Maximum Grilled Steelers Forum
Sep 16, 2014 at 20:50 *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
  Home   Forum   Help Calendar Media Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2 ... 10
 1 
 on: Today at 11:58 
Started by Finnegans Wake - Last post by jonzr
Yeah, this is a very touchy subject.  I was spanked with a wooden paddle when younger, my mom was a high school teacher and she paddled kids at school, out in the hallway, it's the way things were done in the 70's in OK.  But the spankings at home were few and far between and left no marks.  Had a grandmother who took a switch to my cousin and I a few times, we were ornery little fuckers, no doubt we deserved it.

I spanked our first kid but not the second.  Turns out discipline can be had if both parents provide a unified front and are consistent with their requirements.  Let the conditioning begin early!  My opinion only though.

As for Peterson, wow.  It must have been a brutal whipping to still have scabby wounds a week later.  And as I understand it, he has 7 kids with 5 mothers, right?  So what kind of parental figure is he to these kids?  I feel myself getting kinda judgy.  But I don't see how he has any business disciplining the kids at all, other than tossing them in time out.  OK, so you contributed DNA and presumably pay child support.  So what, is that supposed to buy the right to beat your kids?  Don't think so.

 2 
 on: Yesterday at 21:14 
Started by Finnegans Wake - Last post by Finnegans Wake
I think that's a pretty reasonable assessment, msdmnr.  I think if you're breaking the skin or leaving a mark, that's over the line, clearly.

And now it looks like this is a pattern of "discipline."  So if this was alleged before, there was no one to counsel him?  Not with the NFL's many resources, no coaches, no agent, no one took him aside and had a talk about the previous incident?

 3 
 on: Yesterday at 18:46 
Started by Finnegans Wake - Last post by msdmnr2002
It's tough to say there is a right way here. For those who say absolutely never ever put your hand to a child, I get it. I tried to avoid spanking as much as possible - never used anything other than my hand, which I feel is all you need. Sometimes the child simply won't respond to any sort of other discipline.

The problem is, any discipline should be done under control. Physical punishment more so than any. Unfortunately, parents often resort to that when they are mad, which strongly increases the odds of overdoing it.

Had someone tell me once "one spank is discipline, two is anger, three or more is abuse." Not sure who agrees, but I think it's a pretty good guideline.

FYI, I'm totally OK with taking spanking out of schools. I had a few, and it didn't bother me long term, but I don't want my kid's fate in that area in the hands of an overworked, pissed off and frustrated teacher.

 4 
 on: Yesterday at 14:23 
Started by Finnegans Wake - Last post by Finnegans Wake
Curious to know the board's assessment of this one.

On one hand, my experience and probably that of many (probably older) posters was that there was very infrequent use of pain-inducing discipline when I was young.  The most frequent discipline was a stern talking-to, but there were a few spankings, none of them particularly severe, and maybe a handful of times the wooden paddle or wooden spoon made an appearance.  YMMV.  If I had children, I would not use wooden objects, period, not that I found the experience physically or psychologically scarring -- I just think there are much better ways.  Spanking using the hand?  I don't know, I probably would not want to do that and would avoid it.  Much easier done when you don't actually have kids.  And then I see "parenting" where the children run the show and the "discipline" is laughable.  There has to be a happy medium, and I see that in verbal discipline.

So, I understand people come from all sorts of backgrounds, and my first inclination was to cut Peterson some slack.  But having seen the pics, and his texts to the child's mother, I'm a little less forgiving.  People grow up in homes where fathers abuse their wives, and we can all agree that spousal abuse is wrong, even far short of the violence Ray Rice used.  So why should it be any different with child abuse?  Peterson has said he does not intend to stop "whoopin' " his children, though he may stop using tree branches.  And, hopefully, belts.  Here I thought the idea of any sort of discipline, whether it involved corporal punishment or not, was to stop bad behavior, not to leave scars (physical or otherwise).  I don't think Peterson understands that.  

Again, if we are willing to suspend NFL players indefinitely for spousal abuse, should the punishment be any different for child abuse?  And let's be clear here, I'm not calling for people who spank their kids to be canned by the NFL, but I do think that if you beat your child to the point of leaving open wounds, and to the extent of the areas Peterson hit his child, then it is child abuse.  Sorry, there's no way around that.  I don't want child abusers or guys who punch their wives unconscious to play in the NFL, but that said Adrian Peterson is without doubt the best RB of the past decade and the game would be poorer for him being removed from it.  The worst part of it is that Peterson, and his attorney, don't seem to think that this is any big deal -- it's just how things are done in North Texas, and people who don't get it are being too PC presumably.  Bogus defense aside, it is troubling that Peterson doesn't get it.  Someone should have sat him down and had a talk about what constitutes child abuse and what some potential outcomes of that can be (such as, oh I don't know, those kids growing up and beating their children with tree branches).  

The abuse didn't result in anything so egregious as Janay Rice being knocked unconscious and dragged through a lobby, but it is still child abuse.  What's the approach the NFL should take?  What does Peterson deserve?

 5 
 on: Yesterday at 08:24 
Started by Finnegans Wake - Last post by Preacherman0
Carolina's defense is just nasty, with or without Hardy. I have no confidence in the ability of Gilbert to slow down anyone, much less guys with this kind of athletic ability. I also have no confidence in the coaches to prepare this group with a game plan.

That leaves Big Ben.

Agreed, he's not any kind of Manning or Beardy. But how often have we seen the offense sputter, until Ben takes the reigns in some form or fashion? Often that takes the form of no huddle, with BB calling the plays, in addition to making those circus-type plays we all love?

I'd love to see a good old fashioned run-the-ball type of offense, but those days may be gone. The best chance is to let Ben sling it around and keep up the pace to throw the defense off-balance. If we try to line up and go man-on-man with Carolina's front 7, this thing could get ugly in a hurry.

 6 
 on: Sep 14, 2014 at 16:39 
Started by Finnegans Wake - Last post by Finnegans Wake
Mood swing the other way.  Seeing how Carolina shut down Detroit, I no longer have this penciled as a win.  Same with Houston, TBH.  They were miserable last year, but both the Texans and Panthers have solid defenses, and if Ben can't get the offense in gear, we sure as shit know the defense won't be ready in the next few weeks.  I'm feeling very 4-3 or 3-4, depending on how we do in Cleveland.  Which, really, is congruent with us being an 8-8 team.

Course, second half of the season is what matters.  Hate rolling around in a dirty diaper tell then tho.

 7 
 on: Sep 12, 2014 at 14:52 
Started by Finnegans Wake - Last post by aj_law
Findude with the optimistic spin. 

Who are you and what have you done with the crusty bastard??!!

Yeah, didn't mean to say that Ben is, was or needs to be Manning.  He obviously ain't that kinda player.  That doesn't mean he can't be BMOC and carry the load.  He threw it like 27 or 28 times in the first half against Cleveland.  If he's gotta do that 40, 45 or even 50 times a game for them to win, so be it.  Let him do that.  There is no reason why this group can't be that explosive.  And, like I said, they're gonna need to be to win ball games. 

With the kind of defenses Pittsburgh's had, we've kinda been spoiled (not sure if that's the right word...) with the mindset of "get into the 20s and let the defense do their thing."  Well, that ain't gonna fly now.  This team needs to be dominant and effective...on offense.  That means putting up 30+...TDs, not FGs...no turnovers...score on every possession, etc.

If they can't do that...well, then get used to seeing a lot of 26-6 type scores.

 8 
 on: Sep 12, 2014 at 12:38 
Started by Finnegans Wake - Last post by Finnegans Wake
Some differences, obviously.  Ben is not and never will be, apparently, the student of the game Manning is.  Though off-season beer bong sessions may still have their appeal to a 34 year old, I'd love to have Ben eat, sleep, and drink tape and playbook study; that it's not to be is apparent when the offense comes out looking like, well, this.  Still, we have the weapons for the offense to carry the defense, and Ben needs a little swagger of his youth, when he would stride onto the field confident of being able to hustle out a fourth quarter comeback... and actually do just that. 

But I also think this marginal defense will see the most change of any unit this season, and much of what is going on was inevitable.  I know other teams incorporate replacements more quickly than LeBeau's "complex" scheme, but the overall change has been enormous:  the 2010 squad that was our last to make the Super Bowl had all of 3 defensive starters in common with the 2014 group (Timmons, Troy and Ike); the argument could be made as well for the O-side where only 4 (Ben, Heath, Maurkice, and Ramon F.) remain, but I would argue that some of our offensive growing pains were mere foreshadowing of what has happened on D -- we cleaned that side out faster. 

Long way of saying that I think the offense has to become more reliable and explosive, and that if it does we'll see a maturation of the D that few seem to expect.  Even if Jones is a bust, we can carry a few JAGs so long as the rest of the talent emerges.  We know Worilds has flashed that, as has Heyward; Shazier has tons of potential, and we have speed in the secondary; Cortez had a nice showing before injuries last year; etc. 

 9 
 on: Sep 12, 2014 at 11:15 
Started by Finnegans Wake - Last post by aj_law
The only way this team can be a consistent winner and threat is if #7 puts them on his shoulders similar to what Manning used do to for the Colts in the mid 2000s.  High flying offense; marginal defense.

That's it.

Basically, what we saw in the 1st half of the Browns game.

They used to lean heavily on the defense, now the roles are reversed.

Obviously, sputtering, mistakes and turnovers don't help matters at all.  Gotta be a clean and efficient effort.

 10 
 on: Sep 12, 2014 at 10:33 
Started by aj_law - Last post by Finnegans Wake
I don't think it was intentional.  But so totally worth the 8 grand.   tt02

Pages: [1] 2 ... 10

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines
SimplePortal 2.3.5 © 2008-2012, SimplePortal
| Sitemap
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!