Rubes

Riiiight....

now there's hindsight for you.

who are you asking?

I think y'all are basically missing the point about my post. I'm not criticizing the moves to let JJ and PW go. Although I prefer to see the team kept intact, I also agree that we shouldn't destroy the cap in doing so. TD has his reasons for letting those players go, no doubt about that, and I don't entirely disagree with it. I was just commenting that it can sometimes be frustrating with TD since it seems like we never really know what's going on. The answer is always "he has his reasons." Of course he doesn't have to tell us anything, nor would I expect him to.

On second thought, maybe I'll say something to that. I didn't necessarily imply that what we have heard from JJ/PW and their agents is the absolute truth (which is why I said "I try not to put too much into what I read in the articles, particularly when it comes from agents"). All I'm saying is that's all we've heard, from either side. If TD would just come out and say something, it would help. Granted, he has no particular reason to say anything, certainly he doesn't have to say anything just to ease the fan's minds. But it would just be helpful. As such, he's a little frustrating. That's all.

You do have such a way with words.

Let me just start off by saying that I am a big supporter of TD. I think he's done a solid job so far for this team with what he was given. I also do keep in mind that his record with us is less than stellar, and we have yet to get to the playoffs with him, so I try to keep things in perspective. He's a frustrating guy, though. I try not to put too much into what I read in the articles, particularly when it comes from agents, but this treatment of JJ and PW is just puzzling. I don't know what TD's plans are for this team, and probably nobody in the media does, either. If he wants to go another direction with regard to LT and DT, that's his call. But why hint to everyone that we "may not be able to keep them" and then, apparently, not even give it a try? He supposedly never contacted the players or their agents before the deadline, even though the suggestion was that he might try to keep at least one of them. Why deal that way with two players that have been here their whole careers? Why not just tell them "thanks" for all of their contributions to the team, but that we are probably going to look elsewhere? It would just be nice to know what the heck is going on in his head. It seems so odd on the outside.

I just love how they gave up a first-round pick to get Coles, and now they just release the guy. Could you imagine the reaming TD would take here if he gave up a first-round pick for a player that he just released a year or two later? Wait a minute...

Is this the first official "we're doooomed" post of the offseason?

Dude, I'm there!!! My uncle and I are coming out for that one. Thanks for the info, I'll make sure to contact the SDBB's soon. It's going to be awesome!

That just blows me away. Although, actually, the reading thing was referring to Kim Peek, the Rain Man guy, not the subject of the story. I didn't realize Peek lives in Salt Lake City...

But he cries....

This is a great post.

Are they coming in on a blitz???

A lot of people don't remember how good White was. One thing that always gets forgotten is the famous "The Catch" game, after Montana completes the winning TD. White and Dallas got the ball back and very nearly scored a long TD to win it, but the receiver barely got tackled by the last guy between him and the end zone. He makes that TD, and White probably gets remembered instead of Montana.

Hilarious! Who knows, maybe White will call him up and demand $40,000 for use of the number...

I see you're settling in just fine around here....

To be fair, I think it was overall his disrespect for our entire offense's ability to handle the blitz. Drew was certainly part of that equation, but let's be honest, nobody on that offense knew what to do when one or more extra defenders came across the line.

I was just about to post the same thing...

I thought about it... ...then realized I should probably listen to that little voice inside my head (at least for now). Besides, I spend too much time here as it is....

Kinda makes me wish we could have gotten something for him in a trade, but oh well...

An excellent question, I must say. Unfortunately, I really really think we don't want to go there. At least not on a message board... Perhaps over a few beers at one of the tailgates this year....

I think this pretty much says everything we need to know. Have a swell day.

Assigning a broad prejudice? Please, explain to me how it is broad. Did I: - conclude that everyone on this board is unkind, inconsiderate, disrespectful, and unaccepting in general? - conclude that everyone on this board is this way toward gay people? Not that I can see. I referred to a particular subset of people here, and specifically to one issue, the narrow issue, the attitudes toward gay people. Your interpretation of anything beyond this is an extrapolation of your own doing. Yes, you do fail the litmus test, thank you for pointing that out. And with a rehash of the same old tired arguments as well. To think I had hoped people had risen above this. No, I don’t know how people on this board interact with gay people on a day-to-day basis. But from many of the remarks and comments I see here, it doesn’t really matter one way or the other. Gays and lesbians are frequently degraded here and elsewhere, sometimes in subtle ways, sometimes in not-so-subtle ways. Kindness is revealed not just in one’s actions, but also in one’s capacity. It can be a considerate, caring act, or it can be the capability of being sympathetic and compassionate. Is everyone here unkind toward gays? Of course not, nor did I ever say that. But it’s not a stretch to say that I don’t need to witness everyone’s daily actions toward gays to know that many here are unkind toward gays, particularly in their capacity for sympathy and compassion. And that leaves out the whole argument about considerate acts in the absence of any true sympathy or compassion. Like the white lady said in "The Color Purple" as she freaks out trying to drive after dropping off Oprah Winfrey's character: "I've always been kind to you people!" Your comments regarding understanding and respect are so completely juvenile they are almost shameful. Again, understanding is more than just your narrow interpretation of it. To understanding something isn’t always just to know it empirically; it is also a sympathetic, empathetic, or tolerant recognition of somebody else’s nature or situation. Perhaps this is too complicated a concept for some, but to conclude that because you are not gay, you cannot understand what it is like to be gay, and to use this as a reason why we should not endeavor to empathize is nothing but a cowardly excuse. I can’t even bring myself to discuss your inane comments regarding respect. And then there is acceptance. At what level you ask? Perhaps we should be asking what your own personal definition of acceptance is. You “accept” gay people, just not entirely. You’re perfectly happy to work with them, to know them as acquaintances. But that’s where it ends, isn’t it? You don’t accept gay people, you endure their presence, probably as long as you don't think of them as "gay". As long as they don’t want to do certain things that you believe only non-gay people have a right to do, their existence is endurable. You are indeed part of the majority of people opposed to gay marriage. That, in and of itself, does not make a stance correct or justifiable. It is your indifference to the struggles of gay people that defines your position on this issue.