Ducks have a chance to win the Pac 10 and beat Cal and USC in the same year for the first time in a looooong time. Does this also factor in?
Roy is a great SG, but with Roy and Rudy Portland is a better club. Blount did set the all time UofO touchdown record last season and is projected as a high pick in the NFL draft. In his absence Crenshaw Barner and Alston have seen more snaps. fans looking down their nose at the way this has been handled are following the wrong game. This was handled predictably and well by the Ducks athletic department and as long as they're comfortable giving him another shot it's their call. Of course there will be egg on their face if there is another incident, but they're well within the standards of the sport making this move. STOMP
predictably and well? It's gone from he's gone from the game to he has a (good) chance to go back to the game. This isn't a pro club, though it has the best owner in college sports, it's a college team run by a public university that is stating one thing and then turning around less than a month later and reversing course. And according to some had this "secret plan" in place all along. On top of that this is what, his fourth chance? But I guess some teams just never change no matter who the coach is...
Barner is who you are thinking of. I could be wrong but I thought he was moved to RB in the spring, and is now practicing with with both offense and defense since Thurmond went down, but as a "precautionary measure" in case another DB goes down. But I'm having a hard time keeping up with all this from Vacation sorry.
Just heard the press conference and it sounds like Blount could be back by the Stanford game if he meets all the requirements Chip laid out for him.
Using terms terms like "according to some" and "secret plan" when talking about situations like this don't help your credibility. And could you elaborate about your last line?
You know, if Blount accepted the terms of and met all the conditions of the suspension and stayed in school thinking there was no possibility of reinstatement, then I have less of a problem with reinstatement than I would have if he was told to keep his mouth shut and behave so they could finagle him a chance to play again. Did that make any sense?
That's why I think Oregon is being smart about this by being upfront about this decision. He said that this all came together the day before the Cal game (if I remember correctly) and Kelly doesn't seem like the type of person that would lie about something this.
I'm neither for nor against Oregon football, but I watched all of the Kelly press conference. Assuming that what he said was true, I have no problem with this. There are "academic, behavioral and football ladders" he has to meet, and has been meeting with Tony Dungy, among others. If he does the work to make his reinstatement, I have no problem with it.
Did any of you guys just catch Outside the Lines? John Canzano was just on an got harassed by some crazy racist reporter Was quite hilarious as they bitched about blounts re-instatement.
http://blog.oregonlive.com/behindducksbeat/2009/10/legarrette_blount_could_return.html "Kelly said he developed a plan that Blount would have to follow in order to retain his status with the team. The plan later was revised to encompass a possibility of Blount's return." http://www.oregonlive.com/sports/or...f/2009/10/canzano_oregon_welcomes_back_c.html "But what's clear is that the Ducks didn't want you to know what was going on behind the scenes because they came up with the secret plan after Blount had already been suspended for the season." The plan is less consequential than going back on what they stated earlier and making an about face, and especially so early in the season. Did they over-react on punishment for the punch? Maybe, although with his past history with the team I don't think so. Regardless, they need to stick to what they say or what value is there in their words? What happens the next time some kid thinks about punching the lights out of a coach, or a fan, or throwing his helmet at the ref? He'll just think "Oh, I'll probably get suspended for the season, but then the coach will let me back on the team." This is far less about my credibility than theirs. As for my last line it is in reference to Bellotti and a couple of "punishment" incidents he had.
I watched the whole press conference on goducks.com and I must say it changed my mind a bit about this. I was thinking what!? But coach Kelly made a very impressive case for why the decision was made. He really looks like a top notch coach. I tell you what... I'd work my ass off for that guy.
Sorry....quoting Canzano actually hurts your case more than helping it. He was on national TV today trying to explain his article and basically got laughed ofI completely understand if you say that they should have has stated the suspension as indefinite rather than for the entire season. After watching the press conference I really do believe the decision making process occurred as listed and that he genuinely care for Blount as a person. And stop making it sounds like this was a premeditated assault....it was an instant and unacceptable reaction and an example of when somebody just completely loses their cool. Players aren't going to think it's MMA rules when you play for Oregon..... As for Belotti's punishment incident's I am pretty sure what he has dealt with is not different than what you would find at OSU, UW, USC.
I completely agree.... Kelly dealt with one of the worst incidents in Oregon football history and came away looking better than I could have imagined. This was posted by ChrisFWilson on one of the Oregon boards and he puts it better than I could: "For the past 10 years I've worked with individuals who have impulse control problems, anger management issues, and in other cases, issues with domestic abuse. One of the things I've seen over and over again is an individual who only "does the work" because a carrot has been put in front of him. It's like clockwork - as long as the carrot is there the individual will show up for therapy, act like he's doing things differently, and then when he gets the carrot, he goes right back to being who he was pre-therapy. From this perspective, the path taken by Coach Kelly was dead on. It ensured that any improvement shown by LGB was because he wanted to do what was right, not because of a "sliver of hope" or carrot. Kelly said himself, that LGB could have packed his things and gone home. He was told there was no way he was playing again. But he stayed, not because there was a chance, but because he knew it was the right thing to do. What fascinates me is the notion that Kelly damaged his credibility by changing his mind. You'd only have this opinion if you didn't understand the context of the decision. Saying "you're never playing again" was a test. LGB passed. Thing is, you can't tell him it's a test at the time; you can't tell anyone it's a test. I don't even think Kelly thought he was testing him. But that's what it ended up being. Kelly changing his mind showed me that he is a compassionate and intelligent man. This wasn't about changing one's mind, this was about being human."
Canzano reporting there was a plan hurts the facts? Sorry..it wasn't an opinion, it was true. I also didn't realize this was a legal court and you were the judge. Horrible judge at that I must say as you've already made a predetermined opinion. Did you miss the other two times I mentioned that he's had previous troubles? Or that it had to do with them going back on what they said? Why do you side-step the issue? You're right, what he has dealt with is not different. How he dealt with it is...
What were his previous troubles? I know he served a team suspension in the spring, but I assumed that had to do with academic issues. If you know more, please enlighten me.
If you listen to 95.5 right now you understand why I made the previous statement. What I find the most interesting is that the opinion nationally has been unanimously in favor of giving blount a chance to be reinstated. Do you know what those troubles were? I ask because I've heard many people make that exact statement without having any idea what they were talking about. Again throwing out vague references definitely makes your argument work.
Since I don't have telepathy and can't know the moment you speak that, it will be difficult. Holy crap, you've talked to every single American and they are unanimous? Kudos to you sir! I applaud your energy and effort! I think this really should get some sort of plaque or small statue as this is the only time in American history I can remember Americans being 100% unanimous on anything. And to think, all it took was a UofO player getting re-instated to make that happen. Again, you've already made up your mind. Why waste the work to go find the references so you can sit there and dispute each one? We'll just have to agree to disagree.
