Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Did Nawrocki cross the line?

233 posts in this topic

Posted

That's what you came with?

:frown2:

That was worse than Ncmonzta's "Smack" thread :lol:

sorry not a funny guy.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

sorry not a funny guy.

I appreciate the honesty and won't hold it against you.

If you want to see real unfunny from someone who is seriously trying...go to smack

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

maybe Warren Moon was saying that the NFL scouts who think that are racially bias and the corruption is from within the system, not just the guy reporting it!!

...sorry. :P

yeah that's the way you play DA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

maybe Warren Moon was saying that the NFL scouts who think that are racially bias and the corruption is from within the system, not just the guy reporting it!!

...sorry. :P

Possible, not likely

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

One thing to keep in mind here. This reminds me of the guy who whispers something in someone else's ear who whispers it in someone else's ear on down the line. After it goes through 10 people it may or may not resemble what was originally said. Certainly everyone puts their own spin on it as it gets passed down the line.

The whole point is not whether it is being discussed among scouts or personnel but how credible it is at this point. I am sure there is some truth to these stories but they might be exaggerated as well. There is n real evidence for example that what was told to Nawrocki is being reported exactly or whether he is taking what he heard and is putting his spin on it that could certainly be less or more negative then what he was told.

And even subtle differences told over and over can change the intensity of the accusations significantly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

the three most likely scenarios, to me anyway:

1) untrue rumor spread by a personnel guy to discredit newton in hopes he falls to them

2) newton isn't perfect and is a bit overconfident and sometimes "puts the cart before the horse" as Moon himself says, which seriously turns some guys off...

3) its all true and newton is the worst thing EVAR.

dunno how likely either of the two are excatly bit it's probably one of those.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

King gave no indication that Nawrocki exaggerated at all.

You have no reason to believe this is a case of telephone where the story gets changed dramatically. Sure it is possible, but not likely.

King would have mentioned something if Nawrocki was exaggerating or taking them out of context

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Not sure if this has really been discussed, but I really don't like Cam's smile - seeing as this is what all the discussion is emanating from.

He is either very humble, with the smile being an embarrassed reaction.

Constantly going "Awwww shucks...." along with that smile.

Or the smile is a facade and he has a confident arrogance behind it.

I can kinda see where he is coming from because from what everyone has heard Cam is not stupid and not a...un-confident... guy. So that kinda suggests this sheepish smile is actually giving out the wrong message.

There I said it, I don't trust his smile. Shoot me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I appreciate the honesty and won't hold it against you.

If you want to see real unfunny from someone who is seriously trying...go to smack

:lol: It was funny as hell to me... picturing you... ah well. I know you get it.;)I'm not as much of a comedian as you are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I haven't dished out any racism towards anyone?

He's gone after my father, my unborn children, my childhood, everything.

He knows he is losing every argument and most people see him for what he is so he turns to other arguments and claims.

The post wasn't even directed at me to which I took offense.

Just like I took offense in the thread when someone made a joke that said Cam tested positive for AIDS.

Ever since the new "Panther fans" that have only showed up after we got the first pick and bombard the board and every thread with Cam propaganda, this board has gone severely downhill. It's really sad to see.

I don't care if people don't agree with me, and I'm known to make a joke or two, but you have to draw the line somewhere to keep the board civil and suggesting other posters are racist on a regular basis does not do that.

So the same person who called me an asshat today without me initiating any personal attacks or namecalling is now offended when he is attacked personally.

Physician heal yourself. You get attacked because you attack others daily and make very negative critical attacks to others constantly.

What hypocrisy.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Lance Zierlein actually confirmed a specific element of the report (always knows where the cameras are) and added that this comment came from someone at Auburn. He said that was one of the points he believed probably wasn't true until an NFL team confirmed it to him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

King gave no indication that Nawrocki exaggerated at all.

You have no reason to believe this is a case of telephone where the story gets changed dramatically. Sure it is possible, but not likely.

King would have mentioned something if Nawrocki was exaggerating or taking them out of context

You missed the point. Nawrocki reported what he heard but also compiled his own spin on it. For example he is told that Newton says one thing privately and one thing publicly. He then reports that sources say Newton is fake and disgenuous. Is what he said wrong or exxagerated. Depends on your definition of what he was told. What if Nawrocki talked to 5 or 6 people and they all told him similar things but of different intensities. It is totally up to him whether he reports that the general consensus is that he is fake and a sham or he reports that people have reported a range of things from his having a fake smile to being disingenuous. There is no equivocation of consideration that these are unsubstantiated reports. He reports them as fact and seems to focus on the negative.

King wouldn't know if they were true or exxagerated unless he knew the whole truth. All he is reporting is that he heard the same thing. Once again it means the rumor mill is rampant but it doesn't prove there is any veracity to the reports unless specific sources are named and they weren't and won't be.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites