There you go! THAT is a rational response. Thank you, calf.

*sighs, rubs his eyes, and murmurs wearily* No one (with the exception of a few trolls) is saying that bullying isn't wrong or shouldn't be discouraged....

It's not that I don't understand why the media coverage has been the way that is has with the Incognito case, it's that I don't think that reasoning is justified. I know that it was covered more because open discussion of and criticism of the issue was fairly "new". What I am saying is that if we want to right wrongs, we should prioritize how we react to things based on their severity, not based on their "newness" or "freshness". And when we recognize we are not doing that, we should correct it.

One of my undergraduate degrees is in "Speech/Language Pathology and Audiology", so I've spent some clinical time with children with speech impediments, even though I don't have one myself. Obviously, if I chose that area of study even though it's not what I do for a profession, there's a decent chance I have some compassion for people who live with speech impediments. My family was poor and also moved 10 times before I graduated from high school. When you move that many times, you're going to be the target of some people who don't like the new kid. So was I ever targeted or picked on? For brief periods of time, sure. Did anyone ever make fun of me or say mean things to me? Yep. I don't consider myself as ever having been bullied, though. However, I've seen and worked with (clinically) some kids who have. I'm not saying that it is not an issue to be addressed on some level. I'm saying, let's maintain a sense of perspective and scale about it.

Is bullying a bad/unfortunate thing? Sure. Does it deserve the death penalty? I suppose we'd have to hear the specifics of the case (torture, rape, etc.), but in the vast majority of cases, no. What about in the Richie Incognito case? Did those guys do anything serious enough to warrant severe legal punishment? Think about what they actually did, now. You can't heap all of the punishment for all of the bullying in all of the world on these guys' shoulders. Is what they actually did as serious as raping a woman or beating a woman to the point that you have to drag her out of an elevator? Come on, now. There are serious cases of harassment and bullying out there, but this isn't one of them. If you really think that what these guys did in their locker room was as serious as physically assaulting or raping a woman, then you may have to consider the fact that your own personal experience has left you too biased to consider the situation rationally.

bbedward and I don't agree too often, but we do on this. To me, there's no real reason to trade anything for Cousins. If that level of QB is all that you're after, you're better off just keeping your picks and starting Hoyer. Personally, I think the Browns ought to at least try for something better than Hoyer or Cousins (even if it ends up not working out in the long run).

Lol. Didn't I see somewhere that Mike H writes professionally?

I don't even know what that's supposed to mean...

Formerly Sane,

I work in both Pittsburgh and Cleveland. I am quite literally in each of those cities multiple times per week (at least twice per city per week). I also have the benefit of having lived in other cities in other states (San Antonio, San Fran, D.C., Baltimore, Honolulu, etc.), so I have some outside form of reference. Believe me, sir, Pittsburgh and Cleveland are not "night and day" in possibly any way.

jrb,

The idea that name-calling or giving someone a male blowup doll is less serious than drug use/abuse, assault, or rape is not my idea that I'm trying to force on other people. Our society (and many societies) has decided that those latter things are serious enough to be considered crimes while name-calling and giving someone a blowup doll are not. So, are these categorizations subjective? Sure. But they're not my intellectual property. I called them "less serious" based on the laws and norms already in place in the U.S. Our legal system and our societal expectations both already arrange "wrongs" on a scale of less and more serious. So, unless all of that is "ignorant", it's not "ignorant" to view some things as more or less wrong than others.

Also, I'd like to see the footage of sportscasters screaming in rage about how terrible Big Ben is and how there's no place for him in the league. I'm sure I can find the footage where a number of them said that about Incognito. A couple of guys may have made a derogatory comment about Big Ben's off-field behavior here or there, but it is ridiculous to say it got the same reaction. In fact, I'll do you one better: Ray Rice just physically assaulted his girlfriend the other day. Where's the negative reaction to that which is equivalent to the Incognito thing? If the reaction was equivalent, I should be able to turn on ESPN right now and see red-faced folks ranting about how awful Rice is and how he shouldn't be in the league, just like it happened for days/weeks after the Incognito thing broke. Maybe my clicker is broken, because the ESPN I am seeing doesn't show that.

Also, what do you not understand about the analogy? I'll explain it to you.

Westside Steve,

You are exactly right, sir. There is no conflict in the two statements. In fact, that was kind of my point. People are responding to my statement that there was an overreaction by "arguing" back that Incognito is a jerk. Yes, Incognito is a jerk. That doesn't mean there wasn't a huge overreaction to what he did.

Kudos DaBuckeye on a well-made and reasonable point. I don't know if I agree with it 100% (because I don't necessarily think a 1st round QB is a guarantee either), but I definitely don't disagree with it. Hoyer most likely is not the answer, and the chances of getting exactly the right guy in the 3rd or 4th round are slim. People like to look at successful picks in those rounds and act like teams were depending on those QB picks the way we would be depending on the QB we're picking in the draft pick this year. It's like the "Chud started Hoyer" argument. You can't look at it in hindsight and act like it was intentional and it was the master plan all along. In at least some of those cases, those teams took a guy they thought had some potential, and he worked out, but they (some of them) didn't pick him with the insistence, "this guy is our future!".

Lol, wow. STILL didn't get through. I agree that Incognito was probably "a bully."

Here, maybe an analogy will help:

You're a teacher in an elementary school classroom. In the back of the classroom, Timmy is stabbing Jane to death with a knife, and Bobby is snorting coke off the top of his desk. In the front of the room, Johnny just took Sally's pencil. You look at the back of the classroom and you say, "Timmy, Bobby, come on,... knock that off." Then you look at Johnny and say, "Johnny! What have you done! Oh my God! Go to the principal's office! I never want you in my classroom again!"

And when I say, "Hey, why did you come down so hard on Johnny when you've got Timmy and Bobby committing murder and doing blow in the back of the room?" your response to me is, "Well, there's been a lot of violence and drugs in the back of the room for awhile now. This pencil-stealing thing, though, that's new. That's gotta be addressed. It's not okay to steal other people's pencils, you know."

Do you see how ridiculous that is? Now sure, I've exaggerated it some, but the general idea is the same: The "newness" of a behavior (or the recognition of a behavior) doesn't really (or shouldn't)increase or decrease the seriousness of it. I'm pointing at the back of the room and yelling, "There's kids attacking each other and doing drugs back there!" and you're looking me dead in the face with a blank look (or an insanely angry look) and saying, "People should not take other people's pencils!"

Ugh. This is another case of people saying one thing, and the other side arguing against something else entirely.

Statement: "This was a huge overreaction by Martin, his camp, the media, the public, and the NFL. It was completely unnecessary, and instead of embracing that unnecessary reaction, someone should have acknowledged the ridiculousness of its intensity."

Reaction: "Richie Incognito IS a jerk, and this behavior is NOT preferable."

Lol, what? There are very few people out there who think, "What Richie Incognito did was fine, he's a model saint, and we should encourage not only him but other people to act like he has." So why are people arguing against that? Let's try this one more time:

Richie Incognito is a jerk. It is not ideal to have some of your players making some of your other players so uncomfortable that it has a negative effect on the team chemistry.

There, we've got that part handled. It's out there. So now you don't need to feel compelled to respond with "But Richie Incognito is a jerk!" We good? Okay, now...

What Incognito and a number of the other Dolphins did was not the worst thing in the world. It is, in my opinion, less wrong than beating your fiancée, sexually assaulting someone, dealing/doing drugs, etc. Yet, this Incognito thing has been met with more public and media outrage than any of those things have. (I agree that it is due to desensitization, but that doesn't justify it.) My suggestion, then, is that we apply a little perspective to this whole thing, and scale the outrage either down to what actually happened or the outrage about more serious behavior problems up to a proportionate level.

If you're saying to yourself "two wrongs don't make a right", you're clearly still not paying attention and may have a learning disability. No one (or a ridiculously small number of irrational people) is saying that what Incognito did or how he acts is right. What we're saying is, "exercise a sense of scale/perspective". There are varying levels of "wrong", and we've kind of agreed to that as a society. You cannot deny that the backlash against Incognito has been MUCH worse than the negative responses to recent drug or assault charges against NFL players (if you can, you weren't paying attention). Aren't those things worse than saying something mean to someone? Generally, our society has agreed that they are. So, following this line of thinking to its logical end, the amount and intensity of the negative response to what Incognito did has been grossly disproportionate to what he actually did, especially in comparison to more serious NFL player behaviors.

So before we start screaming about what an awful human being Richie Incognito is (even if he is) and how he shouldn't be welcomed on a team, in the league, etc., perhaps we should apply the same judgment to all of the players out there who have been accused of, charged with, found guilty of, or suspended for more serious behaviors. Once you have eliminated all the rapists, abusers, attackers, and drug-users from their teams and the league, let me know, and I'll be right behind you in lining up for the "anti-name calling squad".

Hoorta pointed out that Richie Incognito was voted one of the dirtiest players in the league. I'm not saying that the guy is not a douchebag, but I think there's a disproportionately negative response to him. Hines Ward was voted THE dirtiest player in the league for a number of years, and a lot of people (maybe not you or too many Browns fans, but a fair portion of the general population and the sports media) act like he is great. Why isn't Hines Ward a cancer? Why weren't the general population and the media calling for his head. It's because the Richie Incognito thing had nothing to do with dirty play on the field. He called a guy some names off the field and everyone got all buttsore about it.

Nah, no thanks. If that's the plan, I'd rather just see them give some new young kid the rock for less money.

That explains the interest in the situation, and I agree with you, Motley. Hell, I obviously find it to be an interesting situation. That doesn't explain to me why people are so upset about it, though. Maybe that's just me; maybe I'm just not seeing it. But to me, saying, "Whoa, that's new/odd/different/strange," is different than saying, "This is the worst thing I've ever heard in my entire life!" Yeah, I'm exaggerating a bit, but if you think back to that first Sunday after the story broke, I'm not exaggerating that much. Both the media/sportscasters and the public were insane with rage about this. It could have been a news story about how strange it was. It didn't have to be a story about how unbelievably hellish it was or how Richie Incognito was the worst person on earth. Like I said, people like Chris Carter (I forget who else,... maybe Ditka), were all veins bulging and practically spitting on the camera. It was completely unnecessary and a HUGE overreaction to a guy getting called some names.

Lol. In that case,... A guy who can score TDs and win games.

Yeah, if you can get a real dual-threat guy (who is good at both), that's optimal. I'd put my preference list like this:

1. Guy who can do both.

2. Guy who can pass but can't run.

3. Guy who can run but can't pass.

For this reason, if I'm shooting for #1 (or if a real #1 isn't available), I'm more comfortable erring on the side of #2 than #3.

I agree, and it might be partially because the system (from grade school up?) isn't cultivating that sort of QB anymore. A vicious circle has begun. Pocket passers have fallen out of favor. As such, the best throwers aren't being taught to be pocket passers, and kids who aren't terribly mobile aren't being developed as rigorously as the kids who are. As such, pocket passers in general are not as good. And, since they are not as good, they continue to not be favored.

That's not to say that there are a lot of potential Peyton Mannings out there who aren't getting opportunities or being developed because they aren't mobile. There aren't. Peyton is special. But, it might explain why were not seeing as many pocket passers as we used to or why when we do see them, they don't seem as competitive as they used to.

I don't think that TCPO is probably guilty of this, but I think in general we need to be wary of being so enamored with mobility that we allow it to devalue throwing ability too much. Tebow, Vince Young, etc. were examples of this. When they entered the league, people said, "Okay, so they don't throw that well, but we can work that out with some training. Look how mobile they are, though." Ideally, of course, you'd like a QB who is mobile but who is also a really great passer.

Meh, I don't know. I'm okay with a non-mobile QB pocket passer if he is good enough. Peyton Manning isn't mobile, and I heard somewhere that he's not bad. For those of you who might be tempted and silly enough to say that Wilson beat Manning in the Superbowl, be honest with yourselves now, Russell Wilson being a better QB than Peyton Manning is not how the Seahawks won the Superbowl. If you don't agree that Manning is a better QB than Wilson, then we can't talk anymore.

The logical arguers (TCPO, prolly, for instance) will argue that mobile QBs who can play are a lot more plentiful than the universe's Peyton Mannings. And I completely agree. I'm just saying that I wouldn't turn my nose up at a really great pocket passer just because he's not mobile.

Our society has become so focused on protecting everyone now that I feel like we've eroded people's ability to deal with adversity.

Some of you older guys may remember when you were young, we used to have a saying, "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me." Now it has become "If someone says something you don't like, it has to become a huge federal case and no amount of overreaction is inappropriate."

I am completely against severe bullying or hazing that results in physical abuse. I am also against genuine racism in any form. I couldn't be a bigger supporter of gay rights than I am. But there has to be a line at which it's okay to just deal with small negative things without spazzing out. When this story first broke, I thought something awful had happened. I thought a bunch of guys held Martin down and raped him with a broom handle or beat him with a sock full of nickels. The lunchroom story came out and we were told, "Oh, no, that's not the extent of it. There were many more very terrible things that happened." So we waited. And, in the end, it came down to the fact that some guys in the Dolphins locker room were making fun of each other.

I am (by most accounts) a pretty liberal and compassionate guy, but, seriously, what happened over the past 20 years?! I played sports in school and I was in the military, and during those times, I would have PRAYED for the day when all of these things were the worst things that happened to me THAT DAY, let alone over a period of years. Seriously, people? Isn't there a danger to not being able to tolerate ANY negativity in your life at all? Do we honestly want people to be unable to cope with any diversity without a lot of attention and assistance from others?

The more we completely sympathize with everyone who considers themselves a victim, the broader the river of victims will become. We're not making the situation better by being overly sensitive to these types of things; we're making it worse.

Maybe people are tired of hearing the nickname, jcam, but (and you may not be old enough to remember this) they called Don Mattingly "Donnie Baseball" for a long, long time. So, I wouldn't look forward to it ending anytime soon.