Jump to content

Did Richard Sherman just shout out M.O.B. ?


sirlancemehlot

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 151
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Difference between his post-game rant and Bart Scott's is that Sherman's was about himself and another individual; Scott's rant was about the team(s).  Both were hyped up (understandably) but it's not a subtle difference.

 

That being said, the notion that this is as close as the guy can come to a coherent sentence is just idiotic.  He sounded neither better-spoken or worse-spoke than Scott was, and from what I've seen of both (when they aren't having an adrenaline overdose) they both seem like pretty smart guys.  I've yelled and screamed in the moment plenty, as have most of the people here.  Doesn't make me "typical" of anything other than being a person instead of being a robot.  The way I sound is different than Sherman, though, so different people are going to make different comments about inferences drawn from such outbursts of emotion.  We're just not going to sound the same.  Well duh.  We didn't grow up in the same family with the same friends in the same schools in the same neighborhoods.  Which is probably why I sound so much more ghetto than Sherman does; he's a pretender while I actually live the life.  It's all good, though.  I remember when I wore my dreds were shorter like he does.  Kinda cute.  

 

In any event, other than the me-me-me nature of his outburst, it's a lot of nothing. He made the game-sealing play that helped put his team in the superbowl, with the whole country watching.  Not to mention the guy's about to be a UFA and that likely didn't hurt his upcoming payday.  Well f*cking good for him.   We should all be so fortunate as to have perfect moments like that against someone who was (allegedly) trash-talking him not long before.  That's all it was for him and, on a team-level, that's all it was with Scott.

 

It was both.  It was about him vs. a guy he's got some history with both on and off the field and it was about the Seahawks.  He screamed LOB and said go Hawks a bunch of times.  He made it about him vs. Crabtree but also credited his team.  It wasnt as 1 sided as you're making it seem. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I figured you hadn't since you called it WWF. People that are into wrestling are usually REALLY into it and would be sure to call it WWE.

 

The last time I gave it any attention it was WWF...either way, thats what it reminded me of.

 

I wasnt around for Ali...but how was it any different from that?  From what I've seen Ali was just as boisterous.  Granted, boxing is a solo sport where you need to sell the ticket...but this whole thing is way over blown IMO

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The last time I gave it any attention it was WWF...either way, thats what it reminded me of.

 

I wasnt around for Ali...but how was it any different from that?  From what I've seen Ali was just as boisterous.  Granted, boxing is a solo sport where you need to sell the ticket...but this whole thing is way over blown IMO

 

I knew there would be comparisons to Ali. The difference between Ali and Sherman is that, like you said, Ali's sport is one where you have no teammates. It's all about you vs. him. Another difference is that Ali used his boasting as a way to psyche out his opponent, to get an edge. It was done, for the most part, before the fact and he would have to answer to it, alone when the bell rang. Also, Ali was not beyond reproach, him calling Joe Frazier a gorilla and an Uncle Tom was reprehensible, but again, he had to answer for it in the ring.

 

I still don't know the name of the guy that made the interception.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I knew there would be comparisons to Ali. The difference between Ali and Sherman is that like you said, Ali's sport is one where you have no teammates. It's all about you vs. him. Another difference is that Ali used his boasting as a way to psyche out his opponent, to get an edge. It was done, for the most part, before the fact and he would have to answer to it, alone when the bell rang. Also, Ali was not beyond reproach, him calling Joe Frazier a gorilla and an Uncle Tom was reprehensible, but again, he had to answer for it in the ring.

 

I still don't know the name of the guy that made the interception.

 

I do think there is an element of a psychological intimidation, if you will, with Sherman....I think he's trying to get into the heads of anyone thats going up against him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sherman is a poster child for the ugliness spawned by extreme insecurity, attention neediness, and narcissism. It's a prevalent issue with Gen Y.

 

 

I love that Klacko neg repped me for this. Knowing the tendencies and personality traits/flaws of Gen Y is my job.... LOL only Klacko

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do think there is an element of a psychological intimidation, if you will, with Sherman....I think he's trying to get into the heads of anyone thats going up against him.

 

Of course that's his goal, he has flat out said, he wants to bait QBs to throw at him, so he can get INTs. In his mind, you aren't the best CB in football if you aren't being thrown at, it's your job as the CB to give them a look that draws them to throw at you, and then be in position for the INT.

 

I agree with him. The best CB in football has to be creating turnovers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course that's his goal, he has flat out said, he wants to bait QBs to throw at him, so he can get INTs. In his mind, you aren't the best CB in football if you aren't being thrown at, it's your job as the CB to give them a look that draws them to throw at you, and then be in position for the INT.

 

I agree with him. The best CB in football has to be creating turnovers.

I think he's the best right now. I saw the list above that was provided of CB;s the poster thought were better, and I just dont see it. You may not like the guy and that is skewing his view, but in my opinion, he's clearly the best CB in football right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course that's his goal, he has flat out said, he wants to bait QBs to throw at him, so he can get INTs. In his mind, you aren't the best CB in football if you aren't being thrown at, it's your job as the CB to give them a look that draws them to throw at you, and then be in position for the INT.

 

I agree with him. The best CB in football has to be creating turnovers.

 

Maybe...but Revis was considered the consensus best CB in the league with talks of being the best defensive player in the league and he didnt force a turnover in 2010...the Jets best season under Rex.

 

Is taking the entire side of the field away equivalent to creating turnovers?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think he's the best right now. I saw the list above that was provided of CB;s the poster thought were better, and I just dont see it. You may not like the guy and that is skewing his view, but in my opinion, he's clearly the best CB in football right now.

 

There's really no doubt about it.

 

Brent Grimes is better? LOL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe...but Revis was considered the consensus best CB in the league with talks of being the best defensive player in the league and he didnt force a turnover in 2010...the Jets best season under Rex.

 

Is taking the entire side of the field away equivalent to creating turnovers?  

 

No. Turnovers are FAR more important than taking away a zone, if you will.

 

This league revolves around scoring, every turnover gives your offense an additional possession, thus an additional chance to score. It's simple math. If your offense has 9 possessions (because of 2 turnovers) and the other team has only 7, you have a significant advantage.

 

Turnovers end drives. 

 

Taking away the field limits options, but doesn't necessarily stop an offense. Case in point, the Pats fans are crying about losing Talib. Guess what... if Talib played we would have just seen Peyton go to his 2nd, 3rd and 4th reads, all of whom were winning their individual matchups all day. Decker or Julius Thomas would have blown up instead of Demarius, but Talib wasn't going to help the Pats win, especially if Peyton just avoided him, because then Talib wouldn't have created any turnovers and given Brady extra chances.

 

The reason the Pats lost was not because Welker took out Talib, it was because Peyton was never touched and every single one of his receiving options was beating their coverage all day. If they had chosen to, the Broncos could have put 50 on the Pats. Instead they sat on the ball more, moved it with great efficiency and tried NOT to scoring too quickly in order to keep Brady on the sideline.

 

Anyway, in today's scoring league. A defense that creates turnovers wins. Look at Seattle. I'm not stating anything that shouldn't be obvious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I kind of agree with this.  Sherman is motivated by his ego-mania. He cant help himself.  Stupid is as stupid does.  In his case, he sees himself as an underappreciated, victimized athlete  who clearly suffers from low self-esteem and finds it necessary to humiliate his opponents in an attempt to prove his worthiness.  Unfortunately, all he does is make an azz of himself.  There was no justification in going public with his comments about Crabtree even if he had a personal rift with him.  I've never heard Crabtree talk about him publicly.  Even the reporter said astonishingly, "who's talking about you?"  She will get a big raise.  The guy is a head case and needs a sports sickologist in the worst way. I'm surprised Godell hasn't lowered the boom on this idiot. He is giving football a bad name.  To call Crabtree a mediocre receiver during a national press conference after the game is shameless. Who does that?  And its not just this incident.  There are now countless accounts of his meltdowns in regard to Revis and Skip Bayless.  He continues to claim himself as the 'best corner'. I have no problem with that but when you try to promote yourself at the expense of others its rude, arrogant, pathetic and somewhat pathological. Funny thing is he isn't the best corner.   Patrick Peterson, Joe HadenAlterraun Verner, Darrelle Revis, Brent Grimes, Aqib Talib, are better.  This guy is going to have an emotional breakdown at some point.  There is just to much hatred and insanity in his heart. And its not going to be pretty.         

 

Darrelle Revis called Randy Moss a slouch on the Television set for the whole world to see.

 

Randy Moss.  Not Mediocre Crabtree.  Randy Moss.

 

But I suppose thats cool?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe...but Revis was considered the consensus best CB in the league with talks of being the best defensive player in the league and he didnt force a turnover in 2010...the Jets best season under Rex.

 

Is taking the entire side of the field away equivalent to creating turnovers?  

NO, but its darn close.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. Turnovers are FAR more important than taking away a zone, if you will.

 

This league revolves around scoring, every turnover gives your offense an additional possession, thus an additional chance to score. It's simple math. If your offense has 9 possessions (because of 2 turnovers) and the other team has only 7, you have a significant advantage.

 

Turnovers end drives. 

 

Taking away the field limits options, but doesn't necessarily stop an offense. Case in point, the Pats fans are crying about losing Talib. Guess what... if Talib played we would have just seen Peyton go to his 2nd, 3rd and 4th reads, all of whom were winning their individual matchups all day. Decker or Julius Thomas would have blown up instead of Demarius, but Talib wasn't going to help the Pats win, especially if Peyton just avoided him, because then Talib wouldn't have created any turnovers and given Brady extra chances.

 

The reason the Pats lost was not because Welker took out Talib, it was because Peyton was never touched and every single one of his receiving options was beating their coverage all day. If they had chosen to, the Broncos could have put 50 on the Pats. Instead they sat on the ball more, moved it with great efficiency and tried NOT to scoring too quickly in order to keep Brady on the sideline.

 

Anyway, in today's scoring league. A defense that creates turnovers wins. Look at Seattle. I'm not stating anything that shouldn't be obvious.

 

Using Manning or Brady isnt the best way to support this particular argument because they have the ability to make it happen with those other options...but a guy like Kap couldnt and played pretty sh*tty vs. the Seahawks.  He was throwing outside of his comfort zone and it caused INT's.

 

Also, I'd assume it increases your odds to zone up on the other side of the field to be more creative, set traps, etc, to create turnovers for other players as well as increases the 3 and out ratio. 

 

However, I'd agree a turnover is better...you've got a chance to score or get better field positoin as opposed to a punt, plus its swings momentum and can mentally throw a player off (see Sanchez).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. Turnovers are FAR more important than taking away a zone, if you will.

 

This league revolves around scoring, every turnover gives your offense an additional possession, thus an additional chance to score. It's simple math. If your offense has 9 possessions (because of 2 turnovers) and the other team has only 7, you have a significant advantage.

 

Turnovers end drives. 

 

Taking away the field limits options, but doesn't necessarily stop an offense. Case in point, the Pats fans are crying about losing Talib. Guess what... if Talib played we would have just seen Peyton go to his 2nd, 3rd and 4th reads, all of whom were winning their individual matchups all day. Decker or Julius Thomas would have blown up instead of Demarius, but Talib wasn't going to help the Pats win, especially if Peyton just avoided him, because then Talib wouldn't have created any turnovers and given Brady extra chances.

 

The reason the Pats lost was not because Welker took out Talib, it was because Peyton was never touched and every single one of his receiving options was beating their coverage all day. If they had chosen to, the Broncos could have put 50 on the Pats. Instead they sat on the ball more, moved it with great efficiency and tried NOT to scoring too quickly in order to keep Brady on the sideline.

 

Anyway, in today's scoring league. A defense that creates turnovers wins. Look at Seattle. I'm not stating anything that shouldn't be obvious.

 

Buffalo, Philadelphia, Chicago, Tampa Bay, Miami. All top ten in interceptions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Using Manning or Brady isnt the best way to support this particular argument because they have the ability to make it happen with those other options...but a guy like Kap couldnt and played pretty sh*tty vs. the Seahawks.  He was throwing outside of his comfort zone and it caused INT's.

 

Also, I'd assume it increases your odds to zone up on the other side of the field to be more creative, set traps, etc, to create turnovers for other players as well as increases the 3 and out ratio. 

 

However, I'd agree a turnover is better...you've got a chance to score or get better field positoin as opposed to a punt, plus its swings momentum and can mentally throw a player off (see Sanchez).

 

Meh, Ty Law had a career high 10 INTs for the 2005 Jets and I think we can all agree he generally play like crap that season. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Darrelle Revis called Randy Moss a slouch on the Television set for the whole world to see.

 

Randy Moss.  Not Mediocre Crabtree.  Randy Moss.

 

But I suppose thats cool?

 

Did he do it before or after the game? Did he just earn a trip to the Super Bowl? Was this the first thing out of his mouth?

 

I think these are pertinent questions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Andrews: Let's talk about the last play that possibly saved the game and sent your team to Super Bowl.

 

Sherman: Nah, let's talk about how great I am and how much I hate Michael Crabtree. Also, I'm the best cornerback in football, including my teammates. They were stupid to try me, would have been much smarter to throw at one of my teammates, they're not as good.

 

This is what they said, basically.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Andrews: Let's talk about the last play that possibly saved the game and sent your team to Super Bowl.

 

Sherman: Nah, let's talk about how great I am and how much I hate Michael Crabtree. Also, I'm the best cornerback in football, including my teammates. They were stupid to try me, would have been much smarter to throw at one of my teammates, they're not as good.

 

This is what they said, basically.

 

No, it's not. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, it totally is.

 

Or do you think Erin Andrews asked him the question to lead him into a description of how he totally sh*t in Crabtree's face and how awesome he is?

 

Dude was pumped up after just making the biggest play of his life in the biggest moment of the biggest game of his life to send his team to the Super Bowl. If he was calm and composed and starting spouting your pre-approved cliches he wouldn't be human - then he'd be an a$$hole. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dude was pumped up after just making the biggest play of his life in the biggest moment of the biggest game of his life to send his team to the Super Bowl. If he was calm and composed and starting spouting your pre-approved cliches he wouldn't be human - then he'd be an a$$hole. 

 

Yes, because he's the only guy that's ever been interviewed on the field. They have to kill that experiment RIGHT NOW. It ends with Sherman.

 

You can make all the excuses you want about adrenaline etc. but if he had screamed out, "I want to **** a baby!" well, I'm going to think that he wants to **** a baby. Sorry if I misinterpreted, Mr. Sherman. You were just excited and didn't know what you were saying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, because he's the only guy that's ever been interviewed on the field. They have to kill that experiment RIGHT NOW. It ends with Sherman.

 

I never liked it anyway. Give these guys a chance to celebrate with their teammates first. I don't need to know what's on their minds literally one second after clinching a trip to the Super Bowl. I've also never been a fan of interviewing coaches as they walk into the locker room for halftime or as they walk back on after halftime. 

 

The reality is Fox chose Richard Sherman as the guy they wanted to interview because they know his personality. 99% of the time all you get is BS platitudes or cliches in these interviews. TV directors live for the times they get something like this. Everybody in the Fox control truck were high fiving when this happened. 

 

What really surprises me is that someone like yourself, who named himself after the poster boy for me-first, gloryboy assholes, had any issue with what Sherman said. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never liked it anyway. Give these guys a chance to celebrate with their teammates first. I don't need to know what's on their minds literally one second after clinching a trip to the Super Bowl. I've also never been a fan of interviewing coaches as they walk into the locker room for halftime or as they walk back on after halftime. 

 

The reality is Fox chose Richard Sherman as the guy they wanted to interview because they know his personality. 99% of the time all you get is BS platitudes or cliches in these interviews. TV directors live for the times they get something like this. Everybody in the Fox control truck were high fiving when this happened. 

 

What really surprises me is that someone like yourself, who named himself after the poster boy for me-first, gloryboy assholes, had any issue with what Sherman said. 

 

I think Fox got lucky that Sherman was the one that made the play, and you're right, I'm sure they weren't upset in the least about the "interview".

 

I am kind of torn about this because, on one hand, I couldn't stand Derek Jeter and guys like that, the ones who never seem to say something interesting or revealing. That doesn't prevent me from thinking the guy is an a$$hole because while I appreciate honesty, I don't have to agree with what they're saying or think it's right. The KKK is honest, aren't they?

 

About Gastineau, I was a kid when I first started watching Jet games and he was flashy and GOOD. He was one of the best things about the team I loved. And I was eleven, I also watched wrestling at the time. There is always going to be nostalgia for that stuff, hence the member name. I also think that there was a sense of fun about the NFL that is missing now. The Fun Bunch, Billy Whiteshoes Johnson, stuff like that all came from a different place. Now it's just like vicious, narcissistic children trying to get Daddy to love them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Using Manning or Brady isnt the best way to support this particular argument because they have the ability to make it happen with those other options...but a guy like Kap couldnt and played pretty sh*tty vs. the Seahawks.  He was throwing outside of his comfort zone and it caused INT's.

 

Also, I'd assume it increases your odds to zone up on the other side of the field to be more creative, set traps, etc, to create turnovers for other players as well as increases the 3 and out ratio. 

 

However, I'd agree a turnover is better...you've got a chance to score or get better field positoin as opposed to a punt, plus its swings momentum and can mentally throw a player off (see Sanchez).

 

I'm sorry, are we talking about winning a championship? Does the road to a championship not usually run through either Brady or Manning, or any other top 10 QB?

 

Kap is the anomaly, Brady and Manning are the reality. A top CB is irrelevant when you are talking about a QB that beats you with his legs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sorry, are we talking about winning a championship? Does the road to a championship not usually run through either Brady or Manning, or any other top 10 QB?

 

Kap is the anomaly, Brady and Manning are the reality. A top CB is irrelevant when you are talking about a QB that beats you with his legs.

 

That's really funny considering how the NFC Championship Game ended. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's really funny considering how the NFC Championship Game ended. 

 

Yes, I understand that - but that's the truth, more often than not you don't need a top CB to beat a scrambling QB. I mean, it's kind of obvious, if a QB doesn't throw much, then wtf do you need a top CB for? The post-game lunacy, but what else?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess the question is, if a guy gives up 150 yards receiving and gets an interception, has he done his job? Did he have a better game than the guy they avoided all game, gave up 50 yards in passes (to the other team's top receiver) but didn't get a pick?

 

How many three and outs equal one turnover?

 

Great question and what I was getting at earlier...how do you quantify the difference between the 2?

 

Did he do it before or after the game? Did he just earn a trip to the Super Bowl? Was this the first thing out of his mouth?

 

I think these are pertinent questions.

 

It was before the game during the week, if I remember correctly, on a casual TV interview.  No.  And it was the first thing out of his mouth when they said his name.

 

They were asking him about going up against top WR's...what it was like.  He gave praises to a few and then said the greatest big play WR of all time, first ballot HOF, who currently holds the record for most receiving TD's in a season...is a slouch.  Pretty sure he got burned the next game they played by that slouch too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great question and what I was getting at earlier...how do you quantify the difference between the 2?

 

 

It was before the game during the week, if I remember correctly, on a casual TV interview.  No.  And it was the first thing out of his mouth when they said his name.

 

They were asking him about going up against top WR's...what it was like.  He gave praises to a few and then said the greatest big play WR of all time, first ballot HOF, who currently holds the record for most receiving TD's in a season...is a slouch.  Pretty sure he got burned the next game they played by that slouch too.

 

It was in an NFL Network or ESPN interview with Deion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


×
×
  • Create New...