Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Panthers' home-run signing of Eric Reid solidifies David Tepper's status as NFL's most interesting owner


t96

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, t96 said:

Enjoy being at an empty stadium with a hundred people cheering the guys kneeling and then sitting on their phones while the game is being played. Should be fun!

Looks like he just got excited and hard is all. Don’t pay no never mind, it happens from time to time. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Bartin said:

Him taking less money to join a racist owner and fan base hurts your argument even more that we are somehow going to be a top FA destination now that Tepper and Reid are here to turn Charlotte, the Carolinas and the Panthers fan base into some sort of social utopia.

The underlying problem with your argument is that there are racist owners and fan bases, and that is what we're trying to change.  You can't predict the future anymore than I can, but I can take the tone of the article in the OP and the lines:

The quote is, without a shadow of a doubt, among the strongest defenses of the league’s players levied by any NFL team owner. It caught the attention of plenty of the league’s African-American players, many of whom have quietly noted how silent or lukewarm their employers have been whenever they’ve come under attack by Trump.


...to certainly indicate that, moving forward, good players might not necessarily follow the cash (as they have not in the past (IIRC Charles Johnson, among others, has turned down more money elsewhere)) to join an organization who has values in other areas other than the wallet...

Keep trying... You're losing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Bronn said:

The underlying problem with your argument is that there are racist owners and fan bases, and that is what we're trying to change.  You can't predict the future anymore than I can, but I can take the tone of the article in the OP and the lines:
 


...to certainly indicate that, moving forward, good players might not necessarily follow the cash (as they have not in the past (IIRC Charles Johnson, among others, has turned down more money elsewhere)) to join an organization who has values in other areas other than the wallet...

Keep trying... You're losing.

So your example of Charles Johnson turning down more money elsewhere to stay with an organization that has values makes sense because he literally did that to stay with the organization whose fanbase, in your words, is full of "backwoods hillbillies" and had a heavy handed ass of an owner who was a sexual predator and probably a racist too. You are aware you are making absolutely zero sense, right?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, sharkkiller said:

Oh God...here he goes.

On a site where many thought Delaire, Cox, Hall, et al were actual answers at DE.  

Yes, not only a football decision, but the right decision at the right time.  A no brainer.  F*ck the other 31.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, bull123 said:

We will see about all that

thomas in Seattle and bell in Pittsburg sure seem to think $$ matters

 

Do you put your body on the line like they do for entertainment?

No? Then you don't get to critique what their time/effort is worth to them as employees.

Of course money matters. Nobody is really arguing that. If you could comprehend opposing arguments, you would understand that I'm arguing that players also choose environments/atmospheres when deciding where to take their talents.
 

Nobody joins the Patriots for a payday. They go there seeking a Super Bowl. We can have that environment with a side of social justice activism here.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Bartin said:

So your example of Charles Johnson turning down more money elsewhere to stay with an organization that has values makes sense because he literally did that to stay with the organization whose fanbase, in your words, is full of "backwoods hillbillies" and had a heavy handed ass of an owner who was a sexual predator and probably a racist too. You are aware you are making absolutely zero sense, right?

 

It was a familiar example. I was trying to simple it down for you and others.

CJ was comfortable here, in our environment, and he chose to stay here. It was probably because, thankfully, the backwood hillbilly aspect of our fanbase is in a minority (and with recent events, becoming more of one, hopefully.)

Tepper, so far, has all indicators that he'll be the opposite of old ownership, so that is even further progress.

You're actually making my arguments look stronger. Feel free to proceed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, bull123 said:

I guess that’s been my whole argument all along

i don’t want a “social justice activism” football team

i just want to win football games

so that makes me a racist bigot

so be it 

you said it not me... no ban plz
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Bronn said:

It was a familiar example. I was trying to simple it down for you and others.

CJ was comfortable here, in our environment, and he chose to stay here. It was probably because, thankfully, the backwood hillbilly aspect of our fanbase is in a minority (and with recent events, becoming more of one, hopefully.)

Tepper, so far, has all indicators that he'll be the opposite of old ownership, so that is even further progress.

You're actually making my arguments look stronger. Feel free to proceed.

Yes, there is a reason I said 90% go after the most money(or in some cases what they believe will lead to the most money on a 1 year prove it in a good system) and not 100%. It is obvious not true for every scenario. The remaining 10% is for ring chasing, loyalty to a franchise, playing time or wanting to go home.

Where are the examples of anyone joining a team for social activist reasons or anything close to that at the expense of money? Even Eric Reid turned down the 49ers because we had the best offer(meaning money and playing time) and the 49ers have been by far the most accepting of social activism in the NFL. Their owner was the only one to not vote for the anthem rule. Tepper did vote for it. He also turned down a Seahawks offer in the preseason and they have been the 2nd most accepting team of social activism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Americans have at our fingertips through an array of different devices an exhaustingly extensive access to all the intricacies of American history through countless decades. If the mere presence of "social activism" in any form in the year 2018 immediately turns you into a quivering mess, it's time to either educate yourself, or step aside.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


×
×
  • Create New...