Owls0325

!!!!0mgz!!!! Trent Williams finally showed up

Recommended Posts

33 minutes ago, megared said:

 

Had they traded him, he never goes public.  He would've never found himself in a position to say anything beyond vague cliches, because his new team probably wouldn't want a part of that.  He said nothing until after the trade deadline passed.  

 

He said he went public because he believed the Skins put out false information about him and his motives for holding out and that apparently forced his hand. So what happens if Trent still feels as if the Skins put out false information about him and his motives after he is traded? Wouldn't that still make him feel as if they forced his hand? And now that he's with another team, even more of a reason to no longer remain silent. He could have felt the Skins were doing damage control by leaking the reasons Trent was traded...and still would have ended up talking.

 

See...this is why the dude's words should not be brushed off as irrelevant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Califan007 said:

 

He said he went public because he believed the Skins put out false information about him and his motives for holding out and that apparently forced his hand. So what happens if Trent still feels as if the Skins put out false information about him and his motives after he is traded? Wouldn't that still make him feel as if they forced his hand? And now that he's with another team, even more of a reason to no longer remain silent. He could have felt the Skins were doing damage control by leaking the reasons Trent was traded...and still would have ended up talking.

 

See...this is why the dude's words should not be brushed off as irrelevant.

 

Aaaaaaaaaand he also said, yesterday that he says nothing at all, had they traded him before the deadline. 

 

Quote

"The money was obsolete at that point. It still is. It was a point to prove. It's something more than that. It's morals. It's integrity. I had to. I couldn't just sit there and let this go because it would have. If I had never spoken to you guys, you guys would have never known what happened. Right?

 

"And I was prepared to do so. If they would have traded me, I would have never said nothing. I would've just kept my respect and kept it where it was, but they forced my hand. They painted me out to be the bad guy so I had to speak up for myself."

 

https://thefandc.radio.com/trent-williams-opens-up-no-reason-to-stay-silent-anymore

 

The team leaked info to the press in April, then again in June.  

 

Are you implying that it's a coincidence that Trent's first public words were after the trade deadline? 

 

Had Trent gone to a good organization with rules in place, I'm sure it never gets discussed.  You think the Patriots would've tolerated him in a press conference saying that?  The Steelers?  He's not the first NFL player to have a grievance against a former employer for medical care.  

Edited by megared
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, megared said:

 

So "underestimated" = misdiagnosis? 

 

Because the authors of those articles wrote 'misdiagnosis' as their headlines, we can now attribute that as a direct quote to him?

 

There's a legal burden of proof associated with the term misdiagnosis.  I'm sure he was coached up to avoid such terms.  

 

Did you read the definition of the word "misdiagnose"? lol...because as I said:

 

"I don't know about you, but what Trent described above (and he has said more than just the above) qualifies as a misdiagnosis on the part of the team doctors."

 

It would be hilariously disingenuous of Trent to somehow make the claim that he never said the doctors misdiagnosed anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Califan007 said:

 

Did you read the definition of the word "misdiagnose"? lol...because as I said:

 

"I don't know about you, but what Trent described above (and he has said more than just the above) qualifies as a misdiagnosis on the part of the team doctors."

 

It would be hilariously disingenuous of Trent to somehow make the claim that he never said the doctors misdiagnosed anything.

 

He never used that word.  You're attributing it to him. 

 

If you want to characterize his words as that, that's your interpretation of it.  But there are very specific things (legal burden of proof) that you have to be ready to answer, if you're throwing words like that around.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, megared said:

 

Aaaaaaaaaand he also said, yesterday that he says nothing at all, had they traded him before the deadline. 

 

 

https://thefandc.radio.com/trent-williams-opens-up-no-reason-to-stay-silent-anymore

 

The team leaked info to the press in April, then again in June.  

 

Are you implying that it's a coincidence that Trent's first public words were after the trade deadline? 

 

Had Trent gone to a good organization with rules in place, I'm sure it never gets discussed.  You think the Patriots would've tolerated him in a press conference saying that?  The Steelers?  He's not the first NFL player to have a grievance against a former employer for medical care.  

 

The leaked misinformation he was referring to was Casserly's comments which were not made until after his first interview--after the trade deadline. That's why the NFLPA mentioned in their statement the misinformation being on NFL Network:

 

"We are also aware of misinformation being repeated on the NFL's own network that is not sourced and is only designed to tarnish Trent's reputation."

 

That is what Trent claims forced his hand. That happened after the trade deadline. No coincidence needed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Califan007 said:

 

The leaked misinformation he was referring to was Casserly's comments which were not made until after his first interview--after the trade deadline. That's why the NFLPA mentioned in their statement the misinformation being on NFL Network:

 

"We are also aware of misinformation being repeated on the NFL's own network that is not sourced and is only designed to tarnish Trent's reputation."

 

That is what Trent claims forced his hand. That happened after the trade deadline. No coincidence needed.

 

His first interview was before Casserly's comments...so given that we know the team was leaking stuff all offseason...was it more likely that him talking had to do with the trade deadline just passing, or the comments he somehow knew Casserly was going to make in the future, (which he had no idea was going to occur later that day)?

 

Quote

If they would have traded me, I would have never said nothing.

 

Edited by megared
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, sempre_victrix said:

I think that if Trent truly wants out of here to play again, he'd be more inclined to work with the team, show that he's ready to play, and say all the right things in public.  Go to Bruce (or, as I like to call him, ****head) and explain to him that he is no way every playing again for this team, but will be a good soldier if Bruce gets him traded and does not try to toll his contract for this year.  Seems like the adult thing to do, especially if Bruce (or, as I like to call him, ****head) realizes that there will be no winners in this battle and agrees to move him in the off-season.

 

I said a long time ago that Trent handled this in absolutely the wrong way--IF his goal was to be traded. Whether or not his emotions are valid and justified, he needed to handle this in a way that was most likely to allow him to meet his goals.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, megared said:

 

His first interview was before Casserly's comments...so given that we know the team was leaking stuff all offseason...was it more likely that him talking had to do with the trade deadline just passing, or the comments he somehow knew Casserly was going to make in the future, (which he had no idea was going to occur later that day)?

 

 

 

He would have been traded before Casserly's comments...if Casserly still made those comments--and if (as Trent believes) Casserly is a mechanism for the Skins' minsinformation attempts to paint Williams as the bad guy, there's no reason to believe he wouldn't have still said something--then there was a realistic expectation that Trent would have still felt the need to speak out, no matter what team he was playing for. It's very easy to say "If you had done what I asked I would not have spoken out." It's damn near impossible to say "No matter what you would have said in the future, I wouldn't have spoken out if I was on another team." If Casserly had said that stuff back in July and Trent remained quiet, that would be another story.

 

Half of the things Trent has been doing and has done in the past, seem guided by emotion as much as anything. And just in the last week, Trent has said he thinks the attempt to trade him right before the deadline was done solely to embarrass him, Casserly's comments were part of an orchestrated misinformation campaign by the FO, and the team's request for an independent investigation was only asked for by the Redskins as a PR move to paint him as the bad guy. It's really hard to predict what emotions you will have in the future.

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Califan007 said:

 

He would have been traded before Casserly's comments...if Casserly still made those comments--and if (as Trent believes) Casserly is a mechanism for the Skins' minsinformation attempts to paint Williams as the bad guy, there's no reason to believe he wouldn't have still said something--then there was a realistic expectation that Trent would have still felt the need to speak out, no matter what team he was playing for. It's very easy to say "If you had done what I asked I would not have spoken out." It's damn near impossible to say "No matter what you would have said in the future, I wouldn't have spoken out if I was on another team." If Casserly had said that stuff back in July and Trent remained quiet, that would be another story.

 

Half of the things Trent has been doing and has done in the past, seem guided by emotion as much as anything. And just in the last week, Trent has said he thinks the attempt to trade him right before the deadline was done solely to embarrass him, Casserly's comments were part of an orchestrated misinformation campaign by the FO, and the team's request for an independent investigation was only asked for by the Redskins as a PR move to paint him as the bad guy. It's really hard to predict what emotions you will have in the future.

 

 

The team would've never leaked Casserly's comments as a response to Trent's grievances...because he would've been traded. 

 

There's zero reason to believe he would have said anything, because generally players on new teams don't do that.  And there would've been zero reason to continue that discussion, because he would've gotten what he wanted. 

 

I mean it's funny, you're perfectly willing to parse his words when you can pass some judgement on him, or assign a level of incoherent-ness to them.  But when he says something in clear English, that anyone can understand, you question whether it's the reality.  The guy said he wasn't going to talk about it...and the fact he didn't say one word in the entire season before the trade deadline, kinda lends credibility to that statement.  

 

So did he talk because he was not traded...or because Casserly's comments were leaked to the NFLN in the future? 

 

(Hint:  You can't say it was because of Casserly's comments, if he spoke to the media before then.)  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, megared said:

 

Had they traded him, he never goes public.  He would've never found himself in a position to say anything beyond vague cliches, because his new team probably wouldn't want a part of that.  He said nothing until after the trade deadline passed.  

Or...if they paid him he never goes public.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, wunderhill said:

Or...if they paid him he never goes public.

 

I think the contract talks occurred earlier in the offseason.  Fact is, he gave up a lot of money to prove a point.  

 

And if it was just a money thing, he could've shown up (without ever holding out), knowing full well he needed further procedures to clean up his scalp.  I thought I read in one of his interviews, that he projected it to be week 2 before he'd be ready?  So that's all of training camp, preseason, then two games.  At his salary, that's still A LOT of money.  

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This was on the CPND board about tolling contracts. This could get interesting if Trent is still on the NFI list in 2020.

 

Looking at the CBA, Article 20, Section 3, Subsection B talks about players in their final year on the NFI list:

“A player on N-F/I who is in the final year of his contract (including an option year) will have his contract tolled. However, if the player is physically able to perform his football services on or before the sixth regular season game, the club must pay the player his negotiated Paragraph 5 Salary (pro rata) for the balance of the season in order to toll such player’s contract. If such player is taken off N-F/I during the period when such action is allowed by League rules, his contract will not be tolled.”

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.