Why aren't Emmit and TO the same?

[JDSmith]

I believe Emmitt let the team down. He had a contract in the 93/94 season, but did not honor it......or at least I think he did....He was making a relatively small amount compared to other RBs. And many considered him the best RB in the NFL. I remember an article from SI that polled NFL GMs. Emmitt was rated by the NFL GMs to be the number one FA the next year.

Emmitt said he was humbled by that........evidently not.

He also had a long, ugly rookie holdout......I believe he missed the entire preseason.

The difference from TO is simply that he didn't force a trade, sign a huge deal, then ask for another contract the next season.

I think both are/were wrong.

You are incorrect. Emmitt did NOT have a contract in 93. Saying that a guy is wrong to ask for more money when he's not under contract is ridiculous. Anyone would ask for what he believes he is worth, you are no different I'm sure. Had Emmitt been under contract it would have been a different situation, but a little research will probably change your point of view - because Emmitt was not under contract in any way, shape or form in 93 when he 'held out'.

 

[kmp77]

Anyone have a picture of TO in SF when he caught that Steve Young TD and was crying like a little b*tch who just lost her favorite hair clip??

 

[arglebargle]

Emmitt was not under an obligation to play for the Cowboys that year(93). He just could not negotiate with any other team. I think the term 'hold out' is used a bit too loosely, and then you get comparisions to T.O. Whose word is apparantly not worth much.

 

[Irving Cowboy]

I believe Emmitt let the team down. He had a contract in the 93/94 season, but did not honor it......or at least I think he did

That is wrong. Emmitt held out at the beginning of the 93 season when he was NOT under contract... he never held out again when he was with the Cowboys. He was given a contract extension in a few years later that made him the highest paid running back in the league I believe, there was a big stink at the time by a few people trying to make race a factor in that Aikman got his deal reworked before Emmitt did... and it was all pure horsehockey...

 

[Sarge]

The 0-2 start helped Jerry to come back to his senses...lol

...or Haley throwing his helmet through the wall at halftime. That'll get your attention.

 

[ThEpLyMaKeR88]

ED Reeds hold out is the same as Emmit they both were still under there rookie contract they both wanted what they deserved they both won some title the year before. TO hold out is just that TO is trying to gets money before he gets all wash up because he has turned 30

 

[Phoenix-Talon]

You correct another fan's spelling, yet you turn around insinuate serious explicatives to attack a super star athlete personally.

Let me see if we can sith through this mess and clean it up ...



You believe T.O. character is in question because of his quest to lengthen his contract and obtain more money from the Eagles franchise.


T.O. complained and then held out to come to the Eagles and now that he is with the Eagles he's holding out for a completely different reason (I'm not sure whether you're saying that or what?)



You are disgruntled at T.O. for being enterprising and aspiring to be a shrewd businessman.

In my opinion, T.O is within the rules of business engagement. Speaking of rules, didn't you just violate some. Oops wait you're alright. For a minute, I was thinking about what would have happened if I had used some of the articulate dialogue you did.

 

[Irving Cowboy]

You correct another fan's spelling, yet you turn around insinuate serious explicatives to attack a super star athlete personally.

Let me see if we can sith through this mess and clean it up ...



You believe T.O. character is in question because of his quest to lengthen his contract and obtain more money from the Eagles franchise.


T.O. complained and then held out to come to the Eagles and now that he is with the Eagles he's holding out for a completely different reason (I'm not sure whether you're saying that or what?)



You are disgruntled at T.O. for being enterprising and aspiring to be a shrewd businessman.

In my opinion, T.O is within the rules of business engagement. Speaking of rules, didn't you just violate some. Oops wait you're alright. For a minute, I was thinking about what would have happened if I had used some of the articulate dialogue you did.

All those big words to make yourself sound intelligent and not a lick of sense in any of them... in your feeble attempt to attack someone else you used improper grammar and words taken completely out of context...

 

[Phoenix-Talon]

All those big words ...and not a lick of sense in any of them

You make a lick of sense though!

... in your feeble attempt to attack someone else ...

You call my response an "attack?" Lol! I thought I was being cordial; would you have preferred explicatives (oops, big word) -- curse words?

you used improper grammar and words taken completely out of context...

Enlighten? No ...instead, don't bother, I already figured out your intent, and this isn't worth dialogue.

 

[LaTunaNostra]

All those big words to make yourself sound intelligent and not a lick of sense in any of them... in your feeble attempt to attack someone else you used improper grammar and words taken completely out of context...

Plato once, right after the Greeks invented the phonemic alphabet, critiqued writing (in writing) . He felt writing (sorta like hand-held calculators today) would 'ruin memory', and grieved it would fall into the hands of those who weren't equipped to use it.

I'd add in dictionaries.

 

[NotReally]

You are disgruntled [incorrect usage] at T.O. for being enterprising and aspiring to be a shrewd businessman. [very awkward phrase... any articulate poster would have phrased it better]

In my opinion, T.O is within the rules of business engagement. [Your opinion means nothing when dealing with the "rules of business engagement" {bad phrase stolen from the military vernacular and forced into this usage}, contract law is what applies] Speaking of rules, didn't you just violate some. Oops wait you're alright. For a minute, I was thinking about what would have happened if I had used some of the articulate dialogue you did. [ dialogue is not articulate, individuals either are or aren't articulate]

And the word you so desparately keep trying to use is "expletive" meaning "an exclamation or oath" as opposed to "explicative" which means "an explanitory side note". ..... but keep trying, EVENTUALLY you may put together a coherent sentence! LOL!
------
Now the bottom line to the original question is Emmitt played out his contract and held out while attempting to negotiate a new one. T.O. essentially whined his way off of the 49ers, reneged on a legitimate trade deal and now is talking of refusing to honor an EXISTANT contract. There is no substantial comparison between the Emmitt and TO situations!

 

[Irving Cowboy]

Plato once, right after the Greeks invented the phonemic alphabet, critiqued writing (in writing) . He felt writing (sorta like hand-held calculators today) would 'ruin memory', and grieved it would fall into the hands of those who weren't equipped to use it.

I'd add in dictionaries.

I can't tell if that was a cut on me or not...

 

[LaTunaNostra]

I can't tell if that was a cut on me or not...

It most certainly (explicative deleted) was not.

 

[jay cee]

I believe Emmitt let the team down. He had a contract in the 93/94 season, but did not honor it......or at least I think he did....He was making a relatively small amount compared to other RBs. And many considered him the best RB in the NFL. I remember an article from SI that polled NFL GMs. Emmitt was rated by the NFL GMs to be the number one FA the next year.

Emmitt said he was humbled by that........evidently not.

He also had a long, ugly rookie holdout......I believe he missed the entire preseason.

The difference from TO is simply that he didn't force a trade, sign a huge deal, then ask for another contract the next season.

I think both are/were wrong.

So the player is wrong if he is no longer under contract, but does not sign what ever offer is placed before him?

Than that would mean, anyone that leaves one job for a better paying job is wrong.

I can't agree with that opinion.

Why do you feel they should just take what the team offers, even if they think they are worth more?

 

[Dave_in-NC]

Just being a devil's advocate, Virus. Emmitt definitely had his issues when things weren't going right off the field. As for throwing teammates under the bus; well at least he waited to become a Cardinal first so they weren't teammates anymore.

And he was wrong about what? Carter? Hambrick? Who?

 

[PaEagleHater]

Class, one has it the other doesn't. Oh yea, super bowl rings, one has three the other has none...

 

[Banned_n_austin]

Emmitt is no TO by any stretch ... but he was selfish towards the end of his career ... it became about his record and not the team for him.

It was disgusting watching his last 3 years.