News: Schefter on Dez

[Common Sense]

Actually, yes, it is how it works. I don't care about if they have a source, I want a name and somewhere they can point me to. "Sources" is not credible, same as it wasn't credible during the tape fiasco.

Watergate actually led somewhere. So this is nonsense. It led to evidence. Until evidence is actually provided he has missed that many practices, it's a rumor. Slapping Adam's name next to it does not make it fact.

And I really don't give a damn if you were a former reporter. Saying sources IS NOT credible. You have to provide something, you have to point to where people can see the evidence. "Player said", "My sources said" is NOT CREDIBLE UNLESS IT CAN LEAD YOU TO THE EVIDENCE YOU CAN SEE FOR YOURSELF.

Sorry, but you're completely misinformed. This is how journalism has always worked.

 

[Satchel89]

At this point, I don't care anymore. Dak throws to whoever's open and Butler, Here's your chance. Maybe it's his breakout game. I know there missing some key guys but even without Dez it feels like they have a good shot of winning. I'm ready for the game

 

[Nova]

People complain about Dez until he's not in the game.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Unfortunately, that's not how it works. Credible reporters such as Schefter don't make up sources.
And if it weren't for sources, we wouldn't have exposed Watergate nor would we get most of the stories unveiling corruption in business and government.

With all due respect to you and as a former journalist and reporter who used sources often (I'm speaking of myself), you don't know what you're talking about and, obviously, haven't been a reporter for a credible, mainstream news operation.

Oh spare me. Comparing deepthroat who could demonstrate through revealing information resulting in tangible results with the innuendo throwaway lines that Schefter and his ilk get away with is laughable.

 

[hornitosmonster]

Also hoping for a big game out of Butler

 

[DABOYZ]

Dez forces a defense to shift coverage to him which frees up the other players. Why do you think JG had Dez running 22 fly patterns? Maybe had something to do with opening the field for the rest of the team? Or is JG just running plays because he likes to watch Dez run.
Sorry he isn't making fantasy numbers you need to see. But the game is more complex than you want to see.

Not sure what you have been watching but Dez isn't forcing defenses to do anything. Your argument is that Dez is now being used as a decoy? 22 times? Are you serious? Sorry I thought he was paid to get open and catch the ball. It's a well known fact that Dez isn't the greatest route runner. And whether you would like to believe it or not teams aren't focused on Dez like they used to be. Your thought process on the complexity of the game seems more fit for Madden 17 or youth football. Please tell me how we could use Zeke or other players as decoys? I'm still not sure I understand the complexity of it. Lol. 5-6 plays maybe, 22 ummm no.

 

[thechosen1n2]

11 catches, 150 yards, 1 TD.

Enough said. We're paying top flight money for an above average receiver.

The old Dez was a baller. The after I got paid Dez? Not so much.

Hes not a baller because of injuries, that he continuously tries to play through with 3 terrible QBs and a rookie whom he has very little chemistry with?!! You and anyone who agrees with this is speaking with emotions.

 

[mattjames2010]

Sorry, but you're completely misinformed. This is how journalism has always worked.

Yes, journalism has always worked this way. Journalism has ran with rumors, no **** Sherlock. Spare me your crap.

Your "source" better lead to evidence. If it does not, it's strictly rumor until proven otherwise.

 

[DallasDW00ds0n]

I could care LESS what any of these guys do outside Sunday. Im just a fan of the game.

 

[plymkr]

Make plays on Sunday and I don't care.

I'm far more annoyed by his injuries, especially the ones that were avoidable (like his current one).

Yeah this is how I feel about it. I don't care if he misses team meetings and is late if he produces on the field. What concerns me is he missed, or is missing, treatments for his injuries. Missing treatments for the injuries means he has a less chance to be on the field to make plays on sunday. And it's stupid. When you make money as an athlete your body is the #1 thing you need to take care of. Not taking care of his body is just irresponsible and it could cut his career short. just dumb. I'd really be upset if I found out that Romo wasn't rehabbing with the team or going to his treatment sessions. Really any player, your job is to play on game day and if your not doing what your supposed to do to get your body ready for game day then that's unacceptable.

 

[Common Sense]

Yes, journalism has always worked this way. Journalism has ran with rumors, no **** Sherlock. Spare me your crap.

Your "source" better lead to evidence. If it does not, it's strictly rumor until proven otherwise.

Again, you are exhibiting an overwhelming amount of ignorance when it comes to the field of journalism -- while arguing with two former journalists, no less. Why not move on to something you actually know something about and stop wasting everyone's time with your pretentious chest beating?

 

[scottsp]

I just know Rich needs to fix this shhh.

 

[mattjames2010]

Again, you are exhibiting an overwhelming amount of ignorance when it comes to the field of journalism -- while arguing with two former journalists, no less. Why not move on to something you actually know something about and stop wasting everyone's time with your pretentious chest beating?

The field of journalism still has to provide evidence. Maybe not for you, maybe all you need is a journalist simply saying "my source". It doesn't work that way for me, that is tabloid garbage.

If you say "source" and provide evidence, that's fine. When you simply say "My source told me" and provide nothing else, that falls directly under rumor until more is provided. This doesn't suddenly change because it comes from a journalist. Journalists don't get leeway with this.

And I'm entertaining your argument despite you not providing anything of substance. It won't happen for much longer, simply stating "It's always been this way!" and "You don't know what you're talking about" are not arguments. It's a time waster.

The fact that the most I've gotten thus far is "Wut bout watergate tho, bro?" tells me all I need to know. Your supposed short career in journalism does not impress me and won't until you put up a valid argument.

 

[superonyx]

Not sure what you have been watching but Dez isn't forcing defenses to do anything. Your argument is that Dez is now being used as a decoy? 22 times? Are you serious? Sorry I thought he was paid to get open and catch the ball. It's a well known fact that Dez isn't the greatest route runner. And whether you would like to believe it or not teams aren't focused on Dez like they used to be. Your thought process on the complexity of the game seems more fit for Madden 17 or youth football. Please tell me how we could use Zeke or other players as decoys? I'm still not sure I understand the complexity of it. Lol. 5-6 plays maybe, 22 ummm no.

Your fundamental understanding of football is lacking.
It's no secret that Dez was used as a decoy in the first game. Search some old threads on this forum and you may learn something.
You seem so off base that I can't tell if you are trolling.
You can continue to believe Dez was single covered on 22 fly routes vs the Giants if you really want to.
The rest of us know better.
Not trying to be rude but you have more to learn and it's not my job to teach you.

 

[tyke1doe]

Actually, yes, it is how it works. I don't care about if they have a source, I want a name and somewhere they can point me to. "Sources" is not credible, same as it wasn't credible during the tape fiasco.

You may want a name, but not getting a name doesn't mean that the information isn't credible.
Second, you may not care, but we care about the information.
Third, credibility is not necessarily about the information as it is about the person who DELIVERS the information. People who understand sensitive information and how we obtain it understand that we have to protect sources in order to obtain that information.
So we need credibility with the person who delivers it. Adam Schefter is a credible insider. He has been more right than wrong. And that is why he didn't report the Dez tape because he said he couldn't verify it.

Watergate actually led somewhere. So this is nonsense. It led to evidence. Until evidence is actually provided he has missed that many practices, it's a rumor. Slapping Adam's name next to it does not make it fact.

But Watergate wouldn't have led to ANYTHING if not for sources.

And I really don't give a damn if you were a former reporter. Saying sources IS NOT credible. You have to provide something, you have to point to where people can see the evidence. "Player said", "My sources said" is NOT CREDIBLE UNLESS IT CAN LEAD YOU TO THE EVIDENCE YOU CAN SEE FOR YOURSELF.

First, I know you don't give a damn about me being a former reporter. But I offered it because I KNOW how sourcing works. You, however apparently have no knowledge of how this process works. You believe reporters fabricate sources. And I'm telling you that reporters like Adam Schefter - who has been in the business a long time and who would eventually be outed if he fabricated sources - don't make up sources.

But you have no experience in this field so you can't carp about people making things up.

 

[Common Sense]

The field of journalism still has to provide evidence. Maybe not for you, maybe all you need is a journalist simply saying "my source". It doesn't work that way for me, that is tabloid garbage.

If you say "source" and provide evidence, that's fine. When you simply say "My source told me" and provide nothing else, that falls directly under rumor until more is provided. This doesn't suddenly change because it comes from a journalist. Journalists don't get leeway with this.

And I'm entertaining your argument despite you not providing anything of substance. It won't happen for much longer, simply stating "It's always been this way!" and "You don't know what you're talking about" are not arguments. It's a time waster.

The fact that the most I've gotten thus far is "Wut bout watergate tho, bro?" tells me all I need to know. Your supposed short career in journalism does not impress me and won't until you put up a valid argument.

If you can verify a story with multiple, unrelated sources, that is considered ample evidence to go to print, whether you like it or not. Based on your earlier comments, you also don't seem to understand the role of anonymity in sources, either, but I'll let you figure that one out on your own once you decide to stop throwing your little tantrum.

 

[mattjames2010]

You may want a name, but not getting a name doesn't mean that the information isn't credible.
Second, you may not care, but we care about the information.
Third, credibility is not necessarily about the information as it is about the person who DELIVERS the information. People who understand sensitive information and how we obtain it understand that we have to protect sources in order to obtain that information.
So we need credibility with the person who delivers it. Adam Schefter is a credible insider. He has been more right than wrong. And that is why he didn't report the Dez tape because he said he couldn't verify it.



But Watergate wouldn't have led to ANYTHING if not for sources.



First, I know you don't give a damn about me being a former reporter. But I offered it because I KNOW how sourcing works. You, however apparently have no knowledge of how this process works. You believe reporters fabricate sources. And I'm telling you that reporters like Adam Schefter - who has been in the business a long time and who would eventually be outed if he fabricated sources - don't make up sources.

But you have no experience in this field so you can't carp about people making things up.

I think YOU are missing the point of my posts here.

First off, my argument is not that "sources" are not needed or is useless. You get this, right? Your arguing against something I've never stated. I am criticizing the reporting. You are referencing one of the greatest information leaks in US history. It LED to something. Deepthroat provided key information and actual evidence that helped in the investigation.

This is not comparable, and you know this. No one is saying he HAS to name who gave out the source, but you have to give the reader a place to look. There has to be evidence somewhere.

Do you agree, yes or no, unless evidence is provided this is rumor until proven otherwise? If you say yes, you're really arguing nothing here. You can go have that discussion with someone else.

 

[DABOYZ]

Your fundamental understanding of football is lacking.
It's no secret that Dez was used as a decoy in the first game. Search some old threads on this forum and you may learn something.
You seem so off base that I can't tell if you are trolling.
You can continue to believe Dez was single covered on 22 fly routes vs the Giants if you really want to.
The rest of us know better.
Not trying to be rude but you have more to learn and it's not my job to teach you.

Sorry can't stop laughing about the decoy stuff. Therefore I don't take anything you say serious. Your line of thinking worked out really well in that loss though. Wish I had a creative mind like you.

 

[mattjames2010]

If you can verify a story with multiple, unrelated sources, that is considered ample evidence to go to print, whether you like it or not. Based on your earlier comments, you also don't seem to understand the role of anonymity in sources, either, but I'll let you figure that one out on your own once you decide to stop throwing your little tantrum.

Wrong. I have stated at the beginning, either name your source or provide evidence. And the media can print whatever the hell they want, it's not my business. But you expect me to believe something that simply states "my source said", you are out of your damn mind.

Try again, and this time, actually counter my real arguments.

 

[yimyammer]

stop wasting everyone's time with your pretentious chest beating?

Then there would be nothing left to say