Ben McDaniels tutoring Sam Bradford this Summer

[Man-Goblin]

Smooth move, McD.

http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/431743...s-player_news/

[Drunk Monkey]

very bellicheat like

[Garcia Bronco]

I'd refuse to play for that cheat.

[Jesterhole]

Once a cheat...

[Pendejo]

That's smart if they can get away with it. Although most of their offense will come between the 20's.

[strafen]

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch's Jim Thomas says he "wouldn't dispute the conspiracy" that Ben McDaniels -- OC Josh's younger brother -- is teaching Sam Bradford the Rams' offense during the lockout.

Neither would we. Ben was Josh's quarterbacks coach in Denver, and is currently considered "unemployed." Danario Alexander recently described Bradford as already knowing the McDaniels' offensive scheme "like the back of his hand."

The bold part above is all you have to read to further tell you the weasel McDaniels is.
What a piece of **** that cockroach is.
Once a cheat, always a cheat!

[bowtown]

Originally Posted by strafen

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch's Jim Thomas says he "wouldn't dispute the conspiracy" that Ben McDaniels -- OC Josh's younger brother -- is teaching Sam Bradford the Rams' offense during the lockout.


The bold part above is all you have to read to further tell you the weasel McDaniels is.
What a piece of **** that cockroach is.
Once a cheat, always a cheat!

Why is that so dispicable? I'm not trying to be a McDaniels appologist here, I'd just like to know why this is such a terrible thing to do. Seems pretty smart to me.

[Drunk Monkey]

Originally Posted by bowtown

Why is that so dispicable? I'm not trying to be a McDaniels appologist here, I'd just like to know why this is such a terrible thing to do. Seems pretty smart to me.

It is probably a non issue rule wise since Ben is not employed. I think it bothers people because the intent is to get a competitive advantage by skirting the rules. Morally it comes off as cheating to me.

[pricejj]

Will be interesting to see Bradford's progression this year, and the next...

[bowtown]

Originally Posted by Drunk Monkey

It is probably a non issue rule wise since Ben is not employed. I think it bothers people because the intent is to get a competitive advantage by skirting the rules. Morally it comes off as cheating to me.

Ben McDaniels doesn't work for the Rams. You think it's cheating to have a someone familiar with a team's system working out with your players during the lockout? Every team should be doing this IMO.

[Boobs McGee]

Lol. If there was ANY POSSIBLE WAY Timothy Richard could get this type of help, no one would bat an eye. And you're lying if you say otherwise.

[rugbythug]

Its cheating if the raiders do it.

Smart move if the broncos do it.

[Drunk Monkey]

Originally Posted by bowtown

Ben McDaniels doesn't work for the Rams. You think it's cheating to have a someone familiar with a team's system working out with your players during the lockout? Every team should be doing this IMO.

As I said before no I think it is a non issue rule wise. No black and white infraction has been broken.

Having said that the spirit of the rule was no coach player interaction. Morally I do not think they are living up to that. That's why it bothers me.

[Boobs McGee]

Originally Posted by Drunk Monkey

As I said before no I think it is a non issue rule wise. No black and white infraction has been broken.

Having said that the spirit of the rule was no coach player interaction. Morally I do not think they are living up to that. That's why it bothers me.

so you can sit here and honestly tell me if john fox had someone close to him that wasn't employed by the broncos, and knew everything about his system, that you'd be morally challenged if he was working with tebow? GTFOH

ps I love that avatar. Very benny benasi like!

[Drunk Monkey]

Originally Posted by Boobs McGee

so you can sit here and honestly tell me if john fox had someone close to him that wasn't employed by the broncos, and knew everything about his system, that you'd be morally challenged if he was working with tebow? GTFOH

ps I love that avatar. Very benny benasi like!

I guess it would depend on the circumstances. If Tebow and the friend of the coach found each other on their own then no I would have no issue. If the coach arranged it then ya probably. And I should probably stop saying morals and sub ethics in there.

[jhns]

Originally Posted by Boobs McGee

so you can sit here and honestly tell me if john fox had someone close to him that wasn't employed by the broncos, and knew everything about his system, that you'd be morally challenged if he was working with tebow? GTFOH

ps I love that avatar. Very benny benasi like!

Can you think of one other example of a team doing this? What exactly does this have to do with anything then? I completely agree with the drunk monkey.

You McFans need to move on.

[bowtown]

Originally Posted by jhns

Can you think of one other example of a team doing this? What exactly does this have to do with anything then? I completely agree with the drunk monkey.

You McFans need to move on.

I'm sure many of the teams are doing this under the radar. There have also been a lot of rumors and reports around the league of actual cheating--direct contact via texts and phone calls from coaches to players.

My question is, if other teams aren't doing this, why the hell not? It's not against the lockout rules. So it's legal. Anyone can do it, so it's not some kind of unfair advantage. What in the world would stop you. It's only cheating or "unethical" if you are doing it and no one else is allowed to.

[strafen]

Originally Posted by bowtown

I'm sure many of the teams are doing this under the radar. There have also been a lot of rumors and reports around the league of actual cheating--direct contact via texts and phone calls from coaches to players.

My question is, if other teams aren't doing this, why the hell not? It's not against the lockout rules. So it's legal. Anyone can do it, so it's not some kind of unfair advantage. What in the world would stop you. It's only cheating or "unethical" if you are doing it and no one else is allowed to.

it's wrong no matter how you slice it.
You could under the umbrella of "no rule has been broken" that is a "smart" move. You know it's a cheesey move at the very minimum. You know it, everybody knows it, you're just trying to look at it from a different angle to find the positive of the move, but it's still wrong!

[bowtown]

Originally Posted by strafen

it's wrong no matter how you slice it.
You could under the umbrella of "no rule has been broken" that is a "smart" move. You know it's a cheesey move at the very minimum. You know it, everybody knows it, you're just trying to look at it from a different angle to find the positive of the move, but it's still wrong!

It is legal, so it's clearly not wrong every way you slice it. I don't know what a "cheesy move" is. If it's an oppertunity that has been taken to give my team the best chance possible to win games under the current rules and guidelines, then I call it a smart move. You are the one trying to look at it from a different angle. I'm dealing in pretty straight forward right and wrong, black and white, allowed or not allowed. I think this is smart and would think so no matter which team was doing it.

Please though, I'm all ears, tell me exactly what you find so wrong about it.

[Boobs McGee]

Originally Posted by jhns

Can you think of one other example of a team doing this? What exactly does this have to do with anything then? I completely agree with the drunk monkey.

You McFans need to move on.

Blah blah blah you hate mcd, we get it. I'm simply pointing out that if OUR TEAM did the same thing with tebow, people wouldn't find fault. It's a hypothetical possibility Jhiz.

[Beantown Bronco]

Originally Posted by Drunk Monkey

And I should probably stop saying morals and sub ethics in there.

[jhns]

Originally Posted by Boobs McGee

Blah blah blah you hate mcd, we get it. I'm simply pointing out that if OUR TEAM did the same thing with tebow, people wouldn't find fault. It's a hypothetical possibility Jhiz.

And when this team does it, you will have an argument to make. Until then, you are speculating and presenting it as fact...

[bowtown]

Originally Posted by jhns

And when this team does it, you will have an argument to make. Until then, you are speculating and presenting it as fact...

Pssst... you should google the word hypothetical.

[Boobs McGee]

so I can't argue on speculation now? Thanks internet police, you obviously missed the point completely. It's an opinion, one that obviously struck a chord because your panties are all twisted. There is absolutely NOTHING wrong with my statement, because it IS hypothetical. The best part is, you know I'm right because people (for the most part) wouldn't give a flying ****.

My opinion.

[jhns]

I think a few of you need to learn the difference between a factual statement and an opinion."People will do this if it happened.", is clearly presenting something as a fact.