Pretending I Am the GM

[Hostile]

But can the PA find any beef with that (the number and size of fines, and justification thereof) and successfully fight it? Or the league and its marriage to the media, which lives for sound bites and exclusives?

Just wondering. It's a nice idea, but the sports world has changed greatly in the last 15 years, and not for the better.

We fans feed this frenzy. It's not just the athletes that need to change their behavior, IMO.

If I were a player in this day and age I would talk about anything but football.

Ask me about the game, get a response about what book I am reading, what movie I want to see, a song I like, or a food I am craving.

I would literally give the media nothing. It would be a riot watching them scramble to make something out of a comment about Chicken Florentine.

 

[JordanTaber]

Sorry, you're simply wrong.

Teams waive and suspend players all the time because they become distractions. Including your deity in Philly.

The issue I'm addressing is your metaphor, not what course of action teams sometimes take.

 

[JordanTaber]

No one can compare Owens to Newman in terms of distractions. Come on.

You'd say Crayton has. I wouldn't. No one pays attention to Crayton.

Owens interview with Deion was more damaging and inflammatory than all the examples you used put together. It is the genesis of exactly the kind of stuff that has sunk his ship in the past.

What makes you think this? What evidence is there that the interview with Deion did any "damage?"

Hell, that interview barely received any media attention; largely because it took place on NFL Network and ESPN did not want to give attention to a prime competitor (imagine that...business > the story itself). The players have said virtually nothing about that interview.

Instead, what comes up repeatedly is the Ed Werder piece (players frustrated over the apparent "rat" in the locker room); the piece in which Terrell Owens had a total of ZERO quotes.

The issue isn't with Owens's talking, it's with Owens's reputation. They're never going to stop coming up with stuff on him; it doesn't matter if he takes a vow of silence. This year and 2006 proved that.

So if you're worried about ESPN analysts causing the team to lose, you might as well come out and demand that Terrell Owens be cut just because of the fact that they will never let him live down his "past" (which was mostly created by them...but even fewer people realize that).

 

[CF74]

What makes you think this? What evidence is there that the interview with Deion did any "damage?"

Hell, that interview barely received any media attention; largely because it took place on NFL Network and ESPN did not want to give attention to a prime competitor (imagine that...business > the story itself). The players have said virtually nothing about that interview.

Instead, what comes up repeatedly is the Ed Werder piece (players frustrated over the apparent "rat" in the locker room); the piece in which Terrell Owens had a total of ZERO quotes.

The issue isn't with Owens's talking, it's with Owens's reputation. They're never going to stop coming up with stuff on him; it doesn't matter if he takes a vow of silence. This year and 2006 proved that.

So if you're worried about ESPN analysts causing the team to lose, you might as well come out and demand that Terrell Owens be cut just because of the fact that they will never let him live down his "past" (which was mostly created by them...but even fewer people realize that).

You realize not many people care about the facts of the case counselor?

Two things are going to get heat off TO:
1) Winning
2) a vow of silence (But actually being silent.)

He's been trying to defend himself for way to long, it's time to be silent and lead by example. No interviews, no blogs, and no press. "Next question" is to much talking...

 

[the kid 05]

If I were a player in this day and age I would talk about anything but football.

Ask me about the game, get a response about what book I am reading, what movie I want to see, a song I like, or a food I am craving.

I would literally give the media nothing. It would be a riot watching them scramble to make something out of a comment about Chicken Florentine.

after the break we have sports with John Doe
....
Today in sports DE Hostile for the Dallas Cowboys was asked what he thought about the upcoming game versus the New York Giants he responded with "Shrimp is the fruit of the sea. You can barbecue it, boil it, broil it, bake it, sautee it. There's, um, shrimp kebabs, shrimp creole, shrimp gumbo, pan fried, deep fried, stir fried. There's pineapple shrimp and lemon shrimp, coconut shrimp, pepper shrimp, shrimp soup, shrimp stew, shrimp salad, shrimp and potatoes, shrimp burger, shrimp sandwich... That's, that's about it.”

 

[Hostile]

What makes you think this? What evidence is there that the interview with Deion did any "damage?"

Hell, that interview barely received any media attention; largely because it took place on NFL Network and ESPN did not want to give attention to a prime competitor (imagine that...business > the story itself). The players have said virtually nothing about that interview.

Instead, what comes up repeatedly is the Ed Werder piece (players frustrated over the apparent "rat" in the locker room); the piece in which Terrell Owens had a total of ZERO quotes.

The issue isn't with Owens's talking, it's with Owens's reputation. They're never going to stop coming up with stuff on him; it doesn't matter if he takes a vow of silence. This year and 2006 proved that.

So if you're worried about ESPN analysts causing the team to lose, you might as well come out and demand that Terrell Owens be cut just because of the fact that they will never let him live down his "past" (which was mostly created by them...but even fewer people realize that).

Deion Sanders is not an ESPN analyst. He works for the NFL Network.

 

[DallasEast]

What makes you think this? What evidence is there that the interview with Deion did any "damage?"

Hell, that interview barely received any media attention; largely because it took place on NFL Network and ESPN did not want to give attention to a prime competitor (imagine that...business > the story itself). The players have said virtually nothing about that interview.

Instead, what comes up repeatedly is the Ed Werder piece (players frustrated over the apparent "rat" in the locker room); the piece in which Terrell Owens had a total of ZERO quotes.

The issue isn't with Owens's talking, it's with Owens's reputation. They're never going to stop coming up with stuff on him; it doesn't matter if he takes a vow of silence. This year and 2006 proved that.

So if you're worried about ESPN analysts causing the team to lose, you might as well come out and demand that Terrell Owens be cut just because of the fact that they will never let him live down his "past" (which was mostly created by them...but even fewer people realize that).

A guy flicks a cigarette butt out his window.

No biggie.

A couple of days later, news shows are litered with images of an out-of-control wildfire and an underlying question of:

"Just how the heck did this happen???"

Your opinion is that the interview didn't have any plausible side effects because its Nielsen ratings were nonexistent. Unfortunately, you do not address the amount of discussion which took place on NFL Network, ESPN (yes, ESPN), DMN and other sports/news outlets about that particular interview.

If there had not been ANY interview, there would not have been any discussion whatsoever about the interview, which in turn might not have prompted the Ed Werders and anonymous sources of the sensationalized sports/news world to begin their "in-depth Pulitzer investigative reporting" of supposed "inner strife" within the Dallas Cowboys organization.

Do you even understand the basic concept of cause-and-effect and the day-to-day operations of 21st century "news" broadcasting or are you just that naive?