peplaw06;1139195 said:
So you're saying the internal pressure was as bad or worse than the external pressure?? Because I seem to remember BP saying that the perception that the OL was solely to blame was inaccurate... I think that shows that BP wasn't putting as much pressure on the OL as the fans/media were.
I see where you are coming from now I misunderstood initially. I think you are right in this case.
I'm not saying it "doesn't happen." I'm saying it's rare... Much like ScrewtheHall's point, to find 5 guys conspiring to do something like this is basically unheard of.
Ok we have a big misunderstanding then because I agree with you.
And you made a point that the instances you recall something like this happening took place often when the players "didn't like" the player. I have seen no indication that the OL "didn't like" Bledsoe. He wasn't throwing them under the bus or anything... Bledsoe was voted team captain also. I think that's a non-issue.
This is a good point as well but I could see the OL really struggling and expressing some frustration in the NYG game. When Romo came in there was a sense of relief like they had been carrying this huge burden all year long.
And what about it looks the same way? I mean Romo has still seen his share of pressure, he's just been able to evade much of it.
How the players are carrying themselves mainly.
They seemed to protect him okay in the Houston game. I agree with you that you're not going to hear this stuff unless you're in the lockerroom. But it's still speculation on your part. You really have no evidence, or at least very little evidence, other than your past experiences.
No question that this is speculation on my part and I have no evidence. I even conceded the notion in response to Bleu's post. This was a gut feeling I had and I decided to start a thread to see what everyone else thought. I was just trying to make the point that stuff like that happens sometimes and that people shouldn't dismiss or think that it doesn't. I thought you were implying it did not happen which is my bad. I misunderstood the points you were trying to make now. Sometimes it hard to get points across.
I know I used the lovelihood comment first, but later you said...
If anything I think the "livelihood issue" is a reason NOT to do it. The instances you speak of where you've seen it, a person's livelihood, or paycheck, wasn't involved, as you've stated. When a paycheck is in the balance, the odds of it happening would become less IMO.
I agree and sometimes people don't realize the consequences. Steriods is the same edge I am talking about or throwing a fight. The end result is personal gain at the expense of others. When competition is high all this stuff is not far behind.
This post helped me understand your points and I think we are on the same page.