PDA

View Full Version : Moronic comments from Giants haters



comebacktiki
03-25-2012, 05:41 PM
I love to read these moron haters comments Scroll Down,

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/03/25/mara-says-redskins-cowboys-are-lucky-they-didnt-lose-draft-picks

Flip Empty
03-25-2012, 05:58 PM
No different to the comments you see on here about the Saints, Eagles etc

nYg24
03-25-2012, 06:52 PM
Thats why i dont read comments on football web sites. A lot of fans are ignorant morons.

bashful
03-25-2012, 07:00 PM
Thats why i dont read comments on football web sites. A lot of fans are ignorant morons.

possibly true. However what makes you an authority. Sometimes statments that one thinks are moronic are not. Football websites bring out the blindness of the fan. It is win win and stats stats stats. You can win and still be a ****ty coach, oc, dc, QB whatever. Many a true fan overlooks to what be obvious to the perosn that WATCHES the game.

FBomb
03-25-2012, 08:27 PM
Thats why i dont read comments on football web sites. A lot of fans are ignorant morons. possibly true. However what makes you an authority. Sometimes statments that one thinks are moronic are not. Football websites bring out the blindness of the fan. It is win win and stats stats stats. You can win and still be a ****ty coach, oc, dc, QB whatever. Many a true fan overlooks to what be obvious to the perosn that WATCHES the game.</P>


That's a two way street my freind. </P>


btw......winning is all that counts....EVER. The rest is for stat *****s and fantasy geeks.</P>


****ty coaches don't win games or Superbowls. Your theory is garbage.</P>

SweetZombieJesus
03-26-2012, 09:36 AM
http://nbcprofootballtalk.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/woody-johnson-triple-h-and-john-mara-e1332704083530.jpg?w=213

Wait, what?

Redeyejedi
03-26-2012, 10:30 AM
Everyone thinks MAra is the spearhead. Skins and Cowboys fans do have a gripe because technically there wasnt a rule. However to blatantly go against something the other 30 teams agreed to shows a complete lack of respect for the other owners and competitive balance.

BlueJayC
03-26-2012, 10:40 AM
Another classic hater comment I got from my Jet fan friend yesterday after asking him dumbfounded why the Jets were holding a press conference to introduce a backup QB......his comment was:</P>


"You're just jealous......"</P>


Riiiiiigggghhhhhttttt....jealous of over 40 years on ineptitude (sp?)....</P>

RagTime Blue
03-26-2012, 10:44 AM
This is the first time I can remember Mara looking bad in the press.

Not saying he's right or wrong, because I don't have the savvy of understanding the CBA (or lack thereof at the time).

But he should know better than to comment publicly on things like this.

Redeyejedi
03-26-2012, 10:51 AM
"Being that Mara stood to gain an obvious competitive advantage by punishing those two teams specifically for breaking no rules, even by his own admission, I think, quite frankly, he’ll be lucky if if his team doesn’t lose draft picks."


LMAO
But the Skins and Boys dont gain a competitive advantage by shedding money in the non cap year.

Ntegrase96
03-26-2012, 11:40 AM
"Being that Mara stood to gain an obvious competitive advantage by punishing those two teams specifically for breaking no rules, even by his own admission, I think, quite frankly, he’ll be lucky if if his team doesn’t lose draft picks."


LMAO
But the Skins and Boys dont gain a competitive advantage by shedding money in the non cap year.

The difference is the legality of each owners actions. Skins and Boys were legal when they took advantage of the uncapped year. The salary cap docks were not.

Mara had every right to do the same as the Skins and Boys during the uncapped year, but he and the Giants didn't-- was their choice not too. Does that mean that the Cowboys and Redskins should be punished? And why weren't the other teams punished that benefited from the uncapped year as well? Packers? Bucs? Saints?

It's just a shady situation. And the more details that are revealed the shadier it gets.

TrueBlue@NYC
03-26-2012, 12:40 PM
"Being that Mara stood to gain an obvious competitive advantage by punishing those two teams specifically for breaking no rules, even by his own admission, I think, quite frankly, he’ll be lucky if if his team doesn’t lose draft picks." LMAO But the Skins and Boys dont gain a competitive advantage by shedding money in the non cap year.

The difference is the legality of each owners actions. Skins and Boys were legal when they took advantage of the uncapped year. The salary cap docks were not.

Mara had every right to do the same as the Skins and Boys during the uncapped year, but he and the Giants didn't-- was their choice not too. Does that mean that the Cowboys and Redskins should be punished? And why weren't the other teams punished that benefited from the uncapped year as well? Packers? Bucs? Saints?

It's just a shady situation. And the more details that are revealed the shadier it gets.

</P>


Cowboys and Redskins fans keep saying that other teasm took advatage of an uncapped year, yet you're basing this off of nothing.</P>


Boys and Skins fans seem to think that only their teams thought of the idea to restructure their contracts to take advantage of the uncapped year. I'm sure EVERY team in the NFL, especially those that were cap strapped, thought of that same idea. If they didn't think there was a problem with it, either in written rule or something that was agreed upon at owners meetings, then they would have done it. </P>


I will say though that the NFL should have pulled Mara off the committee on this to prevent the PR problem that is now occurring. I'm sure Mara was chair of this committee long before this issue even came up, but understanding what the issue was he should have been asked to obstain from it. </P>

Kruunch
03-26-2012, 12:52 PM
Thats why i dont read comments on football web sites. A lot of fans are ignorant morons. possibly true. However what makes you an authority. Sometimes statments that one thinks are moronic are not. Football websites bring out the blindness of the fan. It is win win and stats stats stats. You can win and still be a ****ty coach, oc, dc, QB whatever. Many a true fan overlooks to what be obvious to the perosn that WATCHES the game.</P>


That's a two way street my freind.* </P>


btw......winning is all that counts....EVER.* The rest is for stat *****s and fantasy geeks.</P>


****ty coaches don't win games or Superbowls.* Your theory is garbage.</P>

Steve Mariuci, Barry Switzer, George Seifert, and Jon Gruden all won Super Bowls. I wouldn't consider any of them particularly good coaches.

They all inherited great teams.

Ntegrase96
03-26-2012, 12:54 PM
"Being that Mara stood to gain an obvious competitive advantage by punishing those two teams specifically for breaking no rules, even by his own admission, I think, quite frankly, he’ll be lucky if if his team doesn’t lose draft picks." LMAO But the Skins and Boys dont gain a competitive advantage by shedding money in the non cap year.

The difference is the legality of each owners actions. Skins and Boys were legal when they took advantage of the uncapped year. The salary cap docks were not.

Mara had every right to do the same as the Skins and Boys during the uncapped year, but he and the Giants didn't-- was their choice not too. Does that mean that the Cowboys and Redskins should be punished? And why weren't the other teams punished that benefited from the uncapped year as well? Packers? Bucs? Saints?

It's just a shady situation. And the more details that are revealed the shadier it gets.

</p>


Cowboys and Redskins fans keep saying that other teasm took advatage of an uncapped year, yet you're basing this off of nothing.</p>


Boys and Skins fans seem to think that only their teams thought of the idea to restructure their contracts to take advantage of the uncapped year. I'm sure EVERY team in the NFL, especially those that were cap strapped, thought of that same idea. If they didn't think there was a problem with it, either in written rule or something that was agreed upon at owners meetings, then they would have done it. </p>


I will say though that the NFL should have pulled Mara off the committee on this to prevent the PR problem that is now occurring. I'm sure Mara was chair of this committee long before this issue even came up, but understanding what the issue was he should have been asked to obstain from it. </p>

Nope, Mara became the Chair of the committee in late October of 2011.

Not basing it off of nothing. You can look at player contracts around the league including Nick Collins breakdown-- he was given 40 percent of his salary in 2010. The difference between he and Austin? His contract was only 14 million? I dunno... Also, you can look at teams like the Bucs who spent only 80 million in 2010. How is that gaining an advantage in future seasons? I mean, they DID just sign Vincent Jackson and Carl Nicks amongst other expensive free agents.

Although, everything those teams did, as well, was within bounds of the rules at the time. Every team that year was free to do as they please. Mara's statement 'violating the spirit of the salary cap' is not substantial in the least bit. He's basically admitting that there was no legal or contractual obligation for the Cowboys, Redskins or any other team in the NFL to abide by. Of course we already knew that because that's the very definition of an un-capped year.

I don't understand how anyone can logically refute that or stand by the salary cap docks.

greenca190
03-26-2012, 01:05 PM
"Being that Mara stood to gain an obvious competitive advantage by punishing those two teams specifically for breaking no rules, even by his own admission, I think, quite frankly, he’ll be lucky if if his team doesn’t lose draft picks." LMAO But the Skins and Boys dont gain a competitive advantage by shedding money in the non cap year.

The difference is the legality of each owners actions. Skins and Boys were legal when they took advantage of the uncapped year. The salary cap docks were not.

Mara had every right to do the same as the Skins and Boys during the uncapped year, but he and the Giants didn't-- was their choice not too. Does that mean that the Cowboys and Redskins should be punished? And why weren't the other teams punished that benefited from the uncapped year as well? Packers? Bucs? Saints?

It's just a shady situation. And the more details that are revealed the shadier it gets.

</p>


Cowboys and Redskins fans keep saying that other teasm took advatage of an uncapped year, yet you're basing this off of nothing.*</p>


Boys and Skins fans seem to think that only their teams thought of the idea to restructure their contracts to take advantage of the uncapped year. I'm sure EVERY team in the NFL, especially those that were cap strapped, thought of that same idea. If they didn't think there was a problem with it, either in written rule or something that was agreed upon at owners meetings, then they would have done it. </p>


I will say though that the NFL should have pulled Mara off the committee on this to prevent the PR problem that is now occurring. I'm sure Mara was chair of this committee long before this issue even came up, but understanding what the issue was he should have been asked to obstain from it. </p>

Nope, Mara became the Chair of the committee in late October of 2011.

Not basing it off of nothing. You can look at player contracts around the league including Nick Collins breakdown-- he was given 40 percent of his salary in 2010. The difference between he and Austin? His contract was only 14 million? I dunno... Also, you can look at teams like the Bucs who spent only 80 million in 2010. How is that gaining an advantage in future seasons? I mean, they DID just sign Vincent Jackson and Carl Nicks amongst other expensive free agents.

Although, everything those teams did, as well, was within bounds of the rules at the time. Every team that year was free to do as they please. Mara's statement 'violating the spirit of the salary cap' is not substantial in the least bit. He's basically admitting that there was no legal or contractual obligation for the Cowboys, Redskins or any other team in the NFL to abide by. Of course we already knew that because that's the very definition of an un-capped year.

I don't understand how anyone can logically refute that or stand by the salary cap docks.


Yeah, I completely disagree with what is happening right now with the sanctions. The only thing I've read so far that makes the punishment legitimate is that the Cowboys and Redskins were warned several times that punishments could be handed down in advance to them loading their contracts for the uncapped year.

I still don't believe this should be an issue. If anything, it was good a business strategy.

Ntegrase96
03-26-2012, 01:13 PM
Yeah, I completely disagree with what is happening right now with the sanctions. The only thing I've read so far that makes the punishment legitimate is that the Cowboys and Redskins were warned several times that punishments could be handed down in advance to them loading their contracts for the uncapped year.

I still don't believe this should be an issue. If anything, it was good a business strategy.

That's what I got hung-up on for the first couple of days. I ripped Jerry thoroughly on one of the Cowboys forums. The Cowboys and Redskins were 'warned' and should have followed suit. At least that was my thinking for the first day or so.

...But how can you be warned not to dump salaries when there are no laws restricting/preventing that behavior? Doesn't that make those 'warnings' really just 'pleas', since nobody had the right to tell the Cowboys and Redskins how to spend?

The NFL has admitted this to be true.

TrueBlue@NYC
03-26-2012, 01:28 PM
"Being that Mara stood to gain an obvious competitive advantage by punishing those two teams specifically for breaking no rules, even by his own admission, I think, quite frankly, he’ll be lucky if if his team doesn’t lose draft picks." LMAO But the Skins and Boys dont gain a competitive advantage by shedding money in the non cap year.

The difference is the legality of each owners actions. Skins and Boys were legal when they took advantage of the uncapped year. The salary cap docks were not.

Mara had every right to do the same as the Skins and Boys during the uncapped year, but he and the Giants didn't-- was their choice not too. Does that mean that the Cowboys and Redskins should be punished? And why weren't the other teams punished that benefited from the uncapped year as well? Packers? Bucs? Saints?

It's just a shady situation. And the more details that are revealed the shadier it gets.

</P>


Cowboys and Redskins fans keep saying that other teasm took advatage of an uncapped year, yet you're basing this off of nothing.</P>


Boys and Skins fans seem to think that only their teams thought of the idea to restructure their contracts to take advantage of the uncapped year. I'm sure EVERY team in the NFL, especially those that were cap strapped, thought of that same idea. If they didn't think there was a problem with it, either in written rule or something that was agreed upon at owners meetings, then they would have done it. </P>


I will say though that the NFL should have pulled Mara off the committee on this to prevent the PR problem that is now occurring. I'm sure Mara was chair of this committee long before this issue even came up, but understanding what the issue was he should have been asked to obstain from it. </P>




Nope, Mara became the Chair of the committee in late October of 2011.

Not basing it off of nothing. You can look at player contracts around the league including Nick Collins breakdown-- he was given 40 percent of his salary in 2010. The difference between he and Austin? His contract was only 14 million? I dunno... Also, you can look at teams like the Bucs who spent only 80 million in 2010. How is that gaining an advantage in future seasons? I mean, they DID just sign Vincent Jackson and Carl Nicks amongst other expensive free agents.

Although, everything those teams did, as well, was within bounds of the rules at the time. Every team that year was free to do as they please. Mara's statement 'violating the spirit of the salary cap' is not substantial in the least bit. He's basically admitting that there was no legal or contractual obligation for the Cowboys, Redskins or any other team in the NFL to abide by. Of course we already knew that because that's the very definition of an un-capped year.

I don't understand how anyone can logically refute that or stand by the salary cap docks.
</P>


1. The Bucs were not warned NOT to spend only 80 million. And last i checked they were a rebuilding team (the youngest in the league) that year. And not signing big money FAs' today, so you can sign them possibly in the future is a tactic that's used even when there's a salary cap. That's business as usual. </P>


2. The point your missing is that the other 30 teams DID abide by it. They did heed the warnings. It may not have been in the CBA, but obviously they agreed upon it otherwise there wouldn't have been warnings. When your other 30 peers follow a code in good faith, and you turn around and go against it b/c there's "no contractual agreement" is the very defininition of SHADY. </P>


3. If the NFL and other 30 owners didn't think the boys and skins did anything wrong they wouldn't be bringing up this issue, it's not like the two teams have done anything that successful to warrant they being picked on by the other owners.</P>


4. Mara has been on the Executive Committee for years. That's why he's been a key player in all of the CBA negotiations. </P>

Ntegrase96
03-26-2012, 02:54 PM
"Being that Mara stood to gain an obvious competitive advantage by punishing those two teams specifically for breaking no rules, even by his own admission, I think, quite frankly, he’ll be lucky if if his team doesn’t lose draft picks." LMAO But the Skins and Boys dont gain a competitive advantage by shedding money in the non cap year.

The difference is the legality of each owners actions. Skins and Boys were legal when they took advantage of the uncapped year. The salary cap docks were not.

Mara had every right to do the same as the Skins and Boys during the uncapped year, but he and the Giants didn't-- was their choice not too. Does that mean that the Cowboys and Redskins should be punished? And why weren't the other teams punished that benefited from the uncapped year as well? Packers? Bucs? Saints?

It's just a shady situation. And the more details that are revealed the shadier it gets.

</p>


Cowboys and Redskins fans keep saying that other teasm took advatage of an uncapped year, yet you're basing this off of nothing.</p>


Boys and Skins fans seem to think that only their teams thought of the idea to restructure their contracts to take advantage of the uncapped year. I'm sure EVERY team in the NFL, especially those that were cap strapped, thought of that same idea. If they didn't think there was a problem with it, either in written rule or something that was agreed upon at owners meetings, then they would have done it. </p>


I will say though that the NFL should have pulled Mara off the committee on this to prevent the PR problem that is now occurring. I'm sure Mara was chair of this committee long before this issue even came up, but understanding what the issue was he should have been asked to obstain from it. </p>




Nope, Mara became the Chair of the committee in late October of 2011.

Not basing it off of nothing. You can look at player contracts around the league including Nick Collins breakdown-- he was given 40 percent of his salary in 2010. The difference between he and Austin? His contract was only 14 million? I dunno... Also, you can look at teams like the Bucs who spent only 80 million in 2010. How is that gaining an advantage in future seasons? I mean, they DID just sign Vincent Jackson and Carl Nicks amongst other expensive free agents.

Although, everything those teams did, as well, was within bounds of the rules at the time. Every team that year was free to do as they please. Mara's statement 'violating the spirit of the salary cap' is not substantial in the least bit. He's basically admitting that there was no legal or contractual obligation for the Cowboys, Redskins or any other team in the NFL to abide by. Of course we already knew that because that's the very definition of an un-capped year.

I don't understand how anyone can logically refute that or stand by the salary cap docks.
</p>


1. The Bucs were not warned NOT to spend only 80 million. And last i checked they were a rebuilding team (the youngest in the league) that year. And not signing big money FAs' today, so you can sign them possibly in the future is a tactic that's used even when there's a salary cap. That's business as usual. </p>


2. The point your missing is that the other 30 teams DID abide by it. They did heed the warnings. It may not have been in the CBA, but obviously they agreed upon it otherwise there wouldn't have been warnings. When your other 30 peers follow a code in good faith, and you turn around and go against it b/c there's "no contractual agreement" is the very defininition of SHADY. </p>


3. If the NFL and other 30 owners didn't think the boys and skins did anything wrong they wouldn't be bringing up this issue, it's not like the two teams have done anything that successful to warrant they being picked on by the other owners.</p>


4. Mara has been on the Executive Committee for years. That's why he's been a key player in all of the CBA negotiations. </p>

1. True. The Bucs weren't warned to not spend 80 million that year. It still falls within the "violates spirit of the salary cap (floor)" statement your CEO and President used as a platform for docking the salary caps of the Cowboys and Redskins. They were punished ultimately because Mara and co figured it hurt the competitive balance of the NFL. The Bucs gained a similar advantage in 2010 by not spending. But, none of that really matters because it was all within bounds of the uncapped year.

2. Without getting too hung up on the "30 other owners that abided by the rule" (it was less), the agreement is what was shady. Limiting spending in an uncapped year is collusion amongst owners against the NFL Players Association. That's why it wasn't in writing. Because it would have been clear evidence for the NFLPA to sue the NFL. Meaning only one thing... the gentleman's agreement was not binding and the Cowboys didn't have to abide by squat. The Cowboys and Skins are only guilty of not engaging in collusion. Those warnings? Meant absolutely nothing. They were pleas, at best.

3. The sanctions never received a full vote. Another shady detail that emerged days after the two teams were docked.

4. He was appointed chairman of the committee in late October 2011.

bklyn1028
03-26-2012, 03:32 PM
To quote John Mara:

"This has nothing to do with collusion. It has to do with teams attempting to gain a competitive advantage through a loophole in the system. They attempted to take advantage of it knowing full well there would be consequences."

Basically he said, the boys and skins went beyond what the other 30 teams decided to do. And, if he is wrong, how come only 2 teams did it. If there was no contract (which there wasn't), then why not all teams go hog-out?

Nah, the Cowboys and Skins took advantage of the other 30, and probably thought they would get away with it. Can't blame them, they looked at a technicality, but they got caught, ala Nixon.

Ntegrase96
03-26-2012, 03:37 PM
To quote John Mara:

"This has nothing to do with collusion. It has to do with teams attempting to gain a competitive advantage through a loophole in the system. They attempted to take advantage of it knowing full well there would be consequences."

Basically he said, the boys and skins went beyond what the other 30 teams decided to do. And, if he is wrong, how come only 2 teams did it. If there was no contract (which there wasn't), then why not all teams go hog-out?

Nah, the Cowboys and Skins took advantage of the other 30, and probably thought they would get away with it. Can't blame them, they looked at a technicality, but they got caught, ala Nixon.

Mara probably should have avoided talking about the matter because he may have just helped the Cowboys and Redskins...

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nfl-shutdown-corner/redskins-cowboys-file-grievance-against-salary-cap-penalties-015734891.html

bklyn1028
03-26-2012, 03:42 PM
To quote John Mara:

"This has nothing to do with collusion. It has to do with teams attempting to gain a competitive advantage through a loophole in the system. They attempted to take advantage of it knowing full well there would be consequences."

Basically he said, the boys and skins went beyond what the other 30 teams decided to do. And, if he is wrong, how come only 2 teams did it. If there was no contract (which there wasn't), then why not all teams go hog-out?

Nah, the Cowboys and Skins took advantage of the other 30, and probably thought they would get away with it. Can't blame them, they looked at a technicality, but they got caught, ala Nixon.

Mara probably should have avoided talking about the matter because he may have just helped the Cowboys and Redskins...

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nfl-shutdown-corner/redskins-cowboys-file-grievance-against-salary-cap-penalties-015734891.html




You're probably right, but he is a man of conviction, and honesty. He runs the team like his father, with honesty and football sense. To him football comes first, then the business side of it. Now he does have an advantage because that team is well-heeled, but he was raised with football first. I think he did what he did with the NFL in mind, and he probably feels he did nothing wrong. I'm sure he felt out the other owners who probably feel as he does.

Ntegrase96
03-26-2012, 03:54 PM
To quote John Mara:

"This has nothing to do with collusion. It has to do with teams attempting to gain a competitive advantage through a loophole in the system. They attempted to take advantage of it knowing full well there would be consequences."

Basically he said, the boys and skins went beyond what the other 30 teams decided to do. And, if he is wrong, how come only 2 teams did it. If there was no contract (which there wasn't), then why not all teams go hog-out?

Nah, the Cowboys and Skins took advantage of the other 30, and probably thought they would get away with it. Can't blame them, they looked at a technicality, but they got caught, ala Nixon.

Mara probably should have avoided talking about the matter because he may have just helped the Cowboys and Redskins...

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nfl-shutdown-corner/redskins-cowboys-file-grievance-against-salary-cap-penalties-015734891.html




You're probably right, but he is a man of conviction, and honesty. He runs the team like his father, with honesty and football sense. To him football comes first, then the business side of it. Now he does have an advantage because that team is well-heeled, but he was raised with football first. I think he did what he did with the NFL in mind, and he probably feels he did nothing wrong. I'm sure he felt out the other owners who probably feel as he does.

Perhaps. I've always respected the Mara family and think they do business in a fair manner, but John's comments reek of spite. And somehow (through bribery) the CEC struck a deal with the NFLPA to circumvent a vote of owners in order to dock the salary caps of the Cowboys and Redskins. Futhermore, the CEC found a way to do so without notifying one of their own members, Jerry Jones. That's right, Jerry Jones is a member of the CEC, yet was left out of the loop in all of this.

I don't think that's an accident at all, and who has the most to gain by doing so?

bklyn1028
03-26-2012, 04:21 PM
It is a situation that is getting out of hand. I agree with most, there was no "law / rule" broken, hence there should be no fine. I think what they did was wrong, they blatantly took advantage, but the ends does not justify the means.

FBomb
03-26-2012, 04:28 PM
Thats why i dont read comments on football web sites. A lot of fans are ignorant morons. possibly true. However what makes you an authority. Sometimes statments that one thinks are moronic are not. Football websites bring out the blindness of the fan. It is win win and stats stats stats. You can win and still be a ****ty coach, oc, dc, QB whatever. Many a true fan overlooks to what be obvious to the perosn that WATCHES the game.</P>


That's a two way street my freind. </P>


btw......winning is all that counts....EVER. The rest is for stat *****s and fantasy geeks.</P>


****ty coaches don't win games or Superbowls. Your theory is garbage.</P>


Steve Mariuci, Barry Switzer, George Seifert, and Jon Gruden all won Super Bowls. I wouldn't consider any of them particularly good coaches. They all inherited great teams.</P>


There are always excpetions to the rule, but as you said....they all inherited a SB winning team. TC and KG weren't handed anything. They helped build this SB winning team. </P>