Marshawn might still get fined...

[Laloosh]

http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/01/28/great-moments-in-media-arrogance-marshawn-lynch-edition/

Imagine that, someone with perspective and common sense.

 

[Seafan]

Time for Beast to sue the NFL. The NFLPA likely has his back on this one.

 

[kearly]

fake ass troll alert.

Nah, he's a 12. Look through his post history. He's a hawks fan with a boner for absurdity.

 

[Popeyejones]

Sorry, but technically fulfilling a contract is still fulfilling a contract. If the party that drafted the contract then gets upset because thd spirit of the contract is not being fulfilled, then go away and draft better contracts.

Why are you apologizing for agreeing with me? It's admittedly on a wildly boring and ancillary point, but from the start I've repeatedly said that Lynch is trying to have it both ways: fulfilling the contract while doing so in a way that's as big of an F.U. possible. If he 1) took a stand and just didn't fulfill it or 2) had an actual CAUSE rather than just not feeling like doing it (and again, NOBODY who is a face in an entertainment industry likes doing this promotional stuff) I'd be much more sympathetic.

Still love him as a player and overall everything I know about him makes me think he's a great guy, but I just have a ton of trouble casting him as a victim in this particular case.

Meh, if you (a reporter) need a quote from ML or any other player to do your job, then you (the reporter) are very poor at your job and should probably find another line of work. Reporters seem to have this entitlement attitude, when they really have no reason to.

Weird take. They have an "entitlement attitude" because they are legally entitled to have access to players. As it is with all entertainment industries, there's a symbiotic relationship between producers and the media. Marshawn just happens to not be doing the thing that EVERYONE knows is part of the job when being a front-facing figure in an entertainment industry. Of COURSE all of the other parties involved are annoyed about that. It would be really, really, weird if they weren't.

Basically, what he's doing is akin to a toddler who doesn't want to eat his peas mashing them all over his face and chewing them up and spitting them out and yelling "Look, mom! I'm eating my peas!"

No...
What we're watching is a kid named Roger, who has the only basketball in the 'hood. Roger is getting pissed because the rest of the guys don't want to play HIS way so he's taking his ball and going home...

THAT is what's happening here... Roger is pitching a fit. He acts like a spoiled baby but he's got leverage cuz he's got the only ball in the 'hood.

Uh, no. Rodger has contracts to fullfill. Lynch has contracts to fullfil. Lynch is choosing to fulfill his contract in a way that screams F.U. from the rooftops. If you want to complain about the NFL being a legal monopoly I'm all ears, but Lynch would have the exact same expectations and obligations if he decided to go play for the CFL.

From Sherman's excellent editorial . . .

Under Goodell the league continues to put players like Marshawn Lynch in a position to be mocked by the media, which seems to get a kick out of seeing people struggle on camera. As teammates we’re angry because we know what certain people do well and we know what they struggle with. Marshawn’s talking to the press is the equivalent of putting a reporter on a football field and telling him to tackle Adrian Peterson.

Some of the same people slamming Marshawn for not talking are just as likely to condemn the Browns’ Andrew Hawkins and Johnson Bademosi for protesting police brutality with T-shirts. They want to hear us speak, but only if we’re saying something they want to hear.

http://mmqb.si.com/2015/01/27/richard-s ... -magazine/

I tend to agree with Sherman on most issues and celebrate him for speaking out on them, but this is a silly comparison.

Protesting the hyper-criminilization of black men in the United States and legal murder of them by officers of the State is NOT the same thing as protesting having to spend 15 minutes one week a year answering stupid questions about what your favorite foods are.

As I've already said, a huge part of a being an adult is knowing the difference between the big stuff that's worthy of taking a stand about, and the other 95% of stuff that you don't necessarily feel like doing but you do anyway because that's what part of being a mature adult is.

Equating protesting police brutality with protesting answering dumb questions about unimportant minutia for a five minute stretch is chicken little nonsense.

 

[Popeyejones]

A couple additional thought on this discussion: I recently read something from Sherman (I don't recall where) that Lynch has major anxiety issues when put in front of a group of reporters. Don't know the validity nor the medical/psychological basis for this.

For sure, and if true, I think people would be sympathetic to that. I also have no doubt that if Lynch was willing to work with them so they could get what they need while being respectful of these issues -- say, doing ten, five minute, 1-on-1 phone interviews rather than the big media session -- they'd actually PREFER that.

To be totally honest though, in my experience people with social anxiety issues don't look too favorably on getting up in front of a bunch of people and deliberately pissing them all off (it's kinda like, what they're afraid of in the first place). Not an expert by any means, but deliberately pissing off a huge group of people seems pretty askew to the fears that everyone I know with SA struggle with.

Who gives a flying-f whether or not he's complying with the 'spirit' of their media contract. When a coach or quarterback or Goodell for that matter, completely ignores a question and gives his own pre-scripted answer, is that complying with the spirit of their contracts? If someone gives the exact same answers week to week is that complying with the spirit? So many of these guys give absolutely worthless answers, are Lynch's worthless answers any different?

Lynch's worthless "answers" are incredibly different, because he's "answering" by not even pretending to answer the questions, and by basically saying F.U. instead.

Look, you'll get no disagreement from me that the whole thing is a farce, but it's the way things go, and in the end, it's not that big of a deal. The farce is no different than the farce of all the late night shows on which faces go and act happy and charming in order to promote their entertainment products. It's part of the gig. That it's stupid and scripted is common-sensical. People do it not because they want to, but because it's part of the job. Doing it and playing along with it is what allows them to make the millions of dollars that they do.

And lastly, no one cared that Lynch wasn't doing interviews till one or two national writers (again, don't have the reference but maybe someone can help me out) got pissy because he ignored them. There are so many guys willing to give fantastic interviews: Sherman, Thomas, Bennett, Wilson to name a few, why would you spend so much energy to try to wring pointless answers from Lynch.

Uhhh, this has been brewing for years now. And all those guys do give interviews (it's not an either/or). If Lynch just didn't want to do it and was willing to pay the reprocussions for not doing it he could. Instead, he decided to "do it" by essentially publicly saying F.U. to a bunch of reporters. That's fine, I don't really care, but he's spitting into the wind. He's not dumb. He knows what he's doing. NOBODY likes having someone get up in front of them and say F.U. I just have a ton of trouble feeling bad for him about it because at the end of the day I don't think he's an idiot.

 

[YYZHawksFan]

fake ass troll alert.

Nah, he's a 12. Look through his post history. He's a hawks fan with a boner for absurdity.

apparently his dick...er...i mean knowledge is bigger than all of ours.

 

[BocciHawk]

I actually think that his catchphrases and strategy going into media sessions might be a coping mechanism for social anxiety. I think that some concerns might be due to the fact he can't predict what people will ask, and he doesn't trust that people won't twist his answers... so if he goes in with a coherent game plan, and knows it will work regardless of what is asked... and on top of that, if his strategy amuses him, even slightly, well, it seems like he'd be able to function and possibly even enjoy it.

I think that this is a plausible scenario. I think it's masterful, by the way, and amusing. If he really wanted to piss people off, he could just stay "I'm looking forward to Sunday" or "On to Cincinnati"... the truth is that 95% of what is said in these things is just the same thing over and over, meaningless claptrap, so why should people get upset when he uses his own absurd meaningless catchphrase?

 

[Popeyejones]

I actually think that his catchphrases and strategy going into media sessions might be a coping mechanism for social anxiety. I think that some concerns might be due to the fact he can't predict what people will ask, and he doesn't trust that people won't twist his answers... so if he goes in with a coherent game plan, and knows it will work regardless of what is asked... and on top of that, if his strategy amuses him, even slightly, well, it seems like he'd be able to function and possibly even enjoy it.

I think that this is a plausible scenario. I think it's masterful, by the way, and amusing. If he really wanted to piss people off, he could just stay "I'm looking forward to Sunday" or "On to Cincinnati"... the truth is that 95% of what is said in these things is just the same thing over and over, meaningless claptrap, so why should people get upset when he uses his own absurd meaningless catchphrase?

So you think he's being antagonistic as a coping mechanism for social anxiety disorder, or you think repeating "I'm just here so I won't get fined" to unrelated questions thirty times in a row isn't actually antagonistic.

You argue both, but it can't be both.

And seriously, if he has a social anxiety disorder why can't he just offer to do some five minute one-on-one phone interviews instead and avoid this whole thing?

And not to put too fine a point on it, but he doesn't seem to suffer from social anxiety disorder when he's giving interviews to promote his own brand (as he has also been doing this week).

 

[hawknation2015]

I actually think that his catchphrases and strategy going into media sessions might be a coping mechanism for social anxiety. I think that some concerns might be due to the fact he can't predict what people will ask, and he doesn't trust that people won't twist his answers... so if he goes in with a coherent game plan, and knows it will work regardless of what is asked... and on top of that, if his strategy amuses him, even slightly, well, it seems like he'd be able to function and possibly even enjoy it.

I think that this is a plausible scenario. I think it's masterful, by the way, and amusing. If he really wanted to piss people off, he could just stay "I'm looking forward to Sunday" or "On to Cincinnati"... the truth is that 95% of what is said in these things is just the same thing over and over, meaningless claptrap, so why should people get upset when he uses his own absurd meaningless catchphrase?

So you think he's being antagonistic as a coping mechanism for social anxiety disorder, or you think repeating "I'm just here so I won't get fined" to unrelated questions thirty times in a row isn't actually antagonistic.

You argue both, but it can't be both.

And seriously, if he has a social anxiety disorder why can't he just offer to do some five minute one-on-one phone interviews instead and avoid this whole thing?

And not to put too fine a point on it, but he doesn't seem to suffer from social anxiety disorder when he's giving interviews to promote his own brand (as he has also been doing this week).

Is that your professional opinion, doctor?

 

[Blitzer88]

One interesting point they made on Around the Horn today was how Tom Brady always wears his team Brady hat to pressers, yet he has never been fined for that. Yet, when Marshawn wears his brand he is threatened with fines.

 

[Seanhawk]

One interesting point they made on Around the Horn today was how Tom Brady always wears his team Brady hat to pressers, yet he has never been fined for that. Yet, when Marshawn wears his brand he is threatened with fines.

My only question to that is Brady's logo pre-approved? I ask because I heard it mentioned several times that Lynch could be fined for wearing a logo that wasn't pre-approved by the league.

 

[Dizzlepdx]

If he 1) took a stand and just didn't fulfill it or 2)...I'd be much more sympathetic.

He did try to take a stand. He took a stand for a really long time but now was supposedly being threatened with a 500k fine. And that was just for skipping one day. Who knows what it would have been if he skipped all three. I don't care who you are, that's some serious cash that you'd have a hard time making up for. How far would he have to go for you to start to feel sympathetic? I'm seriously asking...if you're not sympathetic at a 500k fine, would it take a 1 million? 2 million? If the NFL just says, we're gonna keep increasing the fine till he caves, how long does he have to hold out?

From Sherman's excellent editorial . . .

Under Goodell the league continues to put players like Marshawn Lynch in a position to be mocked by the media, which seems to get a kick out of seeing people struggle on camera. As teammates we’re angry because we know what certain people do well and we know what they struggle with. Marshawn’s talking to the press is the equivalent of putting a reporter on a football field and telling him to tackle Adrian Peterson.

Some of the same people slamming Marshawn for not talking are just as likely to condemn the Browns’ Andrew Hawkins and Johnson Bademosi for protesting police brutality with T-shirts. They want to hear us speak, but only if we’re saying something they want to hear.

http://mmqb.si.com/2015/01/27/richard-s ... -magazine/

I tend to agree with Sherman on most issues and celebrate him for speaking out on them, but this is a silly comparison.

Protesting the hyper-criminilization of black men in the United States and legal murder of them by officers of the State is NOT the same thing as protesting having to spend 15 minutes one week a year answering stupid questions about what your favorite foods are.
...
Equating protesting police brutality with protesting answering dumb questions about unimportant minutia for a five minute stretch is chicken little nonsense.

I don't take Sherman as saying these two situations are the same (making a comparison as you stated). I believe his point is that (at least some) reporters are talking out of both sides of their mouth. On one hand, they are so upset with Lynch for not talking to them so they can't do their job (as we all seem to agree, this is not true unless the Venn diagram of your journalistic skill set and that of a transcriber is a circle). On the other hand, Sherman posits these same reporters are upset that the Rams and Browns players made statements they don't agree with. Therefore his closing statement: 'they only want us to talk if we're saying things they want to hear.' Or perhaps rephrased slightly, only if we're talking ABOUT things they want to hear about.