Ducks Attack Message Board Forum

Legions wrote:The only tweek I think I'd make in the suspension is for him to possibly play in the final 1 or 2 regular season games and the Bowl game.

I would have accepted that.

I am glad that I did not have to make that decision, the dynamics of the media intense situation, corporate pressure of the brand sponsoring the program, throw in a new AD, new league commissioner, a melt down of a game and purported disrespect of the team towards Kelly (very rumored)..., wheaton' , MFRDuck you both make insightful viewpoints of the situation perhaps overlooked...

wiseforexinvestor wrote:

echo31 wrote:

wiseforexinvestor wrote:It is not that we lost him for the season. It is HOW we lost him for the season. There is such injustice in the whole thing that it makes me sick to my stomach and serves as a gigantic reminder as to why I am going to law school next fall.

Injustice? That's BS. You sound like you'll make a great liar ... errr lawyer

Echo you must be the most ignorant person I have ever read. You obviously have not done your homework as to why Hout got punched, why Blount even entertained the crowed and why he was getting his team mates off of him. Hout assaulted him. Have you ever been in a fight and had someone try to restrain you (team mates)? What is the very last thing that you want people to do? Touch you and that is exactly what his team mates did they touch him. Not saying that it is ok for him to have punched Embry but you have to know that when a male gets that adrenaline pumping the very last thing you should do is put your hands on him. The accusations that the crowd threatened Blount is documented, check out the YouTube video. He was assaulted by a BSU fan and nothing is being done to yank his season tickets let alone being arrested to harming an athlete. What would happen if I hit one of Purdue's players on Saturday, you bet your ass I would be spending the night in jail and would be banned from Autzen Stadium.

Do your homework. Hout doesn't get Sh!t for a punishment, both fans walk away with nothing even though there is undeniable video evidence that they committed a crime and Blount is in jeopardy of not going to the NFL for defending himself. YEP, THAT'S RIGHT I SAID BLOUNT DEFENDED HIMSELF BUT BECAUSE THE ESPN HORSE JOCKEYS DECIDED TO ONLY COVER THEIR TAKE ON WHAT HAPPENED RATHER THAN THE WHOLE PICTURE A YOUNG MAN'S CAREER COULD BE RUINED.

I have to say Coach Frost was a warrior for his effort in restraining Blount. He was fearless.

Everyone has a right to their opinion....And, with that being said....Drop it all...The decisions were made, they were correct and timely in my opinion....and obviously the powers that exist fully agree on their decisions..
You all can argue all you want..But, its over..You are kicking a dead horse....
And looking damn stupid doing it.....

The only facts that are known are these...

Blount mouthed off well before the game....Unwise
Blount didnt deliver.....
Contact was made by Hout, with unknown comments...
Blount delivered a major blow to the chin of Hout....and then went off on a team mate, a Coach and some fans...
The fans antagonized Blount....No one seems to know what was said and/or what actions were made by the fans...
Blount was suspended for the season....

Anything other than the above is nothing more than conjecture.......
And it matters not that one may be thinking about taking law classes or is employed in PR....
None of the naysayers are in a position of authority on such issues and therefore are entitled to nothing more than your opinions and we all know them...Thanks for sharing....BUT.....

Its Over...Its All Over....GOOOOO DUCKS.....

I suppose I will be called names now, or "observed," but I don't happen to think that LGB's suspension is inappropriate under the circumstances.

Let it be known up front that I was for a six game suspension before the season long one was handed down, but I can see that there is more than a "knee jerk" reaction at play here.

I don't think anyone would have said a half season suspension was "too soft," but this is the Pac-10 and the trend conference wide when it comes to disciplinary matters is to take it seriously and do more than the least common denominator. Gordo on eDuck has been bringing up the suspension fates of the footballers involved in different brawls or incidents like they matter, but they don't.

If LGB had not been a disciplinary problem before, this story wouldn't be quite as radioactive as it became. Instead of a "where the hell did that come from?" we get treated to a scenario of "what is the true depth of his attitude problem?"

So, in the minds of the decision makers, LGB was not a first time offender. The offenses might be unrelated, but they contribute to the overall impression of what the appropriate disciplinary action might be.

If suspended for a half year, as I wanted, LGB becomes a constant distraction. "Is he making progress towards reinstatement? Is there any division in the locker room over having him back? How will you reintegrate him into the offense that has been (or not) getting by without him? Do you think opposition players will taunt him mercilessly trying to provoke a reaction?"

With LGB "gone" he goes from being a major distraction to the detriment of everyone else on the team, to being a back burner issue focused mostly upon the character of LGB and whether he mans up and rehabilitates himself through selfless hard work out of the limelight.

Like it or not, LGB coldcocked a twit in the very first appearance of the new Ducks uniform. He made a national spectacle out of himself and the program. Nothing excuses him from mashing Embry's grill. Even if provoked by the crowd, struck, threatened, spit upon, etc., the cardinal rule of organized sports is that you don't take your crusade into the stands. Or even make moves to. Beating on spectators, even in colorable self defense, would have likely drawn a season long ban from the Pac-10 office.

Were LGB around for the remainder of the season and the season goes well his coming back is a renewed controversy. If the new season goes middling to disastrous, reinstatement goes to being an even bigger distraction of what ifs and whether the team was using his absence as an excuse for losing.

For better or worse, the only remaining news out of LGB's Boise incident is what Blount decides to do with his suspension. The rest of the season as regards the AD, staff, and players goes on regardless now.

Any suspension shy of a season long one would have also been worked to death by jerks like Canzano. Any midseason reinstatement would be spun by enemies of the program as a "deal with the devil" to either win more ball games, or to keep from falling further in the standings.

A no win deal for the program, it's image, it's fans and even LaGarrette, as it would keep him under a more intense microscope, especially if he failed his obligations.

Cynically, maybe the AD is hoping he walks, though with Chip getting on the horn with Kermit Washington and John Gruden, it seems such a conclusion would be the depth of insincerity. Chip cares about LGB, but he is paid to care about the program even more.

It is largely inescapable that LGB's suspension was not made with his best interests in mind, but looking to those of the institution.

That is the way such controversies are always resolved if the institution wants to remain larger than any individual within it.

So, I can accept LGB got the short end, but he's the one who ultimately grabbed the stick and wouldn't let go.

As an aside, being a lawyer is overrated.

Canard wrote:If suspended for a half year, as I wanted, LGB becomes a constant distraction. "Is he making progress towards reinstatement? Is there any division in the locker room over having him back? How will you reintegrate him into the offense that has been (or not) getting by without him? Do you think opposition players will taunt him mercilessly trying to provoke a reaction?"

With LGB "gone" he goes from being a major distraction to the detriment of everyone else on the team, to being a back burner issue focused mostly upon the character of LGB and whether he mans up and rehabilitates himself through selfless hard work out of the limelight.

It's still going to be a distraction to have Blount on the team but not playing. People are going to ask about it all season. Players are going to share the locker room with a guy who we already know from Belotti feels that the punishment wasn't right. What proportion of players do you think are going to take Blount's side and how many take Kelly's?

Getting it wrong is a problem. The shortest path to resolving the situation is getting it right in most peoples eyes and particularly the players. You don't make a team with fear. You need comraderie between players and coaches.

wheaton4prez wrote:

Canard wrote:If suspended for a half year, as I wanted, LGB becomes a constant distraction. "Is he making progress towards reinstatement? Is there any division in the locker room over having him back? How will you reintegrate him into the offense that has been (or not) getting by without him? Do you think opposition players will taunt him mercilessly trying to provoke a reaction?"

With LGB "gone" he goes from being a major distraction to the detriment of everyone else on the team, to being a back burner issue focused mostly upon the character of LGB and whether he mans up and rehabilitates himself through selfless hard work out of the limelight.

It's still going to be a distraction to have Blount on the team but not playing. People are going to ask about it all season. Players are going to share the locker room with a guy who we already know from Belotti feels that the punishment wasn't right. What proportion of players do you think are going to take Blount's side and how many take Kelly's?

Getting it wrong is a problem. The shortest path to resolving the situation is getting it right in most peoples eyes and particularly the players. You don't make a team with fear. You need comraderie between players and coaches.

Well said Wheaton