- Joined
- Apr 3, 2006
- Messages
- 26,124
- Reaction score
- 52,122
Registered Members experience this forum ad and noise-free.
CLICK HERE to Register for a free account and login for a smoother ad-free experience. It's easy, and only takes a few moments.People mock and disparage everyone, just as they praise everyone, from family members to co-workers to politicians to athletes. It's not about entitlement, self-loathing and free floating anger. It's about human nature, judgment, and impact analysis.
He would not trade a player who is going to retire. But if you think he would give me an example.You're getting worse. The baby step was how you weren't pissy until the end of your last post, now you're leading with it.
Belichick would 100% trade a player not fully committed to playing.
I don’t care how you want to put lipstick on the pig, but it was a rumor that turned out to be unfounded. Schefter being the rumor mongers doesn’t make it a fact.They aren't "my rumors" it was commonly reported, including by Shefter
If the rumor was that a trade as worked out of course it was bs because there was no trade."When a rumor turns out to not happen it was wrong" is nonsensical. It means the trade didn't happen, not that there wasn't truth to it. Pretty simple stuff.
I think there are people who actually feel that as a fan they are entitled to the players living up to their standard for them (which is significantly higher than their own standards for themselves usually) and there are some that feel wronged by the player when he does t excel.Mocking and disparagement, as done on the internet, using words such as "trash" and "useless" about a human being you've never met and will never have a relationship with, are not normal healthy behavior. There's a hostility that underlies the criticism of players that is out of proportion and out of balance. It is similar to road rage. I stand by my original assertion.
It would be great to see the TEs we have make the roster.
I don't think anyone wants to admit why that is the case
Hint: It has something to do with his talent.
So if you’re a drug addict/alcoholic that’s good at football you deserve coddling and excuses. If you’re a drug addict/alcoholic that is average at football then you don’t deserve coddling or excuses.
I am strictly talking about this forum and the overwhelming amount of defenders of Josh Gordon and his issues. I didn’t have as much sympathy for him as most seemed to and got the “do you know how hard addiction is!?!” lecture. Now that ASJ is rumored to be having similar issues it’s more just “oh well” and variations of “bye” and “he sucks anyways”.
I liked the trade as well but I didn’t and don’t really care for Josh Gordon as a player/person. I am all for second chances but when you’re on your 4th or 5th and you continually let down your teammates and fans you become hard to root for. I do hope he turns his life around but I really don’t have much sympathy for him.
I agree. They got to know Josh a little and clearly feel he has the talent, value, production and because hes a culture fit here is worth "investing" in.Something to do with talent, also something to do with the fact that Gordon has already played a few games for the Patriots and to this day makes it very clear he considers himself part of the organization (and vice versa) whereas ASJ was only around for the proverbial cup of coffee.
Part of me thinks if ASJ represented "Gronk-like" potential and value he would not have been released.
I think this is partly true, but I think @Deus Irae 's point (if I'm reading it right) is that most people didn't come into this thread to throw ASJ under the bus for his addiction problems, and most didn't actually know about it or still aren't 100% sure of it, whereas Josh Gordon's problems were very public.
You were doing ok up until the end of the post, but baby steps I guess.
You're speculating. That's fine, lots of that here, but that's what it is, so stating it as fact is silly. Of course Belichick would trade a player not fully committed to playing, good reason to do it actually. (And obviously he wouldn't/couldn't trade a player who retired.)
So one more step and you are there. If he wouldn’t trade a player who is retiring and he didn’t trade the player when he says he wasn’t retiring then he wasn’t trading the player.
It’s actually you who are speculating using a rumor as fact. The fact is he didn’t trade gronk. Your rumors are only rumor and when a rumor turns out to not happen, it was wrong. Pretty simple stuff.
Pretty much, yes. This forum 'vetted' the hell out of Gordon. Local media did the same thing. The percentage of "we don't want him!" people was very high, before he was brought in, while he was playing, and after he got popped again. Many continue to hold that same position to this day.
So, when we've got a less talented player with a less well known history (of what seems to be a lesser problem), who wasn't put through the ringer and analyzed, but also was only here for a few weeks. it should come as no surprise to anyone that, in the absence of actual reporting as to why the man's gone, people are going to be more dismissive.
Frankly, there'd be a problem if people weren't.
Yea maybe. I think Floyd was invited to the 2017 camp but was the last cut. Might not be apples to apples but your point is taken.True. It would also depend on how seriously the team thought he was committed to achieving sobriety. ASJ seems more like Michael Floyd part II to me than anything else.
He would not trade a player who is going to retire.
No, you have zero proof of this.it was a rumor that turned out to be unfounded
Very wrong. Of course a report that a trade was in place but didn't happen could be true. Obviously.If the rumor was that a trade as worked out of course it was bs because there was no trade.
Again, I assume you're saying this into a mirror to reassure yourself.Every single fact is on my side of this.
Would you agree that we’re somewhere near the “very likely” spectrum of Jenkins current problems being that of addiction, even if it isn’t confirmed?
No, but it's not because I don't think it's a good possibility. It's because we've got a time specific step away (month). Could that be rehab? Sure, but it could be something else where there's at least an idea of a timeline, and I don't want to put a percentage on it with a guy who's not familiar enough to me for me to make that leap.
No. He would not screw a trade partner.Belichick would do anything he felt would help the team.
Of course I do. HE WASNT TRADED.No, you have zero proof of this.
And there is zero evidence that is the case. If it was in place and didnt happen a reason would be known.Very wrong. Of course a report that a trade was in place but didn't happen could be true. Obviously.
I listed all the facts. You have yet to list a single one. Not a single one.Again, I assume you're saying this into a mirror to reassure yourself.
It's not a matter of "screwing a trade partner." Belichick would make any move he deemed beneficial to the Patriots. Not even a question.No. He would not screw a trade partner.
A player not being traded obviously doesn't mean a trade wasn't discussed. Again, this is obvious.Of course I do. HE WASNT TRADED.
It's not a question of "evidence," it was what was roundly reported, including by credible sources such as Schefter. The reason it didn't happen was provided by Schefter. You don't believe this, which is fine, but pretending you know definitively what he reported didn't occur is silly.And there is zero evidence that is the case. If it was in place and didnt happen a reason would be known.
I listed all the facts. You have yet to list a single one. Not a single one.
Unlikely that the Patriots put five TEs on the roster.
Not at the expense of screwing a trade partner, no he wouldn’t make ANY move he deemed beneficial.It's not a matter of "screwing a trade partner." Belichick would make any move he deemed beneficial to the Patriots. Not even a question.
Moving the goal posts again? Now the trade was “discussed”?A player not being traded obviously doesn't mean a trade wasn't discussed. Again, this is obvious.
It's not a question of "evidence," it was what was roundly reported, including by credible sources such as Schefter. The reason it didn't happen was provided by Schefter. You don't believe this, which is fine, but pretending you know definitively what he reported didn't occur is silly.
I listed facts. The conclusion only requires common sense.You have "listed" nothing but your own speculations on what happened. Again, you're welcome to do that, as long as you know you're merely speculating.