03-03-2016, 12:50 PM
To me, there is a big difference between the mistake that Hill made and the mistake that Burfict made.
There was a play made on Hill and his fumble was completely unavoidable. He had no choice whether he wanted to fumble or not. His mistake was was not made by choice. He had no conscience decision to say "do I want to, or do I not want to fumble this ball?"
Burfict's was. In my opinion, Burfict acted on conscience and had a choice on if and how he wanted to hit Antonio Brown.
Two mistakes. One is acceptable (by me anyway) because its the game of football and those kinds of mistakes happen (show me a running back that has never fumbled). The other mistake is unacceptable. That was a conscience choice by Burfict to do something that directly resulted in harming his team. He went for personal satisfaction over the greater good of the team.
There was a play made on Hill and his fumble was completely unavoidable. He had no choice whether he wanted to fumble or not. His mistake was was not made by choice. He had no conscience decision to say "do I want to, or do I not want to fumble this ball?"
Burfict's was. In my opinion, Burfict acted on conscience and had a choice on if and how he wanted to hit Antonio Brown.
Two mistakes. One is acceptable (by me anyway) because its the game of football and those kinds of mistakes happen (show me a running back that has never fumbled). The other mistake is unacceptable. That was a conscience choice by Burfict to do something that directly resulted in harming his team. He went for personal satisfaction over the greater good of the team.
The boys are just talkin' ball, babyyyy