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

....HES LEGALLY BLIND! I usually dont post stupid stuff but how this guy has a job that requires him to speak out loud and attempt to look at a camera shocks me....lol please watch its worth a laugh

http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=5149448

Wow.... just wow. How in the hell did he stay employed In Washington?

I made a comment after the AH deal went down. I said there's no way Vinny could seriously be working for us.

Vinny actually appears better at his new job than at his old one. He actually made some sense on that video.

The Hogster wrote:Vinny actually appears better at his new job than at his old one. He actually made some sense on that video.

Had you baffled Hogster?

I musta missed where Vinny showed that he was legally blind. The man has never looked directly at a camera. When he was a "guest" on Redskins Nation he wouldn't look at the camera, he wouldn't even look at Larry when he was talking to him (though I can't blame him for not looking at Larry). He usually looked off to the side somewhere, maybe the floor, I don't know.

As to the actual point of video (can GM's ask any question they want), which scenario is more fair.

Vinny's scenario? Where he "already knows everything about the player," and doesn't ask a question he feels might be offensive? This strikes me as a scenario where Vinny would see what he wants and pass on a guy because he wouldn't "feel comfortable" asking the question. "Well, this guy's mom is a drug-dealing prostitute; we don't need that kind of garbage in our locker-room."

or

Marceelus' scenario? Where you ask the question openly and directly. You don't beat around the bush about it. You don't pretend you don't know, so you give the guy a chance to give you his perspective on the situation he grew up with. Marcellus is absolutely right. That question won't be off limits to his team-mates, or his opponents, or the fans, or the media; you'll want to know where this guy stands and how he's likely to react.

Vinny's may be more politically correct, but I think Marcellus' is more fair to the player. You give the guy a chance to answer the question that he knows everyone is already thinking. You are only more offensive when you beat around the bush about it, or pass on him pretending like it had no effect on your decision.

Bob 0119 wrote:I musta missed where Vinny showed that he was legally blind. The man has never looked directly at a camera. When he was a "guest" on Redskins Nation he wouldn't look at the camera, he wouldn't even look at Larry when he was talking to him (though I can't blame him for not looking at Larry). He usually looked off to the side somewhere, maybe the floor, I don't know.

As to the actual point of video (can GM's ask any question they want), which scenario is more fair.

Vinny's scenario? Where he "already knows everything about the player," and doesn't ask a question he feels might be offensive? This strikes me as a scenario where Vinny would see what he wants and pass on a guy because he wouldn't "feel comfortable" asking the question. "Well, this guy's mom is a drug-dealing prostitute; we don't need that kind of garbage in our locker-room."

or

Marceelus' scenario? Where you ask the question openly and directly. You don't beat around the bush about it. You don't pretend you don't know, so you give the guy a chance to give you his perspective on the situation he grew up with. Marcellus is absolutely right. That question won't be off limits to his team-mates, or his opponents, or the fans, or the media; you'll want to know where this guy stands and how he's likely to react.

Vinny's may be more politically correct, but I think Marcellus' is more fair to the player. You give the guy a chance to answer the question that he knows everyone is already thinking. You are only more offensive when you beat around the bush about it, or pass on him pretending like it had no effect on your decision.

The idea that you can ask the player whatever you want is something nobody disputes. But, I think reasonable people assume that you won't be a total jacka$$ when asking questions. Seriously, what does it matter if his mother was on drugs or was a prostitute????

That question is just retarded at best, grossly prejudiced at worst. Drew Brees was estranged from his troubled mother who eventually died of a drug overdose. Countless professional athletes don't even know their fathers, or mothers.

It's not rocket science to realize that the majority of professional athletes are coming from less than desireable circumstances. Give the kid some credit for escaping and perservering despite those situations, don't spit on him with a question about his mother's promiscuity. I agree that the question is not about Dez. He's never been in legal trouble. If his mom was a prostitute or drug dealer, that's just unfortunate, but it's not a reflection on his ability to play football in the NFL.

I wonder what Ben Rothlisberger's mother does.

The Hogster wrote:

Bob 0119 wrote:I musta missed where Vinny showed that he was legally blind. The man has never looked directly at a camera. When he was a "guest" on Redskins Nation he wouldn't look at the camera, he wouldn't even look at Larry when he was talking to him (though I can't blame him for not looking at Larry). He usually looked off to the side somewhere, maybe the floor, I don't know.

As to the actual point of video (can GM's ask any question they want), which scenario is more fair.

Vinny's scenario? Where he "already knows everything about the player," and doesn't ask a question he feels might be offensive? This strikes me as a scenario where Vinny would see what he wants and pass on a guy because he wouldn't "feel comfortable" asking the question. "Well, this guy's mom is a drug-dealing prostitute; we don't need that kind of garbage in our locker-room."

or

Marceelus' scenario? Where you ask the question openly and directly. You don't beat around the bush about it. You don't pretend you don't know, so you give the guy a chance to give you his perspective on the situation he grew up with. Marcellus is absolutely right. That question won't be off limits to his team-mates, or his opponents, or the fans, or the media; you'll want to know where this guy stands and how he's likely to react.

Vinny's may be more politically correct, but I think Marcellus' is more fair to the player. You give the guy a chance to answer the question that he knows everyone is already thinking. You are only more offensive when you beat around the bush about it, or pass on him pretending like it had no effect on your decision.

The idea that you can ask the player whatever you want is something nobody disputes. But, I think reasonable people assume that you won't be a total jacka$$ when asking questions. Seriously, what does it matter if his mother was on drugs or was a prostitute????

That question is just retarded at best, grossly prejudiced at worst. Drew Brees was estranged from his troubled mother who eventually died of a drug overdose. Countless professional athletes don't even know their fathers, or mothers.

It's not rocket science to realize that the majority of professional athletes are coming from less than desireable circumstances. Give the kid some credit for escaping and perservering despite those situations, don't spit on him with a question about his mother's promiscuity. I agree that the question is not about Dez. He's never been in legal trouble. If his mom was a prostitute or drug dealer, that's just unfortunate, but it's not a reflection on his ability to play football in the NFL.

I wonder what Ben Rothlisberger's mother does.

You're right, you don't have to ask. You can just do what Vinny, and any number of companies do. You just assume that the apple doesn't fall far from the tree and you elect to pass on the guy without giving him a chance to give his thoughts on it.

Now technically, he'll never know that you passed on him because of his mother, so he can draw his own inferences as to why he wasn't given the job (since you rarely have to justify why you didn't hire someone if you have already hired someone else).

You're right; That's a much better way to handle it.

Seriously, these guys didn't invite him to their facility just so they could say nasty things about his mother. The reason they asked about her is simple; his mother is a potential liability; not just to Dez Bryant, but to the team. You need to know how much of a liability she could be.

Is it possible she could be arrested again (thus becoming a distraction for him and bad press for the franchise)? Is it possible he could be arrested for being with her at the wrong time? Is it possible that his mother's history could be used against him by opposing players or fans to "get in his head?" Does he see anything wrong with her arrests? Would he use drugs himself, since he grew up around them?

At least if you ask him, you give him a chance to speak out on the subject instead of waiting for a reporter to blindside him with it.

The Hogster wrote:

Bob 0119 wrote:I musta missed where Vinny showed that he was legally blind. The man has never looked directly at a camera. When he was a "guest" on Redskins Nation he wouldn't look at the camera, he wouldn't even look at Larry when he was talking to him (though I can't blame him for not looking at Larry). He usually looked off to the side somewhere, maybe the floor, I don't know.

As to the actual point of video (can GM's ask any question they want), which scenario is more fair.

Vinny's scenario? Where he "already knows everything about the player," and doesn't ask a question he feels might be offensive? This strikes me as a scenario where Vinny would see what he wants and pass on a guy because he wouldn't "feel comfortable" asking the question. "Well, this guy's mom is a drug-dealing prostitute; we don't need that kind of garbage in our locker-room."

or

Marceelus' scenario? Where you ask the question openly and directly. You don't beat around the bush about it. You don't pretend you don't know, so you give the guy a chance to give you his perspective on the situation he grew up with. Marcellus is absolutely right. That question won't be off limits to his team-mates, or his opponents, or the fans, or the media; you'll want to know where this guy stands and how he's likely to react.

Vinny's may be more politically correct, but I think Marcellus' is more fair to the player. You give the guy a chance to answer the question that he knows everyone is already thinking. You are only more offensive when you beat around the bush about it, or pass on him pretending like it had no effect on your decision.

The idea that you can ask the player whatever you want is something nobody disputes. But, I think reasonable people assume that you won't be a total jacka$$ when asking questions. Seriously, what does it matter if his mother was on drugs or was a prostitute????

That question is just retarded at best, grossly prejudiced at worst. Drew Brees was estranged from his troubled mother who eventually died of a drug overdose. Countless professional athletes don't even know their fathers, or mothers.

It's not rocket science to realize that the majority of professional athletes are coming from less than desireable circumstances. Give the kid some credit for escaping and perservering despite those situations, don't spit on him with a question about his mother's promiscuity. I agree that the question is not about Dez. He's never been in legal trouble. If his mom was a prostitute or drug dealer, that's just unfortunate, but it's not a reflection on his ability to play football in the NFL.

I wonder what Ben Rothlisberger's mother does.

You're right, you don't have to ask. You can just do what Vinny, and any number of companies do. You just assume that the apple doesn't fall far from the tree and you elect to pass on the guy without giving him a chance to give his thoughts on it.

Now technically, he'll never know that you passed on him because of his mother, so he can draw his own inferences as to why he wasn't given the job (since you rarely have to justify why you didn't hire someone if you have already hired someone else).

You're right; That's a much better way to handle it.

Seriously, these guys didn't invite him to their facility just so they could say nasty things about his mother. The reason they asked about her is simple; his mother is a potential liability; not just to Dez Bryant, but to the team. You need to know how much of a liability she could be.

Is it possible she could be arrested again (thus becoming a distraction for him and bad press for the franchise)? Is it possible he could be arrested for being with her at the wrong time? Is it possible that his mother's history could be used against him by opposing players or fans to "get in his head?" Does he see anything wrong with her arrests? Would he use drugs himself, since he grew up around them?

At least if you ask him, you give him a chance to speak out on the subject instead of waiting for a reporter to blindside him with it.

PMG12569 wrote:....HES LEGALLY BLIND! I usually dont post stupid stuff but how this guy has a job that requires him to speak out loud and attempt to look at a camera shocks me....lol please watch its worth a laugh

http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=5149448

Whats there to laugh at? I actually agree with him on this... I had my opinion before I even heard him speak... This question was way outta line and outta bounds and Jeff Ireland is lucky that he didn't get bashed into a wall... Jeff Ireland should be embarrassed, and he should be held responsible for his actions and I believe the league needs to take immediate action...