NFC South

GumboBC · 02-20-2005, 11:27 AM

WhoDat --

You\'re getting to be a little ridiculous.

I NEVER said that a player should be paid whatever he wants.

I have CLEARLY stated that there are 2-sides when it comes to player contacts in the NFL.

When I debate something with you, you always like to pull up posts by other members in an attempt to prove you\'re right. Does this make you feel better? I don\'t see where it proves too much.

We were talking about player contracts and how they are negociated. Instead of staying on topic, you want to talk about how many problems Aaron Brooks has.

Here\'s what you said and here\'s what we were talking about, WhoDat:

First, football players have probably done more to bastardize the term \"businessman\" than any other group on the planet, IMO. Yes, football is a business, and they are paid for their services. But holding out and whining and crying about more money doesn\'t make you a businessman.

Where in there is it talking about Aaron Brooks? Why pull up quotes by other memebers on Aaron Brooks?

You said FOOTBALL players have probably done more to bastardize the term \"businessman\" than any other group on the planet, IMO.

And here\'s how you respond when asked to back that statement up!!

Quote by WhoDat:
What?!?! Seriously?!?! So you\'re OK with the Saints paying Jonathan Sullivan 1st round money while he sits in the press booth eating, b/c hey, from the player\'s point-of-view he got what he wanted????? That is maybe the worst argument I\'ve ever seen.

Worst arguement you\'ve ever heard? That\'s your arguement, WhoDat. I never said Sully is earing his contract. You\'re being ridiculous. Putting words in my mouth.

Sully isn\'t earning his contract and if he doesn\'t perform this year he should be cut or he needs to take a pay cut.

But isolating one particular player is a very short-sighted view. But, that\'s what I\'ve become to expect from you.

How do you feel about the way Sammy Knight, Le\' Roi Glover, Wilie Roaf and Joe Johnson were done? All very good players. All players produced. Yet, the TEAM felt they weren\'t earning their contracts. In spite of the fact that some of those guys had contrats, the TEAM disrespected them and showed them the door. I believe you\'ve criticized the TEAM for this many times.

Where was your \"look at it from a team stand-point\" view then?

It seesm pretty hypicritical when you defend players like Le\' Roi Glover, Wille Roaf, and Sammy Knight and say they were treated unfairly by the team and then, all of a sudden, you take a totally different stance and say the TEAM needs to look out for the team and the hell with what the players want.

How can you bash the team for not paying Roaf, Joe Johnson, Sammy Knight, and Le\' Roi Glover and then take such a TOTALLY different stance?

Do you know what the word hypicritical means?

Now, pull up some more posts by other members. That\'s all I get from you now days!!

02-20-2005, 11:27 AM	#24
GumboBC Banned Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 2,616	NFC South WhoDat -- You\'re getting to be a little ridiculous. I NEVER said that a player should be paid whatever he wants. I have CLEARLY stated that there are 2-sides when it comes to player contacts in the NFL. When I debate something with you, you always like to pull up posts by other members in an attempt to prove you\'re right. Does this make you feel better? I don\'t see where it proves too much. We were talking about player contracts and how they are negociated. Instead of staying on topic, you want to talk about how many problems Aaron Brooks has. Here\'s what you said and here\'s what we were talking about, WhoDat: First, football players have probably done more to bastardize the term \"businessman\" than any other group on the planet, IMO. Yes, football is a business, and they are paid for their services. But holding out and whining and crying about more money doesn\'t make you a businessman. Where in there is it talking about Aaron Brooks? Why pull up quotes by other memebers on Aaron Brooks? You said FOOTBALL players have probably done more to bastardize the term \"businessman\" than any other group on the planet, IMO. And here\'s how you respond when asked to back that statement up!! Quote by WhoDat: What?!?! Seriously?!?! So you\'re OK with the Saints paying Jonathan Sullivan 1st round money while he sits in the press booth eating, b/c hey, from the player\'s point-of-view he got what he wanted????? That is maybe the worst argument I\'ve ever seen. Worst arguement you\'ve ever heard? That\'s your arguement, WhoDat. I never said Sully is earing his contract. You\'re being ridiculous. Putting words in my mouth. Sully isn\'t earning his contract and if he doesn\'t perform this year he should be cut or he needs to take a pay cut. But isolating one particular player is a very short-sighted view. But, that\'s what I\'ve become to expect from you. How do you feel about the way Sammy Knight, Le\' Roi Glover, Wilie Roaf and Joe Johnson were done? All very good players. All players produced. Yet, the TEAM felt they weren\'t earning their contracts. In spite of the fact that some of those guys had contrats, the TEAM disrespected them and showed them the door. I believe you\'ve criticized the TEAM for this many times. Where was your \"look at it from a team stand-point\" view then? It seesm pretty hypicritical when you defend players like Le\' Roi Glover, Wille Roaf, and Sammy Knight and say they were treated unfairly by the team and then, all of a sudden, you take a totally different stance and say the TEAM needs to look out for the team and the hell with what the players want. How can you bash the team for not paying Roaf, Joe Johnson, Sammy Knight, and Le\' Roi Glover and then take such a TOTALLY different stance? Do you know what the word hypicritical means? Now, pull up some more posts by other members. That\'s all I get from you now days!!
GumboBC Banned Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 2,616