Steve Smith vs. Terrell Owens - Fantasy Football Cafe 2014 Fantasy Football Cafe


Return to Football Talk

Steve Smith vs. Terrell Owens

Moderator: Football Moderators

Postby bklik » Tue Jan 24, 2006 12:09 pm

Anybody see SSmith in the pregame interviews? He convinced me that he was sorry for touching the ref when his kids asked him why he did it.

Shoot, its pretty obvious that the guy wants to win and know they have been winning because the ball has been in his hands.

He is not T.O. because he hasnt challenged Delhomme to a fight/ destroyed the Panthers. Id say the guy is passionate.




And whoever said SSmith is overrated, what does he need to do? Set the rushing record based only on his reverses???
bklik
Head Coach
Head Coach

User avatar
Pick 3 Weekly WinnerMatchup Meltdown Survivor
Posts: 1147
Joined: 15 Sep 2005
Home Cafe: Football
Location: 3 Blocks from the Big House

Postby eaglesrule » Tue Jan 24, 2006 12:09 pm

Well it is scary that you don't understand--I'm not calling you dumb, but I am saying it is borderline ignorant. Not an insult, it is my assesment of the argument. You admittedly haven't even read the document in question, yet you are chargin bias.

It is a pretty well-supported concept, not only in the nfl but society at large. If someone was na acoholic,you company could fire your (or pick drug addictction if you would like). If you are productive in the company, the company doesn't have to take action. It simply could take action. A company, business can chose to be amoral if it so chooses in regard to accomplishing its goals.

As for your ditinction of judge and juror, close but no cigar. Not all trials have juries, and in those instances, the judge is suppossed to be unbiased. The leage rules set the process up, and the union ratified them (if you will). As such, the aribrator is judge and jury according with both sides rules. And incidentally, jury selection doesn't always mean a search for the most unbiased. There are millions of reasons jurors are picked, sometimes for their stupididty. The public model has no place in this discussion.

So if someone talks crap on their company (even if deserved) and they get fired, does the fact that a company chose to ignore outside the office transgressions for one and not the other? No. It matters not a whit, nor does what CJ or anyone else does, it is independant of owens.

The fact of the matter is the team is first, the other stuff second. Off the field generosity isn't going to save you a roster spot if you stink. So why should the reverse be true? It isn't, and it is ridiculous to think so. In the eagles estimation, Owen's skills would acheive a short term result at the expense of long-term goals. He was behving ina manner inconsistent to team rules and his contract. The mutually chosen aribtrator agreed with them. It is pretty black and white. Other contracts have no bearing on the contract the Eagles and TO signed. Especially with other players in other organizations.

And finally, my bias was to keep TO and have he and mcnabb make up. But I can rationally say that he is a cancer to the team and the eagles made the tough choice, the one better for the long haul, not the most expedient choice--the league rules side with them, so to continue to argue it is akin to defending him. There is no extenuating cirucmstance. If you read the document that you should have, you would know that TO made a conscious decision to force a trade, cut or new contract, and has made comments to that effect. Roshenhaus doesn't get paid until TO gets a new contract. Pretty clear-cut, even for a biased judge.
The opening scene of the movie "Saving Private Ryan" is loosely based on games of dodgeball Brian Dawkins played in second grade.
eaglesrule
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar

Posts: 2843
Joined: 3 Dec 2003
Home Cafe: Football

Postby merc » Tue Jan 24, 2006 12:42 pm

Well it is scary that you don't understand--I'm not calling you dumb, but I am saying it is borderline ignorant. Not an insult, it is my assesment of the argument. You admittedly haven't even read the document in question, yet you are chargin bias.
Well, then according to your rationale, suggesting you are prejudiced against TO in coming to your opinions would be an equivalent borderline comment and apparently is not an insult to you since it is my assessment of your arguments. The veiled insults work both ways, and in both cases are wrong and simply un-needed, IMO.

It is a pretty well-supported concept, not only in the nfl but society at large. If someone was na acoholic,you company could fire your (or pick drug addictction if you would like). If you are productive in the company, the company doesn't have to take action. It simply could take action. A company, business can chose to be amoral if it so chooses in regard to accomplishing its goals.
I have no idea why you keep bringing this up, since I am wholly aware of this issue having lived in a "right to work/fire" state for most of my adult life. I think we're both apparently talking about the TO issue from two seperate and different levels.
My discussion deals with equity and fairness.. that's all. Why is that so hard to understand?

Maybe I am missing the fact that when you rationalize and try to differentiate between legal and private businesss, and between teams and their rules, you are in fact agreeing with me, and also think that TO's punishment, (in light of like misdeeds by other players going unpunished) is unfair and unequitous.

Seems to me like everything we've said so far comes down to that simple fact (of life), and everything just goes to point out our personal biases in how we view that unfairness and inequity? ;-)

As for this thread, I am all talked out for now, so I'll let you have the last word if you desire. It was a pleasure(for the most part ;-) ) discussing the TO issue with you. ;-D
Image
Thanks Anx2a for the Custom Sig

[i]2006 Cafe TSN Ultimate Salary Cap Playoff Champion[/i]
merc
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar

Posts: 4599
Joined: 19 Sep 2004
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Deep in the Woods of Texas

Postby eaglesrule » Tue Jan 24, 2006 1:30 pm

because ultimately the issue of "fairness" that you keeping harping on incocerrectl boils down to this. The most fair agreement people can make is a negotiation in good faith and sticking to it. Both parties were aware of their options, it was Owens, not the eagles who violated that basic sense of fairness.

The eagles could have said "you violated your contract, we are negating it" which they probably would have won in some measure or another.

Instead they told TO "we no longer need your services" and yet, continued to pay him. That is more fair than any normal person could ever hope to acheive. Which is why your claim for fairness is incorrect. And if we were to apply your other team examples, you could also say the severity of TO's dissention is much worse, given that the Eagles team he screwed up was much better. This was the defnding NFC champs who messed up, not the lions or cardianls. so fairness would imply proportionality as well one would think.

I still think that you should read the whole thing before you stick to your guns this bad.

But its pointless, you have your opinion, most people don't side with it.
The opening scene of the movie "Saving Private Ryan" is loosely based on games of dodgeball Brian Dawkins played in second grade.
eaglesrule
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar

Posts: 2843
Joined: 3 Dec 2003
Home Cafe: Football

Postby Kensat30 » Tue Jan 24, 2006 1:43 pm

Steve Smith is a hothead, but he isn't a punk.

That is what seperates him from the TO's of the world.
Kensat30
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Cafe Writer
Posts: 6427
Joined: 2 Jun 2004
Home Cafe: Football

Postby merc » Tue Jan 24, 2006 3:11 pm

because ultimately the issue of "fairness" that you keeping harping on incocerrectl boils down to this. The most fair agreement people can make is a negotiation in good faith and sticking to it.
So, then you do agree with me on requiring this stuff be part of the players contract. Good. Now, please show me where TO's contract stated he could not mouth off or he'd be fired, and where CJ's and Peytons said mouthing off was OK?

If none of their contracts notated the specifics concerning mouthing off and causing trouble, then, punishing one person and not another for the same deed is indeed unfair... and I don't understand how anyone could disagree with that at the most basic level?

Okay... now I hope I am done in this thread... :-D
Image
Thanks Anx2a for the Custom Sig

[i]2006 Cafe TSN Ultimate Salary Cap Playoff Champion[/i]
merc
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar

Posts: 4599
Joined: 19 Sep 2004
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Deep in the Woods of Texas

Postby eaglesrule » Tue Jan 24, 2006 3:43 pm

good god, I am beginning to wonder...

First of all, from what I understand there was language. And it is inherent in the contract that players follow the rules of the team as long as they don't supercede palyers association rules (which the eagles'r rules did not). It is also inherent in the contract that you listen to coaches, that is called "disobedience" and "duties ass asigned" of which fan autograph sessions are a part of.

Conduct detrimental to the team, by any reasonable standard means not fighting teammates and team officials.

Owens did all of these things. There is language in his contract that covers these things.

Your argument strikes me as akin to those people who say "wehre is the right to privacy in the consittution"? Except this is more than clear cut.

There is a listing in every players contract about behavior and what is expected. You can't find a contract that would explicityl permit not listening to coaches, slamming the organization publicly and physcially fighting teammates. The fact you don't understand this is getting to be beyond the pale.

ITs like saying when you got hired that you didn't know fighting a coworker was wrong, or telling your boss "you speak when spoken to" -- it is so basic to any understanding of "conduct detrimental to the team" it is amazing you are still arguing.

You want to argue TO is a good player? Fine? Want to argue the Eagles football wise handled it dumb, fine? You can argue many things but these two, you ultimately can't:

One: TO did in fact behave in behavior edetrimental to the team. He has admitted it, witnesses have attested to it, and an approved arbitrator upheld that notion. Anyone will concede that fighting and disobedience fulfill this notion. You also can't deny that cotnracts address this issue.

Two: the Eagles were well within their rights to do so. TYhey did so, and again the league/players association representative agreed.

SO, it follows, there was nothing unfair about anything. The Eagles told him that behavior detrimental to the team would be punsihed. Owens was are of that. He chose to act the way he did, got called on it, got deactivated. Nothing more to say, fair is fair as all parties were apprised of what his responsiblites were.

Funny how you bring up other exampels by the way, and leave out keyshawn. The Eagles had precident on their side as well. Ownes just had the audcatity to challenge it, and he lost.
The opening scene of the movie "Saving Private Ryan" is loosely based on games of dodgeball Brian Dawkins played in second grade.
eaglesrule
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar

Posts: 2843
Joined: 3 Dec 2003
Home Cafe: Football

Postby merc » Tue Jan 24, 2006 4:55 pm

good god, I am beginning to wonder...
You too? Why can't you just admit that NFL players are not all treated in a fair and equal manner for like deeds? It is obvious to anyone who saw and heard what CJ and Peyton and Smith and TO did, and then saw that ONLY TO was punished for his misdeed. And, as for fights, there are many many many inter-team fights in locker rooms each year that never get mentioned, much less punished.

First of all, from what I understand there was language. And it is inherent in the contract that players follow the rules of the team as long as they don't supercede palyers association rules (which the eagles'r rules did not). It is also inherent in the contract that you listen to coaches, that is called "disobedience" and "duties ass asigned" of which fan autograph sessions are a part of.
No kidding... and as I've already said this should have applied to TO, Smith, Peyton and CJ but seemingly was only applied to TO. That is not fair or equitous.

Conduct detrimental to the team, by any reasonable standard means not fighting teammates and team officials.
Right, and those other guys I am sure had those contract wording and rules as well as probably "conduct unbecoming"... and yet once again only TO was punished. That is not fair or equitous.

Owens did all of these things. There is language in his contract that covers these things.
Right... as there is for CJ, Smith, Peyton and probably every other single NFL football player who messed up... yet, once again, it appears that only TO was punished for these misdeeds. That is not fair or equitous.

Your argument strikes me as akin to those people who say "wehre is the right to privacy in the consittution"? Except this is more than clear cut.
What is clear cut? The right to Privacy, the right to be an asshole as was TO, CJ, Peyton, Smith and others, or what are you talking about now? BTW, there also isn't any constitutional right to be treated fairly or equitously under your employers rules.... but that shouldn't stop one from noticing it when it happens.

There is a listing in every players contract about behavior and what is expected. You can't find a contract that would explicityl permit not listening to coaches, slamming the organization publicly and physcially fighting teammates. The fact you don't understand this is getting to be beyond the pale.
Err, obviously you don't seem to get it. Those misdeeds are either detailed specifically in TO's contract alone, or it isn't in any contract with regard to those specific misdeeds, and the interpretation and adminstration of punishment for various misdeeds lies with the individual organizations...thereby, creating a system which results in unfair and unequitous distribution of punishment. You are agruing with yourself and you don't even know it because possibly you are just so adamant in denying that punishing TO while not punishing others for the same misdeeds or worse is unfair.

ITs like saying when you got hired that you didn't know fighting a coworker was wrong, or telling your boss "you speak when spoken to" -- it is so basic to any understanding of "conduct detrimental to the team" it is amazing you are still arguing.
Once again... what is your point. TO fights, he gets punished as he should be. Others fight, they do not get punished. Just admit it... unfair and inequitous. You are continually backing up to my conclusion over and over and over again.

You want to argue TO is a good player? Fine? Want to argue the Eagles football wise handled it dumb, fine?
I agree with both of thsoe statements. And, as I've said TO deserved to be punished and his punishment may be fair if in fact others who do those same misdeeds or worse get proportionately fair punishment as TO... and, IMO, that hasn't happened as seen by like incidents by Smith, CJ, and Peyton

You can argue many things but these two, you ultimately can't:
One: TO did in fact behave in behavior edetrimental to the team. He has admitted it, witnesses have attested to it, and an approved arbitrator upheld that notion. Anyone will concede that fighting and disobedience fulfill this notion. You also can't deny that cotnracts address this issue.
I've never disputed that... what is your point?

e Eagles were well within their rights to do so. TYhey did so, and again the league/players association representative agreed.
Right again... never disputed that either... so what?

follows, there was nothing unfair about anything. The Eagles told him that behavior detrimental to the team would be punsihed. Owens was are of that. He chose to act the way he did, got called on it, got deactivated. Nothing more to say, fair is fair as all parties were apprised of what his responsiblites were.
Well, that's where you go astray. The fact that CJ, Peyton, Smith and others have done the same misdeeds and worse, and not been punished is proor of the unfairness and ineguity that exists in the NFL regarding these incidents.

ow you bring up other exampels by the way, and leave out keyshawn. The Eagles had precident on their side as well. Ownes just had the audcatity to challenge it, and he lost.
Well, since you brought Keyshawn into the picture, I guess that he would also be an example of unfair and inequitous treatment in the NFL?

Seems like your extreme pro Eagle management bias is preventing you from seeing that although TO's punishment might have been warranted, when compared to the lack or discrepency that exists in punishing like deeds in the NFL, it was unfair.

Maybe, what the NFL needs is some kind of published "threshold" of misdeeds that needs to occur before a player gets punished? If the players knew what that threshold was for the entire league, then they would know exactly when to stop and could prevent crossing that seemingly invisible line between no punishment and season ending banishment.
Image
Thanks Anx2a for the Custom Sig

[i]2006 Cafe TSN Ultimate Salary Cap Playoff Champion[/i]
merc
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar

Posts: 4599
Joined: 19 Sep 2004
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Deep in the Woods of Texas

Postby moonhead » Tue Jan 24, 2006 5:07 pm

8-o
whoa. that's just too much to read.
i guess i got here too late.
Image
moonhead
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Fantasy ExpertCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle Eye
Posts: 15994
Joined: 16 Oct 2004
Home Cafe: Football
Location: questioning your fanhood...funk o'meter: funkalicious

Postby merc » Tue Jan 24, 2006 5:15 pm

whoa. that's just too much to read.
i guess i got here too late.

Hehe... don't worry Moonhead. You didn't miss anything other than a re-hashing of the same two arguments of:
1. TO deserved to be punished like he was punished and here is why
and
2. TO deserved to be punished but his punishment should be in line with punishments for like deeds by other players and also in line with punishments meted out for much more serious offenses by players.

The strange thing is... that in spite of those two points being independent and therefore, capable of seemingly peaceful coexistance, some folks who strongly have dislike for TO or strong support for Eagles management simply won't look at it that way... ;-)

However, I did take the opportunity to invent a new word... equitous. :-D
Image
Thanks Anx2a for the Custom Sig

[i]2006 Cafe TSN Ultimate Salary Cap Playoff Champion[/i]
merc
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar

Posts: 4599
Joined: 19 Sep 2004
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Deep in the Woods of Texas

PreviousNext

Return to Football Talk

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Exabot [Bot] and 7 guests

cron
Forums Articles & Tips Start & Sit Sleepers Rankings Leagues


Get Ready...
The 2014 NFL season kicks off in 9:11 hours
(and 42 days)
2014 NFL Schedule


  • Fantasy Football
  • Article Submissions
  • Privacy Statement
  • Site Survey 
  • Contact