do less of that as we go along.

Not really. Depends on what type of journalist you are. Christl is an opinion writer. You have him confused with a reporter.


True, totally different species.

[MJZiggy]

He still pisses me off.

[woodbuck27]

There was NO EXCUSE for TT to pass on Ponder. It's just another mistake on a very long list.

Are you using twist nails or just the regular variety?

The real accent on that miss...

is that the Seahawks of ALL TEAMS trumped "Ole slow draw". :mrgreen:

ahhhh.

[HarveyWallbangers]

True, totally different species.

That being said, we have two many opinion writers (with a political axe to grind) that try to pass themselves off as reporters. I don't mind the folks that say "here's how I see it." I don't like the ones that are "reporting" the news with a slant that favors their own viewpoint.

[Terry]

Well, I just have three things to say about Christl:
1) He's engaging in what was called 'yellow journalism' during the Spanish-American war;
2) He's no Letterman;
3) He's abusing his position and power.

Ultimately, he's only destroying his own credibility.

Deputy Nutz, I agree with you in principle about a journalist taking a stand, but that's not what I call this - and even if it is a stand, it's a safe stand. But he's over reaching and that will not be so safe for him - but the position itself is safe.

Personally, I have a preference for a journalist who dares to make an unpopular stand.

My example of that type of journalist was the Islamic copy editor of a newspaper in Lebanon who wrote an editorial about the Danish cartoon hulabaloo. He wrote (to paraphrase) that murder and terrorism were surely more offensive to the proper respect and awe of Allah than a bunch of innocuous cartoons. I'm sure he put his own life in danger with that stand. Whatever, he was out of a job the next day. That's what I call a stand.

I don't think Christl's idea of a stand deserves to be discussed in the same conversation.

[the_idle_threat]

I think his stand is unpopular with a lot of Packer fans, who care nothing about character, and apparently public safety, if a signing leads to wins.

[motife]

Christl constantly says he could care less about the Packers. He's just doing a job.

The emotion he displays here, contradicts that completely. Which is it, Cliff?

He really went for "overkill" on this one. Sheesh.

Expectorate, murderer, cesspool?

[the_idle_threat]

Christl constantly says he could care less about the Packers. He's just doing a job.

The emotion he displays here, contradicts that completely. Which is it, Cliff?

He really went for "overkill" on this one. Sheesh.

Expectorate, murderer, cesspool?

This is a good point. But I think I've always suspected ol' Cliffy had a soft spot for the Packers. Perhaps this situation has smoked out his true feelings.

[swede]

Christl does not have a soft spot for the Packers. He enjoys not caring and passes it off as objectivity.

I'm surprised at the tone and the words he used. Christl likes to be provocative but he usually takes an edgy, cranky tone. I don't remember him using abusive and inflammatory language like this before.

Brett also had issues with chemical dependency and overcame them. I hope Koren Robinson can too. From everything I've heard people love the kid. What other kind of person could get second and third chances given the serious and endangering mistakes he has made?

The more I learn the more I support the decision to sign Koren Robinson.

And the more I read Uncle Cliffy the more I think he and Matt Millen should buy a time-share together in Florida and learn to fish.

[Terry]

I think his stand is unpopular with a lot of Packer fans, who care nothing about character, and apparently public safety, if a signing leads to wins.

First of all, I think it's unfair to characterize any Packer fans who don't object to this signing as people who don't care about character or public safety.

I think you may find that some Packer fans who do NOT approve of this signing may also be somewhat disgusted by Christl's editorial.

[pacfan]

I really lost my remaing respect for Cliff in his last post/blog. Robinsen has a drinking problem, he's an alcoholoic. He is also a football player by choice. He has a right to seek employment as a football player. He agreed to play for the Pack, good for us and good for him.

I hope and pray that he doesn't hurt himself or others. But I do the same for the people who drive school buses, wear police uniforms, firefighters, janitors, and cranky sports journalists.

He made mistakes and will probably make some more before he is all done. I've made mistakes, some very embarassing and stupid ones. I'm thankful that I don't have a person with access to millions of readers to trash me or fabricate worst-case scenarios so that people would develop a bias towards me.

[MJZiggy]

Christl himself has done more to convince me that this is a good idea than anyone else. Why, you ask? Because, in one of his rants on this topic, he asked if we should allow someone with his background to fix our roof (among a number of other jobs, like our bank teller). This question brought it home for me. I had my roof replaced not long ago. Did I ask whether my roofer had a DUI on his record? No. As long as he didn't show up drunk wanting to use power tools on my roof, and as long as it no longer leaked when it was done, his driving record had no bearing on his ability to do this job. As long as my bank teller's not slurring words, I will not be asking if this person who handles my cash was on a bender last night. I don't use valets or their lots, and the only one I might be concerned about would be the bus drivers. Their driving record is of direct concern in this occupation and if someone's driving my kids, I'd really love it if they had a license and a clean record. Koren Robinson has a special skill and as long as he's not showing up drunk to do his job, it should have no bearing on his ability to do that job (hell, he could probably even do it drunk and still do it well). Everyone says what if he kills someone. Are you seriously telling me that everyone who had ever had a DUI should be run out of the state on the grounds that they might kill someone too? If you wanna make it so that every alcoholic who ever fails at an attempt to stay sober can no longer be employed, then you'd better figure out a way to house and feed them all or your streets will be overrun with recovering alcoholics who can't support themselves.

[Harlan Huckleby]

It's an interesting debate. One year ago, Robinson recieved various "good guy" awards for his achievement of over-coming alchoholism, and being a model teammate. Then this past summer, another dramatic fall from grace. The guy is trying. He just failed again.

Whether or not Robinson has another relapse and gets behind the wheel of a car has nothing to do with whether he plays football. The Packers did not endanger society by giving him a job.

There are millions of people in jail right now for alchohol/drug related crimes. What is to become of these people when they get out? Should they go on public assistance? Should they be refused jobs on moral grounds? What morality is that?

It's a practical question, not a moral one. If a player makes a public nuisance of himself, it's bad for business. Thompson took a carefully considered risk that Robinson is likely to stay straight during his period of employment. Don't know if he made a good gamble, but it is a practical decision.

[mraynrand]

Sorry, but K-rob is a public figure, and that's why you know about his record. And can you honestly say if you knew your roofer had multiple reckless driving incidents and had DUIs that you couldn't care less? That's just crazy. Cristl grew up in Green Bay and his point of view is that he doesn't want a known trouble maker and/or felon in the town. It's bad enough that K-rob is such a miscreant, but to be given such a visible position is galling. PacFan, but I think you're wrong. It's not that simple. If he has an alcohol problem, sure, try to take care of it, but his repeated history of incidents, without any resolution, makes his hiring highly questionable. Ziggy, how would you treat the roofing company that hired a guy like K-Rob, if he destroyed your house while either being reckless or drunk on the job. You'd hold the company accountable, wouldn't you? K-Rob may not have the direct ability to wreck stuff while 'on he job' with the Packers (maybe he could screw up a game or two), but he can certainly tarnish the reputation of his employer, and possibly kill someone in the process. Cristl, as a Green Bay native concerned about his home town, has every right to say what he did.

[Harlan Huckleby]

but he can certainly tarnish the reputation of his employer, and possibly kill someone in the process.

Whether Robinson gets drunk and makes a fool or murderer of himself has nothing to do whether he plays football.

Yes, Thompson has to weigh the risk of tarnishing the reputation of the Packers. And he has done that.

[mraynrand]

The Packers did not endanger society by giving him a job.

What is to become of these people when they get out? Should they go on public assistance? Should they be refused jobs on moral grounds? What morality is that?

It's a practical question, not a moral one.

The Packers may have endangered THEIR community by giving him a job in Green Bay. But you're right, they may have done no worse than him being hired anywhere else. Except that, had he not been able to get a job, he may have reflected that he needed to get his life in order.

The people who are imprisoned for DUI related crimes should have to demonstrate some change in behavior before being trusted at particular jobs, especially high profile or high risk jobs (how eager would you be to rehire the Exxon Valdez captain or the Surgeon who was in jail for his/her 5h DUI). They have to prove themselves, but they shouldn'e be ostracised.

It' both a practical and a moral question. I think the Packers failed on the moral question to address a practical quesion. And they may have enabled a drunk to continue his self-destructive, and potentially community-destructive ways.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Except that, had he not been able to get a job, he may have reflected that he needed to get his life in order.

Ya. That'd work.


And they may have enabled a drunk to continue his self-destructive, and potentially community-destructive ways.

Have you ever been addicted to anything? Well, other than PackerRats, but I guess that habit is bad enough.

Addicts are not enabled by having a job. And the public nature of this particular job has only put him in a fishbowl of public condemnation.

[mraynrand]

Whether Robinson gets drunk and makes a fool or murderer of himself has nothing to do whether he plays football.


Fine. But what difference does that make? This issue is really more about what the Green Bay Packers were willing to tolerate. They hired a guy who has not demonstrated that he's changed his reckless and self-destructive behavior. And for what? A few more yards on kickoff? A couple of third down conversions?

[mraynrand]

Addicts are not enabled by having a job.

They're enabled by not suffering any consequences for their destructive behavior.

[Harlan Huckleby]

They're enabled by not suffering any consequences for their destructive behavior.

Addicts almost always suffer consequences. I guess Robinson's antics have cost him about $10M. In fact, it may have cost him his livelyhood completely. And public humiliation.

Threat of consequences does not deter addicts.

[pbmax]

Addicts are not enabled by having a job.

They're enabled by not suffering any consequences for their destructive behavior.
While I wish Robinson had not been signed (I wish the Packers were not in the position to need him, mainly), this statement that Robinson has suffered no consequences show a tremendous lack of sense.

Do you think a guy drinking himself to Bolivia (thank you Mike Tyson) has never suffered? Are there only two types of suffering; jail time and poverty?

C'mon.

[mraynrand]

They're enabled by not suffering any consequences for their destructive behavior.

Addicts almost always suffer consequences. I guess Robinson's antics have cost him about $10M. In fact, it may have cost him his livelyhood completely. And public humiliation.

Threat of consequences does not deter addicts.

I disagree. Ask Brett what he did after Diana told him to stop drinking or lose his family. Perhaps they seldom or rarely work, or at least work less often than we'd like, but what, other than the threat of undesireable consequences, leads addicts to face their disease and get help? And would you argue that an addict, in denial, and aided by enablers who won't confront him/her, is MORE likely to reform than an addict confronted with consequences for his/her actions?

[Terry]

Except that, had he not been able to get a job, he may have reflected that he needed to get his life in order.

Yes, he might have. And he might have gotten depressed and taken up drinking again.

If your theories on punishing people so they can reflect on their ways had any basis in reality, prisons would be churning out model citizens.

It sounds more to me like the typical uninformed head trip theory that so many people like to hang on to in spite of all evidence in reality. The world always has plenty of such people around.


The people who are imprisoned for DUI related crimes should have to demonstrate some change in behavior before being trusted at particular jobs, especially high profile or high risk jobs (how eager would you be to rehire the Exxon Valdez captain or the Surgeon who was in jail for his/her 5h DUI). They have to prove themselves, but they shouldn'e be ostracised.

Well, how exactly does an unemployed person prove himself when he sits at home and has negligible contact with the surrounding community?

And, considering that you for focussing in that statement on high risk jobs, I'm really curious how dangerous a drunken WR is to the community at large.

As for high profile jobs, what difference does that make?

What I hear in all this, between the lines, is the word "punishment". You can't bring yourself to say that an offender like KR should never get another job, live his life out on the streets among the homeless and end up in a gutter. What the hell does "high profile" mean? In reality, better paying jobs tend to have higher profiles - it almost sounds to me that you'd like to see him hired as a dishwasher until such time as people who are paying no attention to him whatsoever are convinced that he's clean. Again, the whole thing reeks of "punishment".

The plain simple reality, regardless of all this rationalizing, is that people who don't want to hire or be associated with three-time losers always feel that way, no matter how much time as passed. And other people, who aren't quite so obsessed with how others live their lives, are more inclined to look past one's offenses and give them another shot, regardless of how much time has passed and regardless of whether it's a second chance or a third chance or a tenth chance.

[mraynrand]

Terry:

I don't think you enderstand what I mean by someone being enabled. I mean that they are not pressured or forced in any way to change their behavior. Sure, it's possible that someone who is confronted will lash back with hostility, and perhaps even get worse - if you've ever confronted an alcoholic, you'd know this does happen. But, lack of confrontation will result in no changes, good or bad. Haven't you ever hear the old saw that 'first you have to recognize that you have a problem.' If people treat you as though you have no problem, you're far less likely to address the problem. This is simple human nature, and applies to all types of behaviors.

My point was not that Robinson should be banned, but that he has to demonstrate some willingness to change his ways. No, he's not a threat to harm society in his job as a wide receiver. That was a pretty damn lame comment. But he is a threat to society if he's allowed to continue his current behavior pattern. And coddling him will just guarantee more of the same.

Also, you said the whole thing reeks of Punishment. I couldn't agree more. He's done some things for which he should be punished. If that means working as a dishwasher for a year to prove he's not a threat to society, so be it. He should have to re-earn what he threw away.

[Harlan Huckleby]

My point was not that Robinson should be banned, but that he has to demonstrate some willingness to change his ways.

He's done that. In fact, he won a couple good citzenship awards in minnesota a year ago, celebrating his successful recovery. Didn't stick, had another relapse.

Regarding your example of Brett Favre as model for addiction recovery: Yes, I agree that an addict has to face negative realities before they change. Brett would have been out of NFL without Vicodin detox. His wife threatened to leave him if he didn't stop the carousing. My point is that most addicts have already faced the abyss. Many lose their families and other relationships. It takes support, and sometimes multiple tries to kick hardcore addiction.

Your theory that addicts will pull themselves up by their bootstraps if their lives are made more miserable does not hold in most cases. You are applying a philosphy to a situation where it generally doesn't work.

[Terry]

I don't think you enderstand what I mean by someone being enabled. I mean that they are not pressured or forced in any way to change their behavior. Sure, it's possible that someone who is confronted will lash back with hostility, and perhaps even get worse - if you've ever confronted an alcoholic, you'd know this does happen. But, lack of confrontation will result in no changes, good or bad. Haven't you ever hear the old saw that 'first you have to recognize that you have a problem.' If people treat you as though you have no problem, you're far less likely to address the problem. This is simple human nature, and applies to all types of behaviors.

It sounds like you're saying that applying pressure won't work (though you hedge your words on that one) and that not applying pressure won't work.

I would have to agree. There's very little that others can do to bring about change in a person. If anything. And it's a very difficult thing for people to change period. I suppose that's why it rarely happens - people rarely change.

When change does take place, I agree that it initiates from within the person (though that person him/herself may perceive it as an external circumstance). And in that case, other people can help. First and foremost, that recognition that you speak of (you first have to recognize that you have a problem) is exactly that - HE has to recognize it, not anyone else - including YOU. And trust me - you can be sure he recognizes it. Losing ten million dollars is bound to make anyone recognize that there is a problem. Turning that recognition into practical action may take time, but you can be damned sure the recognition is there. None of it involves you or me.

Our disagreement is in the 'help' that others can provide to someone trying to change. You seem to believe that the whip constitutes help. I disagree.


My point was not that Robinson should be banned, but that he has to demonstrate some willingness to change his ways. No, he's not a threat to harm society in his job as a wide receiver. That was a pretty damn lame comment. But he is a threat to society if he's allowed to continue his current behavior pattern. And coddling him will just guarantee more of the same.

This demonstration (to YOU) of willingness to change - can you tell me in quite tangible terms what this translates to exactly and what exactly he is supposed to be doing concurrently? Life goes on while one changes. If your point is that he would be well off checking into the Betty Ford clinic before accepting any other job offers, I would say you have a point. However, the key phrase here is "he would be better off" - what I miss from your tone is any sense that you have any feelings whatsoever about his welfare.

As for the lame comment that he's not a threat to society as a WR, are you tacitly admitting that the comments about "high-risk" jobs were non-sequitors and that you added them to just add colour to your rhetoric? Because if your 'high-risk' rhetoric had any practical purpose whatsoever, then it wasn't a lame comment at all, but rather very much relevant and to the point.


Also, you said the whole thing reeks of Punishment. I couldn't agree more. He's done some things for which he should be punished. If that means working as a dishwasher for a year to prove he's not a threat to society, so be it. He should have to re-earn what he threw away.

Well, mraynrand, it is not YOUR job to be concerned with his punishments - and to the extent that you are, it reveals more about you than about anyone else. This is a free society and there are those appointed to deal with punishment. If you want to study a society in which the entire community is deeply involved in punishment, I suggest you look to China and analyze the picture there. It's not a pretty picture. THAT is my problem with members of the community concerning themselves overly much with the behaviour and punishment of other people.

Furthermore, those agencies concerned with punishment are - or should be - concerned with protecting the rest of us. The reason you put a mugger in jail is to get him off the streets. To the extent that one is concerned with inflicting pain upon wrong doers for the sake of it, such a person has a troubling flaw in their psyche.

The logic of working as a dishwasher while he proves that he's a change person fails all logic. He can work as a WR to prove the same thing. And if he's not changed, his danger to himself and to others is precisely the same regardless of which establishment he works in.

The statement about having to re-earn what he threw away is really weird. Uh.... no he doesn't have to, nor 'should' he. That's his business, mraynrand, not your's.

As an aside, regarding the absence of the tendency to change in human nature, this is especially true if the disease affects any number of people en masse. They they will never change until their own behaviour leads to disaster - and only disaster for them, not for anyone else, which they won't care about.


In fact, he won a couple good citzenship awards in minnesota a year ago, celebrating his successful recovery.

I don't think this impresses mraynrand. I get the impression that mraynrand believes that Koren Robinson must suffer as part of his penance. To be fair, I do understand this attitude - it's a gut feeling in the human ego which is quite natural. But it's a counter productive impulse.

[mraynrand]

I think I can simplify this: If a guy was drunk and fled the police (IF), then I think he ought to be punished and have to keep his nose clean for a while before he's allowed special priviledges, such as playing for the Green Bay Packers. Do you think otherwise?

[Rastak]

I think I can simplify this: If a guy was drunk and fled the police (IF), then I think he ought to be punished and have to keep his nose clean for a while before he's allowed special priviledges, such as playing for the Green Bay Packers. Do you think otherwise?


I completely agree. It's not that they signed him, it's that he needs to take his medicine and get cleaned up THEN he can worry about an NFL career....
In fact, TT was smart to give the guy a call, say we'll be here when this mess is made right and you are clean. He wasn't smart, in my opinion, to then sign him immediately. That's my opinion and not as a football fan but as a person.

If the judge has any brains he'll take care of this shortly. Teach him what happens when you make the sort of choices he apparently routinely makes.

[Terry]

I think I can simplify this: If a guy was drunk and fled the police (IF), then I think he ought to be punished and have to keep his nose clean for a while before he's allowed special priviledges, such as playing for the Green Bay Packers. Do you think otherwise?

I agree with that as you stated it.

My quibble is with characterizing playing with the Packers as a privilege.

There's no question that fleeing the police at 100 mph will be taken very seriously by the police. Drinking certainly compounds the problem immensely. And, yes, keeping his nose clean is very important and should be monitored as much as can be realistically expected by overtaxed law enforement personnel. I would think he would be at least obligated to attend treatment as a condition of parole. (I'm surprised if he wasn't, but I've never heard that he was sentenced to rehab the way Sandra Bullock was in "28 Days" - with Koren's history, I'm surprised that he wasn't minimally required to at least that much - and more, as a matter of fact.)

I also think that if he's not in jail, there is no reason he shouldn't be permitted to pursue his career, which after all is how he makes his living.

I make my living, what there is of it, through my computer. It would seem very odd to me in similar circumstances if, having been released on parole, if the authorities came in and took away the computer. There's something about that that would seem gratuitously Draconian to me.

But I'll grant you this - it's novel and creative. I can see a case being built that it would be productive. But I don't think it would be right to single out a particular offender for a punishment that is not otherwise part of the methodology of law enforcement in such cases.

I have no problem with whatever the courts decide to do in this case.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I think I can simplify this: If a guy was drunk and fled the police (IF), then I think he ought to be punished and have to keep his nose clean for a while before he's allowed special priviledges, such as playing for the Green Bay Packers. Do you think otherwise?

It is not the Green Bay Packers job to reform the guy by "withholding special priveleges." The Packers are not parents.

It's the Packers job to look out for their own interests, which would be to sign the best players possible, and avoid players who will be disruptive. Have to balance the risk/reward.

Now, on this basis, you mght judge Robinson to be a bad risk, wouldn't make the deal. That's fine. Thompson weighed it differently. It is certainly not a clear decision. Robinson has a mixed record, he has stayed sober for long stretches. I agree with Thompson that the risk is worth taking.

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

I agree with Thompson that the risk is worth taking.

I also agree that the risk is worth taking. His problem is something that can be corrected and is not something that can completely destroy the team. This guy is not a head case, like say, TO. TO is a guy who wants attention and will act up to get it. I have never heard of Koren ruining team chemistry with the vikes. He has a drinking problem and needs help to turn his life around. The best place to do that might be in a small city like Green Bay.

[Scott Campbell]

My quibble is with characterizing playing with the Packers as a privilege.


I believe it is a privilege. It's certainly not his right.

[mraynrand]

I think I can simplify this: If a guy was drunk and fled the police (IF), then I think he ought to be punished and have to keep his nose clean for a while before he's allowed special priviledges, such as playing for the Green Bay Packers. Do you think otherwise?

It is not the Green Bay Packers job to reform the guy by "withholding special priveleges." The Packers are not parents.

It's the Packers job to look out for their own interests, which would be to sign the best players possible, and avoid players who will be disruptive. Have to balance the risk/reward.

Now, on this basis, you mght judge Robinson to be a bad risk, wouldn't make the deal. That's fine. Thompson weighed it differently. It is certainly not a clear decision. Robinson has a mixed record, he has stayed sober for long stretches. I agree with Thompson that the risk is worth taking.

I think you're on the right track here. You and Thompson agree that the risk is worth taking. That's your estimation. Thompson has to make that call, and it's his right to make it. I don't dispute that. What I dispute comes from my own estimation of ethics and my experience hiring people. I think you were wrong to characterize the Packers as 'reformers' by withholding priviledges. I look at it differently. I don't expect the Packers to 'reform' Robinson by not hiring him - I see them as not hiring him because they are worried that he is not reformed.

I would see an unreformed Robinson as too big a risk (my estimation). If I have a person applying to me for a job (and to make a fair comparison, I'll say I need the person, because they can do something a lot better than any other applicant) and this person has unresolved (by this I mean there is no consistent pattern of reform) substance abuse issues, and outstanding criminal charges, I would not hire that person, because the risk outweighs the advantage, although it might hurt my business to not have that person's skills. I would be far more likely to want to hire such a person if they had remained sober for a year, held down a lower level job, and had resolved their legal issues.

But the aspect where I will grant you there is some difficulty is that at some point, some employer has to take a risk on a substance abuser/criminal, to allow them to redeem themselves. I think the willingness to do this gets harder as the critical nature or visibility of the job increases (the damage to others or to your business' reputation if you hire someone who relapse as a dishwasher is far less serious than if your employee relapses as a pilot, to give two extreme examples).

So in summary, I think you, Harlan, and Thompson may just have your tolerance bar set a little lower than me (or your estimated reward is much higher than your estimated risk). I sincerely hope you're right with respect to Robinson - I really do hope the guy stays clean, if only for his well-being and the safety of the community, pass receptions notwithstanding.

And now let's see if he can return kicks.

[Tarlam!]

...If the judge has any brains he'll take care of this shortly. Teach him what happens when you make the sort of choices he apparently routinely makes...

You have no idea, do you? Ras, I have no respect for your opinions on this issue.

How is throwing the guy in jail and robbing him of an income going to "teach" him anything? You make it sound like he has a conscious choice. You clearly have no idea of the disease. None whatsoever.

People who have beaten this live in constant fear they will fall down again. Unlike ex-smokers, dry alcoholics are not militant towards people suffering from their disease.

Please educate yourself a little rather than spewing your ignorant moral load and wagging your cyber-finger.

[woodbuck27]

" I really do hope the guy stays clean, if only for his well-being and the safety of the community, pass receptions notwithstanding." mrayrand

I think that it's safe to say that the large majority of Packer fans are certainly there ..but...

The reality of Koren Robinson's struggle trumps any hoping/trusting/faith. As the REALITY of his illness predominates in the argument of him playing for "the Packers" Vs him getting the proper care he does obviously need.

Only Koren Robinson can decide on the proper treatment. We know that an alcoholic can't be forced into a facility, or one that offers proper care and treatment with excellent Programs, to better ensure long term success. Today..tomorrow ,Koren Robinson remains in the firm grip of the illness of Alcoholism.

Ted Thompson certainly shouldn't have enabled KR's illness by offering him any Free Pass in Green Bay. If Koren Robinson screws up in Green Bay? We can't blame him (KR) for that screw up. It ( the blame) must fall on Ted Thompson.

Yet it doesn't even have to go to any screw up.

Ted Thompson is playing with FIRE in this issue. In all liklihood, Koren Robinson will feel stress playing football with OUR team and use alcohol. Just that decision is wrong for Koren Robinson. He's allergic to alcohol and . .he needs to not ever use it.

In all liklihood he will. Then he may act destructively and that may have consequences that will come back to haunt Ted thompson.

Ted Thompson has enabled that -ve possibility and consequently has not made the RIGHT choice in whether or not to use KR as a football player for the Packers.

TED THOMPSON no matter what happens with KR and alcohol, has certainly made a mistake here.

Ted Thompson screwed up !!

[woodbuck27]

Tarlam!

I agree in principle with Rastak, as this situation specific to Koren Robinson presents itself.

KR has again screwed up in his illness, after his choice to abuse himself and risk all to that choice to drink alcohol.

Koren Robinson in his use of alcohol. Violated his privalege to drive and he "in fact" broke the Traffic Laws in the State Of Minnesota and has been arrested after whatever. . and will be suffered a Trial and possible consequences (if found guilty) that may well include incarceration. Koren Robinson in all liklihood will be punished wit time in Jail/ prison as the law administer's itself in the State of Minnesotta.

Koren Robinson had a choice to drink or not to drink alcohol.

His blood alcohol tells us that although he wasn't over the allowable limit by alot . he was over at 0.11 and the limit set at 0.08? He's going to face a DUI and be found guilty unless he gets some fantastic Defense from an experienced lawyer with proper skillsto defend Koren Robinson.

Now that arrest is his. He must own it and get the BEST lawyer he will need and face the medicine in Court.

Rastak takes " just the reality of it to us here " The FACTS of the matter.

Violaton of LAW = Trial (may = Guilty and if so ) = Penalty in the form of some punishment that may include time in confinement.

Action = Possible Consequence.

Yup no job and no money from no job.The simple facts of life Tarlam! Koren Robinson didn't think about that when he risked it all in his inability that night to make the proper decision. He screwed up and he got caught and he's going to pay a price,maybe.

He deserves to pay that price only if found guility.he's innocent today.DAM he's free to play football in Green Bay with ted thompsons bonehead selfish greed and irresponsiblehire of Koren Robinson.Do you coddle and protect a psycho tarlam! ??A man/woman that may do certain harm to another as you harbour him/her/

As lonf as Koren Robinson is FREE and obviosly not competent in his decision making would YOU enable him?

We shouldn't even be discussing this issue here (specific to KR's guilt or not as he's not been tried)

YOU have decided to "in fact" be the sanctimonious one here and take a smack down on Rastak who is clearly correct in his annoyance over Koren Robinson.

Please re-address your stance " in reality of THE TRUTH " regarding JUST this matter concerning Koren Robinson.

Try not to confuse that, with any general feeling (personal feeling) about the illness of Alcoholism that appears to me to be generating some anger at Rastak that is unwarranted.

Rastak is correct in his stance even if he's harsh before the crime has ben proven.

Good Luck My Friend and Fellow packer fan. :mrgreen:

[woodbuck27]

I think I can simplify this: If a guy was drunk and fled the police (IF), then I think he ought to be punished and have to keep his nose clean for a while before he's allowed special priviledges, such as playing for the Green Bay Packers. Do you think otherwise?

Absolutely

[Rastak]

...If the judge has any brains he'll take care of this shortly. Teach him what happens when you make the sort of choices he apparently routinely makes...

You have no idea, do you? Ras, I have no respect for your opinions on this issue.

How is throwing the guy in jail and robbing him of an income going to "teach" him anything? You make it sound like he has a conscious choice. You clearly have no idea of the disease. None whatsoever.

People who have beaten this live in constant fear they will fall down again. Unlike ex-smokers, dry alcoholics are not militant towards people suffering from their disease.

Please educate yourself a little rather than spewing your ignorant moral load and wagging your cyber-finger.


Okay Tarlem, I ain't letting this go dude. Are friggen telling me it's wrong to put criminals in jail.....and don't give me this illness bullshit either, the asshole has TWICE been clocked at over 100 drunk.


So tell me Tarlem, what are jails for if not for criminals? I ain't buying your line of thinking at all, period.

This dude needs to help himself and to do so he needs a wakeup call and if the judge has any brains whatsoever he'll get one. He earned it Tarlem.