Who is Chris Culliver

[Bacon]

He sounds like an ignorant kid. I used to think the same way as him when I was maybe 14.

I didn't like him as a person before and I won't pretend to now, but I hope he adds something to our secondary and maybe pulls his head out somewhere along the way.

[Koolblue13]

That's some grammer he's got to go with his homophobia.

Do these kids really go to college? Sounds like a ****ing imbecile.

[War Paint]

That's some grammer he's got to go with his homophobia.

Do these kids really go to college? Sounds like a ****ing imbecile.

Brains and intelligence aren't needed to go to college if you are a gifted athlete who is recruited to play ball.

[abdcskins]

All I care about is his play on the field. 

[MassSkinsFan]

That's some grammer he's got to go with his homophobia.

 

BTW it's grammar, not grammer. LOL

[Alaskins]

That's some grammer he's got to go with his homophobia.

Do these kids really go to college? Sounds like a ****ing imbecile.

 

 

Koolblue,

 

I respect you as a poster, and respect your point of view.

 

That being said, the first thing I did we we signed him this AM was to go to his wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Culliver).  This guy has overcome a LOT to make it to the NFL and be successful:

 

 

 

Culliver had a difficult start in life. His mother, although she would eventually graduate from Temple University, was single and only 16 years old when he was born. Culliver has a brother four years his junior and twin siblings, a boy and a girl, who are eleven years younger. In 1996, Culliver's stepfather and a cousin were shot to death, and his mother was wounded, in a Philadelphia bar fight.

In February 2009, Culliver almost died from complications following routine shoulder surgery.^[2] Culliver returned for his junior season with 12 starts and was the team's third top tackler with 62 and returned 26 kickoffs for 585 yards. Culliver was a second-team All-SEC pick for 2009.

 

I hope he's grown up a lot since his homophopic comment, but I'll give him a pass because:

1)  He had to overcome a lot with his background

2)  He sincerely apologized for his "ugly comments" that were "not what <he felt in his heart>.

3)  He is a Redskin now

[PerryMason]

A homophobe, apparently. Hopefully, immaturity is to blame.

who cares? thats the least of some of the character issues of nfl players these days. And furthermore he actually has a right to be one. Not agreeing with homophobia but at least hes not a criminal or an alleged criminal that beats women or totes guns or runs people over etc etc

[Wildbunny]

All I care about is his play on the field. 

 

Well, to me being a good teammate is as important.

 

Koolblue,

 

I respect you as a poster, and respect your point of view.

 

That being said, the first thing I did we we signed him this AM was to go to his wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Culliver).  This guy has overcome a LOT to make it to the NFL and be successful:

 

 

I hope he's grown up a lot since his homophopic comment, but I'll give him a pass because:

1)  He had to overcome a lot with his background

2)  He sincerely apologized for his "ugly comments" that were "not what <he felt in his heart>.

3)  He is a Redskin now

 

Yeah, that's true, he overcame lots of things as a child, and I respect that. Just hoping that the kid growns up it'll be better for him and those surrounding him. Everyone can say stupid things, the important thing is learn through your mistakes and be a better human being in the end. Apologies are one thing, and good if you sincerely means them, otherwise they're crap.

 

But considering what he went through, I'm gonna give him the benefits of the doubt and sincerely hope he'll be a great player and a good team mate.

 

After all, the team we used to praised used to have Dexter Manley within its that didn't how how to read IIRC when he was a Redskins.

 

Sometimes those kids are not helped by the U the go to. That's nothing new. Sadly.

 

who cares? thats the least of some of the character issues of nfl players these days. And furthermore he actually has a right to be one. Not agreeing with homophobia but at least hes not a criminal ot an alleged criminal that beats women or totes guns or runs people over etc etc

There's some countries when you could run into heavy trouble for saying what he said you know. As much as I love freedom of speech, I always thought it was to be used to say stupid things. Sometimes, it's just better to just shut up and look like an ass, other than speaking freely and leaving no doubts on that matter.

[War Paint]

Wow, I had no idea about his brush with death.  Surgery is no joke.  My friend's mom died due to complications from a routine surgery. Scary stuff.

[Redskins Reparations]

Excellent signing! Welcome to the team CC! 

[evmiii]

Guys, we are not auditioning men for the church choir. Across the NFL I am sure we can find many opinions about many things that most of us don't agree with; one of the beauties of our great nation is we are all allowed to have opinions. Can he play football? Can he tackle? Can he cover? I sure hope so. Trust the new GM. HTTR.

[Brokenstriker]

Wow, sounds like a great addition. 

while I don't disagree with you ... it pales in comparison to Donte Stallworth's baggage and that didn't become a memorable issue

Koolblue,

 

I respect you as a poster, and respect your point of view.

 

That being said, the first thing I did we we signed him this AM was to go to his wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Culliver).  This guy has overcome a LOT to make it to the NFL and be successful:

 

 

I hope he's grown up a lot since his homophopic comment, but I'll give him a pass because:

1)  He had to overcome a lot with his background

2)  He sincerely apologized for his "ugly comments" that were "not what <he felt in his heart>.

3)  He is a Redskin now

well said!

[ZRagone]

I don't care one iota about what his feelings on gays are and it's sad that in a football section of a football forum the first thing brought up in response to a football focused post is something that wil likely have no impact on the football field.

If you want to bring up his legal troubles, that I can understand. THOSE can actually have an impact on the football field by keeping him off of it. Not liking gays isn't going to cause him a suspension.

Young guy. Physical corner. God measurables at 6' and under a 4.4 for his fourty time. I don't know if he's really going to be worth $8 mil, but I do think he has a great oppertunity to be one of our top 2 corner for the next few years.

The issues with the law worry me, and I hope he puts that all behind him. But as it comes to being a football player on my team, I don't care what a players view is on gays, on firearms, on abortion, on taxes, or any other such thing.

[JoeSkins]

because it is potentially a glaring problem?

Is it?  It didn't seem to hurt the 49ers too much.  You can sell me on the potential police trouble, but not a sound bite that hasn't come back to bite him in any discernible way.

 

EDIT: Why am I not surprised that this is his first response?

Am I the "him," here?  Because we don't know each other.

 

Edit:  There's a reason I said "the first response" and not "his first response" like you did.

 

What is your point with this post here? 

 

It reads like you're demeaning bantu's response as though it's whack.

 

The response seems quite appropriate if the story is true.

 

Now if all you meant was bantu is likely gonna **** (or troll) no matter what, I get it.

 

It's hard for me to see the comments (and putting them out there in that situation) attributed there in any other form than one of concern, or at least wariness. I'm hoping this stuff was carefully considered in the decision. 

I don't know what you mean by "whack," and I don't think there's any doubt that "it's true."  Culliver definitely said it and definitely meant it.  It was also years ago, and if you're worried about off-the-field issues there is a much more prevalent one with the kid.  Regardless, do we have any evidence that one comment has hindered his ability to fit into the locker room, play the game, and contribute on the field?

 

I just think it's shallow and largely irrelevant analysis, more a product of group think than anything else.

[NickyJ]

Guys, we have serious weaponry here. Here we have Chris Culliver, a guy who's made his headlines in the past. And Michael Sam is still out there in FA. We could make the world implode. With one phone call, E.S. would melt down, ESPN's satellites would go flying out of orbit into oblivion, and the world would end. We wield a dangerous power. The question is: What should we do with it?

 

Edit - Oh man, and Tim Tebow could be our third string QB! WE CAN BRING THE WORLD TO ITS KNEES, PEOPLE.

[Jumbo]

<edit>

I just think it's shallow and largely irrelevant analysis, more a product of group think than anything else.

 

 

By "whack" I meant "weird." 

 

But what exactly is the "shallow and largely irrelevant analysis" you refer to? Or do you mean "issue" or "matter" more than "analysis"?

 

And what exactly is the "product" of "group think" you refer to---concern or disfavor for the remarks? And which people are you assigning to the proposed flock of sheep? Those who expressed a concern? What exactly does "group think" mean to you? Are there "group thinks" that you think you fall prey to, or is it just folks mentally inferior to you and the better way that you arrive at your conclusions?   

 

Inquiring minds want to know.   

 

I agree the comment's weight (the degree of which is arguable anyway) seems diminished by time and recanting (something I mentioned mattered in my post) and that the other matters might be of more concern.

 

I know I'm not worried but I'd find stating such thoughts to the press and the other behaviors in this (rebuilding an NFL franchise) context a matter of concern worthy of some exploration and thought, 10 times out of 10, if I'm in the decisions making process.

 

Right now, I roll with the idea that the FO did exactly that, and given Scot ok'ed him, that's good enough. Scot gets benefit of any doubt with me.

 

Per Zrag's post---folks have every right to controversial opinions on controversial matters and have the right to express them, of course. I also separate having negative or harmful prejudicial and bigoted views based solely or largely on race/age/gender/ethnicity/sexual identity as separate from having controversial opinions on controversial matters like gun control, abortion, or say, unions. 

 

But that's probably gonna do it for me on this topic and I'm fine with the move.

 

My initial post was more about a big picture on the topic of homophobic attitudes etc. and bigotry in the context of an org that has long talked seeking "high-character players" as a standard. And I rationally attach "character" as more fundamentally relevant to matters of bigotry than to views on guns or abortions. It wasn't about thinking we have actually made some kind of gaffe here---I don't.

[darrelgreenie]

09:20 SIGNING! The Washington Redskins were weak in the defensive backfield last season and after upgrading in the trenches over the opening days of Free Agency they have turned their attention there this morning. Ian Rapoport reports that they have agreed to a deal to sign former 49ers cornerback Chris Culliver. After missing the entirety of his third season Culliver yet again earned a positive coverage grade in 2014, making that three from three for seasons he actually played in. His +8.2 coverage grade this season was a career high and good for 13th best in the league among corners. Always showing well in terms of coverage metrics too, Culliver has never finished a season allowing a passer rating higher than 83.3 for a complete season and this year his 66.5 passer rating allowed was 10th best in the league.

 

https://www.profootballfocus.com/blog/2015/03/13/2015-free-agency-live-blog-day-4/                                      

 

 

 

5. (Free Agent CB) Chris Culliver - Signed with Washington

2014 Grade: +8.5

2014 Snaps: 839

A third round selection in 2011, the former Game**** saw plenty of action as a backup corner in his first two seasons and generally impressed, though he struggled as a starter during the 49ers playoff run in 2012. A knee injury forced Culliver to miss the entire of the 2013 season, and that may have been responsible for some of the rust he showed early in 2014. However, he soon shook off that rust and finished the season as one of our Top 15 cornerbacks, allowing just 37 receptions on 73 targets (50.7%), and holding passers to a 66.5 QB rating.

Culliver is tall enough and fast enough to match up with most receivers, and should draw plenty of attention. He is less proven than some of the others on this list, and there may be some durability concerns (missed two games in 2014 as well as the entire of 2013), but his performances in 2014 make him an intriguing free agent.

[JoeSkins]

Guys, we have serious weaponry here. Here we have Chris Culliver, a guy who's made his headlines in the past. And Michael Sam is still out there in FA. We could make the world implode. With one phone call, E.S. would melt down, ESPN's satellites would go flying out of orbit into oblivion, and the world would end. We wield a dangerous power. The question is: What should we do with it?

 

Edit - Oh man, and Tim Tebow could be our third string QB! WE CAN BRING THE WORLD TO ITS KNEES, PEOPLE.

1-Player labelled a homophobe

2-Homosexual player

3-Tebowmania

4-Redskins nickname controversy

5-Hard Knocks

 

Bring it on

[NickyJ]

I don't care what they say, we can STILL win the offseason!

[JoeSkins]

By "whack" I meant "weird." 

 

But what exactly is the "shallow and largely irrelevant analysis" you refer to? Or do you mean "issue" or "matter" more than "analysis"?

 

And what exactly is the "product" of "group think" you refer to---concern or disfavor for the remarks? And which people are you assigning to the proposed flock of sheep? Those who expressed a concern? What exactly does "group think" mean to you? Are there "group thinks" that you think you fall prey to, or is it just folks mentally inferior to you and the better way that you arrive at your conclusions?   

 

Inquiring minds want to know.   

First, the bold:  you're making some incorrect inferences and inappropriate implications here.  You're not usually like that and I like to think I've earned better given my time spent here.  As I previously said in the post you quoted, I said "the first response," and left the poster out of it entirely.  In fact, I didn't even look at who made the comment because it's irrelevant, rhetorically and logically.  I addressed the comment, not the poster.  At no point did I ever sound like the above.  At the risk of getting myself in trouble here for the first time in roughly fifteen years, Jumbo, you're being a bit of a jerk.

 

Now, onto what you actually said.  In short, neither the concern nor disfavor alone are the group think, but rather disfavor immediately causing a jump to concern where it is completely unwarranted.  I relate that kind of group think to a simple cursory word association.  Culliver = homophobe.  It's the first thing that always comes up when people talk about the guy to the point of being trivial (as in the way trivia experts practice their craft, not the gravity of the statement).  For all we know, he spent weeks Step Nining everyone he knows after that and it's unfair that one comment forever paints him in one light to people who have never met him.  However, it's too late, because as we all know sound bites travel fast and linger long.

 

As for the jump from disfavor to unwarranted concern, it reminds me of the reactions so many people had to the Penn State allegations, wherein disagreeing with something abhorrent becomes more important than thinking about anything else in orbit.  (A) "I hate child abuse so bury Penn State" and ( "I hate homophobes so this guy is trouble."  (A) Forget that Penn State enjoyed no on-field benefits from the abuse, we have to punish them.  (  Forget the fact that not a single shred of evidence supports the idea that Culliver has ever been a problem in his locker room, and the fact that he hasn't opened his mouth since, he did something people don't like so there must be a problem with him.

 

Edit: darn upper case Bs

[Conn]

Why am I not surprised that this is the first response?

Because it's a pretty big deal. Nobody cares what a professional athlete thinks about anything, if he keeps his mouth shut. Let's hope he does just that.

[Rufus T Firefly]

He's a good football player and not a good person, frankly. That's who he is.

 

If we actually sign Perrish Cox as is rumored, we'll be getting someone who makes Culliver look better in both regards.

[GhostofAlvinWalton]

 

(disclosure: I wouldn't mind playing on a team with an openly gay teammate and don't agree with his statement if he meant it.  But I don't mind humor that offends, either, or even isn't very good.)

 

I utterly disagree with this line of thinking...I am extremely offended by "isn't very good" comedy!

[Jumbo]

In this case, I used red text within the quoted post for my replying comments.

 

First, the bold:  you're making some incorrect inferences and inappropriate implications here. 

 

I'd submit that most folks, when someone accuses others of "group think", would see it as very synonymous with calling folks "sheep" or following "herd mentality" or "parroting." Such is almost universally regarded as a dismissive and demeaning (and even inciting) tactic when applied to the targeted POV, so why act otherwise? And such accusations may be perfectly arguable or defensible as a claim in a given matter, or not. I asked you for more specifics so I could understand you better.

 

The "inferences" you refer to were formed as questions instead of comments so you could agree or disagree and correct, but the inference you take is certainly a reasonable one for any person to make based on your word choice. If you think the "other guy" (his view, really) is moved mainly by "group think" as you labeled it, it's fair to ask you how you do in that regard, isn't it? And do you think the kind of posture that you took wouldn't infer to many people just what you assumed it did?  Your explanation does flesh it out, and addressing the differences in labeling him as a homophobe at this point in time versus labeling his comments then as homophobic would be fine. Bantu did call the guy a homophobe, and he was the only one.

 

 

You're not usually like that and I like to think I've earned better given my time spent here.  Like what? I mainly asked you for a bunch of clarification and used one edgy illustration to highlight how you came across. Even used enough smileys I thought . And your tenure really isn't material to the conversation. 

 

As I previously said in the post you quoted, I said "the first response," and left the poster out of it entirely.  In fact, I didn't even look at who made the comment because it's irrelevant, rhetorically and logically.  I addressed the comment, not the poster.  At no point did I ever sound like the above.  At the risk of getting myself in trouble here for the first time in roughly fifteen years, Jumbo, you're being a bit of a jerk. Well, I'm not going to do anything about the "jerk" comment, but I don't think it fits the situation.

 

 

Now, onto what you actually said.  Always recommended. 

 

In short, neither the concern nor disfavor alone are the group think, but rather disfavor immediately causing a jump to concern where it is completely unwarranted.  I relate that kind of group think to a simple cursory word association.  Culliver = homophobe.  It's the first thing that always comes up when people talk about the guy to the point of being trivial (as in the way trivia experts practice their craft, not the gravity of the statement).  For all we know, he spent weeks Step Nining everyone he knows after that and it's unfair that one comment forever paints him in one light to people who have never met him.  However, it's too late, because as we all know sound bites travel fast and linger long.

 

Well this is the first time I've discussed him. I don't know the entire history of how he's been perceived and discussed elsewhere on this that you seem to know (green highlight), or if that's the only comment he ever made in his life on the matter, or whether he did a thorough Step 4-8 before theoretically launching into 9, or have made any other such speculations. But just in establishing the record, I do see he really offered the press those very clear words on the topic. 

 

 I addressed the homophobe label above, but the "completely unwarranted" view?--ok, if that's your opinion (and I know you're not subject to group think so i won't accuse you of it  ).

 

So what's the allowable time period, if any, to have and express a concern where it isn't a 'jump'? Or is there any time it would have been ok to be a little concerned about his comments? Most comments of concern posted in the thread have been presented very moderately and reasonably, not over-stated. 

 

What you wrote reads like any concern or disfavor (over very distinct comments made just a few years ago) is inappropriate or even foolish. If that is your position, so be it. Others who disagree (and at varying level) can arrive there intelligently and not as the recipients of "group think" directives. BTW, how do you tell which posters didn't succumb to group think and which did? 

 

 

As for the jump from disfavor to unwarranted concern, it reminds me of the reactions so many people had to the Penn State allegations, wherein disagreeing with something abhorrent becomes more important than thinking about anything else in orbit.  (A) "I hate child abuse so bury Penn State" and (   "I hate homophobes so this guy is trouble."  (A) Forget that Penn State enjoyed no on-field benefits from the abuse, we have to punish them.  (    Forget the fact that not a single shred of evidence supports the idea that Culliver has ever been a problem in his locker room, and the fact that he hasn't opened his mouth since, he did something people don't like so there must be a problem with him.

 

And there we go. There was little doubt in my mind that your reactions here were carrying more of a larger agenda/issue related to, but bigger than, this specific individual matter (and that's not a slam nor is it meaning the issue is "gayness"--I'm sure it's not). And you are still going on (to my eyes) like he's being vilified. As far as what is actually happening in this thread in reality, other than bantu's post, he's receiving very mild comments for some potent statements while still getting lot of support, even from those who expressed a little concern. And I am pretty done with this, and there's certainly no hard feelings on my end, Joe.

[ThomasRoane]

Back to football...

 

Has the team said for sure if he's playing DB?  Cause looking at his background he played a lot of Free Safety in college.