Sports: NFL

[Dad_Scaper]

Aldin, that's a fine policy, but with Ray Rice the league already set a precedent for varying from the outcome of the legal process. Rice got a rehabilitation disposition from the courts and the death sentence from the league.

None of it's easy.

[Crixus33]

Originally Posted by Dad_Scaper

Looks like Adrian Peterson may have beaten a different 4 year old son in such a manner that he left a scar over the kid's eye.

DS, unless I read it wrong or Peterson lied, which is entirely possible, he did not cause the laceration above the eye. The kid tried to get away and hit his head on a car seat. The kid caused it to himself. If Peterson physically caused the injury he is at fault, but if it is the truth and he caused no other harm then I don't see anything wrong. The only problem I see is he says beating/whooping which could mean blows other than a spank, but he could have just used those words instead of spanking. There is nothing wrong with a spanking, though it should be noted a proper spanking leaves no bruises or cuts.

[Dad_Scaper]

He doesn't deny beating the kid in the text messages. Read it again.

[Crixus33]

Originally Posted by Dad_Scaper

He doesn't deny beating the kid in the text messages. Read it again.

I know he doesn't deny (but he does not admit to it either) beating the kid, but when I went in to read the article I thought he had hit the kid causing the cut, either with his fist or weapon based on how you worded it. The article was too vague and never enough evidence will be available to clear it up. Basically I was expecting a reason to dislike him more and maybe push him into the realm of abuser instead of a one time offender in my mind; however, the story ended up being a vague description with circumstantial evidence and a lot of he said, she said. In all honesty, I think the story was either meant to slander Peterson, for whatever reason, or the writer knew some people would read it simply because they are looking for reasons to dislike Peterson. Either way I mainly dislike the article because it is just vague insinuations that will only cause damage and not help the situation (by helping I mean helping Peterson realize the error of what he did).

[Dad_Scaper]

As I understood it, in an exchange of texts Peterson acknowledged to the boy's mother that he'd given the boy a "whooping," though it was not clear what he had used to strike the child. And that Peterson explained that the boy could have avoided it, probably by being better behaved, though he doesn't say as much. And it led to a report with Child Protective Services. That's all there is to it, I can't tell you how that should make you feel.

[Dad_Scaper]

Originally Posted by IAmBatman

Might just be biased after watching them smack down the Lions this week, but I actually like Carolina's chances of starting 4-0 a lot with those match ups.

I was looking at the Panthers' schedule and remembered this post. They have the Steelers in Week 3 and the Steelers looked *bad* against the Ravens. Their test will be Week 4, away vs. the Ravens. That should be a good game.

[IAmBatman]

Right now, on paper at least, Panthers > Ravens, IMO.

The Steve Smith storyline will be interesting, though.

[Hahma]

Well I took it that his son may have squirmed when being hit (instead of "just taking it") and perhaps a smack or whatever caused his head to hit the car seat.

Either way, a couple times one of his 4 year-old sons came home with a scar/s. Regardless of how the first one happened, it's still something that shows some precedent as far as him being physical enough with a 4 year-old to leave scars.

Another thing is that he is one dumb sob from the texts the need sub-titles.

Another thing is he disciplined the one in the car for cussing. Seems like the kid is getting some bad influences from either the mom or dad or both with the kind of language that is being thrown around in front of them, and perhaps the context of its use if he was cussing his sibling.

[Hahma]

Originally Posted by IAmBatman

Right now, on paper at least, Panthers > Ravens, IMO.

The Steve Smith storyline will be interesting, though.

Yeah, I remember him saying look out for week 4.

[Dad_Scaper]

I haven't watched the Panthers at all. I am aware that they are 2-0. The Ravens did not look good Week 1 against the Bengals, but dominated their rival Steelers in Week 2. We will see what the future holds; championships are not won in September.

[IAmBatman]

For sure.

I'm of the opinion that the Steelers are fairly bad this year. Same thing for the Bucs, though, whom the Panthers took down in a fairly competitive match week 1 (albeit while starting their backup QB).

That said, I think (Honolulu blue homer glasses on) that the Lions are at least above average this year. Maybe not on the level of the Bengals, but still pretty darn good, and the Panthers beat us pretty soundly.

Let's just say I'd be shocked if Vegas doesn't put the odds on the Panthers in that one. Week 3 will influence the line for sure, though, so we'll see.

And I'm just talking about that match up, really, nothing else. Teams like the Ravens, Steelers, and Giants have all shown in recent years that incredibly mediocre regular seasons don't need to stand in the way of Superbowl runs.

[Dad_Scaper]

Yes, of course! The Lions have long tried to be successful with mediocrity. If only they could become mediocre, what a joy it would be!

I understand the sentiment completely.