Teams still asking wrong questions at the Combine....

[NewColtsFan]

4 minutes ago, PrincetonTiger said:

Why the hate for a whole state

 

 

   Have relatives who retired there

 

    Just Joshing You

 

Wow!     I just HATE auto-correct.

 

Thanks....     I just fixed it to He Who Shall Not Be Mentioned....   (and I don't mean JM)

 

[PrincetonTiger]

1 minute ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

Wow!     I just HATE auto-correct.

 

Thanks....     I just fixed it to He Who Shall Not Be Mentioned....   (and I don't mean JM)

 

I will not go into all the things it has made me say

[NFLfan]

10 minutes ago, Lucky Colts Fan said:

 

Timeout.  If my current/ex girlfriend/boyfriend/wife/husband/fiance was murdered, and I was accused (but obviously innocent)... I would take HUGE offense to ANYONE suggesting/asking if I MURDERED her/him.

 

ESPECIALLY just to gauge my reaction...

 

 

Put that way, I agree. I still don't believe it is the same as asking questions like those posed to that RB. 

 

In the case of Collins, reports were that he was a person of interest. I may say, "I am so sorry about what happened to your girlfriend. How are you dealing with that? What are your thoughts on folks believing that you may know who did this to her? 

 

His answers to those questions can tell you a lot about him.

[PrincetonTiger]

3 minutes ago, NFLfan said:

 

Put that way, I agree. I still don't believe it is the same as asking questions like those posed to that RB. 

 

In the case of Collins, reports were that he was a person of interest. I may say, "I am so sorry about what happened to your girlfriend. How are you dealing with that? What are your thoughts on folks believing that you may know who did this to her? 

 

His answers to those questions can tell you a lot about him.

If he has good counseling he will not answer at all

[OffensivelyPC]

31 minutes ago, Lucky Colts Fan said:

 

That's exactly what I'm saying.  Why ask that when the investigation speaks for itself?

 

These off-the-wall questions are pointless.

 

It seems like it's more for the entertainment of the interviewer than getting real, tangible results.  You learn more from a persons' history than their reaction to one question...

 

I guess i dont see it as off the wall. It has a basis in fact and i know he wont admit to it if he did it and instead, deny it outright. But these guys have to convince me, if I am a scout interviewing, that I should draft them, without the red flags. So when you throw in potential and real character concerns, I want to be able to have the face to face and see if I buy your story. Because if I dont believe you, i cant sell it to my boss.

[Lucky Colts Fan]

3 minutes ago, NFLfan said:

Put that way, I agree. I still don't believe it is the same as asking questions like those posed to that RB. 

 

In the case of Collins, reports were that he was a person of interest. I may say, "I am so sorry about what happened to your girlfriend. How are you dealing with that? What are your thoughts on folks believing that you may know who did this to her? 

 

His answers to those questions can tell you a lot about him.

 

Yeah, "How are you dealing with that?"  and  "Are you a murderer?"  are night vs day when it comes to questioning someone.

 

This feels like good cop vs bad cop, and somehow a bad cop (or two) got private interviews with NFL prospects.

 

I have a feeling this will always be an issue.

 

[TdungyW/12]

2 hours ago, Lucky Colts Fan said:

 

???  The law that says you can't discriminate against a person for race, gender, sexual orientation, etc.???

 

Please tell me I misunderstand you.

 

Do you think it's OK to refuse to hire a person because they're black, gay, not Christian, etc.?

No I don’t agree with the law that could send someone to jail for saying someone is a boy when the identify with a girl. 

[OffensivelyPC]

38 minutes ago, NFLfan said:

 

I don't see a problem with that question.

 

That is not the same as asking if one's mother is a prostitute or if one's father has committed incest, or what do the player and his significant other like to engage in, etc...

I can agree theres a line.  If it offends the senses, there has to be some nexus between that persons factual history and the evaluation of that person.  Sexual orientation for instance might be  grounded in fact, but its irrelevant to that persons character, unless you are willing to argue gays are a detriment to the game.  

[TdungyW/12]

2 hours ago, Lucky Colts Fan said:

 

???  What's it matter if Guice is actually gay?  A team shouldn't draft him because of it?  Michael Sam "issue"?  What if Andrew Luck came out of the closet tomorrow?  Should the Colts trade/cut him so we don't have an "Andrew Luck Issue" ? ...

 

 

So if a young player is really good at football, but they're gay, they should just quit because they'll never be accepted in an NFL locker room...   and we should all accept it and get the F over it... 

Deal with it .... or don’t come out or say anything. Some people aren’t ready to deal with it. 

 

Or or you can go cry about discrimination and be a distraction and be out of the NFL in a year or two.

[Buck Showalter]

What is your name?

What is your quest?

What is your favorite color?

 

Why can't interviews just be like they were in the days of yore???

 

[Lucky Colts Fan]

5 minutes ago, OffensivelyPC said:

I guess i dont see it as off the wall. It has a basis in fact and i know he wont admit to it if he did it and instead, deny it outright. But these guys have to convince me, if I am a scout interviewing, that I should draft them, without the red flags. So when you throw in potential and real character concerns, I want to be able to have the face to face and see if I buy your story. Because if I dont believe you, i cant sell it to my boss.

 

This is nonsense.  If the prospect is slick, then they fool you, and consequently the owner (your boss).

 

Whereas a different (honest) prospect might get reasonably uncomfortable with the direction of questioning (for good reason) and you tell your boss to pass on a perfectly good prospect.

 

 

Their history will tell you more than a rehearsed answer to an expected question.

[PrincetonTiger]

3 minutes ago, OffensivelyPC said:

I can agree theres a line.  If it offends the senses, there has to be some nexus between that persons factual history and the evaluation of that person.  Sexual orientation for instance might be  grounded in fact, but its irrelevant to that persons character, unless you are willing to argue gays are a detriment to the game.  

Very true

  I am so angry that the NFL has to set out guidelines for these things

[Lucky Colts Fan]

2 minutes ago, TdungyW/12 said:

Deal with it .... or don’t come out or say anything. Some people aren’t ready to deal with it. 

 

Or or you can go cry about discrimination and be a distraction and be out of the NFL in a year or two.

 

Seriously?  That's your message to young gay athletes?

 

Hide yourself or gtho because us old folks aren't ready to deal with you yet?

 

The passage of time is not moving fast enough...

 

[OffensivelyPC]

1 minute ago, Lucky Colts Fan said:

 

This is nonsense.  If the prospect is slick, then they fool you, and consequently the owner (your boss).

 

Whereas a different (honest) prospect might get reasonably uncomfortable with the direction of questioning (for good reason) and you tell your boss to pass on a perfectly good prospect.

 

 

Their history will tell you more than a rehearsed answer to an expected question.

We are just going to have to disagree. You seem to be juxtaposing 2 completely opposite results and creating no room for anything in between. I think an interview gives color to the historical context and with ALL that information, you make your best judgment. Thats all anyone can do.

 

But to act like on the one hand, an interview means your only options are the slick liar or the nervous honest kid, and on the other hand, a historical report settles all known questions with a pretty bow on top is, to me, unrealistic.

 

Prospect evaluation is not such a simple formula.

[Lucky Colts Fan]

Just now, OffensivelyPC said:

We are just going to have to disagree. You seem to be juxtaposing 2 completely opposite results and creating no room for anything in between. I think an interview gives color to the historical context and with ALL that information, you make your best judgment. Thats all anyone can do.

 

But to act like on the one hand, an interview means your only options are the slick liar or the nervous honest kid, and on the other hand, a historical report settles all known questions with a pretty bow on top is, to me, unrealistic.

 

Prospect evaluation is not such a simple formula.

 

Fair enough.  I was just giving extreme examples to illustrate my point.  If you think it's worth it to poke and prod a specimen to make sure it's qualified, whatever.

 

Just try to remember that these are human beings.  With easily-checked backgrounds, considering the NFLs' resources.

 

We all draw our own lines in the sand.  Just put yourself in their shoes and have some perspective.

[Lucky Colts Fan]

24 minutes ago, TdungyW/12 said:

Deal with it .... or don’t come out or say anything. Some people aren’t ready to deal with it. 

 

Or or you can go cry about discrimination and be a distraction and be out of the NFL in a year or two.

 

So you're asking the gay athlete to "deal with it" so that you don't have to...

 

Maybe YOU should be less SENSITIVE about a gay NFL player, and DEAL with it.

 

Stop being SOFT.  It's not like he's going to try to grope your gross old butt.

 

You and your gay prostitute mother have no power here.

[Lucky Colts Fan]

Let's be serious about this.  A trained psychologist is going to be much more effective at asking these kinds of pointed questions than some team-scout.  Just make it a part of the examination; you get weighed, measured, and then you see a shrink.

 

As @BOTT pointed out, it was probably some over-promoted meatheads that asked these stupidly-worded questions.

 

Just leave this stuff to the professionals, make it a part of the process, and we can all move on without getting offended.

 

[TdungyW/12]

1 hour ago, Lucky Colts Fan said:

 

Seriously?  That's your message to young gay athletes?

 

Hide yourself or gtho because us old folks aren't ready to deal with you yet?

 

The passage of time is not moving fast enough...

 

I don’t have a message to young gay athletes .... i don’t get a say in anything I personally can deal with gay, my cousin and good friend are gay i don’t have a problem with it. I don’t agree with it but I don’t look down on hem. The people in the locker room and interviewers have a message to young gay athletes so go harp on them.

[TdungyW/12]

46 minutes ago, Lucky Colts Fan said:

 

So you're asking the gay athlete to "deal with it" so that you don't have to...

 

Maybe YOU should be less SENSITIVE about a gay NFL player, and DEAL with it.

 

Stop being SOFT.  It's not like he's going to try to grope your gross old butt.

 

You and your gay prostitute mother have no power here.

Lol seriously how do “I” have to deal with it? 

 

I dont have to be sensitive to anything anything if I don’t chose to be .... that’s my choice. Quit trying to force your ways on to others .... sensitivity is the reason this world is full of p____! ( kitty cat! ) go complain somewhere else cause I don’t care. 

[crazycolt1]

After reading all these comments all I can say is this is entertaining.  Or is it?

[Lucky Colts Fan]

1 hour ago, TdungyW/12 said:

I don’t have a message to young gay athletes

Yes you do.  "Deal with it"  You've said it multiple times already.

 

58 minutes ago, TdungyW/12 said:

I dont have to be sensitive to anything anything if I don’t chose to be

 

 

Choosing to be insensitive is in itself sensitivity.  You are OVERLY sensitive about this topic.

 

[Lucky Colts Fan]

1 hour ago, TdungyW/12 said:

i don’t have a problem with it. I don’t agree with it

 

 

If you don't agree with it, then you have a problem with it.

 

Are the two sides of your brain arguing with each other?

[Yoshinator]

8 hours ago, Lucky Colts Fan said:

 

???  What's it matter if Guice is actually gay?  A team shouldn't draft him because of it?  Michael Sam "issue"?  What if Andrew Luck came out of the closet tomorrow?  Should the Colts trade/cut him so we don't have an "Andrew Luck Issue" ? ...

 

 

So if a young player is really good at football, but they're gay, they should just quit because they'll never be accepted in an NFL locker room...   and we should all accept it and get the F over it... 

I could care less if he's gay personally. However, on any team, even our precious Indy Colts, it would create a locker room and enviornment problem. I guarantee you not only are there homophobic players on every team, but the majority of teams aren't going to want an openly gay player showering with them and changing with them. I don't personally know if Guice is gay, but after this media debacle, pretty much every player will think he is. That will harm his career unfortunately, as he is probably off some teams draft boards now.

[BOTT]

6 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

 

Well.....

 

I think that's because of the NFL now moving the location of the draft every year....

 

From New York,  to Chicago,   to Philly,   to Dallas and who knows where else.

 

I think Florio is trying to connect those dots and, all things considered,  it doesn't seem unreasonable.

 

Especially since the NFL is trying to monitize everything and gete cities into a bidding war for these events....

 

P.S. -- I hate defending Florio.     I am NOT a fan....

 

I agree it's not unreasonable to predict such a move, it's just the fact that it comes from Florio......

[BOTT]

4 hours ago, Lucky Colts Fan said:

Let's be serious about this.  A trained psychologist is going to be much more effective at asking these kinds of pointed questions than some team-scout.  Just make it a part of the examination; you get weighed, measured, and then you see a shrink.

 

As @BOTT pointed out, it was probably some over-promoted meatheads that asked these stupidly-worded questions.

 

Just leave this stuff to the professionals, make it a part of the process, and we can all move on without getting offended.

 

Don't know if this has been pointed out, but having a trained psychologist sit down with the player is exactly what the colts did under bill Polian.  I don't know if they have continued that practice since he left, but it would be smart to do so.

[will426]

A lot of people commenting sound stupid lol regardless of if it’s to see how you react what does someone’s sexuality or thier mother being a prostitute have to do with football the person asking is just being an *** and disrespectful period end of story., those of you justifying it and saying oh they’re being a wuss  sound just as *ic as the people asking the questions 

[LJpalmbeacher2]

Yes it should be video taped. And players encouraged to come forward who are asked these ridiculous insulting questions.  Anyone asking a "do not ask question" should be Fired and permanently banned from nfl. Teams should be heavily penalized monetarily AND Lose draft picks.

 

These kids have enough pressure on them already to do well at combine WITHOUT INSULTING them in interviews.

[crazycolt1]

2 hours ago, LJpalmbeacher2 said:

Yes it should be video taped. And players encouraged to come forward who are asked these ridiculous insulting questions.  Anyone asking a "do not ask question" should be Fired and permanently banned from nfl. Teams should be heavily penalized monetarily AND Lose draft picks.

 

These kids have enough pressure on them already to do well at combine WITHOUT INSULTING them in interviews.

So a team needs severe punishment for an * asking a question? 

[PrincetonTiger]

3 minutes ago, crazycolt1 said:

So a team needs severe punishment for an * asking a question? 

If they represent a team yes

[jskinnz]

8 minutes ago, crazycolt1 said:

So a team needs severe punishment for an * asking a question? 

 

Yes.  Simple as that.  That is a completely illegal and frankly immoral and unethical question to ask.

[NewColtsFan]

9 minutes ago, crazycolt1 said:

So a team needs severe punishment for an * asking a question? 

 

The team needs to be punished for violating NFL policy.    Teams can't be allowed to ask whatever they want.

 

There are rules in place to protect everyone for a reason.   Teams can't ignore that if they want.

[crazycolt1]

9 minutes ago, PrincetonTiger said:

If they represent a team yes

 

4 minutes ago, jskinnz said:

 

Yes.  Simple as that.  That is a completely illegal and frankly immoral and unethical question to ask.

 

2 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

The team needs to be punished for violating NFL policy.    Teams can't be allowed to ask whatever they want.

 

There are rules in place to protect everyone for a reason.   Teams can't ignore that if they want.

I think firing the person asking the question should be enough. It wouldn't be the teams fault if the * ask the question after he was warned.

[jskinnz]

1 minute ago, crazycolt1 said:

 

 

I think firing the person asking the question should be enough. It wouldn't be the teams fault if the * ask the question after he was warned.

 

Whoever asked the question did so as representative of Team X.  How the league will handle is to be seen but teams have been warned and still this happened - the league would be well within their rights to punish the offending team in a variety of ways.

[PrincetonTiger]

2 minutes ago, crazycolt1 said:

 

 

I think firing the person asking the question should be enough. It wouldn't be the teams fault if the * ask the question after he was warned.

The team is responsible 

[crazycolt1]

3 minutes ago, jskinnz said:

 

Whoever asked the question did so as representative of Team X.  How the league will handle is to be seen but teams have been warned and still this happened - the league would be well within their rights to punish the offending team in a variety of ways.

 

2 minutes ago, PrincetonTiger said:

The team is responsible 

Maybe a fine but taking draft picks away goes too far.

If the person ask questions they were instructed not to ask it's not the teams fault. To have such extreme penalties on the team who instructed the person properly from that point on it's out of their hands.

There is not a one of us who hasn't put their foot in their mouth at one time or another.

[PrincetonTiger]

1 minute ago, crazycolt1 said:

 

Maybe a fine but taking draft picks away goes too far.

If the person ask questions they were instructed not to ask it's not the teams fault. To have such extreme penalties on the team who instructed the person properly from that point on it's out of their hands.

There is not a one of us who hasn't put their foot in their mouth at one time or another.

It is the teams fault and responsibility 

[crazycolt1]

1 minute ago, PrincetonTiger said:

It is the teams fault and responsibility 

I don't agree.

But let's just agree to disagree.

[NewColtsFan]

18 hours ago, Jared Cisneros said:

I could care less if he's gay personally. However, on any team, even our precious Indy Colts, it would create a locker room and enviornment problem. I guarantee you not only are there homophobic players on every team, but the majority of teams aren't going to want an openly gay player showering with them and changing with them. I don't personally know if Guice is gay, but after this media debacle, pretty much every player will think he is. That will harm his career unfortunately, as he is probably off some teams draft boards now.

 

Oh Dear God.....

 

You just couldn't help yourself.

 

Almost everything you wrote here......      is wrong.

 

Let's take it step by step.....   line by line...

 

First,  who said aything about openly gay?       No one.      You brought it up.

 

Two,   this is 2018,  teams and players are a little more sophisticated than this...     an openly gay person is not going to have a problem as long as he doesn't hit on players in the locker-room.    Openly gay doesn't mean flaming or a queen.   It only means it's not a secret.     

 

Three,   there is a better than 50-50 chance that there is one gay person in most every locker-room.     The gay populaton is 4 percent.     That's 13 million Americans.      So, having one person in a locker-room of roughly 65 is still quite possible.     So,  there might be 15-25 gay players in the NFL.     They keep to themselves.    Players know they are likely already showering with gay players.    As long as people behave,  there's no problem.

 

Four,   homophobic players know not to make trouble in a locker-room.  Richie Incognito is more the exception than the rule.     They don't cause trouble as long as they're not bothered by someone who might be gay.     And a gay player is not going to bother a homophobic player.  

 

Five,   there was NO MEDIA DEBACLE.    No one in the media asked a wrong question.    And Guice didn't do anything wrong with his answer.      So,  no debacle.     The only problem was the team that asked the question.   So there is no debacle.     Do you understand?

 

Six,   Nobody is going to think Guice is gay.   It was Guice himself who brought up the subject.   Players will be shaking their heads that the team asked such bizarre questions.   Guice is a player.   He wouldn't be willing to say it if he thought it would blow up on him.    

 

Seven,    Guice's career is fine.    He is not going to be hurt.   He's a possible first round pick.   And if he doesn't go in the first,  he'll be taken in the first half of the 2nd round.    Would you care to bet that Guice doesn't fall below 50?    He's fine.    To most everyone,   this is a NON-STORY.    The only people who care about this story are (A) the team that asked the stupid questions, and (B)  the NFL,  who has told all 32 teams to STOP ASKING THESE QUESTIONS!

 

 

The only sentence you wrote that's fine,  is the first one.     That you don't care if someone is gay.    Otherwise,  this was a trainwreck.    You keep running full speed into walls. 

 

[NewColtsFan]

15 minutes ago, crazycolt1 said:

 

Maybe a fine but taking draft picks away goes too far.

If the person ask questions they were instructed not to ask it's not the teams fault. To have such extreme penalties on the team who instructed the person properly from that point on it's out of their hands.

There is not a one of us who hasn't put their foot in their mouth at one time or another.

 

Odds are high if the question was asked,  it didn't just come from one person in the room.    Odds are the GM knew it was going to be asked.     These sessions are 15 minutes long.    Every minute counts.   A GM is not going to have his time wasted with off-the-wall questions.    He knows what he wants asked in his time.   If the question was asked,  odds are high the GM has signed off on it.     Someone else in the room did NOT go rogue.     The GM is the boss,  he's responsible.    The buck stops there.

 

[jskinnz]

16 minutes ago, crazycolt1 said:

 

Maybe a fine but taking draft picks away goes too far.

If the person ask questions they were instructed not to ask it's not the teams fault. To have such extreme penalties on the team who instructed the person properly from that point on it's out of their hands.

There is not a one of us who hasn't put their foot in their mouth at one time or another.

 

Let me ask this question.  Should Guice decide to take legal action, do you think his suit would be against John Doe or against the team John Doe works for?