11/21/24
October 02, 2009
LeGarrette Blount to return to the college gridiron?: An ESPN source claims that University of Oregon RB LeGarrette Blount will be given the chance to return to the team.
posted by Goyoucolts to football at 02:40 AM - 27 comments
I honestly thought a full season suspension was a bit of an overreaction. In that season, I give the team benefit of the doubt and don't have a problem with a harsher penalty than I might think given that they may have other information that I don't have. It sounds like Blount is making some progress with his issues, and I'm for giving people second chances when they show the effort to earn them. I hope if he is reinstated that this continues to be a positive outcome for him.
posted by bender at 08:29 AM on October 02, 2009
I thought a season-long punishment was excessive, particularly since it's his final year. He ought to have a chance to earn a spot back on the team with good behavior.
posted by rcade at 09:00 AM on October 02, 2009
Vick commited a federal crime and got a second chance. This kid made a huge mistake. Shouldn't be enough to ruin a career though. You have seen pros throw punches durning games, it happens. Th ehighest paid D-lineman in history(haynesworth) spiked someone in the face after their helmet came off(someone from cowboys, forget his name.) He wasnt even suspended a whole season. I think this kid has learned his lesson.
On a different note, when did Tony Dungy get the official title of mentor to the insane. Any time someone loses their mind , we talk to Tony. I mean glad someone is helping control the crazies, but when did he become psychologist for the NFL.
posted by Debo270 at 09:05 AM on October 02, 2009
Regardless whether the punishment seemed excessive or not, Coach Kelly should stand my his original decision. LeGarrette Blount feels bad for what happened (I would hope that he does) but it doesn't change what Blount did.
If Coach Kelly decides to reinstate Blount, that'll be his decision to make but I do hope that it's for the right reasons and not because Oregon has a chance in the PAC-10.
Vick commited a federal crime and got a second chance
After 2 years in prison. Donte Stallworth on the other hand, got 30 days in jail for killing a man while driving drunk but was also suspended the entire NFL season and will not play this year even if he did learn his lesson.
You have seen pros throw punches durning games, it happens.
I haven't seen anything in the NFL that I saw that night from Blount. I never saw an NFL player strike an opponent then strike a teammate that was trying to restrain him. Then, while being escorted off the field, go after a fan and then try to break free from the grasp of security and the police. If that did happen, I would sure love to see footage of it.
posted by BornIcon at 09:27 AM on October 02, 2009
I haven't seen anything in the NFL that I saw that night from Blount. I never saw an NFL player strike an opponent then strike a teammate that was trying to restrain him.
ok, not to that extent, i will agree to that, but i do remember a Joey Porter fight pregame with the browns and no one got suspended. Punches were thrown, people were hit, on guy got hurt.
Donte Stallworth on the other hand, got 30 days in jail for killing a man while driving drunk but was also suspended the entire NFL season and will not play this year even if he did learn his lesson.
The guy Blount hit is still alive.
posted by Debo270 at 09:40 AM on October 02, 2009
The guy Blount hit is still alive
That may be true but you brought up Mike Vick to make your point about Blount recieving a second chance. I brought up Stallworth because even though he's no longer in jail and has shown remorse, Stallworth is still going to miss the entire 2009-2010 NFL season due to his suspension.
posted by BornIcon at 09:55 AM on October 02, 2009
True, but I think that crime fits the time and Stallworth will get a second chance too. What Vick and Stallworth did were very serious crimes that require jail time for most. In court, what Blount did is simple assult. Was it wrong? YES, but does it require a season punishment. I dont think so. Blount did lose his mind and did a Very wrong thing. He will be punished again in the draft. I think he has been suspended long enough.
posted by Debo270 at 10:20 AM on October 02, 2009
Isn't simple assault a crime in most states? I don't recall Blount facing criminal charges. So a season-long suspension doesn't seem that harsh and he can still play on Sundays if he has the talent. Mike Williams (stupidly) took a year off and still got a contract, for instance.
posted by billsaysthis at 10:45 AM on October 02, 2009
Regardless whether the punishment seemed excessive or not, Coach Kelly should stand my his original decision.
Exactly so. Discipline doesn't work if players don't believe you mean what you say.
In court, what Blount did is simple assult.
I think it is multiple counts of battery, but he should have been arrested. I have a pretty low threshold for people who don't know how to cope with the world without violence. In bperk's world, Blount would be in jail and Plaxico Burress would be roaming free. We would be safer for it.
posted by bperk at 10:50 AM on October 02, 2009
I, too, thought the initial full season suspension might be excessive in light of it being Blount's senior year. But this is the punishment that had been decided on.
This gives the appearance that the teeth have been removed from Oregon's disciplinary standards.
posted by THX-1138 at 10:55 AM on October 02, 2009
This gives the appearance that the teeth have been removed from Oregon's disciplinary standards.
I disagree. It shows that they saw that their initial reaction may have been overreaction and they are able to look at what they did and change it accordingly. I really dont think he is being reinstated due to their current record. I think the wise move would have been to suspend him until further notice and leave yourself some leaway to see how he responds.
posted by Debo270 at 11:11 AM on October 02, 2009
Debo
I never said that the motive for Blount's possible re-instatement is what he could contribute to Oregon's chances in the Pac 10. If you note in my original post, I thought that the original suspension might be in excess and not what would have been in Blount's best interest anyway. One would reasonably assume that Oregon never gave up on the season after suspending Blount.
I would respectfully submit that if the teeth haven't apparently been removed, then the appearance of rash, snap decision making on the part of Oregon's coaching and athletic departments and board has been exposed.
posted by THX-1138 at 11:20 AM on October 02, 2009
I disagree. It shows that they saw that their initial reaction may have been overreaction and they are able to look at what they did and change it accordingly.
Or it could very well mean that Oregon has a better chance to win the PAC-10 with Blount in the lineup and although Coach Kelly originally suspended Blount for the entire season, now that they have a chance of winning it all, he wants one of his better players out on the field even though it'll contradict his inital reaction and decision.
It wasn't as if Coach Kelly suspended Blount the very day of this alteraction that Blount caused, he thought about it for a day or two and came to the conclusion that a year-long suspension would be suffice.
I think the wise move would have been to suspend him until further notice and leave yourself some leaway to see how he responds.
But that wasn't what Coach Kelly did. He choose to suspend him for the entirety of the season and should stand by that decision. I fully understand what that would mean to Blount's future but Blount was his own worst enemy that night and IMO, the suspension was justified.
posted by BornIcon at 11:27 AM on October 02, 2009
Or it could very well mean that Oregon has a better chance to win the PAC-10 with Blount in the lineup and although Coach Kelly originally suspended Blount for the entire season, now that they have a chance of winning it all, he wants one of his better players out on the field even though it'll contradict his inital reaction and decision.
It wasn't as if Coach Kelly suspended Blount the very day of this alteraction that Blount caused, he thought about it for a day or two and came to the conclusion that a year-long suspension would be suffice.
I'm not buying that Oregon's record has anything to do with this. He was suspended after Oregon lost their first game of the season--a non-conference game. To say that they reinstated Blount because they now have a chance to win the conference implies that at the time he was suspended they believed they didn't have a chance, and that is ludicrous.
For the week after the incident, this was all over the news, and that, coupled with Blount's prior disciplinary issues lead them to drop the hammer. [Aside: I agree that an open-ended suspension would have rendered this discussion moot, but that's not what happened.] I believe that was an overreaction, but I understand the idea that it is better to come down too hard than too soft. Since that time, they have given him some instruction on what they expect to see from him, and they have decided that his actions show improvement. That's good enough for me. He was suspended for a few games, and you know good and well that any future transgressions will sit him down for the rest of the season.
To those of you comparing this to NFL players being sent to prison, I think it's a bit of a stretch, but for the sake of argument I'll play along. Sentences can be reduced for good behavior. That appears to me to be what has happened here. If the suspension thus far has helped this kid turn a corner with his anger issues, can't we just call it a win and move on?
posted by bender at 12:01 PM on October 02, 2009
I feel like the severity of Blount's punishment was due to the fact it was the first college game of the year and aired nationally. If he did it a week later, he sits a couple weeks and is back.
As for similar incidents in the NFL, Clint Longley punched Roger Staubach in the Cowboys locker room, Raiders head coach Tom Cable broke an assistant's jaw, and a few years ago a Racists running back was assaulted in training camp. Tempers flare at times in sports.
posted by rcade at 12:20 PM on October 02, 2009
THX, I agree. This shows the university made a quick rash decision without thinking how it would look in the future if they changed their minds, but as I said earlier, this arguement is basically based on simantics. If the university had just worded the suspension differently(suspended until further notice), this wouldnt be a story. Oregon hit the panic button and since this was the top ESPN story that day with no other football, it got blown out of proportion by the media. Oregon issued a response before they really had time to think about it. Lesson learned, just like Blounts
posted by Debo270 at 01:19 PM on October 02, 2009
and a few years ago a Racists running back was assaulted in training camp. Tempers flare at times in sports.
Dont remember that one. Who was that??
posted by Debo270 at 01:58 PM on October 02, 2009
Plaxico Burress would be roaming free.
With a loaded gun that he clearly doesn't know how to use.
Yup. That sounds safe to me.
posted by cjets at 01:59 PM on October 02, 2009
Dont remember that one. Who was that??
Michael Westbrook beat the crap out of Stephen Davis at a Redskin Racist practice.
I'd post the youtube of the beating, but I'm technologically inept at linking stuff inside posts.
posted by tommybiden at 02:04 PM on October 02, 2009
THX, I agree.
Well then how the hell are we supposed to have a decent argument with attitudes like this? Fercrissakes this place is going downhill.
I really don't have a problem with any perception that Oregon is a bunch of waffling, can't make up their minds, say one thing and then change their mind, namby pambies. Because I dislike the *ducks.
*The college, not the actual water fowl.
posted by THX-1138 at 03:08 PM on October 02, 2009
Romanowski ended Marcus Williams career during a pre-season practice and still played football that season. This situation wasn't even close to that.
I thought that a season long ban for his moment of uncivility was a little harsh. While a coach or parent needs to stand by their decisions most of the time, the decisions need to be very well considered.
I have punished my kids a few times in the heat of the moment only to realize that the punishment didn't fit the crime. I had to admit my over reaction and scaled it back. I learned not to hand out the punishment right at the moment of transgression.
posted by irunfromclones at 04:59 PM on October 02, 2009
I thought that a season long ban for his moment of uncivility was a little harsh.
The first guy he attacked was the one who had the moment of uncivility. This is the guy who went crazy attacking everyone and everything in sight, including fans and his own teammates, and had to be dragged out by security.
posted by bperk at 05:44 PM on October 02, 2009
bperk- I was being a tad facetious there with uncivility. I wasn't sure that most spofiers would understand that word anyway. congrats.
posted by irunfromclones at 06:06 PM on October 02, 2009
Uncivlity would be the act of being discourteous or boorish. To say that Blount was being less than cordial would be something of an understatement. To say that he went kind of batshit is more accurate.
I feel that the gauntlet has been thrown upon the field, irfc. Have at thee!
posted by THX-1138 at 07:12 PM on October 02, 2009
Incivility is a general term for social behaviour lacking in civility or good manners, on a scale from rudeness or lack of respect for elders, to vandalism and hooliganism, through public drunkenness and threatening behaviour.The word "incivility" is derived from the Latin incivilis, meaning "not of a citizen".
Uncivlity is a general term for football behavior lacking in civility or good manners, on a scale from rudeness or lack of respect for coaches and players, to going kind of batshit. The word uncivlity is derived from the Irish word gombeen.
seek thee to wound me with mere words, sirrah?
posted by irunfromclones at 07:42 PM on October 02, 2009
After thinking about this situation, I had to come to terms that college coaches are like parents while pro coaches are basically a co-worker with these kids when they turn to the NFL. Sometimes, even parents back off from what they originally said to their children as in this case with Blount. Coach Kelly suspended Blount and after a few weeks, he thought that the kid deserved a second chance. At first, I didn't agree with the reversal of the suspension but then I had the pleasure of speaking with someone that is a college coach and he explained that these are still kids and that they may make a mistake but that in college, it's all about learning from those mistakes and moving forward.
Blount has apparently done everything that's been asked of him from the coaches. He has shown up to every practice and hasn't said a word about playing again this year which has impressed Coach Kelly, making his decision even easier.
posted by BornIcon at 12:08 PM on October 05, 2009
Not really sure how I feel about this. As a student at the University of Oregon, I think that having Blount back gives us a better chance to win, even with the stunning play of freshman back LaMichael James. On the other side of the equation, Blount did completely lose it, and I supported the original punishment. Is Chip Kelly, the man who sent a check to a fan who wanted his money back, selling himself out? Or is this a cheap move to get ahead of USC, now that Oregon has a chance of winning the PAC-10?