Jump to content

Adam Schefter says NFL was behind Gruden-gate


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Butterfield said:

Again, Gruden is gone bc he failed an iq test.  No matter what you think, don’t put it in writing.  

If you ever find yourself in a group email chain with the CEO of Hooters, you should probably go ahead and put a lawyer on retainer.

  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 139
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Gruden is a piece of sh*t but this is clearly a co-ordinated attack. The fact that he was so comfortable putting those words on record probably speaks to the culture in league circles. I have no doubt

Too bad he didn't just sexually assault 50 women woulda been back in the league in no time.

Yeah they knew exactly what they were doing. Goodell doesn't care about him saying racist, homophobic stuff. He cares he called him a f*ggot pussy - which he is though. They were going to ke

7 minutes ago, Atlantajet333 said:

Easy for one to assume Gruden takes the hit to deflect what's been a continuing trend with principle billionaire owners who can side with each other and the commish controlling what stays hidden (covered up) and who goes or doesn't get to play again in the league. Out of over 650 K messages no one else is incriminated? C'mon man!

Its still early.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Ben Had said:

I know most don't like a fish fan like me on this forum...but this thread is one of the reasons I come here.

JetNation has some of the best posters/personalities on NFL forums.

Fins up!

Damn, didnt know you're a fins fan.  The double doozy?  FSU and Fins.  And I've been nice too you?  That changes, now!  Well, actually, I feel bad for you.  lol  Tough year! 

Chins up! 

  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Anthony Jet said:

Agreed on Chappelle and it helps that Netflix is standing behind him, but in today’s world I’m not so sure they would stand behind him if he was a different race 

Comedian vs. a leader of men who was a public figure and the voice of MNF while the NFL is trying to attract a larger audience.  Not defending it but I see the difference in this comparison. 

edit; Bill Burr is edgy, they stand behind him too

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

People think I'm joking when I say the growing number of effeminate men is going to be real problem in society

It's a normal over reaction to women rejecting "real men" because they can't get them off.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Bugg said:

Selective morality; 5 minutes ago Goodell wrote to the state of Delaware saying that gambling on the NFL was a scourge that would damage the integrity of the sport .3 minutes ago, HUGE MONEY, and every other ad during an NFL game is an NFL approved on line bookie throwing a chunk to Goodell.


Sent from my iPhone using JetNation.com mobile app

I mean Gruden is the fall guy for something…not sure what it is yet but seems connected to the Washington thing. Snyder went from never changing the name to changing it overnight two years ago…the NFL embraces being a hypocrite no different than all of society these days, but they basically have unlimited power and don’t care.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, T0mShane said:

Apparently, they have over 650,000 emails from that cache, but the only ones to leak were Gruden’s. Definitely some major deal-making, CYA-sh*t going on with this.

Any Woody Johnson emails coming out soon?

I Hope Please GIF

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, jgb said:

He also spent a whole season referring to Terry Glenn as "she." If this happened today, there would be Twitter outrage calling for him to be cancelled for misgendering. Then Bill would hire a crisis manager who would blame PTSD suffered as a result of the body-shaming nickname "Tuna" (which was a reference to his dad body).

We all have the responsibility as members of a society to treat others with dignity and respect. This does not mean we cannot have opinions or even criticisms of others and their believes/choices/lifestyles but we must not deny anyone's humanity when we do so. This also includes recognizing that people can and will make mistakes, especially when the standards of today are retroactively applied to words shared 10 or more years ago. This is not a defense of what Gruden said but rather an indictment of weaponized faux outrage. As usual the useful idiots in the media and on Twitter are playing right into the NFL's hands to distract from likely darker and more disturbing revelations contained in those tens of thousands of emails.

My analogy with social evolution is similar to the expanding knowledge of science. Denigrating someone from the past for being a piece of trash human being based on today's standards is like calling Isaac Newton an idiot because he had less knowledge about physics than Stephen Hawking. (This last paragraph is a general comment, not specific to Gruden).

Your analogy is silly. Social beliefs are not equivalent to scientific advancement. And there's a big difference between the gap between 1687 and 2015 and, in Gruden's case, 2010 and 2021. His comments were, by any social measure in 2010, completely unacceptable and would have been an obvious cause for termination in virtually every corporate setting in America. And I should add, for those who keep raising Bill Parcells as an example of supposedly okay behavior, that he was a totally arrogant a**hole whose hostile act was tolerated because he was successful. Doesn't make him right or okay, or an example anyone would want to follow. 

P.S. While I happen to agree that retroactive punishment for behaviors that were tolerated in an early era is unfair, Gruden's case does not fit the paradigm. 

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Matt39 said:

And now on to the Super Bowl halftime show, here’s Eminem performing the Marshall Mathers LP!

But his lyrics are respectful of all people 😃

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Butterfield said:

Its still early.  

Not for those who have been found to do or say incriminating things. Nothing has been reportedly done to the Jets owner for his alleged comments. It is subjective to the position of the said person. Owners in this league are typically untouchable.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I never understood why people and news organizations put the word "gate" as the last part of a compound word to describe a conspiracy/coverup. It always came across as lazy writing. Watergate was the name of the hotel.

  • Upvote 1
  • Post of the Week 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, JiFapono said:

Comedian vs. a leader of men who was a public figure and the voice of MNF while the NFL is trying to attract a larger audience.  Not defending it but I see the difference in this comparison. 

edit; Bill Burr is edgy, they stand behind him too

Wasn’t comparing Chappell to Gruden. just commenting on Chapelle 

There are plenty of stories out based on comedians and scared to go anywhere near the proverbial line. 
 

Everyone will have there own opinion but the “Woke” mob comes after all, the ones that get canceled is a different story 

Would like to see the ref call it fair  that is all 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, JiFapono said:

The league is a joke. 

Cancel Kaep but lets also, fire Gruden.

Did you know, Incognito was on the Raiders, with an openly gay man and Gruden as the coach?

Riley Cooper continued playing in the NFL aftering being filmed hurling the N word. 

Ray Lewis, Donte Stallworth, Leonard Little - legit, killed someone while playing in the NFL

Now I get it's got to do with the position vs. a player, yet BB is allowed to cheat for 20 years?  So dumb.   **** the NFL.  It's a joke.  Unwatchable sh*t product too. 

There is a lot of injustice in the world that never gets addressed and the NFL has certainly been inconsistent and hypocritical in the way it handles punishment.  That being said, in this case, Gruden deserves to be fired.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Long Island Leprechaun said:

Your analogy is silly. Social beliefs are not equivalent to scientific advancement. And there's a big difference between the gap between 1687 and 2015 and, in Gruden's case, 2010 and 2021. His comments were, by any social measure in 2010, completely unacceptable and would have been an obvious cause for termination in virtually every corporate setting in America. And I should add, for those who keep raising Bill Parcells as an example of supposedly okay behavior, that he was a totally arrogant a**hole whose hostile act was tolerated because he was successful. Doesn't make him right or okay, or an example anyone would want to follow. 

P.S. While I happen to agree that retroactive punishment for behaviors that were tolerated in an early era is unfair, Gruden's case does not fit the paradigm. 

You have offended me by calling my analogy silly and I demand a suitable public shaming ritual. ;) 

I posit they are exactly the same by the way. Both advance step by step, building on what has been learned before. It would be as impossible to imagine the ancient Babylonians spontaneously deciding to grant trans-gender rights as inventing the Saturn V rocket. Those who dismiss past peoples and cultures as being hopelessly irredeemable have no understanding of cultural and societal impact on human development. They also forget: we came from them. Just as Stephen Hawking owes his greatest scientific achievements to that first caveman who learned to bang two rocks together to make a spark, the SJWs of today owe their "enlightenment" to the first caveman who thought, "You know, maybe I won't club women over the head today." This is where the famous quote about how scientists "stand on the shoulders of giants" (i.e. they have the benefit of humanity's accumulated knowledge) comes from. Same is true in social enlightenment. It's unbelievably simplistic and arrogant to say "Well why couldn't the American colonists just acknowledge homosexuality is a legitimate and totally acceptable lifestyle choice? Bigots!." I wonder what will be said about us 100 years from now. Spoiler: we'll be condemned for not recognizing a "right" that no one even contemplates at the moment.

I recently read an article by a respected academic that argued that Abraham Lincoln deserves history's scorn for not freeing the slaves until "forced" by military expedience. Talk about no good deed goes unpunished. It utterly ignores the environment at the time, the military, political, and personal risk in taking such an action. He really should've risked the country's collapse by declaring the slaves free the moment he was sworn in? What a recklessly uninformed take. Our own leaders -- including some considered extremely progressive for their time -- waffled and wavered over the much less hazardous issues of gay marriage and gays in the military. People like to believe they'd be the same person if they were born 200 years ago and would just know and feel the way they do now. No. No, you would not. It's a useless take (in that it offers absolutely nothing instructive or interesting) to tut-tut:, "They easily could've treated all races the same/accepted LBGT individuals/given equal opportunity to women/etc, etc, etc." People should and must be judged in the context of their times lest history's true villains be lost in an endless sea of the fallible and unremarkable.

No one should ever seek to appease the mob. You cannot appease those whose entire belief system is founded on the principle that you are the enemy responsible for their continued "oppression" and every petty slight thrown at them by life. You can't argue with feelings and those are currently crushing facts in level of importance in our society.

And again in the anticipation of a specific refutation to a generalized observation -- we have strayed far from Gruden's specific case into societal commentary.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, docdhc said:

There is a lot of injustice in the world that never gets addressed and the NFL has certainly been inconsistent and hypocritical in the way it handles punishment.  That being said, in this case, Gruden deserves to be fired.

Why though? For things he did before he was even hired? Did he lie on a background check or something?

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, 92ShaunEllis92 said:

Just said in ESPN: Pretty much saying NFL did a hit job by releasing more emails to pressure Mark Davis to fire Gruden. League was upset he was allowed to coach Sunday. Thought action should have been taken much earlier by Davis
 

seems this was a revenge hit for what he said about the nfl as an ESPN EMPLOYEE that was leaked via the Discovery of the WFT investigation. 
 

Says very unlikely that Gruden willfully walks away from $60M left in his contract. 

It started with a Times investigation into the Washington Redskins and they discovered the emails from Gruden to someone there.  They compiled a ton of emails which obviously were turned over to the league who also were starting their investigation. 

Gruden retired, the money is dead, he quit and isnt getting paid the remaining $60 million on the deal.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, docdhc said:

There is a lot of injustice in the world that never gets addressed and the NFL has certainly been inconsistent and hypocritical in the way it handles punishment.  That being said, in this case, Gruden deserves to be fired.

I 100% agree, I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy and the joke that is the NFL

Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Long Island Leprechaun said:

Your analogy is silly. Social beliefs are not equivalent to scientific advancement. And there's a big difference between the gap between 1687 and 2015 and, in Gruden's case, 2010 and 2021. His comments were, by any social measure in 2010, completely unacceptable and would have been an obvious cause for termination in virtually every corporate setting in America. And I should add, for those who keep raising Bill Parcells as an example of supposedly okay behavior, that he was a totally arrogant a**hole whose hostile act was tolerated because he was successful. Doesn't make him right or okay, or an example anyone would want to follow. 

P.S. While I happen to agree that retroactive punishment for behaviors that were tolerated in an early era is unfair, Gruden's case does not fit the paradigm. 

Good post but in 2010 most people didn't realize their private e-mails even ones on company servers would be used against them in a wok environment that didn't exist in 2010.   One of the things that we have lost is any right to our private conversations being private.   

People do change over 10 year periods.  The culture changes but so do we as individuals.  Why hold a view of Gruden based on something he said in 2010 in a private e-mail to 2021 standards of privacy?  Most criminals are subject to a statute of limitations that's less than 10 years.  

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, jgb said:

Why though? For things he did before he was even hired? Did he lie on a background check or something?

It's because he can no longer be effective at his job.  He has majority black players and he's on record making fun of the "big lips" of the black players association president.  He has an openly gay player and he's on record using homophobic slurs.  Doesn't that undermine his authority with those men?  Every press conference will be inundated with questions regarding this, all his players and staff will be hounded.  Won't this be a distraction to the team?  Your focusing on should the act of saying inappropriate things in private get you fired but I'm saying that he can no longer perform his duties because of the ensuing uproar.  Whether it's fair or not is another matter, but I just don't think he can be good at his job because of it.  

  • Upvote 2
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JiFapono said:

Comedian vs. a leader of men who was a public figure and the voice of MNF while the NFL is trying to attract a larger audience.  Not defending it but I see the difference in this comparison. 

edit; Bill Burr is edgy, they stand behind him too

Both are public figures,  Who cares?

 

And we can all tell jokes, comedian or not.  Dangerous people want to restrict speech because they  are offended.  On top of the fact that  there are clear double standards, which someone else pointed out earlier

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

Both are public figures,  Who cares?

 

And we can all tell jokes, comedian or not.  Dangerous people want to restrict speech because they  are offended.  On top of the fact that  there are clear double standards, which someone else pointed out earlier

One guys jobs is to make jokes, the other is to be face of franchise and lead a diverse group of people in a league who is trying to attract a diverse audience while being outward proponents of equality.  I would assume, those people care.   

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, PS17 said:

The lede is getting buried in all this. The Redskins were essentially pimping out their cheerleaders. Gruden gets fired for being an idiot good old boy. But Snyder still owns a team? 

Aren’t they getting investigated right now ?  The trainer quit or something?

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

One guys jobs is to make jokes, the other is to be face of franchise and lead a diverse group of people in a league who is trying to attract a diverse audience while being outward proponents of equality.  I would assume, those people care.   

Know your audience and never whip your junk out at a hot dog eating contest. 

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Biggs said:

Good post but in 2010 most people didn't realize their private e-mails even ones on company servers would be used against them in a wok environment that didn't exist in 2010.   One of the things that we have lost is any right to our private conversations being private.   

People do change over 10 year periods.  The culture changes but so do we as individuals.  Why hold a view of Gruden based on something he said in 2010 in a private e-mail to 2021 standards of privacy?  Most criminals are subject to a statute of limitations that's less than 10 years.  

Gruden may or may not have become more enlightened in the last 10 years and no one is suggesting he be criminally charged.  Practically speaking, though, how can he continue to lead an organization with mostly black players, and an openly gay player after they see what he wrote, and how can the team not be distracted by the ensuing media frenzy and public relations nightmare?  That's why I think he can no longer be the head coach.  

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, docdhc said:

It's because he can no longer be effective at his job.  He has majority black players and he's on record making fun of the "big lips" of the black players association president.  He has an openly gay player and he's on record using homophobic slurs.  Doesn't that undermine his authority with those men?  Every press conference will be inundated with questions regarding this, all his players and staff will be hounded.  Won't this be a distraction to the team?  Your focusing on should the act of saying inappropriate things in private get you fired but I'm saying that he can no longer perform his duties because of the ensuing uproar.  Whether it's fair or not is another matter, but I just don't think he can be good at his job because of it.  

I don't know you'd have to ask them. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...