Morning Quack Fix: LeGarrette Blount to be reinstated?
by jtlight on Oct 2, 2009 7:17 AM PDT
in Morning Quack Fix
Email
PrintThat was it? Two whole weeks? That's all the time we had without having to rehash the Blount situation over and over again? Well, that's out the window for the foreseeable future. Apparently today around 11am PST Chip Kelly will hold a press conference introducing the possibility of reinstating Blount. Since the story broke last night, everyone has an opinion. So let's get to it!
- ESPN's Joe Schad has been on this story from the beginning. Right now, Schad is reporting that Blount could be re-instated within three to five weeks, and that "Mike Bellotti and school president Richard Lariviere are on board with the possibility for reinstatement."
- SBNation.com was also on the story early, and will be updating with all the Blount info at this page. I like Spencer Hall's take:
- George Schroeder thinks "It's the wrong move." Similarly, John Canzano says, "So long dignity." If you think that Kelly should stick with what he initially told the public, then sure, believe that point of view. However, circumstances change. Doing what's best for the individual is more important than that opinion of others.
- Beyond this, there seems to be quite a bit of positive reaction, and many are giving Kelly the benefit of the doubt. Nick Daschel seems OK with the decision. Joe Schad thinks its a right move. So does Ted Miller.
Kelly, coming off a 42-3 upset of Cal, can't be accused of needing Blount in the lineup due to lack of production. The decision would be based on the assumption that Blount had proven to be a good citizen, seemed penitent, and wasn't likely to do something like, oh, I don't know...jump into the stands and attempt to assault total strangers. If he's over that whole urge and genuinely sorry, then sure: let the man play.
We'll know more in a few hours. As far as my opinion on this topic, I'm not really for Blount's reinstatement, but I'm not against it either. While many people are going to claim this is for self-serving reasons, that's clearly not the case. Blount adds very little football wise to the team right now. In fact, Blount has a better chance of hurting the football team than helping it. But Kelly apparently believes in him, and is willing to give him a second chance. Blount won't see the field soon, and if he does, he will almost definitely start at the bottom of the depth chart, and have to fight for every carry he gets. This is not a move that strengthens the football team. But it is one that will help out a young man.
Oh yeah, and we have a football game tomorrow. GO DUCKS!
139 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
ted miller likes it too
i’m considering trying to get to autzen to hear this for myself. I would only have to miss one class that i would be missing anyway if i wasn’t going on a band trip because of time i’ll miss later this month…..
Q: How many OSU freshmen does it take to change a light bulb?
A: None, it's a sophomore course.
What I said in VD's FanPost
Take out the (possible) reinstatement…it seems like players (both recruits and current players) would look at how CK kept Blount around even when he messed up about as bad as a player can mess up, and think, "wow, this coach actually cares about his players on a personal level beyond football." Keeping Blount on the team showed that CK isn’t the type of guy to just say, "you crossed me so now I’m going to bury you". Now let’s imagine that Blount has been a model citizen…he’s killing himself in practice with no shot at being reinstated, he’s had perfect attendance in class, he’s being a leader in practice and on the sidelines, he’s apologized to the team, the school, and the community…Rewarding a player that does all of those things could be the kind of thing that makes the other players willing to run through a wall for a coach. It could be the kind of thing that attracts recruits.
I honestly think that this could be a distraction for the team more than a positive. Things are clicking right now and throwing a wrench into it doesn’t seem to be a good idea. But this is what I respect about CK. He doesn’t seem to care about what other people think. He wants to do what he thinks is right for his players and his team, not just to win games, but to make them better people for life. Whether I agree with this decision or not, I can tell you that I respect Chip Kelly for having the huevos to make an unpopular decision if he thinks it’s the right thing to do, and for being able to swallow his pride and change his mind if he thinks it’s the right thing to do.
Guy behind me at Autzen says "why do the fans yell 'OOOOOO' when we are on D?" He then proceeds to yell "DEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE" on every defensive play for the rest of the game. As Carlos Mencia would say, "Dee Dee Deeeee".
by MarineCorpsDuck on Oct 2, 2009 7:23 AM PDT reply actions 6 recs
hahaha, I was just about a post a link to this comment. I rec’d you there, and I’ll rec you here. Excellent comment.
--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog
Why lt the cynicism of Canzano and Schroeder rule this topic?
I think a few things tip the scales in favor of Blount’s reinstatement.
1. He could have immediately bolted for Division II and played ball but he didn’t.
2. He was seen breaking up a possible scrap near the sideline after a kick-off.
3. He is apparently meeting his obligations.
4. He is a new father with a baby to provide for.
So, LGB has a lot on his plate. He could have further screwed up this situation, bitching to the press about the unfairness of it all, playing the race card, etc., and he didn’t. He has taken his punishment to date like a man.
As far as his role on the team, I would imagine by now he has apologized in general to the team and to Embry and Coach Frost specifically. If Blount gets reps, he won’t be the featured back, as he has lost any claim to that, but he could resume his role in the rotation. LGB is better as a change of pace/short yardage/4th quarter banger anyways. Those would be the snaps he gets.
If Blount were going to be a further distraction, he would have done it by now. I choose to be optimistic about LGB having seen the larger picture and his seeming to have turned a new leaf to become a consummate team player. After all, if Blount wants any crack at the League, he can’t be seen as a locker room cancer or a malcontent in any way or he won’t even get a mini-camp invite.
I think all of the drama has been drained out of this situation.
Roses Ain't Orange!
by Canard on Oct 2, 2009 7:43 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs
You should really put Canzano on ignore
As a blazers fan, I realized a long time ago its better just not to pay him any mind.
Does Blount deserve a second chance? I can’t say he does.
Does Blount deserve to play for the ducks? I don’t think so.
Most of us have moved on from that night. We don’t need him, and in some ways, it might hurt us. The one thing that has been clear through this whole situation is that Kelly has an interest in providing the best opportunity for his players.
Let’s be realistic here, at best case, Blount would be drafted 5th round. If a team were to take a chance on him, it would likely be in the 7th round. He would have no guarantee of keeping a roster spot in most NFL teams. From the reports, Blount hasn’t been very active on the practice squad. He likely isn’t in great shape. That’s not going to help his NFL future.
By giving him a chance to rejoin the team, Kelly is giving Blount one thing he’s lost: Hope. Hope of raising his draft stock. A drive for him to get back in shape. A chance to have a career and a life to raise his kid.
If I were Kelly, I stand by my word. I would keep Blount suspended. But Kelly might have more grace and mercy than I do, and he’s giving Blount a chance at something he doesn’t deserve.
It's spelled "S-H-U-A-R-E-A-J-A-C-K-A-S-S"
he’s giving Blount a chance at something he doesn’t deserve.
I think that presumes quite a bit. I don’t think any of us know what Blount does and does not deserve.
--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog
Maybe that’s true, but he didn’t just make one or two mistakes. He made at least three in a pretty awful rampage. That isn’t presumptuous. A season suspension I believe is fair, and at the time, that’s what others thought was fair. Some can argue it was too much, and maybe they have a legitimate claim, but that’s not what Kelly thought.
“LeGarrette Blount will just not play for us on Saturdays.’’ By the coach’s own words and actions, he’s not going to be playing on Saturdays. By reinstatement, and seeing him on the field on game day, Kelly is being pretty gracious. Grace is receiving something when you don’t deserve it.
It's spelled "S-H-U-A-R-E-A-J-A-C-K-A-S-S"
It’s also something that you can’t earn. I think that Blount earned what he’s gotten, and has done everything right. This isn’t just Kelly being nice, it’s recognizing the actions of Blount since the punch.
--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog
I’m interested to hear the press conference. I wonder if the team leaders were going to him, Rudy-style, and asking CK to let him play? I wonder if he’s getting thousands of e-mails about it. I wonder what Tony Dungey, John Gruden, et al had to say about it. Right now I’m still on the fence…if they don’t reinstate him I can see why, and if they do reinstate him I can see why. After hearing what went into the decision making process I may sway more to one side of the fence, but until then I’ll be neutral.
Guy behind me at Autzen says "why do the fans yell 'OOOOOO' when we are on D?" He then proceeds to yell "DEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE" on every defensive play for the rest of the game. As Carlos Mencia would say, "Dee Dee Deeeee".
by MarineCorpsDuck on Oct 2, 2009 8:52 AM PDT up reply actions
Blount said so himself
I do not expect to be given a second chance to be a positive and responsible member of the football program and of this community. Going forward, what I hope for is the opportunity to show that I am able to earn a second chance as a University student
I for one wish Kelly had said indefinitely in the beginning opening up the opportunity for this later. But if Kelly thinks he should be given the opportunity to earn that second chance, I will respect that decision.
Hi, my name is Matt Daddy and I am a....
HUGE FREAKING DUCK FAN!!!!!!... "Hi Matt Daddy"
I agree…AND I can see one reason why he wouldn’t. Perhaps he wanted to see how Blount would react and perfom knowing that he had no chance. By saying he has a chance, he has a motive to be good. By saying he has NO chance, Blount had to prove that he was changing because he wanted to and realized he was wrong. There’s no way to know, and I’m not saying that’s why, I’m just putting it out there that there may have been a reason.
Guy behind me at Autzen says "why do the fans yell 'OOOOOO' when we are on D?" He then proceeds to yell "DEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE" on every defensive play for the rest of the game. As Carlos Mencia would say, "Dee Dee Deeeee".
by MarineCorpsDuck on Oct 2, 2009 8:54 AM PDT up reply actions
MCD, you make a great point about Rudy-style players et al.
I can definitely see players on this team, coaches, and outside forces coming to Kelly and saying, “I know it is your decision, but here is what I think.”
I think Kelly has shown this is HIS FOOTBALL TEAM. Maolsi, Blount, etc. But, Kelly is also showing his players that it’s not about the bad decisions you make, it’s about how you react that matter. Blount has done everything asked, apologies, contrition, no excuses. He’s been nothing but a team player since. Practices and games, and all the things he was not “required” to do. He could have easily said, “fine I’m going to go start training for the NFL” and no one would have blamed him. Instead he’s been around the team, helped at practices, and been a leader and cheerleader on the sidelines FOR THIS TEAM.
Kelly sees that, respects that and is giving him now a chance to make it back.
I bet that Kelly says in the press conference, here is what Blount will NOW have to do to make it back onto this team…not he’s back…what he neds to do TO BE back.
Hi, my name is Matt Daddy and I am a....
HUGE FREAKING DUCK FAN!!!!!!... "Hi Matt Daddy"
Maolsi
Maolsi to Pflugard, 80-yard TD baby!
Addicted To Quack [dot] com; Six-hundred and ninety-four yards of total offense.
totally agree
If you tell him, that there is a chance, of course he will do whatever it takes to get back on the team. Jump through any hoops necessary to get back playing, because there is a lot of potential money on the line.
By saying you won’t play again, but you can still help your team; you test his true character. Nothing I have heard from teammates and coaches makes me believe that the kid doesn’t have some character. Clearly he is emotional, cocky and immature but that’s par for the course at that age.
I kinda agreed until you got to the place about lotsa money (which does have SOME truth to it) but,
this isn’t justt about the money.
LG obviously came to Oregon lacking skills to survive well in the world (evidenced by the BS U behavior/stress.) He is being given a chance to learn what Akili and Onterrio never really ‘got.’ Chip and his Gang of Four, took LG’s punch and returned it to him with kindness. They saw what he needed and not only offered it but encouraged him to accept it. This type of act is so rare in our society that people are accusing them of ulterior motives.
We, in my opinion, are witnesses to much more than scoreboard victories. We are looking at a change in athletics as we now know it. The good ole boys have collapsed and they don’t know it. Perhaps we can even have a playoff now.
That’s how far this thing goes, and further. And, I repeat, it’s not just about the money.
I agree with that mostly, but Kelly could just as easily stick to his guns and see the suspension all the way through.
I don’t agree that this isn’t Kelly being nice. I think Kelly has really reached out to help him. He arranged phone calls with a slew of former coaches and players. He’s given the opportunities. Blount could have just turned down.
It's spelled "S-H-U-A-R-E-A-J-A-C-K-A-S-S"
You’re absolutely right…“Kelly could just as easily stick to his guns…”. That would absolutely have been the easy thing to do, but if he feels as a leader that it isn’t the right thing to do for the young man and the team, I have to respect him for changing his mind. I think you have very valid points, and I still say I can see both sides of this thing.
On a side note: Remember that Kelly made this decision almost immediately. Videos surfaced later showing some additional provocation. I am NOT defending what he did at all, I’m just saying that he has more information now than he did when he made the original decision. God knows I’ve made quick decisions before that had a long-term effect, and then a little while down the road thought to myself, “oh man, maybe I should have done ABC instead of XYZ.”
Guy behind me at Autzen says "why do the fans yell 'OOOOOO' when we are on D?" He then proceeds to yell "DEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE" on every defensive play for the rest of the game. As Carlos Mencia would say, "Dee Dee Deeeee".
by MarineCorpsDuck on Oct 2, 2009 8:57 AM PDT up reply actions
I'll second that
There has been further evidence to the provocation, also Coach Kelly IF he is giving him another chance isn’t taking the easy road because HE will be criticized for reinstating him, much more than if he doesn’t. Also this press conference may be nothing more than an update, because of constant pressure. I’ve had a discussion with my fiancee about this matter earlier because she doesn’t believe he deserves another opportunity, but I am on the other side. I understand there were multiple events leading up to the explosion, and I myself could see myself doing the exact same thing he did. Some of us have a shorter fuse than others, especially having multiple issues that are not football related. Blount has shown a lot of character for sticking with something with no carrot being dangled in front of him.
"I used to play sports. Then I realized you can buy trophies. Now I'm good at everything." - Demetri Martin
What would the SEC have done? OK?
The SEC or an OK would have done the right thing and maybe suspend Blount for 2-3 games. At least that’s what they would say. In reality they only care about giving themselves the best competitive advantage, regardless. I totally agree. The BSU jerk got what he had coming to him any damn way.
Noble motives, bad decision
When the suspension was announced, I thought that it seemed harsh, but not indefensible. What really impressed me was that Kelly, Belotti and UO made their decision immediately, despite the fact that at the time it looked like a sure killer to the Ducks’ season. It sent a message—-to the UO community, to schools across the country, to recruits, to parents, to everyone—-that some things are not acceptable at Oregon, and that some things are more important than winning football games.
Hell, at a lot of schools (I name no conferences), Blount’s action would have drawn maybe a two-game suspension and no desserts for a month.
I’m rooting for Blount all the way. He made a big mistake, but since then he’s done everything right, and I have great sympathy for those who applaud the decision to give him a second chance. (Though does anyone want to be bet against him landing in the NFL either way?) But reversing the decision sends another message: It says that Oregon talks big, and then changes its mind. I like the first message better.
I don’t for a moment doubt that reinstating Blount, if that’s what happens, will have been done for the right reasons: He’s shown tremendous class in accepting responsibility for his actions, doing what he could to correct things, and working hard to move past this. Doesn’t matter: The message will still be interpreted as “Oh, look. Oregon has realized that their team still has a great shot at a conference championship and another fine season, so they’ve flip-flopped and brought back their star RB.” How will that message be received by recruits, opponents, etc. et al.?
I think reinstating LeGarrette would be a mistake.
—
All that said: If he does come back, I hope he obliterates opposing defenses, wins the Heisman and is the #1 pick in the draft.
"Heaven and earth alike revolt against a parched and withered duck." (Stephen Maturin)
The message will still be interpreted as "Oh, look. Oregon has realized that their team still has a great shot at a conference championship and another fine season, so they’ve flip-flopped and brought back their star RB." How will that message be received by recruits, opponents, etc. et al.?
I think this flip-flopping thing is stupid. You do what’s right at the time, to the best of your ability. If that means changing your mind, so be it. I do no criticize the coaching staff for changing their mind. I applaud them for it.
As far as perception goes, I think most sane people (not Canzano) agree with that. As I said before, this move if anything hurts the football team, it doesn’t help it. I think most people looking at the situation will see it, and in the end, the University will look very good in how they have handled this (provided Blount doesn’t screw up anymore).
--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog
Could very well be. I can’t predict the future. And certainly the Ducks looked DAMNED AMAZING last week, without LeGarrette.
I hope you’re right. I REALLY hope you’re right! And I agree that changing one’s mind in the face of fresh evidence is a sign of strength.
But at least at the moment, I think that this move will be perceived as a flip-flop of convenience rather than a statement of principle. The next week’s news stories and blogs should tell us.
Whether we care how the decision is received is another question entirely. . . .
"Heaven and earth alike revolt against a parched and withered duck." (Stephen Maturin)
Well, first, I don’t care what a bunch of columnists think. Look how fast the Blount situation blew over. The same thing will happen again.
Also, I seriously don’t think this will affect recruiting. If anything, it could help it. This is really a situation of putting the student-athlete first, when that wasn’t necessary.
--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog
I too, hate the flip-flop argument. I just got done talking to someone about it at the water cooler that said “you can’t believe anything Chip Kelly says now because he’s a flip-flopper.” The following conversation ensued:
Me: “Have you ever been wrong before?”
Him: “Of course.”
Me: “Did you know in the moment that you were wrong?”
Him: “Usually I realize it later.”
Me: “Okay, so when you realized it later, did you just keep on pretending that you were right, or did you change your course of action because of it?”
Him: “This is different.”
Me: “Sigh.”
My point being…if you make a long-term decision and you realize later that it was wrong, I’d like to think that you’d recognize that and make a change, not just bury your head in the sand because you are scared to look like a “flip-flopper”. If you flip-flop ALL THE TIME, then maybe you are a flip-flopper.
Guy behind me at Autzen says "why do the fans yell 'OOOOOO' when we are on D?" He then proceeds to yell "DEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE" on every defensive play for the rest of the game. As Carlos Mencia would say, "Dee Dee Deeeee".
by MarineCorpsDuck on Oct 2, 2009 9:17 AM PDT up reply actions
Kelly had a lot of info on Blount, and based on that info, a season long suspension was appropriate. But now we have a whole lot more info on Blount, and a season long suspension may no longer be the best course of action. I’m glad our coaching staff is making that statement that says, you can move forward, and we are willing to change our opinion based on tangible actions.
--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog
If I’m a player right now, I’m thinking, “If I mess up I’m going to be held accountable, and I’m glad that my coach cares enough about me as a person to not just throw me to the curb.” I seriously doubt that if he gets reinstated players are thinking, “Yes! I can get away with murder! Blount got off soooo easy.”
Guy behind me at Autzen says "why do the fans yell 'OOOOOO' when we are on D?" He then proceeds to yell "DEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE" on every defensive play for the rest of the game. As Carlos Mencia would say, "Dee Dee Deeeee".
by MarineCorpsDuck on Oct 2, 2009 9:26 AM PDT up reply actions
MCD...another great point!!!! You are becoming my personal hero on this story
What is Kelly supposed to do if he thinks his punishment is too hard… “Well, my team is playing well, no reason to upset the apple cart now…sorry LGB, I know I’m wrong, but you got to deal with it”
Sometimes it’s harder to do the right thing the second time around.
Hi, my name is Matt Daddy and I am a....
HUGE FREAKING DUCK FAN!!!!!!... "Hi Matt Daddy"
Just chalk it up to new head coach first game mistake
Anybody that doesn’t recognize that this was Kelly’s first game as a head coach is an idiot. Talk about pressure. Kelly deserves the right to a mulligan and change his mind without some SOBs saying he is a flip-flopper. The jerk that said that is probably a brain dead Republican right, or from OK? Kelly deserves all the praise in the world for doing what he thinks is right regardless of criticism.
A seasoned coach in the SEC, or say OK, would understand bringing him back helps their chances of winning. However, they would have only suspended Blount for a couple- three games in the first place.
I know! I think a lot of people are on the fence. I have read/heard a lot of people saying “I could see this going either way.” That fact alone makes it a tough choice.
Guy behind me at Autzen says "why do the fans yell 'OOOOOO' when we are on D?" He then proceeds to yell "DEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE" on every defensive play for the rest of the game. As Carlos Mencia would say, "Dee Dee Deeeee".
by MarineCorpsDuck on Oct 2, 2009 9:07 AM PDT up reply actions
Great for debate though.
Addicted To Quack [dot] com; Six-hundred and ninety-four yards of total offense.
Good comment by Ted Miller....
We can prattle on about how it goes down or why it goes down or how it wasn’t supposed to be an option, but when the end-game is the best course of action, one that helps real-live people all the other stuff is just words.
--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog
Ted Miller, waxing poetic.
Guy behind me at Autzen says "why do the fans yell 'OOOOOO' when we are on D?" He then proceeds to yell "DEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE" on every defensive play for the rest of the game. As Carlos Mencia would say, "Dee Dee Deeeee".
by MarineCorpsDuck on Oct 2, 2009 9:08 AM PDT up reply actions
I just really think that CK wants to help Blount more than he’s trying to position his team for a conference title.
I'm going to miss those old overloards
agree
These arguments that he is coming back because we are now doing better or that we shouldn’t bring him back because we played well in the last two weeks are completely off point.
I think he is doing what he thinks is right for Blount, doing what he thinks Blount deserves.
And any “controversy” that this is going to stir up is going to be stirred up by people like Canzano who are looking for something to bitch about.
I'm going to miss those old overloards
This is the kind of stuff Canzano makes his living off of. He’ll be up there in his ivory tower stirring the pot. He makes me tired.
Guy behind me at Autzen says "why do the fans yell 'OOOOOO' when we are on D?" He then proceeds to yell "DEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE" on every defensive play for the rest of the game. As Carlos Mencia would say, "Dee Dee Deeeee".
by MarineCorpsDuck on Oct 2, 2009 9:29 AM PDT up reply actions
If you think that Kelly should stick with what he initially told the public, then sure, believe that point of view. However, circumstances change. Doing what’s best for the individual is more important than that opinion of others.
That’s a complete non-sequitur. The point of sticking by what you said is not popular opinion but doing the right thing. Since when is doing what you say not a critical aspect of good character?
If anything, Kelly changing his mind now says that he’s more concerned with doing what is popular, not so much now, but back when he implemented the season-ending ban. He could have done an indefinite ban, leaving open the possibility of re-instating him. Instead he did what the lynch mob wanted to shut them up. If he goes back on his word now, it makes him look like he was more concerned with satisfying popular opinion back then, than doing the right thing.
Sticking by what you say is doing the right thing. People of integrity are careful to mean what they say when they say it so they can stick by those statements over time. Kelly can chose today whether he’s a man of integrity or whether he’s a waffling politician today at 11 AM.
I don’t think I am. The punishment is still well within the realm of reasonable punishments. Somewhere between 4-6 games and all season was reasonable then and is reasonable now. Kelly made his choice and it’s not stubborn to stick with a reasonable punishment.
But if Kelly is going to go that route, to suggest that he’s be being stubborn by keeping the season-long ban in effect, then his press conference better be full of apologies. Apologies to Blunt for an overly-harsh punishment. Apologies to the University for the extended controversy. Apologies to the Pac-10 for making them look twice at whether they need to add sanctions of their own. Apologies to football fans and reporters everywhere for misleading them. He’d better make it darned clear that he thinks his original decision was a huge mistake and he’s changing his mind to undo an injustice he created.
Okay, maybe the punishment is still reasonable. But that ignores the possibility that there may be a better option now. It also ignores MarineDuck’s point that had Kelly come out at the beginning and said “There’s a chance for reinstatement,” Blount may not have gotten the character development he needed. Kelly needed to see that Blount would work hard for the sake of improving himself, not just getting what he wants.
Either way, the decision Kelly made in the past is a sort of sunk cost. It’s gone. He can’t change it. It would be foolish to make a decision TODAY based on a decision in the past when not all the variables were known. Kelly has more information now; information that I assume leads to a different conclusion about the best thing for Blount and the Oregon football program. If that’s true, it’s not only stubborn to stick with his original punishment, reasonable or not, it’s flat out stupid.
I feel the need, the need...for speed!
by Gorbachav5 on Oct 2, 2009 9:47 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Super rec’d for use of sunk cost. That’s an entirely apt way to look this situation. Great summation.
--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog
What you guys are missing is the value of consistency. Punishments are not nearly as meaningful if they’re always being reconsidered. If this goes through, every player in the future who gets suspended will be wondering if its really for real. Every fan or reporter is going to wonder if the University is going to stick by its word.
When a punishment is metered out, it’s not just about that incident and that person. It’s about a deterrent for the future, either for that person or for others.
Changing punishments down the road significantly hurts ones ability to properly discipline down the road.
If the punishment is still considered reasonable, you HAVE to stick by it for consistency’s sake.
So following that logic...
If other players are punished with NO statement of future considerations, and through that if they follow Blount’s actions of being a good citizen, good teammate and good student…that would be a bad thing?
Furthermore, if they are not given future consideration, would that be a bad thing?
Once again,
Don’t confuse stubbornness with integrity.
Hi, my name is Matt Daddy and I am a....
HUGE FREAKING DUCK FAN!!!!!!... "Hi Matt Daddy"
(Disclaimer: Don’t confuse the below analogy with a comparison, I’m not saying Blount is a murder)
Following your logic, if a serial-murder who was given life in prison was to show true signs of change in prison and be a good citizen, would it be a bad thing that they are not given a shot at parole?
Punishments have two purposes: One is corrective, the other is punitive. Just because the correction was successful does not allow us to disregard the punitive aspects.
And to be clear: I think Kelly’s biggest mistake was the punishment he metered out after the game. People of integrity don’t put themselves in this situation. I’ve noticed it with my kids. I’m very firm with following through on my punishments and you know what, it’s gotten me in trouble a couple times, having to follow through on punishments that in retrospect were overly harsh. The result of that is that I’m far more careful in what punishments I give out in the first place. I’m much more cautious than I was in the past.
That is Kelly’s mistake. And he needs the lesson just as much as everyone else. He needs to stick it out so that he, just like Blount and everyone else, can see that doing the right thing the first time is important.
If I hadn’t been consistent, I’d be less careful today with my children’s punishments. Kelly will be more cautious and thoughtful in the future if he sticks by this one. If he doesn’t, it’s only taking him down the road of second guessing every disciplinary decision he makes.
He probably did make a mistake in his original wording. However, to imply that he isn’t a person “of integrity” because of this seems a little over-the-top to me. People of integrity also recognize and admit when they were wrong, right?
Guy behind me at Autzen says "why do the fans yell 'OOOOOO' when we are on D?" He then proceeds to yell "DEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE" on every defensive play for the rest of the game. As Carlos Mencia would say, "Dee Dee Deeeee".
by MarineCorpsDuck on Oct 2, 2009 10:25 AM PDT up reply actions
Integrity is a cumulative thing. This single situation is only one instance. If he doesn’t act with integrity here, that will hurt my view of him, but I don’t mean to imply that it will imply that he totally lacks any integrity. From what I can tell, he’s got a lot of positives even if he blows this one.
I apologize if I was implying otherwise.
I agree with the thought that integrity can take a serious blow with only one situation. I’m interested to know your thoughts on my question above though. Don’t you think a person of integrity can admit when they made a mistake? Don’t you think a person of integrity can change their course based on that fact? I know people who claim to be people of integrity, but refuse to admit when they are wrong. To me, they aren’t exhibiting integrity at that point.
Guy behind me at Autzen says "why do the fans yell 'OOOOOO' when we are on D?" He then proceeds to yell "DEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE" on every defensive play for the rest of the game. As Carlos Mencia would say, "Dee Dee Deeeee".
by MarineCorpsDuck on Oct 2, 2009 10:34 AM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
I know people who claim to be people of integrity, but refuse to admit when they are wrong. To me, they aren’t exhibiting integrity at that point.
Ding Ding Ding! Rec’d
--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog
I answered that elsewhere so I didn’t repeat it here, but just for clarity’s sake:
the key aspect, and why it was in one of my initial responses here, is "admitting you were previously wrong". If he’s going to go down that road, he’d better make it pretty darned clear he hasn’t just changed his mind, but that he was wrong and apologize for his poor judgment in the past.
I guess I’m figuring he’s not going to be that apologetic. If he is, he’ll get some integrity points in my book for admitting a previous error even though I think he’ll be heading down the wrong course of action (because I believe the original punishment is just).
That is Kelly’s mistake. And he needs the lesson just as much as everyone else. He needs to stick it out so that he, just like Blount and everyone else, can see that doing the right thing the first time is important.
I strongly disagree with this statement. Kelly needs to do the right thing going forward. If the original punishment was too harsh, I think he’ll learn from that for the next time, whether or not he follows through or not. If you’re standing firm with your original decision just for that reason, that’s the easy and weak way out.
--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog
I think you’re overlooking human nature when you say that. Humans are both creatures of habit and of consequences. You’re willing to believe that Kelly going back on his word won’t affect his habits down the road. The only way it won’t is if the consequences of doing so (i.e. the outrage from the fans) convince him to change his habits.
Well, first, I think it’s a bit of a stretch to say that the changing of suspension is “going back on your word.” It’s a change of course. And that is not ALWAYS bad, which seems to be your position.
--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog
It is going back on his word. He, in principle, made a promise to fans everywhere that he was going to deal out a harsh season-long punishment and then is going back on that.
I think you’re playing with semantics.
He, in principle, made a promise to fans everywhere that he was going to deal out a harsh season-long punishment and then is going back on that.
So what? First, fans really come last in this ridiculous drama. Blount and the rest of the team and University come first Now, fans provide financial support and all that, but if this works out for Blount and the team, they will forget all about this.
I think that most fans want whatever is best for Blount and the team, and if “breaking a promise” to them gets that doen, so be it.
--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog
To add to that, maybe it’s true that keeping Blount suspended will be best, but I’m in no place to make that judgement, and neither are you. But based on what has happened so far this season, I think that all this criticism is very premature.
--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog
In the end all of this is for the fans and the University. I think you’ve got the priority stack completely upside down.
The way I see it, the electorate are the people in power, not the President. I feel the same way about sports. I’ve paid my money. These coaches and players are representing me. I have (well, we collectively) the authority and responsibility to make them account for their actions.
I’ll be charitable to them when charity is warranted, I don’t want my above statement to suggest that all us fans get to be jerks just because we hold the ultimate power, but in the end, this is entirely for the fans, particularly the students and alumni.
Fans do hold the power, and as I said at some point in this thread, I think most of the U of O fans just want to see what is best for the team and for Blount, and most seem to trust Kelly at this point.
--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog
These coaches and players are representing me. I have (well, we collectively) the authority and responsibility to make them account for their actions.
I think I’m going to throw up.
It's spelled "S-H-U-A-R-E-A-J-A-C-K-A-S-S"
That single statement sounds a LOT like John Canzano’s point of view.
Guy behind me at Autzen says "why do the fans yell 'OOOOOO' when we are on D?" He then proceeds to yell "DEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE" on every defensive play for the rest of the game. As Carlos Mencia would say, "Dee Dee Deeeee".
by MarineCorpsDuck on Oct 2, 2009 11:15 AM PDT up reply actions
Grace and compassion are not separate from Integrity
I am not excusing Kelly for maybe making a mistake by handing out too hard a punishment. But, I believe he may have been shown grace by not being punished for his mistake. Is he then percluded from showing grace himself.
Following the parent analogy, if I hand out a punishment to my kids that is too harsh, sometimes it is my spouse who makes me see that, and once my children have demonstrated sufficient corrective behavior and contrition, I am inclined to relieve some of the punitive aspects of that punishment.
Do I have to? No, as an authoritarian figure in my household, my decisions are final, but my grace and compassion for my kids, who I am trying to raise to have all aspects of integrity will understand that.
Hi, my name is Matt Daddy and I am a....
HUGE FREAKING DUCK FAN!!!!!!... "Hi Matt Daddy"
There are indeed times for grace and compassion. I don’t deny that.
Changing gears a bit, and trying to sum up:
In the end this all comes down to whether we thought the original punishment was too harsh, can we be honest about that?
I don’t think it was too harsh, it’s pretty much that simple.
(Starting rant…)
And this is why it outrages me enough to waste any hour spewing ASCII about it: I feel betrayed. I was led to believe one thing and most everyone here (OK, I’m exaggerating, perhaps the general consensus) nodded their head in approval at the original punishment. So people like me who were outraged went back into the woodwork satisfied that a just punishment had been handed out. Now, what’s turning out to be the case is that Kelly is (allegedly) going to go back on his word and everyone here (OK, exaggerating again) is making excuses for why it’s OK now.
What it says to me is that everyone was, at least deep down inside, lying to all of us who were outraged and doing whatever it takes to make us go away.
This is why consistency is important. There are more people involved here than just Blount. We were all counting on consistency. Kelly promised us consistency. Maybe not in so many words, but it is what everyone expected. We all went away because we were in effect promised it. We didn’t feel the need to beat a dead horse. Now he’s not delivering on that promise and people like me are upset.
We want consistency. Blount did a horrible thing and he was punished accordingly. Nothing has changed the season-long ban being appropriate and I expect Kelly to have the fortitude and consistency to stick with the original punishment.
(end rant)
by kencraw on Oct 2, 2009 10:49 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
I think that most of the fans here were on the fence about season long suspension at the time. Some people were for it, some against. I think that most of the fans basically were like, well, we trust Kelly and the University to make the right decision. I don’t think too many of us knew what to actually do, but went along with the decision from the people that knew what was going on internally.
And now, I trust Kelly and the University to make the right decision going forward, based on all the evidence on the table. Maybe that’ll change in 20 minutes when we hear his explanation. But I don’t have a lot problems with Kelly changing his mind, as long as the reasons are good. I expect to hear those reasons.
--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog
And in fairness to Kelly, we’re all jumping the gun here until we hear what he has to say.
Where can one get a feed of this from outside the state of Oregon?
if 95.5 the game has a live feed, you can pick up on that station from Portland
Hi, my name is Matt Daddy and I am a....
HUGE FREAKING DUCK FAN!!!!!!... "Hi Matt Daddy"
http://www.955thegame.com/Multimedia/Listen_Live/
Guy behind me at Autzen says "why do the fans yell 'OOOOOO' when we are on D?" He then proceeds to yell "DEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE" on every defensive play for the rest of the game. As Carlos Mencia would say, "Dee Dee Deeeee".
by MarineCorpsDuck on Oct 2, 2009 11:07 AM PDT up reply actions
I remember many posts here about people never watching a game again if he ever put the uniform back on. Hence the end of his career there, I thought.
Yes, and it resulted in the stated banishing. They slammed him hard and it mitigated the whole game, now things are more pleasant so hey, give the poor kid a chance. Very lame. Give everyone a chance, always. Think about it, then punish. That’s my take. It all went down too fast and now it’s rectify time.
You know I’m a Cal guy but not everyone here does. So I’ll mostly just listen now. :)
They wanted to react quickly for several reasons.
Primarily, it would have been better for Oregon to react than the Pac-10 or the NCAA to react.
This also gave Oregon the chance to give a punishment without kicking him off the team.
It's spelled "S-H-U-A-R-E-A-J-A-C-K-A-S-S"
C’mon, it was largely public relations-driven. Angry donors angry! Angry donors write angry letter! 2nd thoughts now are possible because good fortunes allow an attempt at the right thing to be done. Cal beats Oregon, fanbase further disgruntled, not a whisper of this. Perhaps I am overly cynical. I just wish concerns about Blount drove everything from the beginning. He was, and is, part of your family from the day he was brought in. Hopefully everyone ends up better for it.
Oh, i think there was clearly some PR reasons why they acted so quickly.
But I think Oregon also wanted to dish out a sufficient punishment before the Pac-10 or the NCAA had to step in.
It's spelled "S-H-U-A-R-E-A-J-A-C-K-A-S-S"
Chip Kelly just said that the plan was signed by himself and Blount on Sept 25th, the day before the Cal game. The plan, if he achieves every “academic and behavioral ladder” wouldn’t allow him back until the Stanford game, at the earliest . I don’t think this has to do with the built-up goodwill. Hell, on Sept 25th people were still ready to throw Masoli out and were openly questioning when Chip would make a QB change.
Guy behind me at Autzen says "why do the fans yell 'OOOOOO' when we are on D?" He then proceeds to yell "DEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE" on every defensive play for the rest of the game. As Carlos Mencia would say, "Dee Dee Deeeee".
by MarineCorpsDuck on Oct 2, 2009 11:34 AM PDT up reply actions
In the end this all comes down to whether we thought the original punishment was too harsh, can we be honest about that?
I agree, and I also think that many people looked at the situation and said, there are many ways Kelly can go on this. He (at that time) decided to go with one of the most extreme punishments available. Was I sitting back and going, “yeah, give it to him Kelly.” No, my inital thoughts were, “that’s extreme, but I understand why he did that.”
Now, after seeing how Blount responded, Kelly has decided to show some grace and compassion. Am I sitting here saying, “yeah!!! he deserves to come back.” No, my thoughts are the same, “that’s extreme, but I understand why he is doing that.”
People in a position to hand out punishments that can have life altering consequences (i.e. Parents, coaches, teachers, judges, etc) have a responsibiltiy to the people they are authority figures to to encompass all aspects of integrity in their life. I just think grace and compassion is not uncalled for here.
Hi, my name is Matt Daddy and I am a....
HUGE FREAKING DUCK FAN!!!!!!... "Hi Matt Daddy"
oh and I agree consistency is important too
look at the Masoli situation. Kelly has consistency in his character too.
Hi, my name is Matt Daddy and I am a....
HUGE FREAKING DUCK FAN!!!!!!... "Hi Matt Daddy"
For the separate point of Kelly saying in the past “there’s a chance for reinstatement”, I didn’t know that and I agree it does limit the applicability of my argument some, but only some.
However, my complaint in that case is that he didn’t use a very good choice of words at the time for our “sound bite” society. If there was a chance of reinstatement he shouldn’t have said it was for the season. He should have said it was indefinite. That’s a more minor quibble but one that shows how perception matters and it will matter in the future.
These types of “outs” are built into punishments all the time. As a kid, my parents would cut my punishment short if I had “learned my lesson.” Criminals can receive parole if they exhibit good behavior. As you said earlier, a 4 – 6 game suspension would have been a reasonable punishment. So whether or not Kelly reinstates him, Blount has still been punished. And neither you or I or anyone else on this board is in any kind of place to judge better than Kelly whether the punishment has had the desired effect on Blount.
The grace Kelly shows in reinstating him will have a greater positive effect on the team’s support for him than any perceived “softness” will have as a negative effect.
I feel the need, the need...for speed!
by Gorbachav5 on Oct 2, 2009 10:13 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
GODAMN IT! Why didn’t you tell me that after I knocked up my mistress! Coulda saved my marraige!
President Emperor Warlord Of The Sun!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
Really
Don’t think stubborness and integrity are that far separated. In order to show integrity, it takes a certain amount of stubbornness and the willingness to stick to your opinions.
Happiest days of my life
1.Birth of my kids
2. Nov 28, 2008 @ Reser Stadium
First, how in the world is that a non sequitur? That term does not in any way apply.
Next, here’s your whole argument:
Sticking by what you say is doing the right thing.
This is simply an absurd statement. The available data changes. Circumstances change. Adapting your decisions based on that is the right thing to do. Now, if I make a promise of obligation to you, and then break that, that is bad character. But Kelly had no such obligation.
Furthermore, I do not understand how this equates to Kelly only doing the popular thing. The popular thing would have been to do nothing. No one would have said another word. Instead, Kelly brings this up, because he thinks its the right thing to do, and now takes a whole lot of crap for it.
In my mind, that shows more integrity than so-called “waffling.”
--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog
Non sequitur, from the latin “it does not follow”. It does not follow that “doing what is best for the individual” is the opposite of “Kelly should stick with what he initially told the public.” There is no relationship between the two. Sticking by what he said could very well be the best thing for Blount.
My point about the popular thing is not what he is doing now. I agree that he’ll take heat for making a decision now. My point was that he was doing the popular thing by putting in the harsh punishment in the first place if he was at all considering reversing it later. And if he’s going to do that, he owes everyone an apology for that.
For the non-sequitur, obviously Kelly doing the right thing could be Blount staying. But what these columnist (and yourself) are stating is that consistency is the most important thing here. Consistency may help the individual, but that hasn’t been the argument. I feel that the arguments of Schroeder, Canzano, and you are invalid, because it misses the most important aspect of this situation: LeGarrette Blount.
I see above you’ve mentioned future credibility, and that is a concern. But as a Duck fan, not a major one. Kelly has been known to be a hardass on disciplinary issues. I really don’t see this changing that.
--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog
A lack of consistency hurts Blount too. It teaches him that punishments aren’t final and that the consequences of his actions will likely be mitigated down the road. From his actions in the past I’d say he DEFINITELY needs a lesson in consistency.
And if you don’t care about the credibility of the football program and the University, I just don’t know what to say. This is as visible and big of a disciplinary incident as the program will ever see. They’ll be judged on their actions here for years to come no matter what they do with the rest of the program.
It could also tell him and others that if he/they mess up, he/they shouldn’t give up and just say “screw it”… That there are positive consequences for being a good person and doing the right thing and learning from your mistakes. People in jail get time taken off their sentences for good behavior. If you only punish people and never provide positive reinforcement for good behaviors, they will only do enough to not get in trouble.
Guy behind me at Autzen says "why do the fans yell 'OOOOOO' when we are on D?" He then proceeds to yell "DEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE" on every defensive play for the rest of the game. As Carlos Mencia would say, "Dee Dee Deeeee".
by MarineCorpsDuck on Oct 2, 2009 10:15 AM PDT up reply actions
I think you’re totally blowing this out of proportion. On top of this, you’re assuming that this action means that Blount will not learn from the punishments that have been and will continue to be in place.
I don’t know why you assume this, as you don’t know Blount from Adam. Now, neither do I, but to have this total lack of knowledge of the people involved, and be so critical of it makes no sense.
As I said before, what is important here is helping LeGarrette grow into the best person he can be. You and others are assuming that this is only through “consistency,” without any real basis for that. I’m willing to trust the people that have actually interacted with him and seen him up close for the past two years.
--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog
I have a ton of both personal, societal and study basis for why I believe that consistency is extremely important. There’s tons of reasons to believe in it and the particulars of Blount, Kelly and Oregon football doesn’t change that a bit.
Well, I strongly disagree with you.
Integrity comes in all forms. Sticking to your original decision is the right thing to do in some cases. But admitting you were previously wrong and moving forward takes integrity as well.
--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog
I don’t see why the point you were replying to is about integrity, but I’ll ignore that…
I agree with what you said in concept. But the key aspect, and why it was in one of my initial responses here, is “admitting you were previously wrong”. If he’s going to go down that road, he’d better make it pretty darned clear he hasn’t just changed his mind, but that he was wrong and apologize for his poor judgment in the past.
In this case, I don’t think he was wrong in the first place. I think it was a reasonable punishment and therefore consistency of sticking to it is key.
In my opinion, re-instating Blount on it’s own is an admission of previous guilt, for lack of a better word.
--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog
So if he admits that the original punishment was excessive, that’s not enough? He has to apologize, and even then you disagree and think he needs to just stick with the original punishment for consistency, is that correct? I’m not trying to be sarcastic, that’s what I read from this statement.
Guy behind me at Autzen says "why do the fans yell 'OOOOOO' when we are on D?" He then proceeds to yell "DEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE" on every defensive play for the rest of the game. As Carlos Mencia would say, "Dee Dee Deeeee".
by MarineCorpsDuck on Oct 2, 2009 10:41 AM PDT up reply actions
Yup. This is such a big deal that apologies are in order if he’s admitting a mistake.
Turning the tables on everyone… people of integrity apologize when they make mistakes and don’t leave the apology assumed or implicit. They explicitly make it clear they are apologizing.
But then you said,
In this case, I don’t think the punishment was wrong in the first place. I think it was a reasonable punishment and therefore consistency of sticking to it is key.
So it doesn’t matter if he apologizes. In your eyes, even if he thinks he was wrong, admits that, and apologizes for it, you don’t agree that he was wrong in the first place so it doesn’t matter.
The base of your argument seems to be that the original punishment was correct. That’s fine, that’s your choice. But this whole argument about integrity, consistency, etc seems to be for nothing because you don’t agree with changing no matter what.
Guy behind me at Autzen says "why do the fans yell 'OOOOOO' when we are on D?" He then proceeds to yell "DEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE" on every defensive play for the rest of the game. As Carlos Mencia would say, "Dee Dee Deeeee".
by MarineCorpsDuck on Oct 2, 2009 11:05 AM PDT up reply actions
It’s a bit of both.
I’m willing to allow that different people have different views on what the right punishment is.
So, while I’ll think he’s going soft no matter what if he goes back on his word, it’ll still mean something to me that he apologizes for misleading me and everyone else. At least then he’ll be showing that being true to his word is important and he’s apologizing for going back on it.
I guess what I’m saying is it’s not 100% right and 100% wrong. There is partial credit here.
Press conference is on now:
http://www.955thegame.com/Multimedia/Listen_Live/
Guy behind me at Autzen says "why do the fans yell 'OOOOOO' when we are on D?" He then proceeds to yell "DEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE" on every defensive play for the rest of the game. As Carlos Mencia would say, "Dee Dee Deeeee".
by MarineCorpsDuck on Oct 2, 2009 11:10 AM PDT up reply actions
Also, kencraw, I’d like to say that I appreciate that you, Jared and I have been able to have this debate in a respectful manner without getting hot-headed or personal.
Guy behind me at Autzen says "why do the fans yell 'OOOOOO' when we are on D?" He then proceeds to yell "DEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE" on every defensive play for the rest of the game. As Carlos Mencia would say, "Dee Dee Deeeee".
by MarineCorpsDuck on Oct 2, 2009 11:11 AM PDT up reply actions 3 recs
Rec'd to 1 millionth degree
Hi, my name is Matt Daddy and I am a....
HUGE FREAKING DUCK FAN!!!!!!... "Hi Matt Daddy"
Thanks for stopping by, btw. Always good to have civil discussions, on what end up being bigger than this one situation.
--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog
It teaches him that punishments aren’t final and that the consequences of his actions will likely be mitigated down the road
Because that’s exactly what he learned.
Make sure you have your sarcasm detector when you read that.
“Given this, I do not expect to be given a second chance to be a positive and responsible member of the football program and of this community. "- LeGarrette Blount
It's spelled "S-H-U-A-R-E-A-J-A-C-K-A-S-S"
I like the comic strip the non sequitur
but I don’t agree with somebody having to stick to their words when their words are may have been forced by circumstance, or rushed. Not one person among us has regret something, or perhaps “over-punished” an error. What ever happens in this case will be okay with me, but I don’t believe a change of heart on punishment is non-sequitur, other than a possibility of being unexpected. however there is NO HUMOR involved which from my understanding is a large part of that idiom
"I used to play sports. Then I realized you can buy trophies. Now I'm good at everything." - Demetri Martin
I made little sense
Perhaps I should edit my posts before posting.
*are/may
*hasn’t later regretted something
"I used to play sports. Then I realized you can buy trophies. Now I'm good at everything." - Demetri Martin
Did I not make it clear that the quote was the non-sequitur, not Kelly changing his mind? (that is an honest question) I was saying that the blockquote was a non-sequitur.
Kelly changing his mind is just inconsistency. It’s not a non-sequitur.
I understood, but I still disagree. I thought it was fairly obvious that the two statements were not mutually exclusive.
If you think that Kelly should stick with what he initially told the public, then sure, believe that point of view. However, circumstances change.
Doing what’s best for the individual is more important than that opinion of others.
--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog
Well, I’ll give Kelly a 60% score:
Good:
1. Addressing this early, long before Blount may be reinstated
2. Having a specific set of criteria to reinstatement (even though not made public)
3. The suspension will be 8 games or more (which is originally what I wanted to see, 4-6 games being the shortest allowable in my mind and a full season being long but acceptable and 8-10 feeling right)
Bad:
1. Unapologetic for misleading people with “season long” suspension.
2. Seems oblivious that he’s contradicting himself with “season long” and “leaving a cloud of doubt” and now opening the possibility that he could come back with certain criteria.
Overall, I think the end decision will be OK. I just wish he had been more clear from the get go. What he should have said 3 weeks ago was that it was indefinite until we come up with a plan of how he can work to being back in our good graces and he’ll be suspended for the majority of the season and it will be more clear how long it may be after we put a plan with Blount of how he could ever be reinstated.
He could have done that up front and it would have been more honest.
(I don’t have time now for more discussion here, I’ve got work to do to pay the bills, but it was good talking with all of you)
We agree! If he had just said “indefinite” in the first place this could have been avoided. Good talking with you.
Guy behind me at Autzen says "why do the fans yell 'OOOOOO' when we are on D?" He then proceeds to yell "DEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE" on every defensive play for the rest of the game. As Carlos Mencia would say, "Dee Dee Deeeee".
by MarineCorpsDuck on Oct 2, 2009 11:35 AM PDT up reply actions
That has a whole different can of worms. It allowed the team to get past Blount.
Also, I could care less that he was unapologetic about his change of heart. In my mind, you don’t have to apologize about changing your mind. He explained why his mind was changed, and his honesty about that is all that I need.
--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog
Bottom line for me…I trust Chip to do what’s right.
Guy behind me at Autzen says "why do the fans yell 'OOOOOO' when we are on D?" He then proceeds to yell "DEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE" on every defensive play for the rest of the game. As Carlos Mencia would say, "Dee Dee Deeeee".
by MarineCorpsDuck on Oct 2, 2009 11:49 AM PDT up reply actions
My take
Grace and compassion are great things. I’m happy Kelly is displaying an ability to use those things. And I sincerely hope this is the best thing for Blount.
My only question about this is the integrity of Kelly. I suppose I have no reason to doubt it, but, IMO, it’s an awfully convenient solution Blount may not be an asset to this team now, but my guess is that one of the stipulations of LGB being reinstated in __ weeks will be that he work his butt off between now and then, which would make him an asset. Kelly has built up a cache of goodwill so that he has a cushion if this isn’t received well in the media. I’m not saying Kelly doesn’t have integrity, but the situation presents itself in such a way that it’s possible he had this in mind all along.
In the end, if it’s the best thing for all parties, then I have no complaint. And Kelly is probably making this decision out of a desire to do good and not some devious plan to further his own cause. Maybe it’s silly of me to even consider that. I don’t know.
But I do know that if the people who know WAY more about this than I do think this is the right call, then nothing that came before should change that, even if it makes Kelly look indecisive. Grace and compassion are more important.
I feel the need, the need...for speed!
This thread is way to much work
Here is my two cents, LMJ still starts and Blount just joins the rotation that has be working so far this season. Love it for Blount as a person, dont know about it for our team.
Best game in Autzen??
Anyone remember this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNypDGoC_8M
One game suspensions for Miami players, 3 FIU players dismissed. I think a 6-8 game suspension is fitting for LGB. Show the kid some kind of reward for his work to move past this incident and help him to better his life.
If we were to ever become something like Miami...
It would be a sad day for the Duck program. Good to be reminded that we are, and always will be a classful act
Formerly, thats a no-go.
I apologize for my ignorant and blatant lack of refinement in terms of my cursage. I did not know much of this Tuel feller so I accidentally used another innocent mans picture. Believe me, IT WILL NOT HAPPEN AGAIN!
Jerry Azzinaro
With all the Blount noise, we’ve missed a nice article by the R-G’s Adam Jude. Having attended a half-dozen or so fall practices, my admiration meter for Jerry Azzinaro is pegged. He’s loud, in your face, energetic, intense, and he appears to be an amazing teacher on the field. I know Jerry is an east coast guy. I hope Chip can find a way to keep Azzinaro around for a long time.
Last time I checked, there is no "Hall of Average." - Oregon Football Coach Chip Kelly
That’s a great article. Azzinaro is awesome:
"You either win or you lose. We’ve been fortunate that we’ve won three and lost one — that’s just the way I look at it," he said. "I’m more worried about what kind of pizza I’m going to have for lunch. I don’t worry about all that other (stuff), to be honest with you, brother."
--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog
Ted Miller killed it. Canzano again proved he's an idiot.
This is what Ted Miller said:
bq. Then he changed Kelly mind. Again, that’s a positive. One of the problems we have with the public discourse in this country is folks rigidly hold onto positions, no matter what a catalogue of contrary facts say.
Bad news on the recruiting front.
Sounds like Keenan Allen, one of our top prospects, and the best o the NC group, will be going to Alabama.
--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog
That is bad news.
If it’s any consolation, for literally the past week Gabe King has been in all-Oregon garb.
Addicted To Quack [dot] com; Six-hundred and ninety-four yards of total offense.
Crap...
Countless prospects have changed their commitment status before, could happen again in our favor (Diante Jackson anyone?).
Formerly, thats a no-go.
I apologize for my ignorant and blatant lack of refinement in terms of my cursage. I did not know much of this Tuel feller so I accidentally used another innocent mans picture. Believe me, IT WILL NOT HAPPEN AGAIN!
Not likely with Allen, he’s really getting pushed hard by his family away from Oregon.
--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog
I heard his dad was trying to use the Blount thing as leverage. Any chance his reinstatement was further leverage?
It's spelled "S-H-U-A-R-E-A-J-A-C-K-A-S-S"
Maybe, though I think he had pretty much already made up his mind.
--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog
Listening in Seattle to radio jock Kevin Calabro interviewing Joe Theisman, both were big thumbs down re bringing Blount back. Mostly credibility issue with CK and the AD’s initial position, now changing it up.
To me, I never did feel the time met the crime. I could understand if a player got tossed in the clink for more serious offense that would demand harsh treatment by the program. Blount’s action after the BS game was more about passion and emotion than criminal intent.
I don’t know how much of this could be contrived, telling Blount he’s out period, just to see he responds, or what. Whatever the case, he has man’d up and handled this well. With OPEN minds by all, this could be seen as a positive for the team, fans, and recruits.
(I still like the story of Theisman changing the pronunciation of his name from Theesman to Hizeman to better match with Heisman during his Notre Dame playing days.)
Lastly, Cougar neighbors up here are awfully quite this year. Love it.
Human Nature
Oregon fans: if this whole thing were happening at USC or Washington, you would be screaming bloody murder that they had no integrity.
On the other hand, if this whole thing were happening at Cal, I would probably be finding reasons why it was all perfectly appropriate.
For whatever it’s worth, I thought the punishment was too harsh, and I don’t think a person should continue to be subjected to excessive punishment just so the person meting out the punishing can show how consistent he is. (“A foolish consistency is the hobgobblin of small minds.”) On the other hand, the Oregon program messed up by not thinking through what they were doing before they issued the punishment. This does hurt their credibility. Not fatally, because the program has a lot of credibility. But they have to be sure that nothing like this ever happens again.
by CalBear81 on Oct 2, 2009 9:29 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
Rec'd for wisdom
I think that in a most gentlemanly way you are reminding us that most if not all parties at this ‘party’ were neophytes (did I spell that correctly?)
If you might permit me to contribute, mighty overlords...
Blount adds very little football wise to the team right now. In fact, Blount has a better chance of hurting the football team than helping it.
So basically, he’s Jameer Nelson to Lamichael James’ Rafer Alston?
CGB: Wasting Your Potential, Your Time, & Your Life Since 2006.
by BearStage on Oct 3, 2009 1:43 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs
Magical
"I used to play sports. Then I realized you can buy trophies. Now I'm good at everything." - Demetri Martin
He is a fallen warrior, arising to take his place with his comrades.
(s) a not-so-mighty-feeling ‘oven-lord’
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recommended FanShots
Recent FanShots
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
