New "consistency" thread, former Johnny Football thread

[HumanCockroach]

Anyone think Future will actually address my rebuttal, or is this one of those "Monkey no see" instances again? Just curious, he asked a pointed question, and I gave him a straight forward answer, I guess since he didn't like it, or couldn't refute it, it will once again be simply ignored. *sigh* what you going to do?

[Futureite]

Bryan Hoyer did nothing to improve his chances of being named the starting QB. Don't get me wrong, Manziel didn't look that great either. but, the main thing wrong that I saw Manziel do wrong, and consistently so was to throw behind the receiver. Some of those passes were caught, many were not. But almost all of them were catchable and a few of the passes dropped the receiver had had his hands on. Thrown behind him or not if a receiver gets his hands on the ball he should be able to reel it in, especially if it isn't a case where the defender manages to get his hand on the ball and keep the receiver from completing the catch.

Yes, there was a lot of flAGS thrown and several looked akin to the play where the NFL had to admit our DB's INT. should have counted. Way too many of the calls last night wete ticky tacky and the NFL is going to have a bad joke on their hands if they don't adjust that rule and tell the officials they have gone too far.

Yes, what Manziel did was immature, but, he will learn to not draw negative issues his way.

I believe that Richard Sherman has matured since the Super Bowl and I don't expect him to do any rants unless he is extremely provoked. Even if he is I would hope he would THINK before he gets diarrhea of the mouth again, no matter how "right" he thinks he is. I consider one of my greatest moments of personal growth from boyhood into manhood was when I realized that as soon as I lose my composure I have lost my argument, no matter how many "facts" that I might think I had in my favor. When you lose control, raise your voice, and especially if you resort to hurling insults most people simply tune you out, you've lost the debate.

Now, I stay calm, cool, and collected and let then other fool make him(or her) self looking totally idiotic bouncing off the walls while they rant and rave just waiting for them to run out of breath and then stepping up to the plate and knocking the ball out of the park.

Manziel will need time to learn how to set his feet, play from the pocket, etc. I do like his fire and competitiveness. In fact I love it. Don't get me wrong, if this is a regular occurence and he does not improve as a football plsyer I will change my opinion. I guess I see the connection people are making between my Sherman comments and Manziel comments, but if you look deeper there are obvious differences; the first of which being Sherman's 'feels' more like a taunt after the game has been decided, Manziel's in the heat of a game his team actually lost. At least the Skins had the chance to respond during the game, snd Manziel knew it when he did it.

As far as Sherman is concerened, I don't think he is the worst guy in the world. In fact, I think.a lot of these arguments focus more on what a poster said or intended than the actual content itself. My personality flaw is that I am a jackhammer. I have a hard time ignoring when someone calls me out or attempts to force me to agree to something that did not occur. It has served me well in some ways - such as career - but is a hindrance in other ways, such as interpersonal relationships. I am sure Sherman will learn these things too, over time.

[HumanCockroach]

LMAO only Future could turn a Manziel thread into a hate rant on Sherman.

I think the kid has more balls than brains. But he was the best QB on the field for Cleveland last night. Not that its saying much. Grossman would probably be more effective than either he or Hoyer right now.

And speaking of Hoyer where does it say that going 2 out of 3 as a starter last year makes it "his" team? Hes looked dreadful. Pettine has gotten sucked into this *competition* hook line and sinker. The alternating every two series was a joke as most observers noted. So was playing an unmotivated dead man walking Josh Gordon who looked like a man who didn't want to be on the field. Somewhere Rob Chudzinski is laughing.

Bottom line is Cleveland looks like another hair fire this year.Manziel is the only chance they have IMO.

You sure about that? For my money, it's the guy not even IN the competition that continues to impress.

[kalibane]

Personally I couldn't care less about Johnny's finger. Doesn't bother me in the slightest but calling it Moxie and loving it when you wrote anthologies about what an F-You Richard Sherman extending his hand and saying "hell of a game" was.

The only consistancy you show is consistantly being inconsistant with your views.

Besides Moxie? Really all it showed was he let the Redskins sideline get in his head.

Lol! I posted that? Again, you inserted your own interpretation of what I posted.

What actually happened was Richard did in fact extend an eff you in the form of a phony handshake and YOU made an issue of it, not me. Why? So that you could focus on Crab's reaction to it and use it to justify Richard's rant afterwards. If rant never happens, no one - myself included - is discussing said handshake (and ass slap). And you know that. If there was a way of measuring the content of social media posts, I'd bet 75% of them regarding the handshake were made from the PNW.

I see what you did there, ol' switcheroo and such. At some point you are going to realize that while not a genius, I am able to think clear enough to see through complete BS . Until then I can keep pointing it out when you do it, if ya want.

Well you're right about one thing. You are not a genius. I can't believe you walked into that so easily. So let's see Richard Sherman giving what you consider a figurative "F U" to Crabtree is classless and you want no parts of him. But Johnny Manziel giving the Washington sideline a literal "F U" is something you loved and qualifies as "Moxie". And yet somehow you claim you're consistant.

See here's the thing Future... I don't care if the Sherman as an individual is a Bully or the Seahawks a group are bullies. You keep throwing that word around like it's supposed to bother people or drag him/them down a notch. Here's the problem. Bully's pick on people that are weaker than them and back down from people who are able to stand up to them. According to you the Seahawks were "bullying" the 49ers. Sherman was "bullying" Tom Brady and Michael Crabtree.

So that means one of two things. 1. You're lying/just don't know what you're talking aobut (either is a distinct possibility). 2. By the very definition of the word that means you're conceding that the 49ers are weaker than the Seahawks and Tom Brady and Michael Crabtree are weaker than Sherman. I'm pretty much okay with either option.

But just for kicks... how about you explain how Sherman was "bullying" Tom Brady. Because I'm not understanding what leverage Sherman had in that situation. Brady is more famous, has more status, is better looking, has more money, accomplished more professionally and on top of all of that he's physically taller and bigger than Sherman by 30 lbs. So I'm just having trouble figuring out how Sherman could possibly intimidate Brady. Maybe you can help.

You may think you're getting under peoples skin by throwing around insults at Seahawk players. The problem is two fold. The insults only work when you actually know what they mean and thus use them correctly and this isn't about you trying to drag down Sherman again it's about your lack of consistency.

[HumanCockroach]

And waiting........

[Futureite]

Personally I couldn't care less about Johnny's finger. Doesn't bother me in the slightest but calling it Moxie and loving it when you wrote anthologies about what an F-You Richard Sherman extending his hand and saying "hell of a game" was.

The only consistancy you show is consistantly being inconsistant with your views.

Besides Moxie? Really all it showed was he let the Redskins sideline get in his head.

Lol! I posted that? Again, you inserted your own interpretation of what I posted.

What actually happened was Richard did in fact extend an eff you in the form of a phony handshake and YOU made an issue of it, not me. Why? So that you could focus on Crab's reaction to it and use it to justify Richard's rant afterwards. If rant never happens, no one - myself included - is discussing said handshake (and ass slap). And you know that. If there was a way of measuring the content of social media posts, I'd bet 75% of them regarding the handshake were made from the PNW.

I see what you did there, ol' switcheroo and such. At some point you are going to realize that while not a genius, I am able to think clear enough to see through complete BS . Until then I can keep pointing it out when you do it, if ya want.

Well you're right about one thing. You are not a genius. I can't believe you walked into that so easily. So let's see Richard Sherman giving what you consider a figurative "F U" to Crabtree is classless and you want no parts of him. But Johnny Manziel giving the Washington sideline a literal "F U" is something you loved and qualifies as "Moxie". And yet somehow you claim you're consistant.

See here's the thing Future... I don't care if the Sherman as an individual is a Bully or the Seahawks a group are bullies. You keep throwing that word around like it's supposed to bother people or drag him/them down a notch. Here's the problem. Bully's pick on people that are weaker than them and back down from people who are able to stand up to them. According to you the Seahawks were "bullying" the 49ers. Sherman was "bullying" Tom Brady and Michael Crabtree.

So that means one of two things. 1. You're lying/just don't know what you're talking aobut (either is a distinct possibility). 2. By the very definition of the word that means you're conceding that the 49ers are weaker than the Seahawks and Tom Brady and Michael Crabtree are weaker than Sherman. I'm pretty much okay with either option.

But just for kicks... how about you explain how Sherman was "bullying" Tom Brady. Because I'm not understanding what leverage Sherman had in that situation. Brady is more famous, has more status, is better looking, has more money, accomplished more professionally and on top of all of that he's physically taller and bigger than Sherman by 30 lbs. So I'm just having trouble figuring out how Sherman could possibly intimidate Brady. Maybe you can help.

You may think you're getting under peoples skin by throwing around insults at Seahawk players. The problem is two fold. The insults only work when you actually know what they mean and thus use them correctly and this isn't about you trying to drag down Sherman again it's about your lack of consistency.

FIRST, your boy Anthony requested this entire dialogue from me by contrasting my Sherman comments with the Manziel's. If you do not want me "stirring" things up here, tell me what is off limits and I'll back off. Notice I no longer refer to him as "Dick" but instead "Richard". Your cornerback Richsrd Sherman begs for this attention, you openly celebrate his ability to "get under my (and other's) skin". You are acting quite hypocritical yourself now, my friend.

Second, he's the classic bully. The leverage he had with Brady was that he knew Brady would not react in a physical manner. Is this not common sense? He had no "leverage" with Tent Williams though, and so backed off after he got decked.

The leverage he had with Revis when he started the Twitterfest was that Revis was recovering from a blown knee.

The leverage that he had with Crabtree was thatCrabtree was recovering from a blown achilles suffered just 6-8 prior and was playing at 230 lbs.

In fact, hell, does the guy ever pick a fight with anyone that he 'doesn't' have leverage with?

My bully comment obviously bothered you. I didn't bring that up today. I just responded to it. You're either misinterpretting my statement (again, and again . . .) or not understanding the intent of it. The intent was to illustrate that he act like a chump; not to suggest he needs sensitivity counceling or league action. It's just another example of you reading something into my comment that was never even intended.

Hope I clarified everything for you.

And HC, not sure what you want me to respond to but I'll try and look tomorrow when I have time.

Have a good night folks. Season is 2 weeks away.

Seattle 20
GB. 12

And PS, I don't respect taunting when the taunted have no recourse to respond, be it from a blown knee, a game that is over, etc.

[HumanCockroach]

Futureite wrote:
HumanCockroach wrote:
That post shows how skewed your view is Future, really nothing more. Regardless, Johnny didn't show a whole hell of a lot of professionalism in that instance, if your going to incessantly moan about Sherman 'hurting' others feelings, you should at the very least show some consistency. Odds are Manziel will get some sort of reprimand for this, Sherman received none for his 'bullying' seems to me, the league is more inclined to view these actions as we do here, not the way you choose to view them.


I am consistent. I could care less about Sherman saying or doing X, Y and Z on the field. In fact, I did not even post much about his choke sign to Colin. I have always said that he takes it to a different level by getting personal off of the field. That does offend most rational people, and there is a huge difference betwen that and what is said/dine durung a game.

Exolain how professional Richard Sherman's screaming in Tom Brady's face was. You don't scream in another man's face ever unless you are prepared to get decked. Which Sherman has been, more than once. It absolutely is a bully tactic and he picked someone that he knew would not react.

I'd love to hear you justify and explain this one.


Don't need to justify it or explain it, per you it happened ON the field. so it's fine, as was his interview ON the field following the last game with your team, AS was the CHEAP shot by the chump in Washington, you are the one claiming "on" the field, not I. Brady most certainly did NOT keep it "on"the field as he was spouting off BEFORE the game, Crabtree most assuredly did NOT keep it ON the field with his trash talk, or actions, yet they are the "victims" of Shermans ON field bullying? yeah, real, real consistent. LMAO

made it real easy for you.

[HumanCockroach]

"Second, he's the classic bully. The leverage he had with Brady was that he knew Brady would not react in a physical manner. Is this not common sense?"

First of all, his actions were "on" the field right, could have sworn they were there in their uniforms, you know on the field.Brady was talkin sh!t and told Sherman to "find him after the game", Sherman obliged how that is any different I haven't the foggiest, I don't remember him following him home, or back to the hotel. It was BRADY not Sherman that started with the trash talk BEFORE the game IN the press the week leading up to the game. To hear you tell it, he shouldn't have just gone up to him, but punch]ed him right? that is after all what class acts like Crabtree do.

"He had no "leverage" with Tent Williams though, and so backed off after he got decked"

LOL, so in this specific instance it is fine to hit another man in the process of congratulating the rest of the Redskin team on a tough game, because he talked DURING the game. LMFAO not okay for Richard to yell in the face of a player that told him to find him after he beat them, who was talking trash in the media, but to go ahead and slap a guy in the face after the game, a-ok, of course only IF that man doesn't happen to be Sherman. SMH there need be no further examples, to clearly display your hypocracy... but why stop the fun here? I guess you could attempt to write it off as emotions after a playoff loss but to the best of my knowledge, I've never seen Sherman strike a SINGLE player, at any point in his career, regardless of how much the loss stung.And he "backed off" IMHO because he is SMART and knew that while Mr. Williams was NOT needed the next week ( you know cause he LOST) and Sherman WAS that he wasn't going to jeapordise his teams success by being stupid ( unlike others you have used the YOUTH excuse to protect)

"The leverage he had with Revis when he started the Twitterfest was that Revis was recovering from a blown knee."

Not Sherman's finest hour IMHO and one of the few instances that I was severely dissapointed in his actions, his leverage in this case as you put it, wasn't his knee recovery as you attempted to claim, it was him outperforming ALL of Revis' seasons up to that point. You can argue against it, but the truth IS that his performance was better. Maybe he was tired of hearing tool sheds like Bayless claim Sherman wasn't close to his level, or maybe he thought he had to start it to become considered the best ( which interestingly enough, he now is, so who knows maybe it worked?). Either way, this is one of the FEW examples that i agree Sherman showed an inappropriate and inmature response/action. Then again he's "young" and wasn't shooting at people or wrapping his vehicle while drunk and high around a tree, so I gues I'll forgive him this Twitter feud which ultimately injured no one.

"The leverage that he had with Crabtree was thatCrabtree was recovering from a blown achilles suffered just 6-8 prior and was playing at 230 lbs".

Really? LOL yeah it was the injury, that is what fueled his rant, performance and everything else. I feel dumber just for acknowledging this. First of all, what Sherman did was ON the field, your refusal to acknowledge that Crabtree started sh!t OFF the field ( which for some reason is again a-ok as long as the last name isn't Sherman, and isn't wearing a Seahawks jersey) is the epitome of what many of us are discussing. NOTHING Sherman did was off the field, and I'll just explain it away as "moxie" I guess. LMFAO. Secondly, Crabtree hasn't done a damn thing against Sherman for his ENTIRE career, so reaching for an injury excuse is pretty damn sad,, even for you.

"In fact, hell, does the guy ever pick a fight with anyone that he 'doesn't' have leverage with?"

No, because the guy hasn't to date "picked any fights" to begin with, so picking one with leverage is happening as much as the ones without leverage, which remains at zero.

"Hope I clarified everything for you"

Oh, yeah, you certainly did.

[mykc14]

"Second, he's the classic bully. The leverage he had with Brady was that he knew Brady would not react in a physical manner. Is this not common sense?"

First of all, his actions were "on" the field right, could have sworn they were there in their uniforms, you know on the field.Brady was talkin sh!t and told Sherman to "find him after the game", Sherman obliged how that is any different I haven't the foggiest, I don't remember him following him home, or back to the hotel. It was BRADY not Sherman that started with the trash talk BEFORE the game IN the press the week leading up to the game. To hear you tell it, he shouldn't have just gone up to him, but punch]ed him right? that is after all what class acts like Crabtree do.

"He had no "leverage" with Tent Williams though, and so backed off after he got decked"

LOL, so in this specific instance it is fine to hit another man in the process of congratulating the rest of the Redskin team on a tough game, because he talked DURING the game. LMFAO not okay for Richard to yell in the face of a player that told him to find him after he beat them, who was talking trash in the media, but to go ahead and slap a guy in the face after the game, a-ok, of course only IF that man doesn't happen to be Sherman. SMH there need be no further examples, to clearly display your hypocracy... but why stop the fun here? I guess you could attempt to write it off as emotions after a playoff loss but to the best of my knowledge, I've never seen Sherman strike a SINGLE player, at any point in his career, regardless of how much the loss stung.And he "backed off" IMHO because he is SMART and knew that while Mr. Williams was NOT needed the next week ( you know cause he LOST) and Sherman WAS that he wasn't going to jeapordise his teams success by being stupid ( unlike others you have used the YOUTH excuse to protect)

"The leverage he had with Revis when he started the Twitterfest was that Revis was recovering from a blown knee."

Not Sherman's finest hour IMHO and one of the few instances that I was severely dissapointed in his actions, his leverage in this case as you put it, wasn't his knee recovery as you attempted to claim, it was him outperforming ALL of Revis' seasons up to that point. You can argue against it, but the truth IS that his performance was better. Maybe he was tired of hearing tool sheds like Bayless claim Sherman wasn't close to his level, or maybe he thought he had to start it to become considered the best ( which interestingly enough, he now is, so who knows maybe it worked?). Either way, this is one of the FEW examples that i agree Sherman showed an inappropriate and inmature response/action. Then again he's "young" and wasn't shooting at people or wrapping his vehicle while drunk and high around a tree, so I gues I'll forgive him this Twitter feud which ultimately injured no one.

"The leverage that he had with Crabtree was thatCrabtree was recovering from a blown achilles suffered just 6-8 prior and was playing at 230 lbs".

Really? LOL yeah it was the injury, that is what fueled his rant, performance and everything else. I feel dumber just for acknowledging this. First of all, what Sherman did was ON the field, your refusal to acknowledge that Crabtree started sh!t OFF the field ( which for some reason is again a-ok as long as the last name isn't Sherman, and isn't wearing a Seahawks jersey) is the epitome of what many of us are discussing. NOTHING Sherman did was off the field, and I'll just explain it away as "moxie" I guess. LMFAO. Secondly, Crabtree hasn't done a damn thing against Sherman for his ENTIRE career, so reaching for an injury excuse is pretty damn sad,, even for you.

"In fact, hell, does the guy ever pick a fight with anyone that he 'doesn't' have leverage with?"

No, because the guy hasn't to date "picked any fights" to begin with, so picking one with leverage is happening as much as the ones without leverage, which remains at zero.

"Hope I clarified everything for you"

Oh, yeah, you certainly did.

You pretty much nailed it on the head with this one, HC. I mean after reading his first post I wanted to write something because of how ridiculous it was, but this says it all. I do want to mention how exceptionally stupid his supposed leverage for Crabs was. I mean come on, implying that the only reason he 'bullied' Crabs was because of an injury that occurred 8 MONTHS (not 6-8, but almost exactly 8 months to the day) and his weight is just laughable. That comment perfectly optimizes his 9er colors glasses. Yeah, Sherms actions towards Crabs had nothing to do with Crabs douchy behavior off the field, LMAO, and everything to do with Crabs weight!

[kalibane]

What are you talking about Future? HC outlined it Brady TOLD he and Earl to come see him after the game. Sherman had no leverage in that exchange. The only person with the bully pulpit was Brady. And then when Sherman and Earl wouldn't back down to Brady's talk/challenge on the field and then triumphed Brady slunk away without making eye contact. Now you can take issue with Sherman being a poor winner... I couldn't refute that. He is a poor winner with certain individuals. But the only person exhibiting "classic" bully behavior in that incident is Brady (although I don't consider any of it bullying by anyone, it's just the type of trash talk that happens in sports. This is my point... You just throw labels around regardless of what they actually mean.

Furthermore he backed down from Trent Williams? Um have you actually watched that video? Sherman is shaking hands and talking with RGIII, being a good sport. Enter Trent Williams saying nothing but "I'm going to punch you in the face". Richard says "Well do it then". Williams does it. Richard Sherman starts laughing. Once again you have a funny defintion for the words you choose.

Now the leverage he had with Crabtree is he is just flat out better than Crabtree and suffucates him on the field when they are matched up. You want to consider that bullying okay... but maybe Crabtree shouldn't have said he was going to beat Sherman's ass at a charity event and then consistantly come out on the losing end of their matchups.

But I digress let's go back to why people are taking shots at you right now. According to you: Richard Sherman's implied "F-U" in your opinion is completely classless and an example of why you hate Sherman. Johnny Manziel giving the Washington Bench a literal "F-U" you love because it shows Moxie. And then you proclaim your consistancy in the next breath. What?

[Hawktown]

After all this schooling this drunk troll has received, can we please have a dumbass/troll/ignore button? PLEASE!!! LOL!!!

[Anthony]

Well you're right about one thing. You are not a genius. I can't believe you walked into that so easily. So let's see Richard Sherman giving what you consider a figurative "F U" to Crabtree is classless and you want no parts of him. But Johnny Manziel giving the Washington sideline a literal "F U" is something you loved and qualifies as "Moxie". And yet somehow you claim you're consistant.

See here's the thing Future... I don't care if the Sherman as an individual is a Bully or the Seahawks a group are bullies. You keep throwing that word around like it's supposed to bother people or drag him/them down a notch. Here's the problem. Bully's pick on people that are weaker than them and back down from people who are able to stand up to them. According to you the Seahawks were "bullying" the 49ers. Sherman was "bullying" Tom Brady and Michael Crabtree.

So that means one of two things. 1. You're lying/just don't know what you're talking aobut (either is a distinct possibility). 2. By the very definition of the word that means you're conceding that the 49ers are weaker than the Seahawks and Tom Brady and Michael Crabtree are weaker than Sherman. I'm pretty much okay with either option.

But just for kicks... how about you explain how Sherman was "bullying" Tom Brady. Because I'm not understanding what leverage Sherman had in that situation. Brady is more famous, has more status, is better looking, has more money, accomplished more professionally and on top of all of that he's physically taller and bigger than Sherman by 30 lbs. So I'm just having trouble figuring out how Sherman could possibly intimidate Brady. Maybe you can help.

You may think you're getting under peoples skin by throwing around insults at Seahawk players. The problem is two fold. The insults only work when you actually know what they mean and thus use them correctly and this isn't about you trying to drag down Sherman again it's about your lack of consistency.

FIRST, your boy Anthony requested this entire dialogue from me by contrasting my Sherman comments with the Manziel's. If you do not want me "stirring" things up here, tell me what is off limits and I'll back off. Notice I no longer refer to him as "Dick" but instead "Richard". Your cornerback Richsrd Sherman begs for this attention, you openly celebrate his ability to "get under my (and other's) skin". You are acting quite hypocritical yourself now, my friend.

Second, he's the classic bully. The leverage he had with Brady was that he knew Brady would not react in a physical manner. Is this not common sense? He had no "leverage" with Tent Williams though, and so backed off after he got decked.

The leverage he had with Revis when he started the Twitterfest was that Revis was recovering from a blown knee.

The leverage that he had with Crabtree was thatCrabtree was recovering from a blown achilles suffered just 6-8 prior and was playing at 230 lbs.

In fact, hell, does the guy ever pick a fight with anyone that he 'doesn't' have leverage with?

My bully comment obviously bothered you. I didn't bring that up today. I just responded to it. You're either misinterpretting my statement (again, and again . . .) or not understanding the intent of it. The intent was to illustrate that he act like a chump; not to suggest he needs sensitivity counceling or league action. It's just another example of you reading something into my comment that was never even intended.

Hope I clarified everything for you.

And HC, not sure what you want me to respond to but I'll try and look tomorrow when I have time.

Have a good night folks. Season is 2 weeks away.

Seattle 20
GB. 12

And PS, I don't respect taunting when the taunted have no recourse to respond, be it from a blown knee, a game that is over, etc.[/quote]


Let me guess, lies, falsehoods, and BS. Okay now let me read the post.....Yup its crap as usual

[HumanCockroach]

Manziel fined 12,000 for his "moxie" Sherman $0 for Brady,$0 for rant, and $0 for imagined F U. Hmmmm. Curious

[RiverDog]

Wow, Future. Sherman has really gotten into your head. It is extremely difficult for me to see your point of view pertaining to him, and that's coming from a guy that doesn't care at all for his antics.

[HumanCockroach]

That really slams the point home RD.I can understand a dislike of Sherman the player, or not liking his antics, I truly can, just don't in the least understand people "picking and choosing" what is "moxie" in this regard. Is extremely inconsistent and shows a clear bias IMHO ( not that it hasn't been shown, repeatedly)