Brady Mad at White House...? Thoughts?

[Coffeedrinker]

I would say that if Brady is not going because he disagrees with the President and his policies then good for him.  If that is the case, the only "knock" I would give him is it's too bad he didn't just say that.  If he's not going because he has a previous family commitment then again good for him.  Presidents come and go, family is forever.

[jet1968]

^{I'm mad at the White House also. I was in 2001, 2003 and 2004 as well. The only reason anyone would seek election into the presidency is for power and greed.}

[gacker65]

If I was Brady, I would have had a Family Commitment, as well. Choice; waste day with Prez or waste day with my uber hot wife.  To me, it's a no brainer, spend time with wife.

[Superman]

I will agree that I have no knowledge of whether Brady acknowledged the President privately via a phone call & yes, it is possible that Tom did indeed do that & if so, he is not required to disclose that fact publicly. 

 

Regarding your second bolded point. The Presidency is bigger than 1 individual who currently sits in the Oval Office. Disliking 1 particular person says more about the pettiness of the person who is absent than the current Commander-In-Chief. Let me phrase it this way, I can't stand Dick Cheney's guts, former VP of the United States, but if George W. Bush invited a team I was on that won a SB I'm going to the White House because of the honor, my teammates, & the leader of the free world extended the invitation. Despite my extreme animosity toward Mr. Cheney, I'm a big enough man to set that aside for the sake of my coaches & comrades that pulled off a remarkable feat: Winning a 4th Championship for my city, my owner, & my fanbase. 

 

It does matter Superman showing up at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue or 1 call at least because of the magnitude of who invited you to tag along. Frankly, it bothers me that some are treating this absence like deciding not to go to a Jr. Prom. It's the President Of The United States. You arrive in a suit, smile, stand still for the picture, shake his hand, & leave. I could care less if a person likes the President or not; You bury your contempt & you appreciate the gravity of the situation in our nation's house. I truly believe that. 

 

I'm not upset with you Superman. I just have a different perspective than you do regarding this matter which is perfectly fine. 

 

There are a lot of different things to consider. We've gone back and forth enough already, so I won't go into all of them, but I'll say this:

 

If you think honoring the invitation is just the right thing to do, that's fine. I can dig that. I'm just saying I don't think anyone should be pressured by societal norms into doing something that they don't want to do, specifically when it's not required of them and it holds no real consequence. Brady considered the invitation and the circumstances, and elected not to go. That's his right. To me, it doesn't matter what you or I think of it. 

[Superman]

Hey,  I didn't like what Smith said about Chip Kelly.    I thought it was cheap and I thought he was cowardly to not own up to it.

 

With the Chip Kelly thing, I think there was a point to be made. Like you, I think it was cowardly of Smith to not stand by his point, and because he didn't, I think the point was lost on a lot of people.

 

Looking at the Desean Jackson situation and comparing it with the Riley Cooper situation, I can understand the criticism of Chip Kelly. That raises some questions, to me. Not that I think Kelly needs to defend every action he and his team take, but if you have a problem with Jackson to the extent that you get rid of him, then why is Cooper still on the team? I think that's a valid question.

 

I'm not accusing Kelly of being a racist. And what Smith said was clumsy (surprise!), and then he shirked away from it, making it even worse. But I don't think his point was invalid. 

[NewColtsFan]

With the Chip Kelly thing, I think there was a point to be made. Like you, I think it was cowardly of Smith to not stand by his point, and because he didn't, I think the point was lost on a lot of people.

 

Looking at the Desean Jackson situation and comparing it with the Riley Cooper situation, I can understand the criticism of Chip Kelly. That raises some questions, to me. Not that I think Kelly needs to defend every action he and his team take, but if you have a problem with Jackson to the extent that you get rid of him, then why is Cooper still on the team? I think that's a valid question.

 

I'm not accusing Kelly of being a racist. And what Smith said was clumsy (surprise!), and then he shirked away from it, making it even worse. But I don't think his point was invalid. 

 

Odd day to be discussing/debating Chip Kelly.

 

Desean Jackson was viewed as a major problem in the locker-room.    And an on-going problem.

 

Riley Cooper,  to the best of my knowledge,  was not a problem in the locker-room up until the video surfaced.

 

So,  does a one-time racist rant from a guy who was drunk off his rear,  amount to an offense so terrible that the team has to let him go?

 

Remember,  it was guys like Michael Vick who led the argument to keep Cooper.   

 

I think Cooper had just signed a new 5/25 contract....   getting rid of him would've been a big hit for the Eagles,  to say nothing about losing a very good player.

 

I think to boil it down as some have (not you) to Kelly got rid of Desean Jackson, (and LeSean McCoy)  but he kept Riley Cooper, so he's racist,  is a big over simplification....

 

I think there are more layers to it than just race.....

[dgambill]

You are aware that the FBI can personally verify Tom Brady's address in minutes before they hand the President the phone right? You're focusing too much on First Lady trivial stuff as opposed what legislation gets passed, what treaties get signed, watershed events that shape society during certain eras, & how during traumatic disasters Presidents serve as a figure head for the country itself. Granted, not every tragedy is properly handled by specific commander-in-chiefs, but please don't twist minor fashion trends or bathing rituals of the First Lady with the real pressure on Presidents to balance the federal budget, preserve peace abroad, & keep US civilians safe.

 

I understand your point dgb about tabloid nonsense & you're not wrong, but as a historian I look deep below superficial matters & focus on what really matters in the longrun.   

This is a photo op...not everything the president does is a watershed moment....its meant to get the President (any) in front of the camera and look relatable to the avg joe like they follow sports too and it allows the President to monopolize on someone elses success. Its trivial and meaningless....not just to me but obviously Tom and many others before him. Like I said this isn't honoring a citizenship award or honoring a vet or signing a treaty as you seem to mention (and it wasn't the first lady but some crazy youtube lady that loves to bath in milk and cereal) its a photo op. It isn't even minorly significant. I would consider a selfie with my breakfast this morning just as important as a photo with the President for winning a ball game. I can separate a President from his job and what he does on a public level from a President getting a bite at a McDonalds or standing next to the NE Patriots or whatever college or professional team photo op. It isn't dignified to me...its simply a photo op. As for this....it is EXACTLY superficial...and thus Brady not showing up is exactly meaningless. We all respect the office of the president (even if we don't respect the man or woman themself) but that doesn't mean every little thing they do while in the office is presidential. 

[Dustin]

I can't believe this is still a thing. He's not obligated to go. He had prior family arrangements.

[Superman]

Odd day to be discussing/debating Chip Kelly.

 

Desean Jackson was viewed as a major problem in the locker-room.    And an on-going problem.

 

Riley Cooper,  to the best of my knowledge,  was not a problem in the locker-room up until the video surfaced.

 

So,  does a one-time racist rant from a guy who was drunk off his rear,  amount to an offense so terrible that the team has to let him go?

 

Remember,  it was guys like Michael Vick who led the argument to keep Cooper.   

 

I think Cooper had just signed a new 5/25 contract....   getting rid of him would've been a big hit for the Eagles,  to say nothing about losing a very good player.

 

I think to boil it down as some have (not you) to Kelly got rid of Desean Jackson, (and LeSean McCoy)  but he kept Riley Cooper, so he's racist,  is a big over simplification....

 

I think there are more layers to it than just race.....

 

It's not that he's racist. And yes, there are other factors. But the rumors surrounding the Jackson release were that the Eagles (read: Chip Kelly) didn't like some of the people he had been around. I don't think "Jackson is a problem in the locker room" was an actual thing, not until people started to catch on to the idea that the Eagles were going to release him. At the end of the day, I think it all boiled down to Kelly just wasn't really about Jackson, and they released him. There didn't ever prove to be anything to the idea that he was gang affiliated, that he was a problem in the locker room, that he was insubordinate, etc.

 

According to Kelly, it was purely a football decision. I'm not sure I believe that. Sal Paolantonio said there were questions about work ethic and attitude, and NJ.com said the affiliations were a factor. http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/10688873/desean-jackson-released-philadelphia-eagles

 

Then the Riley Cooper incident happened. You have -- on video -- one of your players making overtly racist comments in an aggressive manner. And then, 8 months later, they re-signed him to a long-term deal. (Yes, that's correct. The video was before the contract. Had they cut him when the video came out, it would have cost them $43K in cap penalties. http://ftw.usatoday.com/2013/07/eagles-receiver-riley-cooper-uses-racial-slur-at-a-kenny-chesney-concert || http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/10525168/philadelphia-eagles-give-riley-cooper-jason-kelce-new-contracts)I'm not the kind of person to call for someone to lose their job because they do something I don't like, but Ray Rice lost his after one video where he did something stupid, when he was probably drunk, so that's not really an excuse that anyone can hide behind. I digress...

 

So they released Jackson, for whatever reason. A clearly superior player, by the way. Then they re-signed Cooper, after his racist rant (I'm not calling Cooper racist, but what he said was unacceptable, to say the least). That's an eyebrow-raising sequence of events. And that by itself is enough for someone to say:  'Hold on, in July, Riley Cooper said what he said, and in February, they gave him $10m guaranteed. But Desean Jackson was enough of a problem for them to release him outright? Something smells.' 

 

And I wish someone other than Stephen A. Smith or Jason Whitlock had said this. They are both ridiculous, and have been accused of "race baiting" on several occasions, and it's probably true. But I think the difference in how the Eagles handled Riley Cooper versus how they handled Desean Jackson deserves to be questioned, on its merits.

 

To the bolded, absolutely. At least, this topic.

[amfootball]

It's not that he's racist. And yes, there are other factors. But the rumors surrounding the Jackson release were that the Eagles (read: Chip Kelly) didn't like some of the people he had been around. I don't think "Jackson is a problem in the locker room" was an actual thing, not until people started to catch on to the idea that the Eagles were going to release him. At the end of the day, I think it all boiled down to Kelly just wasn't really about Jackson, and they released him. There didn't ever prove to be anything to the idea that he was gang affiliated, that he was a problem in the locker room, that he was insubordinate, etc.

 

According to Kelly, it was purely a football decision. I'm not sure I believe that. Sal Paolantonio said there were questions about work ethic and attitude, and NJ.com said the affiliations were a factor. http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/10688873/desean-jackson-released-philadelphia-eagles

 

Then the Riley Cooper incident happened. You have -- on video -- one of your players making overtly racist comments in an aggressive manner. And then, 8 months later, they re-signed him to a long-term deal. (Yes, that's correct. The video was before the contract. Had they cut him when the video came out, it would have cost them $43K in cap penalties. http://ftw.usatoday.com/2013/07/eagles-receiver-riley-cooper-uses-racial-slur-at-a-kenny-chesney-concert || http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/10525168/philadelphia-eagles-give-riley-cooper-jason-kelce-new-contracts)I'm not the kind of person to call for someone to lose their job because they do something I don't like, but Ray Rice lost his after one video where he did something stupid, when he was probably drunk, so that's not really an excuse that anyone can hide behind. I digress...

 

So they released Jackson, for whatever reason. A clearly superior player, by the way. Then they re-signed Cooper, after his racist rant (I'm not calling Cooper racist, but what he said was unacceptable, to say the least). That's an eyebrow-raising sequence of events. And that by itself is enough for someone to say:  'Hold on, in July, Riley Cooper said what he said, and in February, they gave him $10m guaranteed. But Desean Jackson was enough of a problem for them to release him outright? Something smells.' 

 

And I wish someone other than Stephen A. Smith or Jason Whitlock had said this. They are both ridiculous, and have been accused of "race baiting" on several occasions, and it's probably true. But I think the difference in how the Eagles handled Riley Cooper versus how they handled Desean Jackson deserves to be questioned, on its merits.

 

To the bolded, absolutely. At least, this topic.

Jackson had issues with Andy Reid as well, http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/11/13/andy-reid-told-desean-jackson-to-stay-home/

 

He has always been viewed as a diva, me-first guy. That was his rep before Kelly ever came along. You add to that the money he was making and Kelly released him. As you know, I think Kelly made a HUGE mistake letting Jackson go from a football stand point but to insinuate race is beyond ludicrous ... to me anyways. Riley Cooper was a one time incident in which he apologized and his teammates welcomed him back. And to compare that to what Ray Rice did is again ridiculous with a capital R. A racial slur versus knocking your finance cold is not even remotely in the same ball park. You are really, really stretching here.

[NewColtsFan]

It's not that he's racist. And yes, there are other factors. But the rumors surrounding the Jackson release were that the Eagles (read: Chip Kelly) didn't like some of the people he had been around. I don't think "Jackson is a problem in the locker room" was an actual thing, not until people started to catch on to the idea that the Eagles were going to release him. At the end of the day, I think it all boiled down to Kelly just wasn't really about Jackson, and they released him. There didn't ever prove to be anything to the idea that he was gang affiliated, that he was a problem in the locker room, that he was insubordinate, etc.

 

According to Kelly, it was purely a football decision. I'm not sure I believe that. Sal Paolantonio said there were questions about work ethic and attitude, and NJ.com said the affiliations were a factor. http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/10688873/desean-jackson-released-philadelphia-eagles

 

Then the Riley Cooper incident happened. You have -- on video -- one of your players making overtly racist comments in an aggressive manner. And then, 8 months later, they re-signed him to a long-term deal. (Yes, that's correct. The video was before the contract. Had they cut him when the video came out, it would have cost them $43K in cap penalties. http://ftw.usatoday.com/2013/07/eagles-receiver-riley-cooper-uses-racial-slur-at-a-kenny-chesney-concert || http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/10525168/philadelphia-eagles-give-riley-cooper-jason-kelce-new-contracts)I'm not the kind of person to call for someone to lose their job because they do something I don't like, but Ray Rice lost his after one video where he did something stupid, when he was probably drunk, so that's not really an excuse that anyone can hide behind. I digress...

 

So they released Jackson, for whatever reason. A clearly superior player, by the way. Then they re-signed Cooper, after his racist rant (I'm not calling Cooper racist, but what he said was unacceptable, to say the least). That's an eyebrow-raising sequence of events. And that by itself is enough for someone to say:  'Hold on, in July, Riley Cooper said what he said, and in February, they gave him $10m guaranteed. But Desean Jackson was enough of a problem for them to release him outright? Something smells.' 

 

And I wish someone other than Stephen A. Smith or Jason Whitlock had said this. They are both ridiculous, and have been accused of "race baiting" on several occasions, and it's probably true. But I think the difference in how the Eagles handled Riley Cooper versus how they handled Desean Jackson deserves to be questioned, on its merits.

 

To the bolded, absolutely. At least, this topic.

 

I think there is more to talk about with this....  and I'm always happy to do it....

 

But, if it's OK,  I'd prefer not to do it on draft day.....

 

Perhaps next week?

 

I'm not looking to drop the subject....   just push the "pause" button for a few days...

[Superman]

Jackson had issues with Andy Reid as well, http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/11/13/andy-reid-told-desean-jackson-to-stay-home/

 

He has always been viewed as a diva, me-first guy. That was his rep before Kelly ever came along. You add to that the money he was making and Kelly released him. As you know, I think Kelly made a HUGE mistake letting Jackson go from a football stand point but to insinuate race is beyond ludicrous ... to me anyways. Riley Cooper was a one time incident in which he apologized and his teammates welcomed him back. And to compare that to what Ray Rice did is again ridiculous with a capital R. A racial slur versus knocking your finance cold is not even remotely in the same ball park. You are really, really stretching here.

 

It's not ludicrous at all. What Riley Cooper did/said was overtly racial. To discuss race in connection with the way the team handled him at that time and 8 months later is reasonable. 

 

And I didn't compare what Ray Rice did to what Riley Cooper did. I said that being drunk doesn't excuse what you do. "It's okay, Riley only has aggressive, racist rants when he's had a few too many. He's actually a good guy." If what he did was inexcusable, then being drunk isn't really a mitigating circumstance. 

 

You don't release a good player because two years ago, he had a disciplinary issue with a previous coach. And you don't tell me that you're releasing that player because you don't like his attitude a month after you gave $10m guaranteed to Riley Cooper, and expect me not to question the politics of the situation.

[Superman]

I think there is more to talk about with this....  and I'm always happy to do it....

 

But, if it's OK,  I'd prefer not to do it on draft day.....

 

Perhaps next week?

 

I'm not looking to drop the subject....   just push the "pause" button for a few days...

 

Cool deal.

[dgambill]

It's not ludicrous at all. What Riley Cooper did/said was overtly racial. To discuss race in connection with the way the team handled him at that time and 8 months later is reasonable. 

 

And I didn't compare what Ray Rice did to what Riley Cooper did. I said that being drunk doesn't excuse what you do. "It's okay, Riley only has aggressive, racist rants when he's had a few too many. He's actually a good guy." If what he did was inexcusable, then being drunk isn't really a mitigating circumstance. 

 

You don't release a good player because two years ago, he had a disciplinary issue with a previous coach. And you don't tell me that you're releasing that player because you don't like his attitude a month after you gave $10m guaranteed to Riley Cooper, and expect me not to question the politics of the situation.

I agree that it is disturbing that you keep a guy like Riley on the team but move Deshan but I'm sure this came down to a locker room thing. If he didn't have support in the locker room it couldn't have been done. Obviously the team must have felt good enough about Riley to forgive him for his transgressions and move on and Deshan had ticked off enough over several occassions for them to be happy they moved on. From a purely football stand point Deshan was expendable as they had Maclin who was an identicle type athlete and not another like Cooper the bigger body guy. I can see where people would be concerned though...but I am sure the team leaders and players were involved on how the team moved forward with Riley.

[amfootball]

It's not ludicrous at all. What Riley Cooper did/said was overtly racial. To discuss race in connection with the way the team handled him at that time and 8 months later is reasonable. 

 

And I didn't compare what Ray Rice did to what Riley Cooper did. I said that being drunk doesn't excuse what you do. "It's okay, Riley only has aggressive, racist rants when he's had a few too many. He's actually a good guy." If what he did was inexcusable, then being drunk isn't really a mitigating circumstance. 

 

You don't release a good player because two years ago, he had a disciplinary issue with a previous coach. And you don't tell me that you're releasing that player because you don't like his attitude a month after you gave $10m guaranteed to Riley Cooper, and expect me not to question the politics of the situation.

Who is dismissing anything for being drunk? Drunk or sober, a racial slur versus knocking your fiancé out cold are worlds apart. Not sure how that can be disputed.

 

You assume that Jackson's issues with Reid were the end of it when that may not have been the case. He may have been a headache for Kelly too. The point being is that it is not stretch at all to assume Jackson's attitude with Reid and Kelly were the same. And Kelly never said he released Jackson over his attitude. He said it was a football decision which is pretty much right in step with him also trading McCoy given the size of his contract. He is obviously a coach that believes in his system more so than having elite talent at the skill positions. Again, I don't see how anything of this racially motivated at all. And to your point about wishing other black commentators said something besides Smith and Whitlock, no one else most likely did not step forward because they did not see any racial intent at all.

[Superman]

Who is dismissing anything for being drunk? Drunk or sober, a racial slur versus knocking your fiancé out cold are worlds apart. Not sure how that can be disputed.

 

You assume that Jackson's issues with Reid were the end of it when that may not have been the case. He may have been a headache for Kelly too. The point being is that it is not stretch at all to assume Jackson's attitude with Reid and Kelly were the same. And Kelly never said he released Jackson over his attitude. He said it was a football decision which is pretty much right in step with him also trading McCoy given the size of his contract. He is obviously a coach that believes in his system more so than having elite talent at the skill positions. Again, I don't see how anything of this racially motivated at all. And to your point about wishing other black commentators said something besides Smith and Whitlock, no one else most likely did not step forward because they did not see any racial intent at all.

 

This is what happens when you jump into a discussion between two people without regard for everything that's been said. 

 

From NCF: So,  does a one-time racist rant from a guy who was drunk off his rear,  amount to an offense so terrible that the team has to let him go?

 

And like I said, him being drunk isn't a mitigating circumstance. We're responsible for what we do when we're drunk. If you don't get the Ray Rice analogy, I don't know what to say. If you just want to make a big deal about it because what Rice did is technically worse than what Cooper did, well, that's another conversation. The analogy has nothing to do with the severity of the offense; it's about the excuse being offered.

 

You're doing an awful lot of talking for other people. You don't know what other people thought about what Smith said. After Smith got slapped around by the Internet, who else would want to open their mouth?

 

You're also putting words in my mouth. I don't think you have to be black to see a double standard between how Jackson was handled versus how Cooper was handled, and I didn't suggest that another black commentator should have said something. I said someone other than Smith or Whitlock. 

 

Also, I never said that there was racial intent behind what Kelly did. I said his decision making in this regard is questionable. That doesn't mean he got rid of Jackson and kept Cooper because he's a racist. He did, however, give someone who had recently made racist remarks $10m guaranteed. 

 

You're also talking out of both sides of your mouth. 'Chip Kelly released Jackson for football reasons.' A post before: 'Jackson had attitude issues, it's no surprised he was released.' We don't really know why Jackson was released. If it's for football reasons, why re-sign Cooper and release Jackson, when Jackson is better? If it's for off the field reasons, how is Jackson's "attitude" more of an issue than Cooper's drunken rant?

[NFLfan]

Who is dismissing anything for being drunk? Drunk or sober, a racial slur versus knocking your fiancé out cold are worlds apart. Not sure how that can be disputed.

Come on, AM. That is not what he was trying to say and you know it. You are deliberately twisting his words to make him look bad. I expect that from trolls but not from you.

[amfootball]

This is what happens when you jump into a discussion between two people without regard for everything that's been said. 

 

From NCF: So,  does a one-time racist rant from a guy who was drunk off his rear,  amount to an offense so terrible that the team has to let him go?

 

And like I said, him being drunk isn't a mitigating circumstance. We're responsible for what we do when we're drunk. If you don't get the Ray Rice analogy, I don't know what to say. If you just want to make a big deal about it because what Rice did is technically worse than what Cooper did, well, that's another conversation. The analogy has nothing to do with the severity of the offense; it's about the excuse being offered.

 

You're doing an awful lot of talking for other people. You don't know what other people thought about what Smith said. After Smith got slapped around by the Internet, who else would want to open their mouth?

 

You're also putting words in my mouth. I don't think you have to be black to see a double standard between how Jackson was handled versus how Cooper was handled, and I didn't suggest that another black commentator should have said something. I said someone other than Smith or Whitlock. 

 

Also, I never said that there was racial intent behind what Kelly did. I said his decision making in this regard is questionable. That doesn't mean he got rid of Jackson and kept Cooper because he's a racist. He did, however, give someone who had recently made racist remarks $10m guaranteed. 

 

You're also talking out of both sides of your mouth. 'Chip Kelly released Jackson for football reasons.' A post before: 'Jackson had attitude issues, it's no surprised he was released.' We don't really know why Jackson was released. If it's for football reasons, why re-sign Cooper and release Jackson, when Jackson is better? If it's for off the field reasons, how is Jackson's "attitude" more of an issue than Cooper's drunken rant?

NFC bowed up which is why I have jumped in.

 

Yes, my point was about the offense, not being drunk.

 

I am not talking for other people. No one else said a thing. Perhaps it was because of the way Smith was slapped around because his insinuation was so asinine in the first place.

 

I think you’re the one putting words in here. I never said you had to be black to see a double standard. I said it is a stretch, a big stretch to see racial intent here and then I gave multiple reasons why.

 

No one is talking out of both sides. Kelly said it was football reasons yet Jackson has had a history of behavior issues going back to his previous coach. Cooper has not had other issues other than the one incident of which he apologized for and was welcomed back by his teammates. And in terms of the football side, Cooper cost a lot less money to keep than Jackson.

[radiogirl]

NFC bowed up which is why I have jumped in.

 

Yes, my point was about the offense, not being drunk.

 

I am not talking for other people. No one else said a thing. Perhaps it was because of the way Smith was slapped around because his insinuation was so asinine in the first place.

 

I think you’re the one putting words in here. I never said you had to be black to see a double standard. I said it is a stretch, a big stretch to see racial intent here and then I gave multiple reasons why.

 

No one is talking out of both sides. Kelly said it was football reasons yet Jackson has had a history of behavior issues going back to his previous coach. Cooper has not had other issues other than the one incident of which he apologized for and was welcomed back by his teammates. And in terms of the football side, Cooper cost a lot less money to keep than Jackson.

Just stop. Please.

[Superman]

NFC bowed up which is why I have jumped in.

 

Yes, my point was about the offense, not being drunk.

 

To be clear, I don't care that you jumped in. At least try to catch up, though.

 

If someone doesn't think Cooper's rant was cause for dismissal, then it doesn't matter that he was drunk.

 

I am not talking for other people. No one else said a thing. Perhaps it was because of the way Smith was slapped around because his insinuation was so asinine in the first place.

 

Then don't. Don't suggest that no one else saw the irony in the situation if you're not talking for other people. 

 

I think you’re the one putting words in here. I never said you had to be black to see a double standard. I said it is a stretch, a big stretch to see racial intent here and then I gave multiple reasons why.

 

Me: 'I wish someone else had said this besides noted race baiters.'

You: 'Maybe no other black commentator said anything because...' 

 

Stop right there. I didn't say anything about a black commentator. That's either putting words in my mouth, or you should read more carefully.

 

And again with "racial intent," which I never said. I said it's a double standard.

 

No one is talking out of both sides. Kelly said it was football reasons yet Jackson has had a history of behavior issues going back to his previous coach. Cooper has not had other issues other than the one incident of which he apologized for and was welcomed back by his teammates. And in terms of the football side, Cooper cost a lot less money to keep than Jackson.

 

You are, clearly.

 

Pick one or the other. If it's football reasons, explain to me releasing a better player to re-sign a marginal talent. If it's attitude, explain to me how Jackson's so-called attitude issues are worse than Cooper's racist rant.

 

And even if it's a combination of Jackson's contract and his attitude, we still need to reconcile that with the fact that less than a year after Cooper's rant, he was given a long term extension. "We don't want overpaid guys with bad attitudes, but we're okay with overpaid guys who get drunk and use racial slurs in an aggressive manner." 

[GoPats]

Well he wasn't elected for the Pro Bowl in 2002, 2003, and 2006 the years his shoulder had issues. Only 2005 is the year he was injured, but every year they say he is injured after a playoff loss.

 

 

And this is actually untrue.

 

Tom Brady - 2001 4 games, 2004 3 games, 2005 1 game, 2007 3 games, 2009 1 game, 2010 1 game, 2011 ineligible because of Super Bowl, 2012, 2 games, 2013, 2 games, 2014 ineligible because of Super Bowl.

 

17 games total

 

Peyton Manning - 1999 1 game, 2000 1 game, 2002 1 game, 2003 3 games, 2004 2 games, 2005 1 game, 2006 4 games, 2007 1 game, 2008 1 game, 2009 ineligible because of Super Bowl, 2010 1 game, 2012 1 game, 2014 1 game.

 

18 total games. 

 

While Peyton has a 12/13 appearance record, and Tom has a 2/8 appearances. 

 

I understand that not everyone thinks of the Pro Bowl as some big honor like Peyton does. That's fine maybe Tom Brady feels like he has better things to do. But then again unless players move away from that attitude the Pro Bowl will still be what it is.

 

You're correct about him not being named in '02, '03, and '06, but that's why I said I wasn't sure about the specific years/injuries. 

 

 

On the other point... I see what you did on that. But I was referring more to the overall number of playoff games in his career (29, tied with Jerry Rice and second only to Vinatieri, who's played in 30 games, more than anyone else). 

 

That's a lot of "extra" games to play in over the years. Almost two full regular seasons' worth. That was really my only point. Manning and Brady obviously feel different about the Pro Bowl. If I'm being honest, I'm with Tom and think it's a complete waste of time. Name the team but why bother playing the game? It's usually terrible, and I don't want to see my team's players getting hurt for an exhibition. That happened once with us (Robert Edwards, the RB who destroyed his knee and career in "rookie game" back in 1998/1999). 

[amfootball]

To be clear, I don't care that you jumped in. At least try to catch up, though.

 

If someone doesn't think Cooper's rant was cause for dismissal, then it doesn't matter that he was drunk.

 

 

Then don't. Don't suggest that no one else saw the irony in the situation if you're not talking for other people. 

 

 

Me: 'I wish someone else had said this besides noted race baiters.'

You: 'Maybe no other black commentator said anything because...' 

 

Stop right there. I didn't say anything about a black commentator. That's either putting words in my mouth, or you should read more carefully.

 

And again with "racial intent," which I never said. I said it's a double standard.

 

 

You are, clearly.

 

Pick one or the other. If it's football reasons, explain to me releasing a better player to re-sign a marginal talent. If it's attitude, explain to me how Jackson's so-called attitude issues are worse than Cooper's racist rant.

 

And even if it's a combination of Jackson's contract and his attitude, we still need to reconcile that with the fact that less than a year after Cooper's rant, he was given a long term extension. "We don't want overpaid guys with bad attitudes, but we're okay with overpaid guys who get drunk and use racial slurs in an aggressive manner." 

You know I think because Kelly has been so unorthodox this off-season has many folks trying to catch up. Right after Cooper's extension, McCoy was traded and Maclin was not resigned. I think it was all of that together that sparked the racial sentiment if I remember correctly. And as you said, Smith did a terrible job articulating his point. I think it is a very serious thing to accuse someone publicly of racism which is what really irked me about Smith. If you think about, to be racist and be an NFL coach would not jive and said coach would be out of the league in a nanosecond.

 

In terms of the black commentator comment, I did not mean any offense. I only said "black" because Smith and Whitlock are black and typically it is black commentators that comment on racism of this nature. That is not to say that white commentators may not have felt similarly but chose to say nothing. I still believe it is a very big stretch as the football reasons for releasing Jackson and keeping Cooper make sense ... to me anyways.

[Moose Of Woe]

People were practically chasing Tim Thomas with pitchforks for not attending the White House meet n' greet with the POTUS. (For those not familiar, the Bruins goalie a few years ago when they won the Stanley Cup).

 

I didn't blame Thomas for declining and I don't blame Brady, either.

[GwinnettColt]

Steven A Smith is such a filthy racist. My god, he actually pulled the race card on this issue too. 

 

 

ESPN's Steven A. Smith.

"So Tom Brady couldn't attend, huh? So Tom Brady couldn't attend," Smith said on the April 24 edition of First Take. "But was he there in 2001 when George W. Bush was president? Yes. Was he there in 2003 and 2004? I'm not sure about anything, I'm just simply presenting the question because I got a problem with the fact that the franchise quarterback... the face of New England Patriots, the future Hall of Famer and all of this other stuff. Tom Brady can't do anything wrong. He passes gas as perfume, OK. That's how untouchable Tom Brady is but when George W. Bush was president in 2001, 2003, 2004, Tom Brady was there. Tom Brady was there at the White House celebrating."

 

Really? Seriously? 

 

Steven Smith may not believe this, but there are people who do not care for the president....if indeed that was Brady's actual reason for not going.  I turned my back on him and stood at parade rest during the motorcade's passing once when I was in DC.  This is America.  Steven Smith must be obsessed with race.  

[ruksak]

Steven Smith may not believe this, but there are people who do not care for the president....if indeed that was Brady's actual reason for not going.  I turned my back on him and stood at parade rest during the motorcade's passing once when I was in DC.  This is America.  Steven Smith must be obsessed with race.  

It is well known how close Brady is with his parents, I mean they're inexorably tied together in a very upfront manner. I heard it was their 50th wedding anniversary, and that is a profound milestone in a marriage. I'm sure there was a huge, expensive event revolving around it. 

 

If this was the case, I perfectly understand that the President may not be a priority, especially for a man that rubs elbows with the rich, famous, and powerful every other day of his life. I get the sentiment from many that it's disrespectful to the station of President, and even to America, to rebuke an invite to the White House, but there are a number of things I could see myself doing other than going to meet the President. 

[GwinnettColt]

It is well known how close Brady is with his parents, I mean they're inexorably tied together in a very upfront manner. I heard it was their 50th wedding anniversary, and that is a profound milestone in a marriage. I'm sure there was a huge, expensive event revolving around it. 

 

If this was the case, I perfectly understand that the President may not be a priority, especially for a man that rubs elbows with the rich, famous, and powerful every other day of his life. I get the sentiment from many that it's disrespectful to the station of President, and even to America, to rebuke an invite to the White House, but there are a number of things I could see myself doing other than going to meet the President. 

Maybe, but Brady still has a right to either go or decline, even if it's politically incorrect to do so.

[bababooey]

Except his Apple watch shopping was the following day.

Where you been? Been waiting for you on the deflategate thread...