DBoys;1139176 said:
This is your point not mine. Players want to win and when they don't, the blame that is known internally is also being expressed externally by media fans etc. So I don't feel your point is the one I am argueing.
So you're saying the internal pressure was as bad or worse than the external pressure?? Because I seem to remember BP saying that the perception that the OL was solely to blame was inaccurate... I think that shows that BP wasn't putting as much pressure on the OL as the fans/media were.
Correct me if I am wrong but you are saying stuff like this doesn't happen right? I am saying it does because I have experienced it first hand. I am not saying it happened in this case but I have my suspicions because it looks the same way.
I'm not saying it "doesn't happen." I'm saying it's rare... Much like ScrewtheHall's point, to find 5 guys conspiring to do something like this is basically unheard of.
And you made a point that the instances you recall something like this happening took place often when the players "didn't like" the player. I have seen no indication that the OL "didn't like" Bledsoe. He wasn't throwing them under the bus or anything... Bledsoe was voted team captain also. I think that's a non-issue.
And what about it looks the same way? I mean Romo has still seen his share of pressure, he's just been able to evade much of it.
I think the OL lost faith in Bledsoe after Philly. Evidence will be tough this stuff usually boils down to opinion unless your in the locker
Good thing is we don't have to worry about Bledsoe anymore.
They seemed to protect him okay in the Houston game. I agree with you that you're not going to hear this stuff unless you're in the lockerroom. But it's still speculation on your part. You really have no evidence, or at least very little evidence, other than your past experiences.
DBoys;1139178 said:
Did I use livelyhood in my comment about you or me playing football? No I said competitive! When it is business people will do anything.
Money, fame and glory will prompt people to do stupid stuff. Your not going to find pee wee kids screwing up on purpose becase they are playing for fun.
I know I used the lovelihood comment first, but later you said...
DBoys said:
I used the livelyhood point to emphasize why someone might do it.
If anything I think the "livelihood issue" is a reason NOT to do it. The instances you speak of where you've seen it, a person's livelihood, or paycheck, wasn't involved, as you've stated. When a paycheck is in the balance, the odds of it happening would become less IMO.