Monkeypox

They are. Sorry, but they're both obscene gestures, and outlined as such by the NFL. I would put the fake moon the same as grabbing your crotch and flipping the bird. I wouldn't want kids watching any of the above. I've said it several times in this thread, though. My main problem is with all the people coming to Moss's defense. THAT is what I can't understand. This isn't a thread about the incident, but about DEFENDING Randy Moss. For the record, I'm a Cowboys fan, and I follow the Bengals as well (long story).

A regional Denver game vs. a national playoff game.... huge difference in exposure. In the game vs. on the sidelines... huge difference again. ANd yes, fake mooning is the same as flipping the bird (in my eyes AND the NFL's). They're both obscene gestures. It doesn't matter what your intentions are. EDIT: The NFL just fined Moss $10,000, even though this was technically his first offense (As far as obscene gestures). Now, THIS I totally disagree with. You can't give him a larger fine than something warrants just for perception. It should be $5,000 (the number previously reported).

They did basically the same thing. The biggest differences are: 1) Plummer's bird was caught on camera when he was on the sidelines. Moss did his right in front of the cameras after a TD. The difference in your media/Joe Buck type uproar is that it was barely caught, and people don't often get all excited about something they HEARD about. No reason for an analyst to throw a fit over it then. There's no difference in the actions, as both are obscene gestures, and neither one would be acceptable to me when I take my nephew to a game, regardless of whether or not it was for "fun and laughs" or the person did it out of anger. Now, as I've said, there's no difference in the actions, so one's emotional or moral response to them should be the same... Plummer's Finger= Moss's Moon. The reason there's a difference in the play of the two incidences is that hardly anybody saw Plummer's. That, and there's been more than a few times when players have flipped the bird to fans. Moss will get more play for the novelty of it. 2) Where was this defense of Plummer? No coaches came out and said, "Well, some of the fans in Denver have a tradition of flipping off Jake Plummer, so I understand where it's coming from." Even if there were, there probably wouldn't be people all over the web lining up to defend Plummer (who is, by the way, just as much of an ass as Randy Moss). And, for the record, once you've been convicted of battery, been kicked out of school for drug use, run over a civil servant, and arrested for beating up your girlfriend, you more than qualify for the title of "thug." When you've done all the detrimental things Randy Moss has done to the Vikings (contact with official, multiple taunting incidents, taking plays off), you've earned the title of "punk." Thus, there's no reason to put those in quotes, as if to point to some unwarranted perception of Randy Moss. He is both a thug and a punk, and deserves every bit of his reputation.

So I should take a single man (Dungy's) word as gospel truth, instead. I see. I never took the Packer fans' word as gospel truth, by the by. The thing that makes me doubt Dungy most is that, IN DECADES, this is the FIRST mentioning of such a "tradition." It never came up when he was in the NFC Central. Not in the media, not anywhere. But I like how you guys project things like accusing Moss of baby-eating or a vast conspiracy. More evidence points to Dungy being full of it than Moss getting mooned for years and years and thus suffering severe emotional trauma (as long as we're projecting), causing him to react in such an uncharacteristically juvenile manner. The title of the thread is "defending Moss... blah blah blah." It IS a defense and it IS intended to lessen what Moss did.

I guess it depends on if there's a baby-eating tradition at Lambeau. Cause if there is, then I guess it's okay. So, to find out... Step 1) Ask Tony Dungy

I'm not saying he did. He did, as I stated, the equivalent of flipping someone the bird or grabbing your crotch, and was fined appropriately. All I've done is say he shouldn't be defended, especially based on a 'tradition' that no one's ever heard of.

Well aware of Dungy's past career. So it could be that he knows what he's talking about, or it could be that he's got an H-O for Brett Favr, or it could be that he's a Minnesota homer. He never mentioned the gratuitous mooning traditions back in the day. But, then again, he probably found them "humorous." From The Miwaukee Journal Sentinel: Green Bay Police Capt. Lisa Sterr said she had never heard of fans mooning players near team buses. “And even if they did, they would be arrested immediately for either disorderly conduct or lewd and lascivious behavior,” she said. Sterr said 16 people were arrested Sunday at the game, most of them for alcohol-related offenses.

He may or may not be a liar. I'm not going to defend people for mooning, but the only evidence I have is the footage from the game. What does that mean. Well, in a logical sense, the Packer fans' mooning will go down in the books as alleged, while Moss's obscene gesture (for which he was appropriately fined the same as Jake Plummer) and Dungy's "I found it humorous" defense are out there for everyone to see. Supposedly, Packer fans have been mooning opponents for decades, and it never affected anyone outside of Wisconsin, until now. you can thank Moss, and yes, Dungy, for that. And for the record, my Green Bay friends are proud of all the disgusting and distasteful things they do outside Lambeau, and their claim is not that they don't take part in the mooning, but that they would, if they had ever heard of it.

He was a defensive coordinator for Minnesota and a coach at Tamp Bay. He only played for the Steelers and 49ers. He also went to the University of Minnesota. He never mentioned this tradition at any time before now. Maybe if I heard from any of the other NFC Central teams that this was going on, but it's never come up. In decades, it's never been brought up by the media. I'm saying I find it odd. Even if there were this mystery tradition, I don't give a flying monkey's butt what fans do outside of the stadium, it does not excuse Moss's actions in the game, and Dungy's comments serve no other apparent purpose. All his comments on Terrell Owens show is that he's inconsistent.

Dungy's making excuses here. He wanted to moon the Green Bay fans, he mooned a National TV audience. Doesn't matter which way he's facing when he's on camera. It's the same as flipping the bird or grabbing your crotch - an obscene gesture. Anyway, coaching has changed a lot from when I was a kid. The business of entertainment has all but eroded sportsmanship.

Odd that this "tradition" has never been mentioned before, or that none of my friends in Green Bay have ever heard of it.

Yes the "best chance to win" has been one of the worst players on the field the last three weeks. But I think my favorite is that Parcells can sit there and say that our backup QB is "not ready." Laughable considering that the definitive backup QB is a guy who has to be ready at any given moment to come in and play, their only other characteristic being to not COST you the game. If the backup QB isn't ready, then he shouldn't be the backup QB. If neither Romo or Henson are ready, then a personnel mistake was made at some point. Regardless, it doesn't much matter now.

I would expect something like: 28-31 USM 17-21 NT

Yeah, must be rough having to convince your mom to take you to New Orleans. All I'd have to do is risk losing a job or two, not pay my bills, and forgo the tiny amount of money I donate each Christmas to go to the Big Easy. You know, now that I see how difficult that mom situation is, I feel "pretty dumb" worrying about how I'd take care of food and rent and Christmas and all of my obligations.

Threads which allow every nobody to share their most egregiously addle-brained ideas are always big. Two types of coach will come here (or any mid-major in similar position): 1) Offensive and Defensive coaches from bigger schools looking to make a name as a head coach 2) Once promising or respected head coaches who've lost some of their luster trying to reclaim their status

While Spurrier would mean a lot of money and attention, I hate his style and due to the fact that we've been recruiting to a style 180 degrees from his, it wouldn't be terribly wise in a football sense. Our football program simply isn't strong enough to go through the growing pains right now, and that more than anything is why I don't mind Dickey being here, while at the same time agreeing that he hasn't shown me that he can take this program to the next level (not that he WON'T, he just hasn't yet). Super Jamario, giving credit to Dickey for recruiting him, has, in my book, given Dickey a lot more space, though I will continue to complain about what I see as coaching flaws until we're winning National Championships.

1) Baseball 2) College Football 3) NFL Football 4) Soccer 5) Basketball

I think it might further instill our argument, and what we were praising about Troy, which was their ability to get up for and bring it in the OOC games. If anything, it shows how a team that even has a few struggles against the Sun Belt can gain national recognition by playing well OOC, for those who say we shouldn't expect to win against the Texas', or Colorados or even Baylors and FAUs of the world because of our status. The only way for your argument to work is to suggest that Troy's losses in the Sun Belt are somehow tied to their wins OOC, which is a suggestion that has already been pointed out as ridiculous. I can still praise Troy's efforts OOC, and they deserve that praise, as does FAU and every other team that overcomes its inferiority complex in the big OOC games. And I will still wish for that stuff from the Mean Green.

When I was doing soil work, we used the Magellan. Now, I didn't know what the hell I was doing, so I can't really give a solid endorsement, except for the fact that it's all my boss would buy.

You can't count on anyone to stay healthy. See, there's factors you CAN control, and factors you can't. Injuries are part of the game. You blame a guy for getting injured the same as you do for getting suspended?

I think it all comes down to having a guy you can COUNT ON. A guy who may or may not eventually get suspended for drugs is NOT someone you want leading a team, simply for the reliability factor. I'll take a guy with less skill if I know he's gonna play 16 games a year, and he's not gonna put the team in jeopardy because of stupid off-the-field decisions. I was a big proponent of Quincy's. Was. Good riddance.

I did that for 2003. Last year, I bought a memory card with the rosters off E-Bay and LOVED it.

Well, if you're stupid, you could sign a Todd Van Poppel for $2.5 million. Half of the Rangers current crop are under that, including Kenny Rogers, Cordero, Jeff Nelson, Brian Jordan, David Dellucci... Go to other teams and there's Mike Timlin, Todd Walker, John Thomson... Solid but unspectacular players. The kind SMART teams sign. But the point isn't SIGNING, it's DEVELOPING.

Not ONE free agenct signing. You're forgetting about the HORDES of mediocre veterans they've been bringing in over the last several years. You're forgetting about Juan Gonzalez, Caminiti, Gallarraga, Everett, etc. etc. The fact is the Rangers DIDN'T make a good move with Park (a move I was against from the beginning). All you had to do was look at Park's Home-Away splits and you'd see a very mediocre pitcher outside of the cavernous stadium in LA. Banking on LA pitchers is a bad move, in general. I could go into all the arguments that I (and others) had back then against the signing, but there's no point in it now. My problem with Rangers pitching has never been "Why don't they go out and spend for good pitchers?" but rather "why can't they seem to develop any good pitchers?" So please, when you say "THESE" people, maybe you should qualify who "these people" are. Also, perhaps you missed the POINT of my post, in that Hicks HAS at least $40 million (made primarily from the A-Rod trade, but also from other moves) already he could spend on talented ballplayers for the team, WITHOUT having sold the naming rights to a stadium that the PUBLIC pays for. The selling of the stadium naming rights was lame and unnecessary. If the Rangers have to blow up the payroll to win, I will consider them part of the PROBLEM with baseball.

Yeah, like Chan Ho Park! Yay! The fact is the Rangers have had payrolls around $100 million in recent years WITHOUT a corporate-sponsored ballpark. This proves to me that the selling of the ballpark's naming rights was UNNECESSARY in building the Rangers. Hicks HAS the money, and he's not known to be a WISE spender, which is more important than the AMOUNT you have to spend. Just ask the Los Angeles Dodgers.