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

[1fisher]

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

And you take time to read them!



:willie:

 

[T-RO]

A poster who calls himself Duane Thomas defends a malcontent player who pissses his talent away. Oh--and blames everyone else for all his problems.

What a surprise.

 

[Bleu Star]

And you take time to read them!



:willie:

Confession: I don't read them. :

If I have to move the page to read a post I normally just click back to the fan zone forum link.

 

[5Countem5]

A poster who calls himself Duane Thomas defends a malcontent player who pissses his talent away. Oh--and blames everyone else for all his problems.

What a surprise.

Yeah, having a Hall of Fame career must have been a real let-down.

 

[Shake_Tiller]

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.

At least I understand your limitations.

 

[Arch Stanton]

A poster who calls himself Duane Thomas defends a malcontent player who pissses his talent away. Oh--and blames everyone else for all his problems.

What a surprise.

But this Duane Thomas talks...or at least posts.

I much preferred the original.

 

[odog422]

I was at a conference during the whole Reeves thing and wasn't posting.

Reeves never knew what was going on - and still doesn't. Schefter and Glazer have been guessing and admit they have no insight into it other than "feelings" so do not fool yourself into thinking they have changed my mind.

Ahh..no. You were posting when the avalanche of reports started coming that serious consideration was being given that TO would not be back due to him being a distraction and at that time you ceased to end your comments with those who wanted TO gone or who acknowledged the distraction he is with your patented "he'll be here so deal with it.." (I paraphrase).

I never said you changed your mind. I simply said that you saw the change in the direction of the wind concerning whether he would be here or not and decided to save a little face and pull back with your little "signature."

 

[5Countem5]

At least I understand your limitations.

And yours are very apparent as well.

 

[5Countem5]

Ahh..no. You were posting when the avalanche of reports started coming that serious consideration was being given that TO would not be back due to him being a distraction and at that time you ceased to end your comments with those who wanted TO gone or who acknowledged the distraction he is with your patented "he'll be here so deal with it.." (I paraphrase).

I never said you changed your mind. I simply said that you saw the change in the direction of the wind concerning whether he would be here or not and decided to save a little face and pull back with your little "signature."

I'll say it for the 50000000 time just for you- TO will be here.

I've never wavered. I may not end every post with it and I if I do- you probably shouldn't read anything into it.

 

[Shake_Tiller]

And yours are very apparent as well.

We can agree on that!

 

[tyke1doe]

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.

The problem with your perspective is that it lumps all stories in the same category, which is why I said with your minimal understanding of journalism, you can be dangerous without being totally accurate.

There is a difference between privileged stories and non-privileged stories.

Stories that are generated from locker room discussions or press conferences are privileged stories, i.e., stories composed from information at a public gathering.

Of course, Sports Illustrated, ESPN, DMN, FWST will have that information because they have reporters on the scene. These media outlets may create a story using similar quotes but the stories will be slightly different based on the angle.

Then there's non-privileged information, information you get from an inside source or information that doesn't come from a meeting. That information, if used by another outlet, must be attributed. You can't use another outlet's privileged information without attribution. Otherwise, that becomes plagerism.

Now, let's get specific. Reports about locker room dissention quoting anonymous sources ARE NOT copied by other outlets UNLESS those outlets had a reporter who talked to the anonymous sources. FOX would NEVER use ESPN's anonymous sources unless FOX checked itself. Again, why would FOX (a competitor of ESPN) use a story from ESPN when it has Jay Glazer? It wouldn't. A FOX editor would go to Glazer and say, "ESPN has a story about locker room dissension at Valley Ranch. Call your sources and ask if this is so because we want a story for our NFL pre-game show."

Glazer would not simply copy ESPN's report. If he did, he'd be out of a job because that shows he isn't much of an insider and can't get that information himself.

Has he copied the story? Yes, if copying means he's chasing the same story.

Has he used ESPN's sources and passed them off as his own? NO! That constitutes plagerism.

Again, every news outlet that covers the Cowboys and has a reporter assigned to Valley Ranch had a separate story on the Cowboys locker room dissension. There was no need to take Werder's story and pass it off as their own. Those media outlets have reporters who cover the Cowboys and are capable of generating a story of their own. DMN had its own story. FWST had its own story. Peter King commented on it based on his sources inside Valley Ranch and so did ESPN and FOX.

 

[AsthmaField]

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.

Hey Fuzzy, I have a question and I'm not trying to be a jerk at all. I'm just wondering what your answer(s) would be.

What if Jerry brings in, say... eighteen players to ask what they think of T.O., and 12 say he isn't a problem at all, 2 say he is somewhat of a problem, and the other 4 say that he is a very big problem in the locker room? What do you think Jerry would do? What would you do?

Because that very likely could be the response Jerry gets.

To take that further, what if one of those 4 guys is Tony Romo? Would that change your answer?

What if the players are all pretty much ok with T.O. but Jason Garrett doesn't like working with him?

As for what I'd do: I think I'd have to go ahead and cut ties with him if he seems to be causing anything other than typical locker room issues. If he wasn't effecting the 12 guys in my scenario but was still managing to negatively effect the other 2 and 4 guys... it just wouldn't be worth making those six guys unhappy, even though the other 12 are fine with him.

To me... football is the ultimate team sport and it requires extraordinary teamwork in addition to talent.

 

[SultanOfSix]

Let me ask one question. Besides calling Garrett out in a interview by saying the system isn't using him properly, which other players on the team agree with, what else did TO do wrong that was so disruptive to the team that he deserves to be released? I don't want a subjective rationalization that states he brings "too much baggage" with him. What disturbance, with actual verification besides anonymous sources, warrants such a situation?

 

[TheDude]

Quote:

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

I presented stats/facts and scenarios. Called your 'cited' analysis out as being incomplete, which you acknowledge. So you, as someone with a typical sheepish blinded hate retort, resorted to trying to win on a belittling moniker (MciOwens). Since you are either 15, or debate like your 15, go finish your Madden game and try not to let mom be a distraction

you answered nothing, addressed not 1 of the Facts/stats I threw at you and basically got pwn3d.

 

[Royal Laegotti]

Hey Fuzzy, I have a question and I'm not trying to be a jerk at all. I'm just wondering what your answer(s) would be.

What if Jerry brings in, say... eighteen players to ask what they think of T.O., and 12 say he isn't a problem at all, 2 say he is somewhat of a problem, and the other 4 say that he is a very big problem in the locker room? What do you think Jerry would do? What would you do?

Because that very likely could be the response Jerry gets.

To take that further, what if one of those 4 guys is Tony Romo? Would that change your answer?

What if the players are all pretty much ok with T.O. but Jason Garrett doesn't like working with him?

As for what I'd do: I think I'd have to go ahead and cut ties with him if he seems to be causing anything other than typical locker room issues. If he wasn't effecting the 12 guys in my scenario but was still managing to negatively effect the other 2 and 4 guys... it just wouldn't be worth making those six guys unhappy, even though the other 12 are fine with him.

To me... football is the ultimate team sport and it requires extraordinary teamwork in addition to talent.

I think that the biggest problem is that Jerry struggles with the idea to keep or cut blOwens. I mean it's a no brainer to me, cut the cry baby. The fact that Jerry struggles with this shows how deep his and this franchises problems really are! He doesn't have any common sense or any moral code of how to run a football team, to him it's all about ego and publicity which = $$$$$$$. But that's just one dude's opinion!

 

[28 Joker]

I presented stats/facts and scenarios. Called your 'cited' analysis out as being incomplete, which you acknowledge. So you, as someone with a typical sheepish blinded hate retort, resorted to trying to win on a belittling moniker (MciOwens). Since you are either 15, or debate like your 15, go finish your Madden game and try not to let mom be a distraction

you answered nothing, addressed not 1 of the Facts/stats I threw at you and basically got pwn3d.

I don't hate anyone, but I don't like iOwens. I do want him out of Dallas. If you don't think the Vela argument (with YPA stats and other stats) is valid or worthy of discussion, why are you so worried about defeating it. You sure seem worried about it for a guy that isn't supposed "to care" if Owens stays or goes. Are you working for iOwens? I stated my thoughts, and you were the guy that copped the attitude and jumped me. So, if you can't take it, don't dish it.

I was jumped after daring to make critical comments about iOwens. How dare anyone be critical of "the almighty one's" play on the board. You challenged Vela's work and ignored Jimmy Johnson's critique of Owens. That is your right to do. I don't care.

You jumped me. I answered. You spliced up some of my comments and kept going after me, and I answered you. I put my entire post up and held strong with my answer, because Vela's piece on Owens' decling play and Jimmy Johnson's critique is a powerful argument. It's one you better hope doesn't get in Tom Citkowski's hands or Jason Garrett's hands.

I'm not trying to "win". If you wouldn't have spliced my words out of context, I wouldn't have wasted my time. I usually state my comments, in regards to Owens, and leave. I'm glad I checked back in this time.

I'm glad you know so much about me. Do you have magical powers?

You came after me with an attitude. If you want respect, how about respecting other people.

I will not be responding to anything else you ever have to say. This discussion is over.

 

[odog422]

This whole thing of Jerry polling players is just another example of his bass ackwards style and why this thing is so dysfunctional.

Any other GM in the league would go to the people who are in charge of overseeing the players - the coaches, specifically, the head coach - to find out whether this person or issue was a negative influence and prevented the coaches from effectively doing their job.

Of course, Jerry doesn't place a high value on things like coaching, chemistry, etc., so of course, their input has no value.

Unfortunately, I am not surprised.

 

[TheDude]

I don't hate anyone, but I don't like iOwens. I do want him out of Dallas. If you don't think the Vela argument (with YPA stats and other stats) is valid or worthy of discussion, why are you so worried about defeating it. You sure seem worried about it for a guy that isn't supposed "to care" if Owens stays or goes. Are you working for iOwens? I stated my thoughts, and you were the guy that copped the attitude and jumped me. So, if you can't take it, don't dish it.

I was jumped after daring to make critical comments about iOwens. How dare anyone be critical of "the almighty one's" play on the board. You challenged Vela's work and ignored Jimmy Johnson's critique of Owens. That is your right to do. I don't care.

You jumped me. I answered. You spliced up some of my comments and kept going after me, and I answered you. I put my entire post up and held strong with my answer, because Vela's piece on Owens' decling play and Jimmy Johnson's critique is a powerful argument. It's one you better hope doesn't get in Tom Citkowski's hands or Jason Garrett's hands.

I'm not trying to "win". If you wouldn't have spliced my words out of context, I wouldn't have wasted my time. I usually state my comments, in regards to Owens, and leave. I'm glad I checked back in this time.

I'm glad you know so much about me. Do you have magical powers?

You came after me with an attitude. If you want respect, how about respecting other people.

I will not be responding to anything else you ever have to say. This discussion is over.

I can pretty much take every thing you handed out. You pasted that half baked post in about 8 threads with the air of "look what I know, Owens is completely average and worthless becasue i read someone elses incomplete analysis". It has no solid foundation. I find it amusing that you chose to not address that my stats are on a complete season, but come across as a definitive expert on declining play when you can only back up a half finished analysis.

As for not responding to anything I say, that will be fine and Dandy. You never address why my stats "prove" that Owens had a better year than Wayne and R Moss on most measurables. So you still haven't really responded to the questions at hand, I guess I can sit and wait to grow hair out of my ears before you decided to. oh well, my "loss"

Check out the "not getting off the Jam" on the TD. For laughs relive those entire highlights and explain how Owens lost that game.
http://www.nfl.com/videos?videoId=09000d5d80d7cc79&campaign=ec0009

Quite frankly, I don't care if he stays or goes in the sense I will root for the team - but I do think it is a mistake

but to clear it up, my position is

• Owens is about problem #15 -20 on this team
• He does change the way that Defenses play the offense, RW has yet to prove he can do that
• If Owens goes, the offensive stats likely will go down
• Garrett's keeping B Johnson and Proctor on the team was incompetence as well as running Barber and Felix 8 times in a 2 pt loss to Wash
• Romo's INT/"punts" lost more games than anything Owens did
• The Owens lynch mob don't want to hear tanginble, solid reasons for the losses this year, they want the easy "distractions"
• Everyone in the lynch TO club wants to blame esoteric "distractions" as problme, yet in the biggest week of "distractions" (NYG #2), we won.
• Dallas hasn't won in Dec/Jan for many years before Owens was here, but the Pitt, Balt and Philly game were all him....

Somehow Boldin and Steve Smith created, In my estimation, much more news worthy disruptions than Owens, but they dont play on the Cowboys so the media could care less. nad both of those team "overcame" them. Why?

1. Either Those teams have ~50 other players who are strong/professional ensaough to not let steve Smith or boldin creep into their heads when they try to tackle or throw
2. Or their coaching staff is better

So next year, if you expect soley jettisoning TO will suddenly make this team strong enough to win in crunch time, then I hope your right. Just like I hoope my lottery numbers are good

Jerry has put a shut up order on the org. Now you are beginning to see who just can't help themselves and would rather go ahead and talk.

 

[DuaneThomas71]

The problem with your perspective is that it lumps all stories in the same category, which is why I said with your minimal understanding of journalism, you can be dangerous without being totally accurate.

There is a difference between privileged stories and non-privileged stories.

Stories that are generated from locker room discussions or press conferences are privileged stories, i.e., stories composed from information at a public gathering.

Of course, Sports Illustrated, ESPN, DMN, FWST will have that information because they have reporters on the scene. These media outlets may create a story using similar quotes but the stories will be slightly different based on the angle.

Then there's non-privileged information, information you get from an inside source or information that doesn't come from a meeting. That information, if used by another outlet, must be attributed. You can't use another outlet's privileged information without attribution. Otherwise, that becomes plagerism.

Now, let's get specific. Reports about locker room dissention quoting anonymous sources ARE NOT copied by other outlets UNLESS those outlets had a reporter who talked to the anonymous sources. FOX would NEVER use ESPN's anonymous sources unless FOX checked itself. Again, why would FOX (a competitor of ESPN) use a story from ESPN when it has Jay Glazer? It wouldn't. A FOX editor would go to Glazer and say, "ESPN has a story about locker room dissension at Valley Ranch. Call your sources and ask if this is so because we want a story for our NFL pre-game show."

Glazer would not simply copy ESPN's report. If he did, he'd be out of a job because that shows he isn't much of an insider and can't get that information himself.

Has he copied the story? Yes, if copying means he's chasing the same story.

Has he used ESPN's sources and passed them off as his own? NO! That constitutes plagerism.

Again, every news outlet that covers the Cowboys and has a reporter assigned to Valley Ranch had a separate story on the Cowboys locker room dissension. There was no need to take Werder's story and pass it off as their own. Those media outlets have reporters who cover the Cowboys and are capable of generating a story of their own. DMN had its own story. FWST had its own story. Peter King commented on it based on his sources inside Valley Ranch and so did ESPN and FOX.

The stories with actual quotes from sources are extremely scant. Most of the reports that claim there is locker room dissension are opinion articles backed up by little but what has been reported by other outlets.

We're talking what here? An ESPN sensationalist reporter and some fantasy football guy from yahoo. Not exactly cream of the crop. Feel free to name any other articles that actually backed up the author's opinion with quotes.

 

[Arch Stanton]

Go listen to Jerry's interview on GAC. Does he deny there is a division in the locker room?