Rumor: Tank Johnson to the Saints

graywolfkris · 07-05-2007, 12:08 PM

While they are at might as well try to get Ricky Williams back too signing Tank would end up being a disaster he can't stay out of trouble and doesn't seem to be smart enough to learn from his mistakes whichever team ends up signing him will regret it

ScottyRo · 07-05-2007, 01:39 PM

Originally Posted by saintswhodi

Actually, my problem is more with the suggestion there is an agenda cause someone DOESN'T want to sign Tank than it is with Tank being discussed. I don't see where it says anyone should not discuss Tank. I do see where I said it's BS to me until the team says they are interested. This stemmed from one man, John Clayton, saying we should be interested in Tank cause it appears we have a need at DT, and Tank is a DT. That's it. No one from the Saints camp has mentioned Tank one time that I am aware of. But when the line was taking an agenda is why folks didn't want Tank to be signed, I said signing him was BS until the team says something. I don't see how that should stop anyone from discussing Tank though. Can you point out where I said I felt no one should discuss Tank?

No, I can't. I wasn't directing my statements at you as much as just making my point that it doesn't matter whether the team expressed any interest or not as far as our discussing it goes. It did seem like you were brushing off the whole discussion calling it "BS" because Loomis hasn't mentioned getting Tank and that he hasn't mentioned it is irrelevant. They might sign Tank without any metion of him before hand.

Nemesis · 07-05-2007, 01:55 PM

Originally Posted by ScottyRo

I don't think it matters whether the team is actually interested in Tank or not for this to be a relevant discussion. We could just as easily remove his name and be discussing a player in his situation. That's as valid as any other conversation fans can have about sports. If you try to draw a line that says there should be no discussion about a player unless the Saints actually say they are interested, then there are hundreds of threads that will be abolished by such a rule.

We are fans here discussing the mights, the maybe's and the shoulda, coulda, woulda's of the team as well as the actual happenings. In the end if you think it is a waste of time to discuss Tank, then don't read it or reply to it.

Exactly. We just had a thread on LJ, in about the same circumstances. Some yahoo blurted out the Saints and Deuce being a trade issue, and we ran with it for entertainment. I respond to these types of threads with the same mentality that I do cranking up my XBOX.

When someone calls me lame due to my opinion of some event that isn't even official, my mentality changes.

Nemesis · 07-05-2007, 02:12 PM

Originally Posted by saintswhodi

Actually, the Lions coach was ASKED if they had interest in C-Pep, and they said they didn't. Teams don't just issue blanket non-interest statements on a player, and it's silly to suggest they do. Again, pass on the BS. But I am sure when Payton or Loomis are ASKED about Tank, they will supply a response. I am also sure you are probably awaiting 30 other teams putting out statements of non-interest on Tank, without being asked about him. Like I said, silly but good luck with that.

Oh, now I get it...You assumed I was implying that teams would call some sort of press conference to announce who they wouldn't be interested in. Honestly, how much sense did that make? I'm sorry, but you have yet again failed to make me appear to be an uninformed fan. My scenario was pretty simple, at least to me.

KW: Hey Coach, any interest in Tank?
Payton: Hell, no
KW: Back to you, Jim

You'll have to buy another ticket and get in line again to get on my ride. You're starting to bore me.

JOESAM2002 · 07-05-2007, 02:43 PM

"You're starting to bore me."

THAT'S OK...........THIS WHOLE THREAD IS BORING ME!!!!!

saintswhodi · 07-05-2007, 02:59 PM

Originally Posted by ScottyRo

No, I can't. I wasn't directing my statements at you as much as just making my point that it doesn't matter whether the team expressed any interest or not as far as our discussing it goes. It did seem like you were brushing off the whole discussion calling it "BS" because Loomis hasn't mentioned getting Tank and that he hasn't mentioned it is irrelevant. They might sign Tank without any metion of him before hand.

Actually, I was brushing the scenario off as BS since it only came from Clayton. That still doesn't mean anyone and everyone who wants to can't discuss it. It's BS TO ME cause no one but Clayton has made this leap. But when people start throwing the word "agenda" around "throwing stuff up against the wall" reports, well, I call BS. But it being BS would be my opinion, and doesn;t mean it can't be discussed. just that I don't have to buy what's being sold.

saintswhodi · 07-05-2007, 03:03 PM

Originally Posted by Nemesis

Oh, now I get it...You assumed I was implying that teams would call some sort of press conference to announce who they wouldn't be interested in. Honestly, how much sense did that make? I'm sorry, but you have yet again failed to make me appear to be an uninformed fan. My scenario was pretty simple, at least to me.

KW: Hey Coach, any interest in Tank?
Payton: Hell, no
KW: Back to you, Jim

You'll have to buy another ticket and get in line again to get on my ride. You're starting to bore me.

True or not, my point was that teams do announce when they have no interest in a player. A recent example was the Lions' coach just claimed to pass on Culpepper. This could be a ploy, but he was quoted.

*sigh* Try again. Unless you didn't say the bolded words. Again, teams don't "announce" anything about NOT being interested in a player unless asked, and most times they don't answer directly when they are asked. In YOUR example of Marineli, he was ASKED. So exactly like said, teams don't go around just making it known who they AREN'T interested in. Just FYI also, people called BS on that LJ nonsense too. Back to the drawing board.

As far as trying to make you look like an "uninformed fan," you're taking yourself too seriously. It's a message board. I don't know you, and don't need to form an opinion of you. Ease back.

Cassady37 · 07-05-2007, 03:13 PM

Geez, this is looking alot like a thread from that 'other' site!

ssmitty · 07-05-2007, 03:16 PM

da bears speak up...............

Bears | Test results didn't influence decision on T. Johnson
Thu, 5 Jul 2007 11:42:46 -0700

Larry Mayer, of ChicagoBears.com, reports Chicago Bears general manager Jerry Angelo said the results of the blood test to see if unrestricted free-agent DT Tank Johnson (Bears) was driving under the influence had no impact on their decision to release Johnson. "We weren't basing it off the police report because we made the decision prior to that. We had a zero-tolerance policy and he crossed the line. That line was very clear to everybody and it was made very clear to him. We made it very clear to him that he had no room for error. It's unfortunate, but we did the right thing for our football team," Angelo said.

JOESAM2002 · 07-05-2007, 04:19 PM

Originally Posted by Cassady37

Geez, this is looking alot like a thread from that 'other' site!

if there was anything else to talk about, this one would be locked. At least they are acting like gentlemen. LOLOLOLOLOLOL

07-05-2007, 01:39 PM	#72
ScottyRo 1000 Posts + Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Williamsburg, VA (ugh, the food here) Posts: 1,704	Originally Posted by saintswhodi Actually, my problem is more with the suggestion there is an agenda cause someone DOESN'T want to sign Tank than it is with Tank being discussed. I don't see where it says anyone should not discuss Tank. I do see where I said it's BS to me until the team says they are interested. This stemmed from one man, John Clayton, saying we should be interested in Tank cause it appears we have a need at DT, and Tank is a DT. That's it. No one from the Saints camp has mentioned Tank one time that I am aware of. But when the line was taking an agenda is why folks didn't want Tank to be signed, I said signing him was BS until the team says something. I don't see how that should stop anyone from discussing Tank though. Can you point out where I said I felt no one should discuss Tank? No, I can't. I wasn't directing my statements at you as much as just making my point that it doesn't matter whether the team expressed any interest or not as far as our discussing it goes. It did seem like you were brushing off the whole discussion calling it "BS" because Loomis hasn't mentioned getting Tank and that he hasn't mentioned it is irrelevant. They might sign Tank without any metion of him before hand.

07-05-2007, 01:55 PM	#73
Nemesis VIP~~Drunken Clam Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Quahog Posts: 422	Originally Posted by ScottyRo I don't think it matters whether the team is actually interested in Tank or not for this to be a relevant discussion. We could just as easily remove his name and be discussing a player in his situation. That's as valid as any other conversation fans can have about sports. If you try to draw a line that says there should be no discussion about a player unless the Saints actually say they are interested, then there are hundreds of threads that will be abolished by such a rule. We are fans here discussing the mights, the maybe's and the shoulda, coulda, woulda's of the team as well as the actual happenings. In the end if you think it is a waste of time to discuss Tank, then don't read it or reply to it. Exactly. We just had a thread on LJ, in about the same circumstances. Some yahoo blurted out the Saints and Deuce being a trade issue, and we ran with it for entertainment. I respond to these types of threads with the same mentality that I do cranking up my XBOX. When someone calls me lame due to my opinion of some event that isn't even official, my mentality changes.

07-05-2007, 02:12 PM	#74
Nemesis VIP~~Drunken Clam Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Quahog Posts: 422	Originally Posted by saintswhodi Actually, the Lions coach was ASKED if they had interest in C-Pep, and they said they didn't. Teams don't just issue blanket non-interest statements on a player, and it's silly to suggest they do. Again, pass on the BS. But I am sure when Payton or Loomis are ASKED about Tank, they will supply a response. I am also sure you are probably awaiting 30 other teams putting out statements of non-interest on Tank, without being asked about him. Like I said, silly but good luck with that. Oh, now I get it...You assumed I was implying that teams would call some sort of press conference to announce who they wouldn't be interested in. Honestly, how much sense did that make? I'm sorry, but you have yet again failed to make me appear to be an uninformed fan. My scenario was pretty simple, at least to me. KW: Hey Coach, any interest in Tank? Payton: Hell, no KW: Back to you, Jim You'll have to buy another ticket and get in line again to get on my ride. You're starting to bore me.
	Imitating my game is the most sincere form of flattery.

07-05-2007, 02:59 PM	#76
saintswhodi 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: San Antonio, TX Posts: 6,941	Originally Posted by ScottyRo No, I can't. I wasn't directing my statements at you as much as just making my point that it doesn't matter whether the team expressed any interest or not as far as our discussing it goes. It did seem like you were brushing off the whole discussion calling it "BS" because Loomis hasn't mentioned getting Tank and that he hasn't mentioned it is irrelevant. They might sign Tank without any metion of him before hand. Actually, I was brushing the scenario off as BS since it only came from Clayton. That still doesn't mean anyone and everyone who wants to can't discuss it. It's BS TO ME cause no one but Clayton has made this leap. But when people start throwing the word "agenda" around "throwing stuff up against the wall" reports, well, I call BS. But it being BS would be my opinion, and doesn;t mean it can't be discussed. just that I don't have to buy what's being sold.
	Last edited by saintswhodi; 07-05-2007 at 03:04 PM..

07-05-2007, 03:03 PM	#77
saintswhodi 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: San Antonio, TX Posts: 6,941	Originally Posted by Nemesis Oh, now I get it...You assumed I was implying that teams would call some sort of press conference to announce who they wouldn't be interested in. Honestly, how much sense did that make? I'm sorry, but you have yet again failed to make me appear to be an uninformed fan. My scenario was pretty simple, at least to me. KW: Hey Coach, any interest in Tank? Payton: Hell, no KW: Back to you, Jim You'll have to buy another ticket and get in line again to get on my ride. You're starting to bore me. True or not, my point was that teams do announce when they have no interest in a player. A recent example was the Lions' coach just claimed to pass on Culpepper. This could be a ploy, but he was quoted. sigh Try again. Unless you didn't say the bolded words. Again, teams don't "announce" anything about NOT being interested in a player unless asked, and most times they don't answer directly when they are asked. In YOUR example of Marineli, he was ASKED. So exactly like said, teams don't go around just making it known who they AREN'T interested in. Just FYI also, people called BS on that LJ nonsense too. Back to the drawing board. As far as trying to make you look like an "uninformed fan," you're taking yourself too seriously. It's a message board. I don't know you, and don't need to form an opinion of you. Ease back.
	Last edited by saintswhodi; 07-05-2007 at 03:07 PM..

07-05-2007, 12:08 PM	#71
graywolfkris Registered Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Conehatta, MS Posts: 30	While they are at might as well try to get Ricky Williams back too signing Tank would end up being a disaster he can't stay out of trouble and doesn't seem to be smart enough to learn from his mistakes whichever team ends up signing him will regret it

Latest Blogs
2023 New Orleans Saints: Training Camp Last Blog: 08-01-2023 By: MarchingOn Puck the Fro Browl! Last Blog: 02-05-2023 By: neugey CFP: "Just Keep Doing What You're Doing" Last Blog: 12-08-2022 By: neugey

07-05-2007, 02:43 PM	#75
JOESAM2002 1000 Posts + Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: CRYSTAL BEACH TEXAS Posts: 4,100	"You're starting to bore me." THAT'S OK...........THIS WHOLE THREAD IS BORING ME!!!!!

07-05-2007, 03:13 PM	#78
Cassady37 100th Post Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Kilgore, Texas Posts: 337	Geez, this is looking alot like a thread from that 'other' site!

07-05-2007, 03:16 PM	#79
ssmitty 1000 Posts + Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 1,879	da bears speak up............... Bears \| Test results didn't influence decision on T. Johnson Thu, 5 Jul 2007 11:42:46 -0700 Larry Mayer, of ChicagoBears.com, reports Chicago Bears general manager Jerry Angelo said the results of the blood test to see if unrestricted free-agent DT Tank Johnson (Bears) was driving under the influence had no impact on their decision to release Johnson. "We weren't basing it off the police report because we made the decision prior to that. We had a zero-tolerance policy and he crossed the line. That line was very clear to everybody and it was made very clear to him. We made it very clear to him that he had no room for error. It's unfortunate, but we did the right thing for our football team," Angelo said.
ssmitty 1000 Posts + Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 1,879

07-05-2007, 04:19 PM	#80
JOESAM2002 1000 Posts + Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: CRYSTAL BEACH TEXAS Posts: 4,100	Originally Posted by Cassady37 Geez, this is looking alot like a thread from that 'other' site! if there was anything else to talk about, this one would be locked. At least they are acting like gentlemen. LOLOLOLOLOLOL