Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 86
  1. #31
    tomahawk247's Avatar
    tomahawk247 is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Essex, England
    Age
    27
    Posts
    4,731
    Rep Power
    57

    Re: Rams interested in Tank?--Hadley

    Whats the point of getting him? i really see no reason


  2. #32
    Bar-bq's Avatar
    Bar-bq is offline Pro Bowl Ram
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    2,927
    Rep Power
    94

    Re: Rams interested in Tank?--Hadley

    I think he'd look Dynomite in a Bengals uniform.

  3. #33
    LaRamsFanLongTime's Avatar
    LaRamsFanLongTime is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Foothill Ranch CA
    Age
    37
    Posts
    808
    Rep Power
    17

    Re: Rams interested in Tank?--Hadley

    I also hope that no one who has been on the anti leonard little morals campaign is in favor of signing this guy, who is a repeat offender in multiple situations.
    I think I qualify as one of the peoples so let me chime in. I think at this point it is too much of a risk and a distraction.Imagine being the guy in his position when the 8 weeks are up. Waiting half a season to see if you are gonna lose your job would suck.By the time he plays the line will have already gelled (It damn well better or someones getting hurt).
    LET'S GO DODGERS

  4. #34
    bigtiger737's Avatar
    bigtiger737 is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Kalamazoo, Michigan, United States
    Age
    36
    Posts
    504
    Rep Power
    15

    Re: Rams interested in Tank?--Hadley

    Guys 1st off, can the league further his suspension if he isn't charged??? That seem's pretty lawful and IMO if that's the case then the policy is going to far. They don't need to be under the scope that much.

    2nd Everyone is thinking Wroten is going to get screwed by all of this.. why would he? another great player in an improving rotation is great. As we'll there are injuries in the NFL and more depth means more security.

    3rd apparently everyone forgot that our D line was horrid last year, not avg, not ok it stunk. I love Wroten and I think Carriker will be great too. But a 2nd year and a Rookie does not mean anything is fixed. James hall does not mean the D is fixed. Haven't we relied on the chance a young player is going to save enough yet? How many 1st round Dt's in the last decade?? I don't know about you guys but I'm sick of hoping a rookie's will save us. It's not fair on the rook's it's not fair to the O side, and not far to everyone behind the D line. Everyone says they don't want to take a chance??? We have been taking chances for years. I don't care about anything accept the rams getting better. What I see with Tank is a chance for a guy to come in fresh on week 8 with sometime to learn the Defence and a chance to save a career. Tank said he was trying to straighten up and everyone belived him, when you look at this recent ordeal it does not mean he isn't. It means he was speeding. and was under the legal limit. He didn't have Pac man like issues he had issues anyone could have had... You guys can pick it apart all you want but the issue that's relevent is would he help us get closer to a ring?? I think yes. Would he help a very youthful line ease up on the pressure of expectation?? I think the answer is yes.. would he help us show seattle and San fran the west is ours?? you know what I think

  5. #35
    chiguy's Avatar
    chiguy is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Illinois
    Age
    42
    Posts
    1,158
    Rep Power
    23

    Re: Rams interested in Tank?--Hadley

    Quote Originally Posted by 39thebeast View Post
    I'm not sure this guy is really a huge character concern. He had a license for the guns and he wasn't legally drunk. I would have like to have him, but he wont be there for the first half of the season and there no point in that. In the first 8 games someone might become a star and tank will be wasted money. On the other hand some DT might completely suck and we will be so relived that tank was coming in.
    Once you're in jail, I'd say that its not a stretch to say he has "huge character concern(s)" (sic).

  6. #36
    chiguy's Avatar
    chiguy is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Illinois
    Age
    42
    Posts
    1,158
    Rep Power
    23

    Re: Rams interested in Tank?--Hadley

    Some of you folks are so anxious to fill our DT role that you 1) show no patience to see if the new guys on the roster show anything and 2) are willing to throw cap money around like drunken...football players?

  7. #37
    Varg6's Avatar
    Varg6 is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    3,618
    Rep Power
    43

    Re: Rams interested in Tank?--Hadley

    Quote Originally Posted by chiguy View Post
    Some of you folks are so anxious to fill our DT role that you 1) show no patience to see if the new guys on the roster show anything and 2) are willing to throw cap money around like drunken...football players?
    Time is never on our side, there are always other teams interested in a player. So, if the Rams are serious about it, I'd say the sooner we figure out if he'll be a team player or not, the better. But I'd rather see him be a loser/winner for us, rather than the other teams. There's always the IF of if he'll change.


    Always and Forever a fan of the St. Louis Rams

  8. #38
    mikhal5569's Avatar
    mikhal5569 is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Mass
    Age
    40
    Posts
    1,102
    Rep Power
    24

    Re: Rams interested in Tank?--Hadley

    Quote Originally Posted by MauiRam View Post
    UNDERSTANDING THE TANK BLOOD TEST (From PFT)

    Several readers have argued in the wake of the revelation that former Bears defensive tackle Tank Johnson's blood sample showed an alcohol concentration of 0.072 percent that, because he was below the legal limit of 0.08 percent, he should not have been cut by the team, and he should face no criminal charges of any kind.

    The first thing to keep in mind is that the 0.08 percent threshold is the point at which the law presumes that a person is impaired. As a practical matter, impairment can arise at lower levels.

    For pilots, 0.04 percent is the legal limit. Ditto for truck drivers subject to DOT regulations.

    Also, Johnson can still face charges in Arizona of "impairment to the slightest degree." The fact that he was within 0.008 percent of the limit of presumed impairment does not bode well, in our view.

    And don't forget that, the more a guy weighs, the more drinks it takes to get him in the shadows of 0.08 percent. In Tank's case, a 0.072 reading for a 300-pound man could mean that he had seven or eight drinks before getting behind the wheel.

    Finally, and as an astute reader pointed out to us, don't forget the possibility that the percentage was higher when Johnson was pulled over, and that it dropped to 0.072 percent by the time he was tested.

    Besides, to the extent that the Bears opted to put Tank on his very last chance in lieu of cutting him following his December 2006 arrest, any run-in with the law would have and should have been enough to get them to pull the trigger.

    So even though he won't face DUI charges in Arizona, the Bears decided that they had enough. Still, the absence of DUI liability could make it easier for someone else to sign him.

    It appears Tank is a guy that just doesn't get it. As another poster stated earlier, the Rams can do better ...
    This happens to be one of the most arrogant post that I have read here in my time at the Clans. " The first thing that to keep in mind is that the .08 percent threshold is the point where the law 'Presumes' that a person is impaired." Than you go on to give us the stats on truck drivers and pilots? Is this man a pilot? No. Is he a truck drive. NO. Was he pulled over and tested UNDER the legal limit. YES! BUT, he could have had a higher blood level before he was pulled over! Look i'm not defending the guy here but this post is ridiculous. I do not support driving drunk and by the way it IS possible to fail a breath test after only having one drink if the test is taken closely enough to the drink. Regardless it is way to early to condemn this man.:x

  9. #39
    AvengerRam's Avatar
    AvengerRam is offline Moderator Emeritus
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Longwood, Florida, United States
    Age
    46
    Posts
    18,626
    Rep Power
    167

    Re: Rams interested in Tank?--Hadley

    This isn't a morality issue. Its an issue of simply pragmatism.

    In the absolute best case scenario, in which Tank Johnson has learned his lesson and leads a squeaky clean life from this point forward, he's still not available for half of the upcoming season.

    Why would anybody want to sign a player who is (1) good, but certainly not great, (2) unavailable for the first 8 games, and (3) based upon recent behavior, at least a risk to create problems in the future?

    Honestly, don't we have higher standards than that?

  10. #40
    RealRam's Avatar
    RealRam is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Mexico
    Posts
    8,393
    Rep Power
    68

    Re: Rams interested in Tank?--Hadley

    Quote Originally Posted by Mikhal5569 View Post
    This happens to be one of the most arrogant post that I have read here in my time at the Clans. ...Regardless it is way too early to condemn this man.
    Mikhal, please notice that the quote posted by MauiRam (post #28) was directly extracted from Pro Football Talk -- it is not a personal commentary of his to 'arrogantly condemn' TJ. As to the poster that Maui mentions saying "the Rams can do better", that was me. And I have at least reconsidered my position on signing TJ, his character or lack thereof, etc. (please refer to post #27).

    The whole Tank / Rams matter is still under consideration, on ongoing debate. I just don't think Maui was being arrogant at all.
    Last edited by RealRam; -07-03-2007 at 11:53 AM. Reason: PFW Vs. PFT

  11. #41
    Nick's Avatar
    Nick is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Morgantown, WV
    Age
    31
    Posts
    19,490
    Rep Power
    154

    Re: Rams interested in Tank?--Hadley

    Quote Originally Posted by Country View Post
    He got arrested once on some serious gun charges and has kept out of trouble since.
    Obviously he didn't keep out of trouble or else he wouldn't be available. Furthermore, Mike did a fine job summing up Johnson's issues. It definitely isn't as simple as "he was arrested once and has kept out of trouble since."


    Quote Originally Posted by RamFan_Til_I_Die View Post
    Oops....guess maybe the Bears shouldn't have jumped the gun.

    Does this change anything for any of you?
    Not at all. The Bears put Tank on a zero tolerance policy. That means any problem whatsoever, and he was gone. So by that agreement, there was no gun jumping. They were strict and wanted him to stay completely clean and this incident was the final straw.
    ClanRam ModCast: Episode Four
    Rams Discussion Right at Your Fingertips!



  12. #42
    Dr. Defense's Avatar
    Dr. Defense is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    RI
    Age
    24
    Posts
    498
    Rep Power
    11

    Re: Rams interested in Tank?--Hadley

    First of all I wanna say, it doesn't matter if he was .008 or .20 away from the legal age. If your driving intoxicated your an idiot, end of story.

    Do I fault the bears for cutting him? No. He was put on a strict do/don't do list and he broke the rules. That is why he got cut. He messed up and he is now paying the price.

    As for would I sign him? Yes. Here's why. I'm a firm believer that there are two types of trouble makers. Your Pacman Jones trouble makers who no matter what happens will continue to get into trouble, and thus bring some bad mojo to the team.

    Then there are people like Tank Johnson (this is based on assumption) who are going down the wrong path but have a tramatic experience to change them.

    I really think that if Tank Johnson lands on the right team, where he can straighten himself out then he can return to his old dominating form. And I really think with the lockeroom presence that we have, that we can turn him around. So personally I would offer him a one year deal worth a mabye 1 million. And then there would be an option for a second year worth mabye 4 or 5 million. But the contract would be filled with clauses that force him to keep out of trouble or he loses his job. And if he does violate the rules we retain the right to cut him at the moment and he only keeps what he has earned. As for where he would play I would use him as depth in a rotation.

    All this of course is based upon the assumption that he is willing to change for the good. And that is a big if.

  13. #43
    rampower's Avatar
    rampower is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    cumbria, UK
    Age
    41
    Posts
    832
    Rep Power
    28

    Re: Rams interested in Tank?--Hadley

    Quote Originally Posted by general counsel View Post

    I hope that the people that want him arent the same people that wanted to dump jimmy kennedy to let the young guys develop, because adding him sure isnt going to help wroten develop. I also hope that no one who has been on the anti leonard little morals campaign is in favor of signing this guy, who is a repeat offender in multiple situations.



    general counsel
    You forget 1 thing;

    Every fans obvious right to change their moral mind when a fantastic 'talent' is on offer!
    A famous incident a few years ago, a very famous player, on probably the best soccer team in england, kung foo kicked a fan on live TV, who was, being a biggoted fan shouting stuff at him. His manager stood by him, his fans adored him. He was being unfairly persecuted. He was a genius after all.

    Being good at sport seems to be one step higher than being a nice person. I admire the bears, really I do. We have had a couple of situations ourself (like drafting Phillips) that have made me sometimes question my own feelings towards this subject.

    AND as I said I will completely change my mind if we sign him and he ends up in the pro bowl.

    Seriously though, letting Jimmy K go to let the young uns develop is one thing, as Jimmy is a bust (certainly in the eyes of our coaches). Then signing a player because they happen to upgrade the position at a later date when somebody unexpectedly becomes available, I think as slightly different. Wether tank is that man I dont know, but if they felt the team would be better without kennedy, then that tells its own story. As with every personnel move in football, its a gamble.

    I dont think we will end up with tank, from what I see, Linehan has been working hard to get good character on the team. We dont need any cancers in the locker room, even performance enhancing ones.
    The Breakfast Club. You want cheese with that?

  14. #44
    r8rh8rmike's Avatar
    r8rh8rmike is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    29 Palms, Ca.
    Age
    55
    Posts
    11,465
    Rep Power
    128

    Re: Rams interested in Tank?--Hadley

    Quote Originally Posted by bigtiger737 View Post
    He didn't have Pac man like issues he had issues anyone could have had...
    AGAIN, he was involved in a shooting AFTER his two weapons convictions that resulted in the DEATH of his bodyguard, if that's not a Pacman like issue I don't know what is. Sorry, but this is a troubled young man. Just ask the Bears.

  15. #45
    MauiRam's Avatar
    MauiRam is offline Pro Bowl Ram
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Maui, Hi.
    Age
    70
    Posts
    4,898
    Rep Power
    79

    Re: Rams interested in Tank?--Hadley

    Quote Originally Posted by AvengerRam View Post
    This isn't a morality issue. Its an issue of simply pragmatism.

    In the absolute best case scenario, in which Tank Johnson has learned his lesson and leads a squeaky clean life from this point forward, he's still not available for half of the upcoming season.

    Why would anybody want to sign a player who is (1) good, but certainly not great, (2) unavailable for the first 8 games, and (3) based upon recent behavior, at least a risk to create problems in the future?

    Honestly, don't we have higher standards than that?
    Excellent post !! One other thing to point out is that no one here is rooting against this young man or condemning him as unsalvageable. Rather we are discussing what is best for the team overall ...

Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. RamView, 11/26/2006: Rams 20, ***** 17 (Long)
    By MFranke in forum RAM TALK
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: -11-27-2006, 05:25 PM
  2. Replies: 2
    Last Post: -11-13-2006, 04:04 PM
  3. RamView, 11/5/2006: Chiefs 31, Rams 17 (Long)
    By MFranke in forum RAM TALK
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: -11-06-2006, 04:25 PM
  4. Rams History
    By OldRamsfan in forum RAM TALK
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: -02-08-2006, 03:36 AM
  5. Falcons Should Not Underestimate Rams
    By RamDez in forum RAM TALK
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: -01-15-2005, 03:24 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •