"Zero2Cool" wrote:

"Zero2Cool" wrote:

This is a tangent...I've said what I want to say about Harrell and Shawn listened and all is cool....

But I have a question for you, Kevin.

Why shouldn't we compare a football player to people with "everyday jobs"? I mean, it's not like the football player does things that impact basic health (e.g garbagemen, plumbers, nurses, the occasional doctor), or keeps the universe from imploding (SETI watchers, Area 51 security guards).

Is it just because he makes a shitload of money that says he has different obligations re: job v. family, job v. society, job v. whatever?

Now, I realize that rich people sometimes look at the world differently because they're rich. But should they? And should we accept it if they do?

Just curious.

"Wade" wrote:

Oh to conclude.. speaking of putting words in ones mouth.. where did I say he should be fired because he needed a couple days off for the birth? I didn't... lol. ;)

"pack93z" wrote:

Although Harrell was awful in Seattle, Trgovac still has hopes he can make the team. According to Trgovac, Barbie Harrell had an emergency Caesarean section for delivery of the couple's first child Wednesday night and that the baby boy was in intensive care when Harrell flew with the team to Seattle.

"He slept on the plane like a baby," Trgovac said. "He had been up for a day and a half. But he has to be more consistent."

Harrell has been more successful rushing in the one on ones (6-10-3, .395) than either Wilson (5-18-3, .250) or Wynn (5-21-2, .214).

I don't see any way in which "he wasn't that bad" can be construed as a positive thing. The best thing that can be said about "he wasn't that bad" is it's about the mildest insult one can level against something. Probably the only milder insult would be "it was nice."

So what was he? Was he great? Was he good? Was he at least satisfactory? "Not that bad" doesn't cut it in my book. "Not that bad" is still bad, and I want at least satisfactory on my team.

"Nonstopdrivel" wrote:

I just rewatched the Seattle game, and I now think the article making Harrell sound like he had the worst game ever is ludicrous.

I watched Seattle's last drive in the 3rd quarter and first drive in the 4th quarter. Harrell played about 12 snaps. On one play he was on the ground assisting in a tackle. He wasn't knocked down. On one play he hit the ground while being blocked. It's hard to tell, but it might have even been a cut block. On the other 10 plays, Harrell was not on the ground. He assisted in one tackle, pressured the QB on one play, and mostly held the point on the others. I don't think there was a play where he was driven back--like I've seen from Raji. (Of course, he's going up against backups). On several plays, Harrell was double teamed. I think the article was mostly a hack job. Did he dominate? No. But not the awful game that the article made it out to be.

I preface it by saying I watched 12 plays. Apparently, Harrell played in 17 plays during the game. Maybe he was completelly awful in the other 5 plays.