"Why Richard Sherman can't let go"

[Uncle Si]

I get it Si. The story did offer up some insight that offered a little peek behind the curtain, such as the dust-up with Ifedi during a rookie hazing moment (although, there again, it's all second-person narrative since the writer wasn't there and it's reliant on anonymous source recounts). Like you said, though, it has to be taken with a grain of salt and the whole premise behind it is a rather benign storyline hinged on Sherman being a fiery dude, a trifle of jealousy toward Russ and a culture facilitated by Pete that allows for strong personalities in the locker room. Earth-shattering stuff!

In your post two posts above this one you say it's yellow journalism and the writer is just opinionating out of the air.

In this post you say it fails because it's not uncovering any dynamics that people don't already know about.

Which one is it? Do the attributed Smith quotes not count either, or just all of the quotes that are anonymously sourced?

Likewise, Si, I won't bring it up again but I'd hope we can talk about the merits or lack thereof of the story without you derailing by spending a whole paragraph on an off-topic attack on me and my character. Just to say it, as a moderator I think you in particular would prefer that we disagree on the actual topic rather than devolving into personal attacks. If you think I'm trash and my opinions are unworthy of being considered, I'd prefer you just ignore me. Thanks.

Just to reiterate my thoughts on the piece, I think it's a good investigative piece inside the organization, and not a particularly damning one, nor was it intended to be.

I think you're being disingenuous. thats not an attack on your character. Its an attack on your presentation of your opinion. Bit of a victim complex, no? I never said "Popeye is trolling". I said 9er fans are taking the bait. Gleefully so.

I've talked about the merits of the story multiple times in this thread, as well as in direct reply to your posts. Youve not replied. Instead you back the merits of the story by reiterating the same speculation as the article under the guise of it being factual and call out Hawks fans (in its own separate paragraph) who disagree as being influenced by homerism. Is that an attack on us? Is that not hypocritical? You trying to make this some sort of unjustified "attack" on you is just ducking behind the bushes after throwing rocks.

You don't get to have it both ways Popeye.

 

[Popeyejones]

I think you're being disingenuous. thats not an attack on your character. Its an attack on your presentation of your opinion. Bit of a victim complex, no? I never said "Popeye is trolling". I said 9er fans are taking the bait. Gleefully so.

If you don't think the whole front end of your post is attacking a poster rather than an argument I don't know what to tell you. "49ers fans" (plural) have also never been refered to with the subject pronoun "he" (singular). I've quoted it for you. It's about me:

He knows this Sioux. Supporting the narrative however gives him a chance to decry "homerism." It's a not so subtle wind up on his part, going as far as "he did it to the 9ers too" as some validation. It has nothing to do with it not being flattering. He's excusing a lack of facts, flimsy connections and real quotes attributing what he's alleging as "investigative."

My point is that I would prefer it if we can DISCUSS A TOPIC rather than ME BEING MADE a topic That is neither disingenuous of me nor the expression of a victim complex (an accusation which is yet again making me a topic). It's a simpe request that we post on the topic rather than you treating me as if I am a topic, which I'm surely not (and even if I am I'm a boring one, that I at least have zero interest in). That's it. It's a request. I'll drop it and won't make it again but it really is a request.

I've talked about the merits of the story multiple times in this thread, as well as in direct reply to your posts. Youve not replied. Instead you back the merits of the story by reiterating the same speculation as the article under the guise of it being factual and call out Hawks fans (in its own separate paragraph) who disagree as being influenced by homerism. Is that an attack on us? Is that not hypocritical? You trying to make this some sort of unjustified "attack" on you is just ducking behind the bushes after throwing rocks.

In the spirit of above, I'll ignore everything in here that's also about me and not the topic. You are however, absolutely right that I think some people are objecting to the veracity of this reporting because it's not a piece that is intended to flatter a fanbase. As I said I don't find it particularly damning, but I think the outright dismissals of it also don't hold much water if you actually take them seriously as arguments.

Maybe I'm wrong, though. THAT is what I'd MUCH RATHER talk about.

In that spirits let's start over:

As I see it so far we have a disagreement about if anonymous-source quotes invalidate investigative reporting. I *think* you're arguing that by definition they do, and I am arguing they do not. Do I have this right? If not, please correct. If so, it's a topic I feel pretty strongly about, so if it's a topic worth continuing to discuss, say so and let's definitely do it. Above you say the piece lacks "real quotes." Is it correct to read the insinuation here that you think he fabricated and made up quotes? That's a real question, as I don't know what you mean by "real quotes."

Are there other topics of disagreement about the piece we should discuss? What you call "flimsy connections" and "lack of facts"? Which connections did you find flimsy and which verifiable facts did you find lacking? Do you wanna talk about those? Anything else that we could discuss?

I'm happy to talk about what you wanna talk about, provided I'm not the subject. :2thumbs:

 

[Jville]

Seth Wickersham's piece is editorial opinion. Though inspired by a selection of recycled events, it's just an entertainment exercise.

Accurate investigative reporting is demanding work. Most find it too hard, or too boring and often too dangerous. Given an amplifier, many opt out to short cut with personal opinions and views. The fog of fiction folded into and inspired by actual events is a typical result. Weaving a story line and instilling perceptions is a writers prerogative. Most of what is published today is modified by editorial necessity to address the entertainment and/or propaganda needs of it's audience.

Has anyone revisited Tom Clancy lately? ....... now there is a writer that can entertain. :2thumbs:

 

[BostonBlackie]

Is this team still effected by it's Super Bowl loss? Does that happen generally to varying degrees? Sure it does. The Patriots 2007 loss to the NY Giants, a couple of minutes away from going 19-0, was a devastating blow.

 

[Jville]

Some learn from disappointments and move on with their personal and professional growth.

Others stagnate and splash around in a pool of blame and self pity.

 

[Uncle Si]

I think you're being disingenuous. thats not an attack on your character. Its an attack on your presentation of your opinion. Bit of a victim complex, no? I never said "Popeye is trolling". I said 9er fans are taking the bait. Gleefully so.

If you don't think the whole front end of your post is attacking a poster rather than an argument I don't know what to tell you. "49ers fans" (plural) have also never been refered to with the subject pronoun "he" (singular). I've quoted it for you. It's about me:

He knows this Sioux. Supporting the narrative however gives him a chance to decry "homerism." It's a not so subtle wind up on his part, going as far as "he did it to the 9ers too" as some validation. It has nothing to do with it not being flattering. He's excusing a lack of facts, flimsy connections and real quotes attributing what he's alleging as "investigative."

My point is that I would prefer it if we can DISCUSS A TOPIC rather than ME BEING MADE a topic That is neither disingenuous of me nor the expression of a victim complex (an accusation which is yet again making me a topic). It's a simpe request that we post on the topic rather than you treating me as if I am a topic, which I'm surely not (and even if I am I'm a boring one, that I at least have zero interest in). That's it. It's a request. I'll drop it and won't make it again but it really is a request.

I've talked about the merits of the story multiple times in this thread, as well as in direct reply to your posts. Youve not replied. Instead you back the merits of the story by reiterating the same speculation as the article under the guise of it being factual and call out Hawks fans (in its own separate paragraph) who disagree as being influenced by homerism. Is that an attack on us? Is that not hypocritical? You trying to make this some sort of unjustified "attack" on you is just ducking behind the bushes after throwing rocks.

In the spirit of above, I'll ignore everything in here that's also about me and not the topic. You are however, absolutely right that I think some people are objecting to the veracity of this reporting because it's not a piece that is intended to flatter a fanbase. As I said I don't find it particularly damning, but I think the outright dismissals of it also don't hold much water if you actually take them seriously as arguments.

Maybe I'm wrong, though. THAT is what I'd MUCH RATHER talk about.

In that spirits let's start over:

As I see it so far we have a disagreement about if anonymous-source quotes invalidate investigative reporting. I *think* you're arguing that by definition they do, and I am arguing they do not. Do I have this right? If not, please correct. If so, it's a topic I feel pretty strongly about, so if it's a topic worth continuing to discuss, say so and let's definitely do it. Above you say the piece lacks "real quotes." Is it correct to read the insinuation here that you think he fabricated and made up quotes? That's a real question, as I don't know what you mean by "real quotes."

Are there other topics of disagreement about the piece we should discuss? What you call "flimsy connections" and "lack of facts"? Which connections did you find flimsy and which verifiable facts did you find lacking? Do you wanna talk about those? Anything else that we could discuss?

I'm happy to talk about what you wanna talk about, provided I'm not the subject. :2thumbs:

Those were my only two posts in this thread?

You continue to be disingenuous, and trying very hard to distract from it. Backtracking under a shield of being "attacked" is pretty damned weak. You also ignore your attempts to discredit an opposing viewpoint by suggesting those posters just don't like how unflattering this looks for Seattle.

You want my take on all this? it's in a handful of posts, including the ones you picked through to quote me, as I said.

 

[Uncle Si]

Is this team still effected by it's Super Bowl loss? Does that happen generally to varying degrees? Sure it does. The Patriots 2007 loss to the NY Giants, a couple of minutes away from going 19-0, was a devastating blow.

Good correlation.
When did they appear in their next Super Boel?

 

[Hyak]

Some learn from disappointments and move on with their personal and professional growth.

Others stagnate and splash around in a pool of blame and self pity.

I agree and I think most have done so but I do understand where some of the HOF caliber defenders can gravitate into wallowing about missed opportunities. IMO, I think this "resentment" is likely with the LOB guys - Sherman, Earl, and Kam - more so than others and it's rooted into the issue of long term security/contracts that enable a resentment towards RW because he's the only guy on the team that has that. Sherman gets most of the attention but I noticed that neither Earl or Kam came running to Wilson's defense after that article (note pure speculation on my part).

Where it gets dicey is that it's not such a clear issue:

1. The defense has been slowing regressing in terms of dominance. The last 3 season ending losses have seen the D give up 28, 31, and 36 points.
2. The LOB guys are hitting an age where long term deals are not advisable.
3. Injuries are starting to happen to them (Kam especially has had durability issues).
4. QB is are far more difficult position to hit on in terms of a top tier guy and QB's generally have twice the career duration expectancy as a secondary member.

That all said, I certainly saw the signing of McDougal and drafting of the secondary guys as a clear message that LOB 2.0 is potentially on the horizon and that the gap we have seen between the starters and depth there since 2013 is recognized as a real issue not to mention where the 3 starts are at contract wise in terms of 3rd deals.

 

[Sports Hernia]

This thread has run its course.