Official Packers vs. Steelers Game Day Thread

[Fritz]

Biegel seems to have been invisible so far this camp. Fackrell can now be re-named either Feckless or Fuckrell.

[pbmax]

Biegel seems to have been invisible so far this camp. Fackrell can now be re-named either Feckless or Fuckrell.

Seems nuts I know, but if Gilbert can get to the QB solo, Matthews, Fackrell and Daniels will get Pro Bowl votes.

[pbmax]

Also no one seems to have seen this so I will repost, Muhammed Wilkerson looks done. D-U-N done.

It was preseason, so it doesn't count and he might not care, but he was invisible for most of the game and got knocked around.

[pbmax]

So a drafted player who doesn't sign a contract and doesn't come to camp shouldn't be called a "holdout"? That term has been used for as long as I can remember. For a recent example, there are many articles about the Bears' Roquan Smith being a "holdout":

http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/2...-chicago-bears

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/football/bears/ct-spt-bears-brian-urlacher-roquan-smith-holdout-20180803-story.html

The term "holdout" has been used for unsigned tagged players and RFAs or as long as those categories have been around. For example, Ryan grant was called a "holdout" in 2008 when he refused to sign his restricted free agent tender offer:

https://onmilwaukee.com/sports/artic...amp080308.htmlWhy is it confusing now?

Example of franchise-tagged players referred to as potential holdouts, including Brees, Forte, Ray Rice and Welker:

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/...e-tag-holdouts

Josh Norman was called a holdout in the same circumstances two years ago:

https://pantherswire.usatoday.com/2016/03/22/should-josh-normans-potential-holdout-concern-panthers-fans/

Why, now, is it suddenly confusing?

Seems appropriate.

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. He may as well concern himself with his shadow on the wall. Speak what you think now in hard words, and to-morrow speak what to-morrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said to-day. — 'Ah, so you shall be sure to be misunderstood.' — Is it so bad, then, to be misunderstood? Pythagoras was misunderstood, and Socrates, and Jesus, and Luther, and Copernicus, and Galileo, and Newton, and every pure and wise spirit that ever took flesh. To be great is to be misunderstood.

[Guiness]

So a drafted player who doesn't sign a contract and doesn't come to camp shouldn't be called a "holdout"? That term has been used for as long as I can remember. For a recent example, there are many articles about the Bears' Roquan Smith being a "holdout":

http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/2...-chicago-bears

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/football/bears/ct-spt-bears-brian-urlacher-roquan-smith-holdout-20180803-story.html

The term "holdout" has been used for unsigned tagged players and RFAs or as long as those categories have been around. For example, Ryan grant was called a "holdout" in 2008 when he refused to sign his restricted free agent tender offer:

https://onmilwaukee.com/sports/artic...amp080308.htmlWhy is it confusing now?

Example of franchise-tagged players referred to as potential holdouts, including Brees, Forte, Ray Rice and Welker:

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/...e-tag-holdouts

Josh Norman was called a holdout in the same circumstances two years ago:

https://pantherswire.usatoday.com/2016/03/22/should-josh-normans-potential-holdout-concern-panthers-fans/

Why, now, is it suddenly confusing?

I'm with pb that "they" can call them hold outs all they want, it doesn't make it accurate. A holdout is when you have a contract, otherwise you are unsigned.

What Bell and Roquan (and years ago, Grant) did is entirely different from Mack's situation, and the CBA recognizes that by providing for fines for Mack, but not for the others who are not currently employed by the NFL.

On the Roquan thing, I felt that was a lot of audacity on the part of the Bears to try and un-guarantee a contract that was guaranteed by the CBA. Can't say is surprises me, but I thing the NFLPA had better step up and squash that or it'll end up as commonplace as the offset language has now become.

[Guiness]

Also no one seems to have seen this so I will repost, Muhammed Wilkerson looks done. D-U-N done.

It was preseason, so it doesn't count and he might not care, but he was invisible for most of the game and got knocked around.

Holy shit I forgot he was out there. He was out there?

[pbmax]

Guiness proposes a nice test for the notion of a hold out.

if you cannot be fined for staying away, its not a hold out.

[Patler]

Seems appropriate.

So why did it take all these year for such a "large-minded' person as your self to bitch about it? Smacks of the epidemic of political correctness that has overtaken so many aspects of our lives. Things that were common and well-understood for years are suddenly abominations to all the self-proclaimed truly great thinkers.

[pbmax]

So why did it take all these year for such a "large-minded' person as your self to bitch about it? Smacks of the epidemic of political correctness that has overtaken so many aspects of our lives. Things that were common and well-understood for years are suddenly abominations to all the self-proclaimed truly great thinkers.

I have been complaining about it since the board was up and running. You'll have to do your own googling to find others who have complained about it longer.

I'll also note that the poster who loves to parse meanings of posts on this board doesn't seem to want to parse the problem of hold out connoting both the withholding of contractually required services and a contract negotiation impasse.

[Patler]

I have been complaining about it since the board was up and running. You'll have to do your own googling to find others who have complained about it longer.

I'll also note that the poster who loves to parse meanings of posts on this board doesn't seem to want to parse the problem of hold out connoting both the withholding of contractually required services and a contract negotiation impasse.

Get serious. You use "holdout" in the same way yourself.:

Ed Werder @Edwerderespn 1h1 hour ago
Source says JPP won't sign franchise tender until confident he can pass physical to prevent #Giants from putting on NFI, having full control

Word was the JPP didn't like the long term offer the Giants had on the table (and pulled). That, plus having not signed the Tender, he has some leeway. But he will have to get healthy quick or his rehab becomes a holdout.

A "holdout"? Really? It was an unsigned tender. Not a holdout. Why were you trying to confuse us all?


You accuse me of parsing meanings, yet I rarely respond without including entire quotes of posts to which I respond, only occasionally deleting unrelated content to shorten the overall post. I certainly WILL and DO highlight specific comments that are what I perceive to be the crux of an error in analysis. If someone argues a+b=c, I will often dispute their conclusion "c" by showing that their fundamental basis "b" for it is incorrect. On the other hand you constantly respond to how I phrase a specific clause and rarely reply to the overall intent or content of my posts. I have come to expect it. You seem to have a bug up you butt about me for some reason, which has been obvious to me for several years now.

Best for the good of this diminishing board that we simply no longer engage each other. I'm sure it is a distraction and of no interest to others.

[pbmax]

Get serious. You use "holdout" in the same way yourself.:

A "holdout"? Really? It was an unsigned tender. Not a holdout. Why were you trying to confuse us all?

You accuse me of parsing meanings, yet I rarely respond without including entire quotes of posts to which I respond, only occasionally deleting unrelated content to shorten the overall post. I certainly WILL and DO highlight specific comments that are what I perceive to be the crux of an error in analysis. If someone argues a+b=c, I will often dispute their conclusion "c" by showing that their fundamental basis "b" for it is incorrect. On the other hand you constantly respond to how I phrase a specific clause and rarely reply to the overall intent or content of my posts. I have come to expect it. You seem to have a bug up you butt about me for some reason, which has been obvious to me for several years now.

Best for the good of this diminishing board that we simply no longer engage each other. I'm sure it is a distraction and of no interest to others.

Patler, I am very fond of both you and your posts. If I respond to you, its because I either find the point valid or worth debating.

I think the debate over the term hold out is worth having.

[pbmax]

But if you are going to quote entire posts that a relevant to illustrate the point, perhaps you could have included two posts below the one you quoted.

Not much of true holdout since 1) he is not under contract, and 2) he can't sign a multi-year contract after a certain date anyway (July 15?). If he doesn't sign until he passes a physical, the effect is the same as being on the NFI - he can't play and isn't getting paid. He just won't attend meetings and the rehab gets done outside the team. He's in full control of not getting paid. The only thing I can think of is that he is trying to negotiate some sort of deal where he gets the Giants to agree to give him something instead of nothing when he is on the NFI list.

Yeah, I am not in favor of calling players not under contract a holdout, but I couldn't think of another term that clearly indicates he is missing camp time.

[Patler]

But if you are going to quote entire posts that a relevant to illustrate the point, perhaps you could have included two posts below the one you quoted.

...and yet your initial inclination was to use the term "holdout", because you did in the post essentially bringing up the issue. What does that say about your conviction to the issue?

[Patler]

Patler, I am very fond of both you and your posts. If I respond to you, its because I either find the point valid or worth debating.

I think the debate over the term hold out is worth having.

I don't think it is worth having, because I think any confusion is minimal at most.

[pbmax]

...and yet your initial inclination was to use the term "holdout", because you did in the post essentially bringing up the issue. What does that say about your conviction to the issue?

Not my initial inclination. That was to find a replacement for it but failed to do so in the time allowed for internet commenting.

I should have simply said he will be out of camp, refusing to sign the tender until the last moment.