Lombardi: Seymour's not looking for a contract, he's just pissed.

[shmessy]

Re: Typical Richard Seymour

Green is a decent player, no doubt, but he's not going to make us "forget about Seymour."

While he's a good pass rusher, he tends to wear down and is a much bigger liability in the run game. The post was a reflexive response to the annoying tendency amongst fans on this board to denigrate players and downplay their abilities as they're on their way out the door.

I see that DE position now vacated by Seymour as being platooned between Green (mostly), Brace and Pryor. Will this be a diminishment at that position this year? I believe it will be. Will it be a BIG enough diminsihment to cloud the SB chances? - - I'm not sure, but I don't think so.

I agree about the reflexive reaction to denigrate a player on the way out. I think that happens in every fanbase. Big Sey was a great player and a great Patriot. That being said, he wasn't the same dominant player the past few years that he was between 2001-2005. He has injury issues. There is no shame in that.

 

[moosekill]

Dear god, are the rest of us going to have to stage an intervention or should we take up a special collection so Ian can take youse guys on a mod retreat... We're told if we have an issue with a mod we should PM them. You guys are on the verge of get a room...

PS you're right though...

I agree, if you want to act like one of us regular moronic posters get a different screen name and post that way, or better yet pm stuff. Mods shouldn't resort to calling people names or inciting things.

I guess I'm just surprised and disappointed with the way you are acting.

 

[shmessy]

I agree, if you want to act like one of us regular moronic posters get a different screen name and post that way, or better yet pm stuff. Mods shouldn't resort to calling people names or inciting things.

I guess I'm just surprised and disappointed with the way you are acting.

Please let us know where there was any namecalling.

In the meantime, we have the very same right to post our opinions as you do. This is what Ian promised us when he asked us to take on being Mods.

This is just two posters arguing in a thread. If you want to focus in on the fact that it says "Mod" next to our names, go ahead.

 

[mayoclinic]

I agree, if you want to act like one of us regular moronic posters get a different screen name and post that way, or better yet pm stuff. Mods shouldn't resort to calling people names or inciting things.

I guess I'm just surprised and disappointed with the way you are acting.

No one should resort to calling people names or inciting things.

 

[shmessy]

No one should resort to calling people names or inciting things.

Amen. Please let us know when that happens.

 

[moosekill]

Andy Johnson:
"That is the most ignorant statement Ive seen in a terribly long time.
You have never met either person, yet you have decided to accuse one of being an @ss by comparing him to the other."

I read the first part then thought the @ss part referenced the poster, my bad. I still don't like you guys arguing, and I'd still say, overstepping what I would consider appropriate for mods but it is your board, have at it.

 

[Synovia]

I posted this in the other Seymour thread. Curious if any of you have the interpretation skills to establish if it has merit.

Somewhere in the numerous Seymour threads were the recent media comments that Seymour believed a new contract was being negotiated, and that the shock/surprise was enhanced because of this.

Unlikely it would occur, but is it possible his agent could use this rule to establish lack of good faith in negotiations?-

From Article 14 of the NFL Players Contract:

Posting things in different threads doesn't make it any more relevant.

Clause B is irrelevant because Seymour is not being offered a Tender (RFA, Franchise, or other). Clause A is not relevant because trading a player while a negotiation is not working out is not acting in bad faith.


Seymour could Appeal the trade to the NFLPA by filing a grievance, but they wouldn't take it, because it has no basis.

 

[shmessy]

Andy Johnson
"That is the most ignorant statement Ive seen in a terribly long time.
You have never met either person, yet you have decided to accuse one of being an @ss by comparing him to the other."

I read the first part then thought the @ss part referenced the poster, my bad. I still don't like you guys arguing, and I'd still say, overstepping what I would consider appropriate for mods but it is your board, have at it.

#1) It's not our board. It's Ian's board. Honestly, we're posters whom Ian asked to help out. We're just as schmucky as everyone else. Call us on it anytime.

#2) What Andy wrote is fine - there is not namecalling at all. He didn't call the person a name. In fact, moderation-wise, I see absolutely nothing wrong with it.

#3) I simply disagreed with his opinion and stated an opposing opinion. That's what the board is for.

Once again, we're posters just like everybody else. We can offer opinions and disagee and debate. Some people get hung up on the whole "Mod" thing next to our names, but it doesn't mean we cannot disagree and post vehement opinions - - Ian promised us that. We all, however, have a responsibility to refrain from namecalling, etc. From my vanatge point, Andy did nothing of the sort. It's all good.

That's the last I'm going to comment on "Moderation" in this thread. If anyone has any further "Mod" questions (and the disagreement between me and Andy had nothing to do with "Mods" it had only been a thread disagreement that can occur between anyone) then please PM me anytime. Thanks!

Now, any reports on Seymour?