The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

Skinsfan55 wrote:I hate when the media does this... maybe the person who wrote the article didn't make up the headline but:

Headline:
Tampa Bay lost the chance at coveted defensive tackle Albert Haynesworth when they cut Derrick Brooks

Article:
If Derrick Brooks had not been cut, would you have gone to Tampa?

"You couldn't really say that."

The media didn't say that Albert said it...

Skinsfan55 wrote:I hate when the media does this... maybe the person who wrote the article didn't make up the headline but:

Headline:
Tampa Bay lost the chance at coveted defensive tackle Albert Haynesworth when they cut Derrick Brooks

Article:
If Derrick Brooks had not been cut, would you have gone to Tampa?

"You couldn't really say that."

The media didn't say that Albert said it...I hate when people chalk thing up to media bias when there is a direct quote from the player...no unnamed sorces in this one!!

The direct quote was that he couldn't really say that he would have gone there if they didn't cut Derrick Brooks. All he said was that it was a deterent, not that it was the single deciding point.

And for the record, I don't think it's anti-skins bias, its just sensationalist journalism.

DEHog wrote:

Skinsfan55 wrote:I hate when the media does this... maybe the person who wrote the article didn't make up the headline but:

Headline:
Tampa Bay lost the chance at coveted defensive tackle Albert Haynesworth when they cut Derrick Brooks

Article:
If Derrick Brooks had not been cut, would you have gone to Tampa?

"You couldn't really say that."

The media didn't say that Albert said it...I hate when people chalk thing up to media bias when there is a direct quote from the player...no unnamed sorces in this one!!

Yeah, like JF said. Read the headline... it implies that Albert Haynesworth would have signed with Tampa if Derrick Brooks had not been cut.

Then RIGHT IN THE ARTICLE they ask AH point blank. "If Derrick Brooks had not been cut, would you have gone to Tampa?" and his response is: "You couldn't really say that."

It's a case of someone twisting the facts in a headline to grab attention. Often times a writer doesn't have control over the headline to his work but it looks foolish IMO when this happens.

Skinsfan55 wrote:

DEHog wrote:

Skinsfan55 wrote:I hate when the media does this... maybe the person who wrote the article didn't make up the headline but:

Headline:
Tampa Bay lost the chance at coveted defensive tackle Albert Haynesworth when they cut Derrick Brooks

Article:
If Derrick Brooks had not been cut, would you have gone to Tampa?

"You couldn't really say that."

The media didn't say that Albert said it...I hate when people chalk thing up to media bias when there is a direct quote from the player...no unnamed sorces in this one!!

Yeah, like JF said. Read the headline... it implies that Albert Haynesworth would have signed with Tampa if Derrick Brooks had not been cut.

Then RIGHT IN THE ARTICLE they ask AH point blank. "If Derrick Brooks had not been cut, would you have gone to Tampa?" and his response is: "You couldn't really say that."

It's a case of someone twisting the facts in a headline to grab attention. Often times a writer doesn't have control over the headline to his work but it looks foolish IMO when this happens.

And all the writer wrote was "it cost them a chance" based on what AH said I didn't get anywhere in the article that the writer said Tampa would have gotten him as you suggest and I think that's very fair in this day and age of sensationalist journalism.
Sensationalist journalism would have been the writer saying he wouldn't have came here if he knew JT was going to be cut...and you saw how they stuck a mic in AH face trying to get the very story.

DEHog wrote:[And all the writer wrote was "it cost them a chance" based on what AH said I didn't get anywhere in the article that the writer said Tampa would have gotten him as you suggest and I think that's very fair in this day and age of sensationalist journalism.
Sensationalist journalism would have been the writer saying he wouldn't have came here if he knew JT was going to be cut...and you saw how they stuck a mic in AH face trying to get the very story.

DE, I'll try to explain what they're saying. What they're complaining about is just sloppy writing on the part of the journalist.

The Headline of the article is:

Cutting Brooks Killed Bucs Chances of Getting Haynesworth

That is, the primary reason why the Bucs didn't get Haynesworth is they cut Brooks.

However, in the very same article, they provide a quote from Haynesworth that says:

If Derrick Brooks had not been cut, would you have gone to Tampa?

"You couldn't really say that."

This is the only place that Brooks is referenced in the entire article.

Can you conclude from that quote that "Cutting Brooks Killed Bucs Chances of Getting Haynesworth"? Because...that's what the writer concluded.

PulpExposure wrote:

DEHog wrote:[And all the writer wrote was "it cost them a chance" based on what AH said I didn't get anywhere in the article that the writer said Tampa would have gotten him as you suggest and I think that's very fair in this day and age of sensationalist journalism.
Sensationalist journalism would have been the writer saying he wouldn't have came here if he knew JT was going to be cut...and you saw how they stuck a mic in AH face trying to get the very story.

DE, I'll try to explain what they're saying. What they're complaining about is just sloppy writing on the part of the journalist.

The Headline of the article is:

Cutting Brooks Killed Bucs Chances of Getting Haynesworth

That is, the primary reason why the Bucs didn't get Haynesworth is they cut Brooks.

However, in the very same article, they provide a quote from Haynesworth that says:

If Derrick Brooks had not been cut, would you have gone to Tampa?

"You couldn't really say that."

This is the only place that Brooks is referenced in the entire article.

Can you conclude from that quote that "Cutting Brooks Killed Bucs Chances of Getting Haynesworth"? Because...that's what the writer concluded.

Two big names that readeres can associate with are thrown unnaturally together. It's marketing/advertising at its best(or worst).

PulpExposure wrote:

DEHog wrote:[And all the writer wrote was "it cost them a chance" based on what AH said I didn't get anywhere in the article that the writer said Tampa would have gotten him as you suggest and I think that's very fair in this day and age of sensationalist journalism.
Sensationalist journalism would have been the writer saying he wouldn't have came here if he knew JT was going to be cut...and you saw how they stuck a mic in AH face trying to get the very story.

DE, I'll try to explain what they're saying. What they're complaining about is just sloppy writing on the part of the journalist.

The Headline of the article is:

Cutting Brooks Killed Bucs Chances of Getting Haynesworth

That is, the primary reason why the Bucs didn't get Haynesworth is they cut Brooks.

However, in the very same article, they provide a quote from Haynesworth that says:

If Derrick Brooks had not been cut, would you have gone to Tampa?

"You couldn't really say that."

This is the only place that Brooks is referenced in the entire article.

Can you conclude from that quote that "Cutting Brooks Killed Bucs Chances of Getting Haynesworth"? Because...that's what the writer concluded.

I'm begining to wonder if you guys read the article??

The full qoute was...

Yeah, it was a few things we looked at. You couldn't really say that, but cutting a bunch of those guys and having a bunch of new starters didn't help the situation any

So to say that cutting Derrick Brooks "cost them a chance" seems fair to me??? Nowhere did the guy state that it was the only reason..in fact he let the actual quote tell the story...Guess I'm just not as bright and can't read between the lines like you guys do??

DEHog wrote:

PulpExposure wrote:

DEHog wrote:[And all the writer wrote was "it cost them a chance" based on what AH said I didn't get anywhere in the article that the writer said Tampa would have gotten him as you suggest and I think that's very fair in this day and age of sensationalist journalism.
Sensationalist journalism would have been the writer saying he wouldn't have came here if he knew JT was going to be cut...and you saw how they stuck a mic in AH face trying to get the very story.

DE, I'll try to explain what they're saying. What they're complaining about is just sloppy writing on the part of the journalist.

The Headline of the article is:

Cutting Brooks Killed Bucs Chances of Getting Haynesworth

That is, the primary reason why the Bucs didn't get Haynesworth is they cut Brooks.

However, in the very same article, they provide a quote from Haynesworth that says:

If Derrick Brooks had not been cut, would you have gone to Tampa?

"You couldn't really say that."

This is the only place that Brooks is referenced in the entire article.

Can you conclude from that quote that "Cutting Brooks Killed Bucs Chances of Getting Haynesworth"? Because...that's what the writer concluded.

I'm begining to wonder if you guys read the article??

The full qoute was...

Yeah, it was a few things we looked at. You couldn't really say that, but cutting a bunch of those guys and having a bunch of new starters didn't help the situation any

So to say that cutting Derrick Brooks "cost them a chance" seems fair to me??? Nowhere did the guy state that it was the only reason..in fact he let the actual quote tell the story...Guess I'm just not as bright and can't read between the lines like you guys do??

Just forget it, I'm not going to draw you a flow chart and racking your brains over this is obviously just going to give you an aneurysm.

DEHog wrote:I'm begining to wonder if you guys read the article??

The full qoute was...

Yeah, it was a few things we looked at. You couldn't really say that, but cutting a bunch of those guys and having a bunch of new starters didn't help the situation any

So to say that cutting Derrick Brooks "cost them a chance" seems fair to me??? Nowhere did the guy state that it was the only reason..in fact he let the actual quote tell the story...Guess I'm just not as bright and can't read between the lines like you guys do??

The thing is...sure, we all agree is that Haynesworth said it's ONE OF THE THINGS THAT CONTRIBUTED.

Not, as the title of the article intimates, the ONLY THING.

I think I just had an aneursym.

PulpExposure wrote:

DEHog wrote:I'm begining to wonder if you guys read the article??

The full qoute was...

Yeah, it was a few things we looked at. You couldn't really say that, but cutting a bunch of those guys and having a bunch of new starters didn't help the situation any

So to say that cutting Derrick Brooks "cost them a chance" seems fair to me??? Nowhere did the guy state that it was the only reason..in fact he let the actual quote tell the story...Guess I'm just not as bright and can't read between the lines like you guys do??

The thing is...sure, we all agree is that Haynesworth said it's ONE OF THE THINGS THAT CONTRIBUTED.

Not, as the title of the article intimates, the ONLY THING.

I think I just had an aneursym.

Ahhhhh so if he had said "Cutting Vets" instead of just Brooks you be OK with it

DEHog wrote:

PulpExposure wrote:

DEHog wrote:I'm begining to wonder if you guys read the article??

The full qoute was...

Yeah, it was a few things we looked at. You couldn't really say that, but cutting a bunch of those guys and having a bunch of new starters didn't help the situation any

So to say that cutting Derrick Brooks "cost them a chance" seems fair to me??? Nowhere did the guy state that it was the only reason..in fact he let the actual quote tell the story...Guess I'm just not as bright and can't read between the lines like you guys do??

The thing is...sure, we all agree is that Haynesworth said it's ONE OF THE THINGS THAT CONTRIBUTED.

Not, as the title of the article intimates, the ONLY THING.

I think I just had an aneursym.

Ahhhhh so if he had said "Cutting Vets" instead of just Brooks you be OK with it

Exactly. But it's the fact that the article screams that cutting Brooks was the only reason he didn't sign, is really crappy journalism. Or indicative that the guy had an obvious bias (i.e., the Bucs should have kept Brooks). It's this kind of thing that bugs me with LaCanfora. I think LaCanfora actually comes up with good information, but you have to sift through it, because he presents it with such a crazy bias.

Like his current blasting of the Redskins for not keeping Demetric Evans. Evans was a decent player for us...nothing more. But JLC keeps hammering the Redskins, as if the Skins had let a guy who was going to suddenly blossom (at age 30) into Julius Peppers.

I don't know who wrote this, but in his defense, the author never writes the headline. (at least not in the newspaper business)

Skinsfan55 wrote:

DEHog wrote:

PulpExposure wrote:

DEHog wrote:[And all the writer wrote was "it cost them a chance" based on what AH said I didn't get anywhere in the article that the writer said Tampa would have gotten him as you suggest and I think that's very fair in this day and age of sensationalist journalism.
Sensationalist journalism would have been the writer saying he wouldn't have came here if he knew JT was going to be cut...and you saw how they stuck a mic in AH face trying to get the very story.

DE, I'll try to explain what they're saying. What they're complaining about is just sloppy writing on the part of the journalist.

The Headline of the article is:

Cutting Brooks Killed Bucs Chances of Getting Haynesworth

That is, the primary reason why the Bucs didn't get Haynesworth is they cut Brooks.

However, in the very same article, they provide a quote from Haynesworth that says:

If Derrick Brooks had not been cut, would you have gone to Tampa?

"You couldn't really say that."

This is the only place that Brooks is referenced in the entire article.

Can you conclude from that quote that "Cutting Brooks Killed Bucs Chances of Getting Haynesworth"? Because...that's what the writer concluded.

I'm begining to wonder if you guys read the article??

The full qoute was...

Yeah, it was a few things we looked at. You couldn't really say that, but cutting a bunch of those guys and having a bunch of new starters didn't help the situation any

So to say that cutting Derrick Brooks "cost them a chance" seems fair to me??? Nowhere did the guy state that it was the only reason..in fact he let the actual quote tell the story...Guess I'm just not as bright and can't read between the lines like you guys do??

Just forget it, I'm not going to draw you a flow chart and racking your brains over this is obviously just going to give you an aneurysm.

Hehehe

Flowchart? hehehe... What have I started here by posting this article...???

The Tennessee Titans continue to seek evidence to support a claim that the Redskins tampered in their signing of Albert Haynesworth just five hours into the free agent signing period.
Rumors were rampant that the Redskins had a deal in place before the signing period began, fueling speculation that they started negotiating before they were allowed to by the league. Haynesworth maintains that was not the case, however, and it will be difficult to bring any charges unless the Titans can present some evidence.

http://www.rotoworld.com/content/player ... AS&id=2636

I am not sure of the NFL's definition of tampering, but does anyone think the Skins went too far with their pursuit of Haynesworth? It's always hard to tell what's going on behind the scenes, but from what I've heard/seen the Skins pretty much had Haynesworth wrapped up about a week before the "official" start of Free Agency. I know rumors can get out of hand, especially about the Redskins signing T.O., but you'd think there's some truth to them. What do you guys think about the tampering claims?

I believe they are bull. Even if they are true they can't prove it, speck represents Malcolm Kelly, you know our rookie that underperformed cause of knee surgery as well as other issues. They could have just as easily been talking about Malcolm and if his knee would cause problems this season or if hes 100%. I don't see how they can prove it?

broomboy wrote: I don't see how they can prove it?

If they were smart about it I imagine it would be something difficult to prove, but don't forget about phone records with the whole Favre/Vikings situation or better yet the Bears/Niners/Briggs situation.

Cooter wrote:The Tennessee Titans continue to seek evidence to support a claim that the Redskins tampered in their signing of Albert Haynesworth just five hours into the free agent signing period.
Rumors were rampant that the Redskins had a deal in place before the signing period began, fueling speculation that they started negotiating before they were allowed to by the league. Haynesworth maintains that was not the case, however, and it will be difficult to bring any charges unless the Titans can present some evidence.

http://www.rotoworld.com/content/player ... AS&id=2636

I am not sure of the NFL's definition of tampering, but does anyone think the Skins went too far with their pursuit of Haynesworth? It's always hard to tell what's going on behind the scenes, but from what I've heard/seen the Skins pretty much had Haynesworth wrapped up about a week before the "official" start of Free Agency. I know rumors can get out of hand, especially about the Redskins signing T.O., but you'd think there's some truth to them. What do you guys think about the tampering claims?

Ofcourse there was tampering. You don't put together a $100 million deal in 5 hours. However, this stuff happens all the time in the NFL and the Skins weren't the only team negotiating with Haynesworth. If what we did was tampering then the Bucs (and probably a few other teams) tampered as well. Haynesworth said that he was very comfortable with the Bucs new head coach. When did he have the time to become comfortable with him? I doubt that it happened in the 5 hours from the start of FA on midnight and 5am when the Skins signed him.

CanesSkins26 wrote:When did he have the time to become comfortable with him? I doubt that it happened in the 5 hours from the start of FA on midnight and 5am when the Skins signed him.

Offer to give me $100 million and I'll be real comfortable with you in 1 second.

Here's a good Q & A talking about tampering...

Q. What is the NFL’s definition of tampering?

A. The term tampering, as used within the National Football League, refers to any interference by a member club with the employer-employee relationship of another club or any attempt by a club to impermissably induce a person to seek employment with that club or with the NFL.

Q. What steps does the NFL take in these cases to investigate?

A. We review all pertinent facts.

Q. How much has to be established for the NFL to take action?

http://blogs.startribune.com/vikingsblog/?p=1711

Considering he was dealing with a bunch of other teams wouldn't that prove he wasn't induced to just sign with us? hmmm

I know no one is really taking this seriously, but these are major allegations IMO. It's offensive that the Titans would accuse us of cheating. I know the rules are in place for a reason, but the simple fact is they had all year to lock up Haynesworth and get him signed and they weren't willing to go the extra mile.