Yahoo: Jerry talking to players about T.O. - 2/6/09

[5Countem5]

Let's be clear...

I don't BLAME the media. If there weren't so many willing to lap this BS up immediately, there'd be less of this lying...

 

[tyke1doe]

Wow, you have absolutely no idea how the mass media operates.

Yes, I do. I've been in the media for more than 20 years in newspapers, radio and television. I DEFINITELY have an understanding of the media and have dealt with anonymous sources and, in fact, have used them. There are guidelines that every media outlet I've been associated with (including The Washington Post) uses with respect to when and how anonymous sources are used.

Now, what are your credentials?

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Being obnoxious does nothing to help your case... but it might explain your thought process.

Thats funny. I doubt you keep up thats why you resort to the ad hominem.

Argue the point or shut up. How is that for obnoxious?

 

[Shake_Tiller]

Thats funny. I doubt you keep up thats why you resort to the ad hominem.

Argue the point or shut up. How is that for obnoxious?

You are an obnoxious piece of work, aren't you? Try making a sentient point.

 

[DuaneThomas71]

Yes, I do. I've been in the media for more than 20 years in newspapers, radio and television. I DEFINITELY have an understanding of the media and have dealt with anonymous sources and, in fact, have used them. There are guidelines that every media outlet I've been associated with (including The Washington Post) uses with respect to when and how anonymous sources are used.

Now, what are your credentials?

I know people who work for different media outlets.

Seems to me that you just want to be able to look yourself in the mirror at night, so you preach journalistic integrity.

I've noticed you don't seem to grasp why it is that so many outlets are reporting the same thing. It's called "copycat journalism." Media outlets oftentimes use other media outlets and summarize the information they learn from those "sources." It's a lot easier than doing a primary report.

It's not a case of 50 different people asking internal sources and getting the same answers. It's a case of 1 or 2 people asking those internal sources and 48 others taking the information those 1 or 2 garnered, whether it's accurate or not, and running with it as a summary.

 

[Clove]

I'll never forget about 3 or 4 years ago, it was GROZ. Someone started it, all the followers jumped on board like little birdies following the flock.

I basically said that Parcells' had final say over the Defense.

Well, thank God we got our wish because Zimmer was obviously holding this team back.

Too bad getting rid of Zimmer didn't equate into Super Bowls. Too bad getting rid of Quincy didn't help us win a play-off game. But we tourched these people out of town.

Speaking of Quincy, I never saw a guy get treated as badly as Quincy was treated by our great fan-base. Having said that, how is it that a guy with few skills at all, basically match the great Romo in play-off accomplishments?

How is it that a guy like Romo can throw up monster numbers, all these TDs, but he's done absolutely no better than the EVIL HATED QUINCY CARTER?

I sometimes wonder if Romo's monster numbers have anything to do with the hated TO on the team.

The same characters are pushing the same agendas every year, and the same followers jump on board and ride the popular wave, they don't even know why, they are just puppets.

Every year we have the answers. This year, the answer to our moving forward is TO gone.

TO reminds me a lot of Dennis Rodman, well not as much of a distraction but you get the point. Rodman was the biggest distraction I'd ever seen, but it didn't matter because Jordan and Pippen were great, and Phil Jackson had the balls and leadership ability to deal with talented but mouthy people. Too bad our fan-base is too weak, just like our coaches, we don't want anyone with their own opinions, or that is sort of jerkish sometimes, we want perfect players.

The thing that's sort of funny is, we actually agree with what the evil TO said, but because he said it, we hate him. Sort of two-faced-ish.

A few years ago, all we were whining about was that our team wasn't explosive, we had no explosive players, but now that we have one, we want him gone because he speaks his mind.

This fan-base is funny. We normally blast on people with no talent, but to bash and try to kick a guy out who is dominant is beyond me. Ask Mike Singletary is he's dominant and if you can cover him 1 on 1. Makes you wonder if we'd rather lose with guys we're personally comfortable with, than win with a guy like TO.

We just don't like the guy personally. He rubs us the wrong way. We want guys to kiss our ***, and do things the way we do them. We don't want different, we want the 1950's back. Case and point - Phelps will not be treated in the media like TO was treated, and all TO did was complain about losing and things that contributed to us losing. Meanwhile, phelps does drugs, illegal drugs, and I'll bet my house that he's not treated nearly as bad.

Americans can't stomach guys like him. You know those cocky guys who speak their mind. If you're going to speak your mind, personally you should not do it unless it's behind a computer monitor in the privacy of our own homes, that's the only way you should speak your mind.

It's okay for other teams to have guys that complain, because they actually go to the Super Bowl so it's okay for that team. And never mind the fact that their QB can actually complete a pass without throwing an interception, and can take a sack without fumbling the ball.

And it's okay for us to whine and complain, ***** and moan, treat our fellow fans like ****, because we're not playing for the Dallas Cowboys.

TO will soon be gone, and we will find the next excuse, the next player or coach that's holding us back, we will eventually turn on Romo and RW, because Romo may continue to suck, and Roy Williams will complain, and us fans hate people who act like us.

I think the saddest 2 things about the Cowboys today are, Jerry Jones and some Cowboy fans.

You may continue your mission now.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You are an obnoxious piece of work, aren't you? Try making a sentient point.

If you don't want to or are unable to rebut then fine but this whole line is weak.

Again most people aren't going to change their mind no matter what the person in question says. Do you think bbgun is suddenly going to become pro Jones no matter what he says?

You can call me obnoxious but I can think of some adjectives to describe you: evasive, petty and obtuse.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

TO reminds me a lot of Dennis Rodman, well not as much of a distraction but you get the point. Rodman was the biggest distraction I'd ever seen, but it didn't matter because Jordan and Pippen were great, and Phil Jackson had the balls and leadership ability to deal with talented but mouthy people. Too bad our fan-base is too weak, just like our coaches, we don't want anyone with their own opinions, or that is sort of jerkish sometimes, we want perfect players.

GREAT POST.

 

[Shake_Tiller]

If you don't want to or are unable to rebut then fine but this whole line is weak.

Again most people aren't going to change their mind no matter what the person in question says. Do you think bbgun is suddenly going to become pro Jones no matter what he says?

You can call me obnoxious but I can think of some adjectives to describe you: evasive, petty and obtuse.

Fuzzy, maybe go back and read what you originally wrote. For no apparent reason, you decide to attack me personally. I can't be sane if I don't agree with you? I have nothing against you. I have often agreed with your posts. But you need to take a serious look in the mirror.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Fuzzy, maybe go back and read what you originally wrote. For no apparent reason, you decide to attack me personally. I can't be sane if I don't agree with you? I have nothing against you. I have often agreed with your posts. But you need to take a serious look in the mirror.

I am sorry if I characterized you unfairly.

But really what would it take for you to change your opinion of TO?

 

[tyke1doe]

I know people who work for different media outlets.

The old, "I know some in the business" line. Well, I'M in the business.

Seems to me that you just want to be able to look yourself in the mirror at night, so you preach journalistic integrity.

No, I know what the rules and ethics of journalism are just as you should know the rules and ethics around your job or career.

I've noticed you don't seem to grasp why it is that so many outlets are reporting the same thing. It's called "copycat journalism." Media outlets oftentimes use other media outlets and summarize the information they learn from those "sources." It's a lot easier than doing a primary report.

Oh, I understand about copycat journalism. But there's a difference in reporting that "Obama was elected president" and "Obama told me that he will appoint Holder as attorney general."

The first one is common knowledge, which is basically the source of copycat journalism.

The second is personal information obtained by the reporter and, as such, needs verification by another media outlet in order to be published sans credit or attribution.

Now, apparently you don't understand journalism because I mentioned the exception to this would be if the information were delivered via a news service. When a particular story is distributed to a news service (for example, AP), it is available to other news outlets. That's how many stories get beyond the original reporter or the original outlet.

It's not a case of 50 different people asking internal sources and getting the same answers. It's a case of 1 or 2 people asking those internal sources and 48 others taking the information those 1 or 2 garnered, whether it's accurate or not, and running with it as a summary.

Except ...

FOX, ESPN, Sports Illustrated, DMN and FWST ALL have reporters assigned to the Dallas Cowboys. So they have access to the same sources.

So if FOX breaks a story, ESPN and others will be on it because they have the same access. And you can rest assure their editors are saying "Why don't you have that information?" They're not saying, "Go steal it from FOX."

Moreover, why the heck is FOX paying Jay Glazer all those duckets when Glazer can just steal ESPN's story?

Of course, other media outlets pursue stories generated by other outlets. But certain stories, media outlets have to cultivate their own sources. They just don't take stories and past them off for their own without giving attribution.

Your problem is you have just enough information to think you know everything about the business. But you don't.

 

[Shake_Tiller]

I am sorry if I characterized you unfairly.

But really what would it take for you to change your opinion of TO?

And I apologize for the role I played. Believe it or not, I had changed my opinion. I was queasy about him becoming a Cowboy, but he won me over... until last season. I thought I saw signs of him returning to his past ways. I hoped I was wrong. But multiple media reports confirmed it. I know some of those guys, and the ones I know didn't make anything up. I am confident of that.

As to what would change my opinion... if Owens is still on the team in 2009 and th Cowboys win, I will be pleased regardless of what I think of the man. I am a Cowboys fan.

I don't expect it, but I would welcome it.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

And I apologize for the role I played. Believe it or not, I had changed my opinion. I was queasy about him becoming a Cowboy, but he won me over... until last season. I thought I saw signs of him returning to his past ways. I hoped I was wrong. But multiple media reports confirmed it. I know some of those guys, and the ones I know didn't make anything up. I am confident of that.

As to what would change my opinion... if Owens is still on the team in 2009 and th Cowboys win, I will be pleased regardless of what I think of the man. I am a Cowboys fan.

I don't expect it, but I would welcome it.

What do you find more important then, the Deion interview or the reported 'jealousy' of Witten?

I am actually really happy to hear that Jones is bringing in players solo to talk to them on the issue. I really do think that if they tell him that TO is a problem then he is gone but if he stays they told him that he was not.

 

[5Countem5]

The old, "I know some in the business" line. Well, I'M in the business.



No, I know what the rules and ethics of journalism are just as you should know the rules and ethics around your job or career.




Oh, I understand about copycat journalism. But there's a difference in reporting that "Obama was elected president" and "Obama told me that he will appoint Holder as attorney general."

The first one is common knowledge, which is basically the source of copycat journalism.

The second is personal information obtained by the reporter and, as such, needs verification by another media outlet in order to be published sans credit or attribution.

Now, apparently you don't understand journalism because I mentioned the exception to this would be if the information were delivered via a news service. When a particular story is distributed to a news service (for example, AP), it is available to other news outlets. That's how many stories get beyond the original reporter or the original outlet.



Except ...

FOX, ESPN, Sports Illustrated, DMN and FWST ALL have reporters assigned to the Dallas Cowboys. So they have access to the same sources.

So if FOX breaks a story, ESPN and others will be on it because they have the same access. And you can rest assure their editors are saying "Why don't you have that information?" They're not saying, "Go steal it from FOX."

Moreover, why the heck is FOX paying Jay Glazer all those duckets when Glazer can just steal ESPN's story?

Of course, other media outlets pursue stories generated by other outlets. But certain stories, media outlets have to cultivate their own sources. They just don't take stories and past them off for their own without giving attribution.

Your problem is you have just enough information to think you know everything about the business. But you don't.

"Real" reporters are just leeches on society. They thrive on controversy, pain, death and horror.

Sports reporters are even beneath them.

 

[DuaneThomas71]

The old, "I know some in the business" line. Well, I'M in the business.



No, I know what the rules and ethics of journalism are just as you should know the rules and ethics around your job or career.




Oh, I understand about copycat journalism. But there's a difference in reporting that "Obama was elected president" and "Obama told me that he will appoint Holder as attorney general."

The first one is common knowledge, which is basically the source of copycat journalism.

The second is personal information obtained by the reporter and, as such, needs verification by another media outlet in order to be published sans credit or attribution.

Now, apparently you don't understand journalism because I mentioned the exception to this would be if the information were delivered via a news service. When a particular story is distributed to a news service (for example, AP), it is available to other news outlets. That's how many stories get beyond the original reporter or the original outlet.



Except ...

FOX, ESPN, Sports Illustrated, DMN and FWST ALL have reporters assigned to the Dallas Cowboys. So they have access to the same sources.

So if FOX breaks a story, ESPN and others will be on it because they have the same access. And you can rest assure their editors are saying "Why don't you have that information?" They're not saying, "Go steal it from FOX."

Moreover, why the heck is FOX paying Jay Glazer all those duckets when Glazer can just steal ESPN's story?

Of course, other media outlets pursue stories generated by other outlets. But certain stories, media outlets have to cultivate their own sources. They just don't take stories and past them off for their own without giving attribution.

Your problem is you have just enough information to think you know everything about the business. But you don't.

With regards to the Cowboys, FOX, ESPN, SportsIllustrated, DMN, and FWST all report the same story but with slight variations in the actual writing. Why would they go to the actual sources themselves when they can just summarize an article that was already written...which is what they so obviously do?

That's why you don't see a variety of quotes in these different articles. If you read an article on the Owens/Romo/Witten thing, each one of those sources will have an article that summarizes Ed Werder's article on ESPN. It won't contain any reporting done by the news outlet themselves. If they each did their own research, there would be new light shed in each of the different articles. But there isn't. They read like summaries...because they are summaries.

 

[Shake_Tiller]

What do you find more important then, the Deion interview or the reported 'jealousy' of Witten?

I am actually really happy to hear that Jones is bringing in players solo to talk to them on the issue. I really do think that if they tell him that TO is a problem then he is gone but if he stays they told him that he was not.

Begin with the premise that I don't share the cynicism pervasive here about the media covering the Cowboys. Are they perfect? Of course not. Do I disagree with them at times? Absolutely. But I don't believe they "make up" stories, and I think the complaints about exaggeration are themselves widely exaggerated. Ed Werder has been at Valley Ranch since the Jimmy Johnson days. Does any logical person really think he would have survived there as a reporter if the team thought he was making up stories? They would have frozen him out years ago, rendered him ineffective. In this case, the subjects of the coverage have far more power than is being credited. A reporter will get scooped all day and half of the night if he is frozen out.

Since I start from the assumption that the underlying coverage is largely accurate, I see each of the individual elements a bit differently than do some others. So the Witten thing was a concern. The Deion interview merely served to confirm (in my mind, anyhow) my fears about what was happening.

And yes, I agree with you wholeheartedly that Jones is taking an important step in discussing the situation with the players. It's a legitimate thing for him to do in his role as GM, in my opinion, and it's an important thing for him to do. For most of his tenure as the Cowboys owner, I have been generally supportive of Jones. I think he has some major weaknesses, but who doesn't? And I think he genuinely wants to win very, very badly. I don't think that's true of all NFL owners.

I do think Jones has made some serious missteps, recently. But he has an opportunity to correct them. Hopefully, that's what he's attempting to do.

 

[Shake_Tiller]

"Real" reporters are just leeches on society. They thrive on controversy, pain, death and horror.

Sports reporters are even beneath them.

That opinion is offensive to a free society.

 

[28 Joker]

Quote:
Originally Posted by McLovin
And once again


2008

• TO - 69 for 1052, 10 TDs, 15.2 YPC (3 Tds over 52 yds)
• Randy Moss - 69 for 1006, 11 TDs, 14.6YPC
• R Wayne - 82 for 1145, 6 TDs, 14.0YPC (No games w/ B Johnson)
• S Moss - 79 for 1044, 6TDs, 13.2YPC
• Brandon Marshall - 104 for 1265, 6TDs, 12.2 YPC (1 game sup, nO games w/ B Johnson)

Only Megatron, L Fitz and Boldin and Moss had more TDs this year (and none played with B Johnson for 3 games)

Taking away the B Johnson games, TO goes 57 for 952 and 9 TDS for 13 games. Assuming those 3 games Romo would have been QB, the projected stats would be 70 catches for 1172yds and 11 TDs and a 16.7YPC.

Of the 1000yd receivers, only Megatron, S Smith and V Jackson would have a better YPC.

In 2007, Owens had a YPC of, guess what,....16.7YPC. He also had no TDs longer than 52yds in 2007 (3 in 2008).
Your arguement is based on a half-finished Vela Analysis:




FACT = Tony ROMO throws INT to Pitt Safety while targeting Jason Witten in 4th quarter
FACT = Tony ROMO throws INT to Ed Reed twice and says "good as a punt"
FACT = Defense gives up 2 70+ yd runs to pedestrian RBs in crunch time
FACT = Tony ROMO throws INT to Chris Horton while targeting Jason Witten in 4th quarter

41gy#'s "FACT" : TO is in massive decline he has a 2.0YPA vs "red corners" (excluding half of the games ) - Yeah, excluding half of the states in the 2008 presidential election, McCain won 23 of 25 states or 92%)

41gy#'s "FACT" :He Has declining YPA #'s for 3 of 4 years. (ommitting that yr1 and yr3 were stratospheric and yr2 was still over 8.0 - 7.0 is average). No one wants to account for the B Johnson experiment either in 2008.


Ok. If you think specious "WIP FACTS" are the same as "Romo throws INT at GB 14yd line", not much I can say to convince you. RW11 also may have showed he can be a #1 in 2006, but not 2007 and 2008. You can spin anything to satisfy your original thesis, doesn't mean it can't be blown out of the water

I really dont care if TO goes or not, but the team will likely not put up near the offense


Go watch some anatomy of a play videos at nfl.com and watch the double and triple teams. Look at Austins post route vs GB and look who drew the safety and LB away from Austin. The difference this year is that Romo stopped making teams pay after GB.

Watch the difference in Wash #1 vs Wash #2. (Barber 8 rushes for 26, Felix 0 - 0 in First game, Barber ran what routes in second game - sweeps) Even Reeves alluded that TO was good for the running game.

And "can't beat top corners" is funny. Name one person who played him man up. Clements, S Brown, Shepperd, Slant vs Cincy didn't seem to go to well when it happened.

His play will fall off, but he didn't 'hit the wall this year'. I have every game and rewatched all of them mx times


41gy#'s response:

I gave Owens credit for his 2007 season and used it against him. It isn't hard to do. Go look at Rafael Vela's in depth analysis of this subject. Vela wrote about how Owens' YPA (2008) against some of the better corners was below Patrick Crayton's 2007 number in an 8 game sample. When there is that big of a drop, you better look at the player and not the offensive coordinator.

Owens put up a 2.0 YPA against Joyner's 'red' corners in 2008 (*8 game sample). I don't think those numbers are going to get much better with half the "election returns" in . The guy pretty much was a non-factor in too many games. Owens would be getting ready to make that concession phone call. Vela knows this too, and that is probably why he went with it. He watched the games and knows the 49ers gave him a career day by letting him get cranked up and not jamming him.

In 2007, Owens was at 9.3 YPA against Joyner's 'red' corners. His 2008 65.8 YPA reflects that significant dip in his YPA against those better cornerbacks. Owens' YPA has declined 3 out of the last four years. There is a good chance it will never reach the 8.0 or 9.0 level again if he can't get off the jam.

I didn't say he had bad years, I said his YPA declined. Owens is on the downside of his career. His 2007 season, under Garrett, is the only exception, and it was his best year. How ihe forgets.

Are you telling me that teams didn't jam Owens in 2007 and give him bracket coverage? One year he torches it, the next year Shaun Springs and the rest of the Commanders cornerbacks own him, ect...

Owens gets jammed, and he gets bumped off routes and slowed down. It takes him some time to get it cranked up again. Once he has to stop, it takes him a while to get going again. That makes him easy prey for the better corners, especially. Jimmy Johnson is on the record about this. Owens couldn't shake them this year. Using the safety is an easy excuse. All top WRs see bracket coverage, and they find a way to beat it enough. If you don't, you average 65.8 YPG. You left that stat out. I don't need a $ 9 million dollar, glorified decoy. Plus, he doesn't run good routes all the time, he doesn't know where to line up at times, and he doesn't have good hands. He isn't the YAC player he was in Philly and S.F.

1st Commanders game;

Thanks. That's gold. The Bengals receivers couldn't believe it.

17 pass attempts, and he still got owned. Owens had over 8.0 pass attempts per game. He isn't a player who should get 140-150 pass attempts in a year, anymore. He can't beat the jam or bracket. Romo has to hold the ball on his first or second read; that hurts the offense.

Last edited by 41gy# : 12 Hours Ago at 02:37 AM.


Look, MciOwens,

I answered you. It's over. Go light your shrine and don't splice and spin. Nate Clements played off, and he didn't have a good year. He's not 'red'. If you can't beat the corner, the safety is tough to beat. His job gets easy. So, he couldn't beat either. 65.8 YPA

 

[Bleu Star]

Jesus Christopher. Where do you guys find the energy to come up with these short stories?

 

[5Countem5]

That opinion is offensive to a free society.

Get off your high-horse and stop protecting an industry that is thought of worse that politicians and used-car salesmen.

The founding fathers would regret giving the hacks of today their own Amendment.

Reporters today are what's offensive to a free society.