Don Corleone

Antonio Brown turmoil related to unhappiness over helmet

Recommended Posts

11 hours ago, skippyx said:

Roethlisberger may be the most underrated QB in the league.

1000 yard seasons by WRs under Roethlisberger

Hines Ward - 3 in 8 seasons  (including both years Ward started  all 16 games)

  • 3 in 6 seasons before Ben took over

Santonio Holmes - 1 in 4 seasons

  • 0 in 5 seasons after Ben got him paid in New York

Mike Wallace - 2 in 4 seasons

  • 1 in 6 seasons after Ben got him paid in Miami

Antonio Brown  - 7 in  9 seasons

  • Mean old Ben getting him the ball and getting him paid in Pittsburgh and Oakland

JuJu Smith-Schuster - 1 in 2 seasons

  • Plus he had 917 in 14 games as a rookie (7 starts)

Plaxico Burress - 698 in 11 games at 19.9 a catch (1000 yard pace if healthy)

  • He put up big numbers before and after Ben but Ben helped get him paid in New York

Add in guys like Martavis Bryant and Emmanuel Sanders and you've got a bunch of WRs who play with Ben, get to showcase their skills, and then get paid either in Pittsburgh or elsewhere. He wins a ton of games and has gotten to 3 Super Bowls. 

You can give credit to Pittsburgh's front office, scouts,, and coaches but the QB is the one who gets the ball to all those guys.

 

I don't know what that proves other than Roth is pretty good and the Steelers are also good at drafting Wr's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dawkins4prez said:

 

I don't know what that proves other than Roth is pretty good and the Steelers are also good at drafting Wr's.

There was a narrative earlier (in the breakup, not in this thread) that Ben was the bad guy and poor Antonio was just a victim of a mean QB.

Ben gets his guys the ball so they can win games and make money. If he was mean to Antonio once then too bad.

 

Note: This is not the same as a QB who could only really be effective with one specific WR who went to war with that WR in year 2 of their partnership.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, skippyx said:

There was a narrative earlier (in the breakup, not in this thread) that Ben was the bad guy and poor Antonio was just a victim of a mean QB.

Ben gets his guys the ball so they can win games and make money. If he was mean to Antonio once then too bad.

 

Note: This is not the same as a QB who could only really be effective with one specific WR who went to war with that WR in year 2 of their partnership.

Ok but in this case its just an unnecessary argument.  Roth has been a hell of Qb and the Steelers have always done a good job giving him weapons, including Brown.  It's been a symbiotic relationship and just one of several reasons the Steelers have always been in the hunt with a great offense.

 

And I don't think anybody should be trying to paint Brown or Roth as angels at this point.  That team has been a den of thieves for a while.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since there's a process by which a lab (or whoever it is), can test and approve or disapprove helmets as being safe and acceptable, then why can't teams wear an alternate helmet? All they have to do is have the alternates tested and approved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's an interesting video that Peter King did on the testing process. Toward the end, they show a side by side shot of the two tests and you can see that the helmet that Brown wants to use, doesn't have any give in it, but the new helmet has a good bit of give. So a good bit of the impact is being absorbed by the newer helmet as opposed to the older helmet not absorbing it as well.

https://www.nbcsports.com/video/vicis-demonstrates-how-much-safer-new-nfl-helmet-compared-older-one

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does Antonio Browns agent think we are idiots and haven't read the reports about the why this rule was brought in ? He's saying they're are still processing things and trying to find a solution to the helmet thing. Wasn't it the last year when they should've have been figuring this out. I'm not normally so one sided towards a team on things but I hope the raiders and the league stick to their guns. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was just thinking.... Any chance that this helmet stuff is a distraction that he is purposefully causing in an effort to buy himself more time for his feet to heal? Maybe there is some kind of penalty for injuring himself in that manner.. medical practice not overseen by raiders staff, etc..

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My mother is in her 80's and doesn't particularly follow football... at all. She knows about Antonio Brown and his helmet issues. So you know that this issue has gone WAY too far.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Captain F said:

I was just thinking.... Any chance that this helmet stuff is a distraction that he is purposefully causing in an effort to buy himself more time for his feet to heal? Maybe there is some kind of penalty for injuring himself in that manner.. medical practice not overseen by raiders staff, etc..

 

 

Any other time i would say this is absurd but it's actually plausible for Antonio Brown

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Captain F said:

I was just thinking.... Any chance that this helmet stuff is a distraction that he is purposefully causing in an effort to buy himself more time for his feet to heal? Maybe there is some kind of penalty for injuring himself in that manner.. medical practice not overseen by raiders staff, etc..

 

 

Yeah that sounds like a possibility...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, NCTANK said:

#TO 2.0

That's the comparison I've seen used most but this mess may help TO a bit as people may even start saying "even TO didn't do this..." but as the post above says the hearing is Friday. But I've not read or heard anything that is going to anyway different to the first one and then where will AB and the raiders going to be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some veteran players will do anything to minimize their time in training camp. They can be truly creative. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Ringer had a great piece on this: https://www.theringer.com/nfl/2019/8/22/20827963/antonio-brown-helmet-grievance-faq

To summarize. AB had a helmet made prior to 2010, making it not allowable by NFL rules. NFL issued a list of BANNED helmets, of which they had to put out ONE year prior to banning helmets (aka, giving players a 1 year grace period to transition). 

The Model of helmet AB has/wears is NOT on the banned list; it was just older than 2010. AB gets the same Model helmet, that is NOT on the banned list, and is newer than 2010. 

NFL then FAST TRACKS (aka, overnights) a version of that helmet to their test facility, fails the helmet, and then adds it to the BANNED list telling him he can't wear it.

So they Banned his 'new-to-him' helmet after he found one that was newer than 2010 and not on the list. Every other player in the NFL that wore a now-banned helmet (also, helmets that weren't randomly tested and banned overnight this week) were awarded a grace period of a year.

So he should at a minimum be given a year to get the same UNIONIZED treatment as every other NFL player, and the NFL overnight testing and banning a helmet (the part that has been LEFT OUT of the mainstream media this whole time) to continue the narrative of 'AB keeps fighting to wear 10+ year old helmet that isn't certified' that is false and misleading. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Agent23 said:

The Ringer had a great piece on this: https://www.theringer.com/nfl/2019/8/22/20827963/antonio-brown-helmet-grievance-faq

To summarize. AB had a helmet made prior to 2010, making it not allowable by NFL rules. NFL issued a list of BANNED helmets, of which they had to put out ONE year prior to banning helmets (aka, giving players a 1 year grace period to transition). 

The Model of helmet AB has/wears is NOT on the banned list; it was just older than 2010. AB gets the same Model helmet, that is NOT on the banned list, and is newer than 2010. 

NFL then FAST TRACKS (aka, overnights) a version of that helmet to their test facility, fails the helmet, and then adds it to the BANNED list telling him he can't wear it.

So they Banned his 'new-to-him' helmet after he found one that was newer than 2010 and not on the list. Every other player in the NFL that wore a now-banned helmet (also, helmets that weren't randomly tested and banned overnight this week) were awarded a grace period of a year.

So he should at a minimum be given a year to get the same UNIONIZED treatment as every other NFL player, and the NFL overnight testing and banning a helmet (the part that has been LEFT OUT of the mainstream media this whole time) to continue the narrative of 'AB keeps fighting to wear 10+ year old helmet that isn't certified' that is false and misleading. 

he is still a idiot. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Agent23 said:

So he should at a minimum be given a year to get the same UNIONIZED treatment as every other NFL player, and the NFL overnight testing and banning a helmet (the part that has been LEFT OUT of the mainstream media this whole time) to continue the narrative of 'AB keeps fighting to wear 10+ year old helmet that isn't certified' that is false and misleading. 

That's what the grievance is about. If it's deemed to be an unsafe helmet, there should be no 'grace period' for anyone. It's 'unsafe'. But this isn't just the league being mean to Brown, the union is (as far as I know), in agreement with the league on this issue. But maybe that's changed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw that earlier, but couldn't find anything else on it around the Internet. Just that a decision was expected in this coming week.

He'll just have to get over it, but you never know, maybe he'll sue and think that he'll win. But that would likely take a year to even get to the point of winning or losing the law suit (which he'd probably still lose anyway).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now