Rumor: Tank Johnson to the Saints

ScottyRo · 07-05-2007, 09:58 AM

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.

saintswhodi · 07-05-2007, 10:07 AM

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?

ScottyRo · 07-05-2007, 12:39 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.

saintswhodi · 07-05-2007, 01:59 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.

Nemesis · 07-05-2007, 12:55 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.

07-05-2007, 12:39 PM	#3
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, 01:59 PM	#4
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 02:04 PM..

07-05-2007, 12:55 PM	#5
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, 09:58 AM	#1
ScottyRo 1000 Posts + Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Williamsburg, VA (ugh, the food here) Posts: 1,704	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.

07-05-2007, 10:07 AM	#2
saintswhodi 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: San Antonio, TX Posts: 6,941	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?