Former Cardinals kicker Phil Dawson retires

first_img Former Cardinals kicker Phil Dawson retires 2006Bears 37, Seahawks 6 (Week 4)Bears 27, Seahawks 24 (Divisional) The most recent example of the tables turning in the playoffs happened in 2012, and it involved the Packers. Green Bay lost a Week 17 matchup to Minnesota, 37-34, on a last-second field goal by Vikings kicker Blair Walsh. The very next week, the Packers bounced back and beat Minnesota 24-10 in the Wild Card round.Another aspect of Saturday’s playoff rematch is just how soundly the Packers were beaten at University of Phoenix Stadium in December. The Cardinals sacked Aaron Rodgers and backup quarterback Scott Tolzien a total of nine times, forced four turnovers and scored two defensive touchdowns.It was a rare defeat for Green Bay. The Packers have lost by 30 or more points only six times since 1990.As Gary D’Amato of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel points out, only once has a Packers team who lost a game by 30 or more points and avenged that loss the same year — and that happened all the way back in 1959. The Packers were blown out by the Los Angeles Rams 45-6 in October and then beat the Rams 38-20 seven weeks later.Since 2000, there has been 233 games decided by 30 or more points in the NFL. Only five times has a game decided by that big a margin been rematched in the playoffs. The Cardinals-Packers game Saturday will be the sixth. Teams who won the regular season game are 3-2 in postseason rematches. The Cardinals have been in this situation before. In the 2010 playoffs, the Cardinals matched up against a Green Bay team that had come to Glendale and beaten them 33-7 to end the regular season. Of course, the Cardinals, then coached by Ken Whisenhunt, had essentially nothing to play for, and rested several starters. Green Bay took a different approach.“We wanted to come out here to win the game, keep our razor sharp and gain some momentum going into the playoffs,” head coach Mike McCarthy said at the time. “It didn’t matter who we were playing. I understand Arizona had a different agenda. … We like the way we played the last eight weeks and it was very important for us to maximize this opportunity.”None of it mattered. The very next week, the Cardinals needed overtime to beat the Packers 51-45 in the NFC Wild Card Round in what was one of the best playoff games of all time.This year, the Cardinals are hoping that the previous matchup is an accurate depiction of the gap between the two teams, but are expecting a different-looking group of Packers.“It will be a different team this time around,” head coach Bruce Arians told Bickley and Marotta on Arizona Sports 98.7 FM Monday. “They obviously got a little confidence after the way they played (against Washington), and they got some healthy offensive linemen back which will make a big difference in the game.” YearRegular Season Result (Week)Playoff Result (Round) 2015Cardinals 38, Packers 8 (Week 15)??? 2010Patriots 45, Jets 3 (Week 13)Jets 28, Patriots 21 (Divisional) 2009Jets 37, Bengals 0 (Week 17)Jets 24, Bengals 14 (Wild Card) Green Bay Packers quarterback Aaron Rodgers (12) is sacked by Arizona Cardinals cornerback Jerraud Powers (25) during the second half of an NFL football game, Sunday, Dec. 27, 2015, in Glendale, Ariz. (AP Photo/Ross D. Franklin) 2013Patriots 41, Ravens 7 (Week 16)Ravens 28, Patriots 13 (Championship)center_img 2015Seahawks 38, Vikings 7 (Week 13)Seahawks 10, Vikings 9 (Wild Card) Comments   Share   It is interesting to note, there could be third such matchup if the Cardinals and Seahawks both win their Divisional Round games. Seattle crushed Arizona 36-6 in Week 17. – / 36 Top Stories The 5: Takeaways from the Coyotes’ introduction of Alex Meruelo Derrick Hall satisfied with D-backs’ buying and selling The Arizona Cardinals annihilated the Green Bay Packers 38-8 in Glendale back in Week 16 of the regular season.You’d think a playoff rematch just three weeks later in the same venue would have a lot of the same characteristics as the regular season game, but that’s just not the case.Seven times since 2009, there has been a playoff game between two teams that met in Week 16 of the regular season or later. Four times, the team that won that regular-season game triumphed again in the playoffs. Three times the loser of the regular-season game moved on. Grace expects Greinke trade to have emotional impactlast_img read more

Nonprofits Disagree on Keeping Ones Mouth Shut about the Presidents Mental Health

first_imgShare45Tweet7Share13Email65 SharesBy Fact Magazine (New York Times) [Public domain], via Wikimedia CommonsJuly 25, 2017; STATAn email sent from the executive committee of the American Psychoanalytic Association yesterday to its 3,500 members explicitly informed them that publicly commenting on President Trump’s mental health was okay with them.Diagnosing of public figures from afar has been frowned upon by many professional associations for decades, under what is known as the “Goldwater Rule.” But some mental health professionals actually believe that they have an affirmative “duty to warn” the public.Laypeople, says Dr. Leonard Glass, a psychiatrist at Harvard Medical School, “have been stumbling around trying to explain Trump’s unusual behavior,” and the rule, Glass says, robs the public “of our professional judgment and prevents us from communicating our understanding” of the potential of any underlying mental disease.Glass recently resigned from the American Psychiatric Association, where he has been a member for 41 years and where the rule has been in place for three years longer than that. It was reaffirmed in March of this year. The American Psychological Association has no such rule, though it does have a culture of discouraging public statements of diagnosis from afar.“In the case of Donald Trump, there is an extraordinary abundance of speech and behavior on which one could form a judgment,” Glass said. “It’s not definitive, it’s an informed hypothesis, and one we should be able to offer rather than the stunning silence demanded by the Goldwater rule.”Past president of the American Psychoanalytic Association, Dr. Prudence Gourguechon, agrees with Glass. “We don’t want to prohibit our members from using their knowledge responsibly,” she says, and “since Trump’s behavior is so different from anything we’ve seen before,” those insights might be especially helpful to a public confused by the behavior of their Commander-in-Chief.The “Goldwater rule” prohibits psychiatrists and psychologists from offering opinions about the mental state of a public figure without that person’s consent and without doing a direct examination. Some of those whom the rule constrains see it as itself unethical, since the mental state of a public official may well be at issue as a matter of public safety and wellbeing from time to time. Opposition to the rule has recently intensified.On the other hand, some don’t see much upside in such commentary, since such punitive diagnoses might tend to stigmatize other people with mental health disorders. Dr. Allen Frances is a professor emeritus of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Duke University Medical College. He chaired the task force that wrote the fourth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV), and he wrote a letter to the New York Times on the subject that was published on Valentine’s Day of this year.Most amateur diagnosticians have mislabeled President Trump with the diagnosis of narcissistic personality disorder. I wrote the criteria that define this disorder, and Mr. Trump doesn’t meet them. He may be a world-class narcissist, but this doesn’t make him mentally ill, because he does not suffer from the distress and impairment required to diagnose mental disorder.Mr. Trump causes severe distress rather than experiencing it and has been richly rewarded, rather than punished, for his grandiosity, self-absorption and lack of empathy. It is a stigmatizing insult to the mentally ill (who are mostly well behaved and well meaning) to be lumped with Mr. Trump (who is neither).Bad behavior is rarely a sign of mental illness, and the mentally ill behave badly only rarely. Psychiatric name-calling is a misguided way of countering Mr. Trump’s attack on democracy. He can, and should, be appropriately denounced for his ignorance, incompetence, impulsivity and pursuit of dictatorial powers.His psychological motivations are too obvious to be interesting, and analyzing them will not halt his headlong power grab. The antidote to a dystopic Trumpean dark age is political, not psychological.—Ruth McCambridgeShare45Tweet7Share13Email65 Shareslast_img read more