Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 12 of 25 FirstFirst ... 2101112131422 ... LastLast
Results 166 to 180 of 364
  1. #166
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Brooklyn
    Posts
    36,259
    Quote Originally Posted by NBA all the way View Post
    I think its a darned if ya do, darned if ya don't situation.

    If he says it in the immediate aftermath it sounds like he's using it as an excuse for his actions. He woulda been lit up for it, like josina anderson was the night of the incident and was forced to retract her statement.

    But, if he waits to say it, we obviously have this side we're seeing now where no one believes him.

    Furthermore, at his "closed" appeal hearing it was leaked. So in reality, once it was leaked then he almost has to speak on it again, even though it was never meant to be public knowledge.

    Anyway, if it were said or not said, no one was going to believe him, because he was the one who ripped a guys helmet off and bonked him on the head.

    Rarely is anyone questioning 1) why Rudolph kicked Garrett in the groin and tried to rip his helmet off first. 2) why Rudolph felt the need to charge at Garrett helmet-less, while Garrett was backing away and being restrained in his own words "I had a bone to pick with him... I was angry". 3) why Rudolph tried to meet Garrett outside of the scrum after both teams ran onto the field and Garrett was punched and stomped out by Rudolph's teammates.

    Seems like quite the double standard is at play.
    He looks a lot more credible in my eyes if its something that comes out immediately after the game and not immediately after he was suspended. Look, I'm not saying Mason Rudolph is some saint. He could have very well said what Garrett accused him of saying. That said, the timing of when he went public about it is very suspect.

    I bet you more people would find his side truthful if it wasn't something that came up at his hearing and thereafter to explain his actions.

    I'm not buying it. Its quite the opposite btw. More people would have believed him just based on the violent nature of him swinging his helmet at Mason. If he had said "Mason used a word I won't repeat" or "Mason called me this", certainly it would have made more sense as to why he was so mad.

    Its not a while privilege thing btw. I'm judging the circumstances based on Myle's actions and words during the post game interview up until the point he was suspended. Or at least at the hearing. You would expect more consistency if indeed there was a derogatory term thrown about.

  2. #167
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Posts
    2,005
    Quote Originally Posted by metswon69 View Post
    He looks a lot more credible in my eyes if its something that comes out immediately after the game and not immediately after he was suspended. Look, I'm not saying Mason Rudolph is some saint. He could have very well said what Garrett accused him of saying. That said, the timing of when he went public about it is very suspect.

    I bet you more people would find his side truthful if it wasn't something that came up at his hearing and thereafter to explain his actions.

    I'm not buying it. Its quite the opposite btw. More people would have believed him just based on the violent nature of him swinging his helmet at Mason. If he had said "Mason used a word I won't repeat" or "Mason called me this", certainly it would have made more sense as to why he was so mad.

    Its not a while privilege thing btw. I'm judging the circumstances based on Myle's actions and words during the post game interview up until the point he was suspended. Or at least at the hearing. You would expect more consistency if indeed there was a derogatory term thrown about.
    Its easy in hindsight to say he would look more credible.

    After a guy bashes another guy on the head with his own helmet on national tv, the last thing you want to hear is an excuse or anything unapologetic. In my opinion he handled the post game interview perfectly, much better than Rudolph on the other side handled his.

    To your next point, he didn't go public with it, he was not trying to go public with it. It was leaked from a "private" hearing.

  3. #168
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Brooklyn
    Posts
    36,259
    Quote Originally Posted by NBA all the way View Post
    Its easy in hindsight to say he would look more credible.

    After a guy bashes another guy on the head with his own helmet on national tv, the last thing you want to hear is an excuse or anything unapologetic. In my opinion he handled the post game interview perfectly, much better than Rudolph on the other side handled his.

    To your next point, he didn't go public with it, he was not trying to go public with it. It was leaked from a "private" hearing.
    Its not hindsight. I was saying it when the accusations didn't come to the surface until after the suspension.

    Consistency in story (whether true or otherwise) is important in determining honesty imo. There was no consistency from Garrett. He never mentioned any of this to his teammates, in the post game interview but magically it comes up during a hearing where the potential penalty is lost game checks? Sorry, it doesn't add up to me.

    He's been very public about it since. He's still talking about it as of the day he was reinstated.

  4. #169
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    Posts
    57,752
    Quote Originally Posted by metswon69 View Post
    If he had said "Mason used a word I won't repeat" or "Mason called me this", certainly it would have made more sense as to why he was so mad.
    I'm trying to understand some saying he wanted it private, yet also want to say he tried to tell us postgame by saying 'check the tape'. Those two things seem in conflict.

  5. #170
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    86,262
    Quote Originally Posted by warfelg View Post
    I'm trying to understand some saying he wanted it private, yet also want to say he tried to tell us postgame by saying 'check the tape'. Those two things seem in conflict.
    There’s a difference in him coming out and giving the quote and expecting the league to do the right thing by looking into it and acting on it.

  6. #171
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    Posts
    57,752
    Quote Originally Posted by BDawk4Prez View Post
    There’s a difference in him coming out and giving the quote and expecting the league to do the right thing by looking into it and acting on it.
    How so? I'm honestly asking because by saying that him making that statement the night after counts of him accusing Mason, but then also saying he wanted it to be private, is in conflict. What if there was something there? It could have been good or bad either way, right? Reasonably there could have been the n-word muttered. Or maybe it could have been the f-bomb. He clearly wanted someone to look for something, therefor to me it's reasonable to say he didn't want it to be that private of a thing. I'm sorry this isn't something you have have both ways of yea he said something and he wanted it private.

  7. #172
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Posts
    2,005
    Quote Originally Posted by metswon69 View Post
    Its not hindsight. I was saying it when the accusations didn't come to the surface until after the suspension.

    Consistency in story (whether true or otherwise) is important in determining honesty imo. There was no consistency from Garrett. He never mentioned any of this to his teammates, in the post game interview but magically it comes up during a hearing where the potential penalty is lost game checks? Sorry, it doesn't add up to me.

    He's been very public about it since. He's still talking about it as of the day he was reinstated.
    It is hindsight, by definition. "understanding of a situation or event only after it has happened or developed."

    You can't go back to November 14th, therefore, you're reacting with the benefit of hindsight, very easy to do.

    On the night of, in the post game interview, Garrett said "you just have to go look at the tape". If that's not good enough for you, that's fine but he referenced something night of. Whole time apologizing and taking responsibility for his actions.

    The suspension was handed out on November 15th and Garrett had a right to appeal, so just issued an apology and said he had to be accountable, just waiting for his appeal hearing to let the facts be known.

    His closed private appeal hearing is held on November 21st, where it is leaked that a racial slur was used. This easily could be related to the night of interview of check the tapes comment.

    The same night he tweets about the leak and how it was supposed to be a private hearing and still is no excuse for his actions.

    His head coach at the time, Kitchens speaks on November 22nd saying "I will not reconsider [sharing] anything I’ve talked about with Myles Garrett, but I will say this about Myles’ character: If he tells me something, I am going to believe it". Again, if that's not good enough for you, cool but take from it what you will.

    As far as your teammate claim, you're wrong. Hunt told ESPN Radio after the game there was more to the story, declined to elaborate on Friday. “We talked,’’ he said. “It’s between me and him."

    He gets reinstated on February 12th and in an interview is asked what happened, note he still avoids acknowledging it directly, just saying something was said. Then when pressed on what was said, finally says what was said. Then says he isn't using it as an excuse, didn't want it to get out, because there's no excuse for his actions.

    All of that sounds very consistent to me. Maybe you just didn't follow the events close enough or have a mixed up timeline, I'm unsure. Garrett has been very consistent through and through.
    Last edited by NBA all the way; 02-16-2020 at 06:54 PM.

  8. #173
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Brooklyn
    Posts
    36,259
    Quote Originally Posted by NBA all the way View Post
    It is hindsight, by definition. "understanding of a situation or event only after it has happened or developed."

    You can't go back to November 14th, therefore, you're reacting with the benefit of hindsight, very easy to do.

    On the night of, in the post game interview, Garrett said "you just have to go look at the tape". If that's not good enough for you, that's fine but he referenced something night of. Whole time apologizing and taking responsibility for his actions.

    The suspension was handed out on November 15th and Garrett had a right to appeal, so just issued an apology and said he had to be accountable, just waiting for his appeal hearing to let the facts be known.

    His closed private appeal hearing is held on November 21st, where it is leaked that a racial slur was used. This easily could be related to the night of interview of check the tapes comment.

    The same night he tweets about the leak and how it was supposed to be a private hearing and still is no excuse for his actions.

    His head coach at the time, Kitchens speaks on November 22nd saying "I will not reconsider [sharing] anything I’ve talked about with Myles Garrett, but I will say this about Myles’ character: If he tells me something, I am going to believe it". Again, if that's not good enough for you, cool but take from it what you will.

    As far as your teammate claim, you're wrong. Hunt told ESPN Radio after the game there was more to the story, declined to elaborate on Friday. “We talked,’’ he said. “It’s between me and him."

    He gets reinstated on February 12th and in an interview is asked what happened, note he still avoids acknowledging it directly, just saying something was said. Then when pressed on what was said, finally says what was said. Then says he isn't using it as an excuse, didn't want it to get out, because there's no excuse for his actions.

    All of that sounds very consistent to me. Maybe you just didn't follow the events close enough or have a mixed up timeline, I'm unsure. Garrett has been very consistent through and through.
    No he hasn't. All you have is innuendo from a teammate and a coach that also never referenced a derogatory term being used. Not once have we heard anything about the N-word aside from when it was leaked during the hearing and after Garrett was suspended. That's not consistency. That's sounds like the action of a man who is trying to find mitigating circumstances to lessen his punishment then trying to justify the violent nature of what he did way after the fact.

    You want to believe otherwise, fine but Garrett's words immediately after the game are not consistent imo with someone who is telling the truth. Tell me this has been his position from the first question after the game and yeah I tend to think it would have a lot more credibility.

  9. #174
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    19,801
    Quote Originally Posted by metswon69 View Post
    No he hasn't. All you have is innuendo from a teammate and a coach that also never referenced a derogatory term being used. Not once have we heard anything about the N-word aside from when it was leaked during the hearing and after Garrett was suspended. That's not consistency. That's sounds like the action of a man who is trying to find mitigating circumstances to lessen his punishment then trying to justify the violent nature of what he did way after the fact.

    You want to believe otherwise, fine but Garrett's words immediately after the game are not consistent imo with someone who is telling the truth. Tell me this has been his position from the first question after the game and yeah I tend to think it would have a lot more credibility.
    What are you talking about? It's been incredibly consistent. He referenced that Rudolph said something the very night that it happened. The story hasn't changed at all... Not one bit. It's just gained more detail over time.

    The first time that Garrett addressed the word publicly was last week. It's clear that he didn't feel comfortable talking about it publicly and doesn't want to.

  10. #175
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Brooklyn
    Posts
    36,259
    Quote Originally Posted by mgjohnson7851 View Post
    What are you talking about? It's been incredibly consistent. He referenced that Rudolph said something the very night that it happened. The story hasn't changed at all... Not one bit. It's just gained more detail over time.

    The first time that Garrett addressed the word publicly was last week. It's clear that he didn't feel comfortable talking about it publicly and doesn't want to.
    What is "something"? "Something" can be multiple profanities, it could have been something personal from a time in which they played against each other at Oklahoma State and Texas A&M. It hasn't really gained any more detail since the hearing. It was leaked then that Garrett accused Rudolph of using the N-word.

    Or it was never said at all and Garrett was using it as a way to mitigate his punishment. Again, I don't buy his version of events and I've already explained the reasons why.

  11. #176
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Posts
    2,005
    Quote Originally Posted by metswon69 View Post
    No he hasn't. All you have is innuendo from a teammate and a coach that also never referenced a derogatory term being used. Not once have we heard anything about the N-word aside from when it was leaked during the hearing and after Garrett was suspended. That's not consistency. That's sounds like the action of a man who is trying to find mitigating circumstances to lessen his punishment then trying to justify the violent nature of what he did way after the fact.

    You want to believe otherwise, fine but Garrett's words immediately after the game are not consistent imo with someone who is telling the truth. Tell me this has been his position from the first question after the game and yeah I tend to think it would have a lot more credibility.
    And guess what buddy, if there is never a leak, you don't hear about it. Mind blowing, huh?

    As far as the timeline for consistency, it is right in what you quoted. If you didn't follow it close enough, you can use Google, Yahoo, Ask Jeeves, Bing, Netscape, AOL or whatever your preferred search engine is and educate yourself on the situation and events that followed. But sitting here saying Garrett has been inconsistent makes you look very ignorant and before you get bent outta shape because there was the misunderstanding of the word hindsight, I provided you the definition of ignorant.

    "lacking knowledge, information, or awareness about a particular thing."

  12. #177
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Brooklyn
    Posts
    36,259
    Quote Originally Posted by NBA all the way View Post
    And guess what buddy, if there is never a leak, you don't hear about it. Mind blowing, huh?

    As far as the timeline for consistency, it is right in what you quoted. If you didn't follow it close enough, you can use Google, Yahoo, Ask Jeeves, Bing, Netscape, AOL or whatever your preferred search engine is and educate yourself on the situation and events that followed. But sitting here saying Garrett has been inconsistent makes you look very ignorant and before you get bent outta shape because there was the misunderstanding of the word hindsight, I provided you the definition of ignorant.

    "lacking knowledge, information, or awareness about a particular thing."
    We don't know that. Garrett has been pretty vocal about it since. Whether that's because it was already out there, who knows?

    There was no hindsight because I took this position in the thread during the time in which it happened. I'm not searching through it but I took the same position in November and throughout the course of time that led up to his suspension. This has nothing to do with ignorance. This is you believing what you want to believe based on little to no evidence of a derogatory term being used.

    If you want to call someone a racist, you better have something to back it up because those are significant accusations. So far you have nothing but one man's word. It wasn't heard on the field, it wasn't mentioned until the hearing, etc and none of his teammates or coaches (in which he spoke to) have acknowledged Garrett saying Rudolph called him the n-word (directly).

    If this was a criminal or civil court and this was your burden of proof, a judge would laugh at you.
    Last edited by metswon69; 02-16-2020 at 08:31 PM.

  13. #178
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Posts
    2,005
    Quote Originally Posted by metswon69 View Post
    We don't know that. Garrett has been pretty vocal about it since. Whether that's because it was already out there, who knows?

    There was no hindsight because I took this position in the thread during the time in which it happened. I'm not searching through it but I took the same position in November and throughout the course of time that led up to his suspension. This has nothing to do with ignorance. This is you believing what you want to believe based on little to no evidence of a derogatory term being used.

    If you want to call someone a racist, you better have something to back it up because those are significant accusations. So far you have nothing but one man's word. It wasn't heard on the field, it wasn't mentioned until the hearing, etc and none of his teammates or coaches (in which he spoke to) have acknowledged Garrett saying Rudolph called him the n-word.

    If this was a criminal or civil court and this was your burden of proof, a judge would laugh at you.
    How has he been pretty vocal about it? The first time he ever said the actual words of what was said on the field that night publicy was 3 months after the incident...

    If you didn't take the position on November 14th then you have the advantage of hindsight. Which it woulda been impossible for you to take the stance that night because he gave no specifics just said check the tape.

    You next say "after the suspension" that's pretty vague. So on November 15th you took that position? No new information was released besides a further public apology, so again, impossible.

    I already debunked your coaches and teammates stance. He told them and told them not to speak on it publicly because he had an appeal hearing and didn't want any excuses for his actions, pretty easy thing to deduce from that.

    He was told a private hearing would be private, so felt this was the best time to reveal it behind closed doors, when they're trying to reduce his suspension length, makes pretty much sense to me.

    Very consistent.

  14. #179
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Brooklyn
    Posts
    36,259
    Quote Originally Posted by NBA all the way View Post
    How has he been pretty vocal about it? The first time he ever said the actual words of what was said on the field that night publicy was 3 months after the incident...

    If you didn't take the position on November 14th then you have the advantage of hindsight. Which it woulda been impossible for you to take the stance that night because he gave no specifics just said check the tape.

    You next say "after the suspension" that's pretty vague. So on November 15th you took that position? No new information was released besides a further public apology, so again, impossible.

    I already debunked your coaches and teammates stance. He told them and told them not to speak on it publicly because he had an appeal hearing and didn't want any excuses for his actions, pretty easy thing to deduce from that.

    He was told a private hearing would be private, so felt this was the best time to reveal it behind closed doors, when they're trying to reduce his suspension length, makes pretty much sense to me.

    Very consistent.
    No you havent debunked any stance. You dont know the context of any conversation Garrett had with Hunt or Kitchens nor have they acknowledged Rudolph used any derogatory slur from their conversations with Garrett.

    So he wanted no excuses for his actions but then made excuses at the hearing? Ok, makes sense. It's because you choose to accept his version as gospel that all of that makes sense to you.

    It also makes sense to me that someone would create that narrative when their backs are against the wall and they think it could help their cause. I already said I'm not buying Garrett's version of events and none of what you presented to me shows consistency. Its your theories on why he decided to hold things close to the vest and when he chose to disclose them.

  15. #180
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Posts
    2,005
    Quote Originally Posted by metswon69 View Post
    No you havent debunked any stance. You dont know the context of any conversation Garrett had with Hunt or Kitchens nor have they acknowledged Rudolph used any derogatory slur from their conversations with Garrett.

    So he wanted no excuses for his actions but then made excuses at the hearing? Ok, makes sense. It's because you choose to accept his version as gospel that all of that makes sense to you.

    It also makes sense to me that someone would create that narrative when their backs are against the wall and they think it could help their cause. I already said I'm not buying Garrett's version of events and none of what you presented to me shows consistency. Its your theories on why he decided to hold things close to the vest and when he chose to disclose them.
    It goes both ways, neither do you lol he talked to them, 100% please try to deny this

    Lol I'll parrot your own line to you "You dont know the context of anything said in the appeal" bc guess what? You weren't there

    I'll just leave this here... "conformity in the application of something, typically that which is necessary for the sake of logic, accuracy, or fairness."

Page 12 of 25 FirstFirst ... 2101112131422 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •