Mankins could hold up NFL settlement

[Uncle Rico]

Kind of ironic that Borges "breaks" the story about special treatment for the "named plaintiffs" then a few days later breaks another story which basically says...."never mind" Kinda makes you wonder. Can anyone say, "hack writer for sale. Send me your agenda and I'll get it published"

This whole brouhaha comes down to "much ado about nothing" 20 odd pages of sometimes emotionally charged rhetoric by us (including me) leading to absolutely NOTHING just a day later. I feel so used. and manipulated

And to top it off, Borges always has to let the world know that he is smarter than everyone. Because it's so smart to be a contrarian. A paragraph on this story:

"After a far less wrangling and horse trading behind the scenes than some misplaced internet reports would have you believe..."

And a line from his report Saturday about a "snag" in the talks:

"Less than a day after breathless media reports had a deal all but done, the two sides were wrangling unproductively."

Really, if it weren't for a few times when Breer tweets to him or when someone here posts a link, Borges is irrelevant to my knowledge and enjoyment of the NFL.

 

[townes]

Again, this is pointless.
Go ahead and make a point based on the fact that someone spoke and what you think they probably said proves your point. I really don't care.

For some reason you refuse to say whether you saw it.


Guess what Andy, I saw Seth Myers presenting the ESPY's but couldn't get the audio because i was working, was he making jokes at the athletes expense or is that just another wild reach?

 

[townes]

Kind of ironic that Borges "breaks" the story about special treatment for the "named plaintiffs" then a few days later breaks another story which basically says...."never mind" Kinda makes you wonder. Can anyone say, "hack writer for sale. Send me your agenda and I'll get it published"

This whole brouhaha comes down to "much ado about nothing" 20 odd pages of sometimes emotionally charged rhetoric by us (including me) leading to absolutely NOTHING just a day later. I feel so used. and manipulated

Yes Ken, this was 25+ pages of people ripping Mankins for something he didn't do, par for the course for those who have been crapping on the players throughout the owners lockout.

 

[Rob0729]

Yes Ken, this was 25+ pages of people ripping Mankins for something he didn't do, par for the course for those who have been crapping on the players throughout the owners lockout.

Well, none of the plantiffs did anything, they let the agents and Jeffrey Kessler be the bulldogs in the whole situation so when the whole thing blew up in their face, all of them claimed they never asked for special treatment.

Personally, I never ripped Mankins for asking for special treatment. I said IF he tried to derail the process to get special treatment, then I would rip him. I do though think having the plantiffs ask for special treatment kinda put the players in the same "greedy" category that they labeled the owners during the entire process.

I do believe that Mankins did ask for special treatment through representation. I think he approved Kessler asking for it. I think Brees, Jackson, and Manning did the same. And yes, this is my opinion and not fact. I think it goes against the spirit of what the players are working for, but as long as it dosesn't derail the process I don't think it is a huge deal. Especially since all it did was turn the media, fans, and even some players against them.

 

[borg]

Well, none of the plantiffs did anything, they let the agents and Jeffrey Kessler be the bulldogs in the whole situation so when the whole thing blew up in their face, all of them claimed they never asked for special treatment.

Personally, I never ripped Mankins for asking for special treatment. I said IF he tried to derail the process to get special treatment, then I would rip him. I do though think having the plantiffs ask for special treatment kinda put the players in the same "greedy" category that they labeled the owners during the entire process.

I do believe that Mankins did ask for special treatment through representation. I think he approved Kessler asking for it. I think Brees, Jackson, and Manning did the same. And yes, this is my opinion and not fact. I think it goes against the spirit of what the players are working for, but as long as it dosesn't derail the process I don't think it is a huge deal. Especially since all it did was turn the media, fans, and even some players against them.

If you hire an agent, he's your voice.....you realize that don't you?

 

[townes]

Well, none of the plantiffs did anything, they let the agents and Jeffrey Kessler be the bulldogs in the whole situation so when the whole thing blew up in their face, all of them claimed they never asked for special treatment.

Personally, I never ripped Mankins for asking for special treatment. I said IF he tried to derail the process to get special treatment, then I would rip him. I do though think having the plantiffs ask for special treatment kinda put the players in the same "greedy" category that they labeled the owners during the entire process.

I do believe that Mankins did ask for special treatment through representation. I think he approved Kessler asking for it. I think Brees, Jackson, and Manning did the same. And yes, this is my opinion and not fact. I think it goes against the spirit of what the players are working for, but as long as it dosesn't derail the process I don't think it is a huge deal. Especially since all it did was turn the media, fans, and even some players against them.

Here's the FACT: Mankins didn't derail the process and there is zero evidence he intended to.

 

[Rob0729]

Here's the FACT: Mankins didn't derail the process and there is zero evidence he intended to.

Never claimed he did. There is evidence he did ask for special treatment though.

 

[Rob0729]

If you hire an agent, he's your voice.....you realize that don't you?

I know that. But the plantiffs for the most part used Kessler, not their agents to do the dirty work.

 

[townes]

Never claimed he did. There is evidence he did ask for special treatment though.

Really?


Show it.


Mediot speculation and the gullibility of those who have been ripping the players isn't "evidence." So let's see the "evidence."

 

[Rob0729]

Really?


Show it.


Mediot speculation and the gullibility of those who have been ripping the players isn't "evidence." So let's see the "evidence."

Yahoo! Sports has learned through multiple sources that the agents for wide receiver Vincent Jackson(notes) and guard Logan Mankins(notes) have requested that their players either become unrestricted free agents when the lockout is over or that they receive $10 million each as part of the settlement. Both Jackson and Mankins chose to sit out much of the 2010 season when they failed to reach long-term deals with the San Diego Chargers and New England Patriots, respectively.

Sources: Jackson, Mankins push for compensation - NFL - Yahoo! Sports

 

[townes]

Sources: Jackson, Mankins push for compensation - NFL - Yahoo! Sports

That's not evidence that is speculation from unnamed sources claiming to have knowledge of something that never happened. That has no more validity than Borges.

 

[Rob0729]

That's not evidence that is speculation from unnamed sources claiming to have knowledge of something that never happened. That has no more validity than Borges.

Weak argument. By your logic, Nixon wasn't wasn't behind the Watergate break in because he was buried by an unnamed source. Unnamed sources are evidence.

You can choose to believe the evidence isn't strong, but it is evidence. Most legitimate writers do not quote unnamed sources unless they are sure the source has the correct information.

As for as it being speculation by unnamed sources, how do you know that? Have you spoken to these sources? What if the source was Mankins or his agent who spoke to Coles on condition that nothing they say is attributed to them. Now you are the one who are speculating. These unnamed sources may know for a fact that Mankins asked for special consideration. If Coles has journalistic integrity, he made sure that these "multiple unnamed sources" did know for a fact that Jackson and Mankins asked for special consideration.

You claimed there was no evidence. You asked me to provide you evidence. I provided you evidence. Either you don't understand the definition of evidence or you are too stubborn to admit you were wrong.

Unnamed sources get a bad rap by people who don't want to believe them. Sure some lazy and/or unethical journalists cut corners by making up unnamed sources or take weak information or rumors and make it fact by quoting unnamed sources, but some of the biggests stories in U.S. history were broken by unnamed sources. Most notably Deep Throat and the Watergate Breakin.

 

[Snake Eyes]

Weak argument. By your logic, Nixon wasn't wasn't behind the Watergate break in because he was buried by an unnamed source. Unnamed sources are evidence.

You can choose to believe the evidence isn't strong, but it is evidence. Most legitimate writers do not quote unnamed sources unless they are sure the source has the correct information.

As for as it being speculation by unnamed sources, how do you know that? Have you spoken to these sources? What if the source was Mankins or his agent who spoke to Coles on condition that nothing they say is attributed to them. Now you are the one who are speculating. These unnamed sources may know for a fact that Mankins asked for special consideration. If Coles has journalistic integrity, he made sure that these "multiple unnamed sources" did know for a fact that Jackson and Mankins asked for special consideration.

You claimed there was no evidence. You asked me to provide you evidence. I provided you evidence. Either you don't understand the definition of evidence or you are too stubborn to admit you were wrong.

Unnamed sources get a bad rap by people who don't want to believe them. Sure some lazy and/or unethical journalists cut corners by making up unnamed sources or take weak information or rumors and make it fact by quoting unnamed sources, but some of the biggests stories in U.S. history were broken by unnamed sources. Most notably Deep Throat and the Watergate Breakin.

Your argument is resting on the professional integrity of the writer, that's not exactly as solid as a DNA sample IMO.

Journalists also had actual integrity when Watergate broke, these days a "journalist" is usually just part of a propaganda arm for a political ideology or they're just trying to generate more hits on a website, and the actual truth or consistency of what they write is non-existant.

 

[townes]

Weak argument. By your logic, Nixon wasn't wasn't behind the Watergate break in because he was buried by an unnamed source. Unnamed sources are evidence.

You can choose to believe the evidence isn't strong, but it is evidence. Most legitimate writers do not quote unnamed sources unless they are sure the source has the correct information.

As for as it being speculation by unnamed sources, how do you know that? Have you spoken to these sources? What if the source was Mankins or his agent who spoke to Coles on condition that nothing they say is attributed to them. Now you are the one who are speculating. These unnamed sources may know for a fact that Mankins asked for special consideration. If Coles has journalistic integrity, he made sure that these "multiple unnamed sources" did know for a fact that Jackson and Mankins asked for special consideration.

You claimed there was no evidence. You asked me to provide you evidence. I provided you evidence. Either you don't understand the definition of evidence or you are too stubborn to admit you were wrong.

Unnamed sources get a bad rap by people who don't want to believe them. Sure some lazy and/or unethical journalists cut corners by making up unnamed sources or take weak information or rumors and make it fact by quoting unnamed sources, but some of the biggests stories in U.S. history were broken by unnamed sources. Most notably Deep Throat and the Watergate Breakin.

You clearly don't understand what evidence is, what you presented was unnamed hearsay not evidence. You are saying that something that didn't happen is true because you want to believe the worst. there is nothing more than idle speculation that Mankins wanted something and given Mankins history in that regard it is unlikely that he made demands and simply walked away from them without a fight.

Evidence is Mankins, his agent, or NFLPA reps saying that Mankins made and then dropped demands and NOTHING has come to light that meets that criteria, and Ron Borges or Jason Cole saying they think he did isn't proof in any way at all.


Seriously Robo your argument is as weak as it gets.

 

[townes]

Ron Borges says Bill Belichik is a terrible person.


This is clear and compelling evidence that Bill Belichik is a terrible person.


Time for the Bill Belichik is a terrible person thread.

 

[Rob0729]

You clearly don't understand what evidence is, what you presented was unnamed hearsay not evidence. You are saying that something that didn't happen is true because you want to believe the worst. there is nothing more than idle speculation that Mankins wanted something and given Mankins history in that regard it is unlikely that he made demands and simply walked away from them without a fight.

Evidence is Mankins, his agent, or NFLPA reps saying that Mankins made and then dropped demands and NOTHING has come to light that meets that criteria, and Ron Borges or Jason Cole saying they think he did isn't proof in any way at all.


Seriously Robo your argument is as weak as it gets.

LOL! Aparently you do not know the definition of evidence. You apparently just watch too much Law & Order. Yes, hearsea evidence (wait did I just use the words hearsea and evidence together) is not admissable in court, but that doesn't mean it isn't evidence. You do realize that if Coles got this information from Mankins himself and he attributed it to Mankins in his article, it would still be hearsea evidence?

You really don't understand evidence. If someone who knows for a fact that Mankins and/or his agent asked for special treatment and gives it to Coles who runs with it attributing to unnamed sources, that is evidence. You may not believe it is true, but it clearly evidence.

 

[Rob0729]

Ron Borges says Bill Belichik is a terrible person.


This is clear and compelling evidence that Bill Belichik is a terrible person.


Time for the Bill Belichik is a terrible person thread.

Clearly you don't understand the definition of evidence. How does Coles reporting that sources have told him that Mankins and/or his agent asked for special treatment compare to Borges stating HIS OPINION about Belichick. Just because you don't want to believe that Coles' source may in fact know for a fact that either Mankins or his agent asked for special treatment doesn't make it an opinion. Nowhere in Coles' article does it say that the sources have the opinion that he asked for special treatment.

Yes, the sources could be wrong, but what Coles was reporting wasn't opinion, it was evidence. Evidence can be falsified. Evidence can be misleading. But this is clearly evidence which you clearly don't understand understand the definition.

 

[Rob0729]

Your argument is resting on the professional integrity of the writer, that's not exactly as solid as a DNA sample IMO.

Journalists also had actual integrity when Watergate broke, these days a "journalist" is usually just part of a propaganda arm for a political ideology or they're just trying to generate more hits on a website, and the actual truth or consistency of what they write is non-existant.

Not all journalists are lazy or unethical. Most journalists do uphold their journalistic integrity. Arguing any journalist's story is not true because all journalists lack journalistic integrity is a very weak argument. Unless you have evidence that Coles has fudged stories before, it is unfair to say he lacks journalistic integrity.

I do think it is funny that people are defending Mankins from people who accused him of doing something "there is no evidence of him doing" by trashing a journalist who provides evidence that he did do it with no evidence that the journalist did anything wrong at all.

 

[townes]

Clearly you don't understand the definition of evidence. How does Coles reporting that sources have told him that Mankins and/or his agent asked for special treatment compare to Borges stating HIS OPINION about Belichick. Just because you don't want to believe that Coles' source may in fact know for a fact that either Mankins or his agent asked for special treatment doesn't make it an opinion. Nowhere in Coles' article does it say that the sources have the opinion that he asked for special treatment.

Yes, the sources could be wrong, but what Coles was reporting wasn't opinion, it was evidence. Evidence can be falsified. Evidence can be misleading. But this is clearly evidence which you clearly don't understand understand the definition.

Belichik is a terrible person, Ron Borges says so, Mankins demanded 10 million dollars, Ron Borges says so. Both Mankins and Belichik suck, the evidence is overwhelming.

 

[townes]

Not all journalists are lazy or unethical. Most journalists do uphold their journalistic integrity. Arguing any journalist's story is not true because all journalists lack journalistic integrity is a very weak argument. Unless you have evidence that Coles has fudged stories before, it is unfair to say he lacks journalistic integrity.

I do think it is funny that people are defending Mankins from people who accused him of doing something "there is no evidence of him doing" by trashing a journalist who provides evidence that he did do it with no evidence that the journalist did anything wrong at all.

When a journalist says a player is going to hold up a deal and then it never happens his sources are definitely questionable and saying they are "evidence" is bull.