RECAP: T.O. sitting down with Screamin' A. Smith *Merge*

[Bleu Star]

I believe I saved myself from that one with my previous post.

Yessir you did.

 

[dcfanatic]

1. Before Werder's report, Calvin Hill reported that TO led the groups of receivers in to ***** to Garrett. I think it's pretty much confirmed that this isn't how it happened. Multiple people have come out and said Garrett called the meetings. Calvin Hill himself even said that it's likely true that Garrett called the meetings, because he was only reporting what he heard from other people who probably didn't know how exactly the meeting came about.

Garrett called the meeting because he saw T.O's outburst in the Steelers game.

[youtube]9sIqUc5Prdo[/youtube]

2. Next, there's what I'll call the "conspiracy quote." We'll never know if TO actually said he thinks that Witten and Romo are secretly meeting and drawing up plays, but the idea that he actually thought that just seems silly. This isn't a national security issue. If TO said it, he should know exactly who he said it to. But apparently he doesn't and all we have are Werder's anonymous sources.

Well T.O. admitted today he thinks the sources exist, but he thinks they were lying to Werder and that maybe Werder knew they were lying and just went with it anyway. Right?

3. There's the problem of Werder claiming that Bradie James's quotes back up his story. Quite simply that's just a gross exaggeration. Bradie makes a general comment about him being a peace maker when things heat up in the locker room. He doesn't refer to TO or anyone else. He doesn't refer to this past week. He just makes a general statement that in the past there have been times where he, considering himself a leader on the team, takes on the peacemaker role.

I don't know. Werder kind of explained this by saying that Brady said the fires were always there, but that he is insinuating in the article that he only steps in when the fires are blazing. Who knows. Bradie should have relayed more info on this if he felt he was not being protrayed properly in the article.

4. The supposed altercation in practice. Everyone denies this.

No, T.O. admitted this today that he basically told Witten 'not to talk to him about it anymore' while he was peeved Friday. Maybe it wasn't an 'altercation' but words were exchanged so Archer wasn't making it up.

So, in the end, we come down to all that we know happened is that Jason Garrett called a meeting with his receivers. That's it.

 

[Oldschool7]

Measure of a man: do you make those around you better or worse?

Or in TO's case do you drag them into the gutter with you and throw gasoline on them?

 

[bbgun]

To Panch and bbgun: So... Do you guys also discount the continuous downfield blocking he does every single game religiously? Often times, it's his downfield blocking that springs the long runs for our RBs.

I already cited his hustle in the Green Bay game. We're talking about him moping after wins in which he was not a factor. BTW, isn't blocking part of the job description? Why praise him for doing something so banal?

He takes pride in doing that and often celebrates with the RBs when they score. What's that all about?

Must be an imposter out there, 'cause I don't see it. Teammates rush to congratulate him, not the other way around. Got a pic of him hugging Choice or Cricket the other night?

 

[Oldschool7]

Measure of a man: do you accept the truth when it's hard.

A spoiled 4 year old can accept the truth when it favors him. Accepting it when it's hard--that takes a man.

 

[Oldschool7]

Measure of a man: Do you do what's right when it isn't convenient?

 

[dcfanatic]

And oh yeah.

Stephen A. tripped me up today when he said 'this week' which is why I thought this was done late last week.

But T.O. said Jerry called him today to say sorry for not attending his Bday party last night.

Why SAS uses this week I don't know. Maybe he's confused.

 

[dcfanatic]

The interview was done on SATURDAY(a day before our game, of course).

While I agree with you, just to clarify-the interview DIDN'T take place after the game.

NO, thsi was done today.

SAS is just stupid and says this week when he should have said last week.

 

[theogt]

He was pretty stone-faced at the end of the Green Bay game too--a game that we won (due in large part to his hustle) but also a game in which he was shut down offensively. It's all about his numbers; winning is incidental. We won the Cincy game, but that didn't satiate his lust for more and more passes thrown his way. Nor was he exactly running free in that game. Likewise, when someone not named TO scores, you don't see him racing down the field to join in the celebration. Then again, what do you expect from a narcissist with a persecution complex?

Not quite a screen cap like yours, but it serves the purpose.

http://img257.*************/img257/2125/toka4.jpg

Maybe Bigg game him a wet willy.

 

[bbgun]

Maybe Bigg game him a wet willy.

Calvin Hill came over and engaged him. Prior to that, it was mope city.

 

[theogt]

1. Before Werder's report, Calvin Hill reported that TO led the groups of receivers in to ***** to Garrett. I think it's pretty much confirmed that this isn't how it happened. Multiple people have come out and said Garrett called the meetings. Calvin Hill himself even said that it's likely true that Garrett called the meetings, because he was only reporting what he heard from other people who probably didn't know how exactly the meeting came about.

Garrett called the meeting because he saw T.O's outburst in the Steelers game.

You're misquoting Michael. He said that "I guess because he saw the outburst..." He didn't say TO said it was because of the outburst or that TO even said anything about an outburst.

2. Next, there's what I'll call the "conspiracy quote." We'll never know if TO actually said he thinks that Witten and Romo are secretly meeting and drawing up plays, but the idea that he actually thought that just seems silly. This isn't a national security issue. If TO said it, he should know exactly who he said it to. But apparently he doesn't and all we have are Werder's anonymous sources.

Well T.O. admitted today he thinks the sources exist, but he thinks they were lying to Werder and that maybe Werder knew they were lying and just went with it anyway. Right?

Right. I don't doubt that someone said it to Werder. But for Werder to take it at face value is just stupid. The quote is bizarre. It's tinfoil hat stuff. You have to go back that up before you report it. If you're just willing to run anything, it shows you're just trying to stir the pot.

3. There's the problem of Werder claiming that Bradie James's quotes back up his story. Quite simply that's just a gross exaggeration. Bradie makes a general comment about him being a peace maker when things heat up in the locker room. He doesn't refer to TO or anyone else. He doesn't refer to this past week. He just makes a general statement that in the past there have been times where he, considering himself a leader on the team, takes on the peacemaker role.

I don't know. Werder kind of explained this by saying that Brady said the fires were always there, but that he is insinuating in the article that he only steps in when the fires are blazing. Who knows. Bradie should have relayed more info on this if he felt he was not being protrayed properly in the article.

He 100% totally mischaracterized Bradie's quotes. Here's his quote: "Whenever the fire gets blazing, I know,'' James said. "Sometimes, I don't want to step on anybody's toes, but we all talk."

Is he saying a fire was blazing? No. He's just talking in general terms.

4. The supposed altercation in practice. Everyone denies this.

No, T.O. admitted this today that he basically told Witten 'not to talk to him about it anymore' while he was peeved Friday. Maybe it wasn't an 'altercation' but words were exchanged so Archer wasn't making it up.

Again, you're misquoting. He said, "I'm done with it, let's forget it."

You see, you can change quotes around just ever so slightly to make things more inflammatory than they really are.

 

[theogt]

Calvin Hill came over and engaged him. Prior to that, it was mope city.

And it's smiles. During a win. When he didn't put up huge numbers.

I guess you're right, though, he probably is an evil person because he doesn't smile at all times. Good call. LOL.

 

[bbgun]

And it's smiles. During a win. When he didn't put up huge numbers.

And about as authentic as Hitler's diaries.

I guess you're right, though, he probably is an evil person because he doesn't smile at all times. Good call. LOL.

Evil? No. A selfish, attention-starved quarterback-killer who poisons the fabric of every team that indulges his just-give-me-the-damn-ball talents? Oui oui.

 

[theogt]

And about as authentic as Hitler's diaries.



Evil? No. A selfish, attention-starved quarterback-killer who poisons the fabric of every team that indulges his just-give-me-the-damn-ball talents? Oui oui.

Evil...gotcha...because he doesn't smile 24 hours a day.

:laugh1:

 

[bbgun]

Evil...gotcha...because he doesn't smile 24 hours a day.

:laugh1:

"Evil" is your hangup, not mine. Describing TO a whiner and moper is hardly libelous.

 

[theogt]

"Evil" is your hangup, not mine. Describing TO a whiner and moper is hardly libelous.

Going from "he moped" to he's "evil" (my word, yes, but it perfectly sums up your thoughts, so it's appropriate) is hardly sensible.

Bottom line is, he was smiling. It was a win. And he didn't have huge numbers.

 

[bbgun]

Going from "he moped" to he's "evil" (my word, yes, but it perfectly sums up your thoughts, so it's appropriate) is hardly sensible.

Bottom line is, he was smiling. It was a win. And he didn't have huge numbers.

I'll break out "evil" when he burns down an orphanage or something. Until then, I'll stick with "cancerous" and "team-killer"--terms of endearment that have the added benefit of being true. In the meantime, please don't attribute to me controversial words that I never used. It's sleazy and underhanded (even for a barrister) .

 

[theogt]

I'll break out "evil" when he burns down an orphanage or something. Until then, I'll stick with "cancerous" and "team-killer"--terms of endearment that have the added benefit of being true. In the meantime, please don't attribute to me controversial words that I never used. It's sleazy and underhanded (even for a barrister).

It's like you not wanting to use the word "liar." Just because you don't want to use it doesn't mean it's not what you're conveying.

Have a good evening. I'm out.

 

[Hostile]

It's like you not wanting to use the word "liar." Just because you don't want to use it doesn't mean it's not what you're conveying.

Have a good evening. I'm out.

Congrats on reaching 25,000 posts.

I've sure enjoyed a bunch of them. Keep it up.

 

[Oldschool7]

This thread is a talented cluster: Drew Rosenhaus, a few of Jerry's lawyers and Blagovich himself.

Talk about parsing, twisting and spinning. It's a real talent.

Defend. Deny. Blame. Redirect. Play the Martyr. Defame. Repeat as necessary.