I'm not upset Cman, I just think the poll question is misleading and poorly stated. Specifically, the poll asks us "do you believe Woody's explanation..." What explanation is your poll referring to? Do you have a written statement from WJ setting forth his "explanation"? Or are we simply being referred to sundquist's vague comment about his "impression" that WJ jumped on board after deferring to his football people? If its the latter, then the poll question is misleading since there is has been no explanation from Woody for us to believe or not believe - there's just ted sundquist's impression and hearsay comment about what he says Woody supposedly said. Calling ted sundquist's comment "Woody's explanation" is pretty misleading and irresponsible. Last time i checked ted sunquist wasn't authorized to speak on behalf of Mr. Johnson or anybody else in the Jets organization. The question should be more accurate and ask "do you believe or do you even care about ted sundquist's hearsay comments and impressions about WJ's role in the Tebow trade?"
Reminds me of when a group of people are hungry, one person suggests a restaurant, everyone agrees, then when the meal is not to their liking they blame the person who picked the restaurant, even though everyone agreed to it. I never cared for people who make a joint decision then after the fact try to separate themselves from it.
Any owner who has something 'forced' on him by a subordinate is an idiot. Sure, you get bad advice, maybe impossible choices, but 'forced'? Really? How so? Surely a red flag about weak leadership. Then again... "Doofus..."
Woody didn't freaking come out to the media and throw him under the bus. More likely than not, his words were misconstrued...
I can't claim to know definitively but it sounds like something Woody would say. He often couches his opinions. Notice he doesn't refer to Tanny directly rather the blame is inferred. I thought he hired a GM to make personnel decisions. Who really cares whether Woody was on board or not after the fact. Woody sounds like he's way too involved in football matter he knows little about.
Whatever else it is it's hearsay. When Woody says he was forced to take Tebow then I'll evaluate that statement at face value. When Sundquist uses a 140 character vehicle and that word I'm left wondering if the word wasn't shorthand for something he couldn't convey well given the limitations of the method.
Here's Woody having a little get acquainted with your new teammate dinner last offseason. Awww how cute... http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/gossip/tim-tebow-mark-sanchez-huddle-jets-owner-woody-johnson-big-meatpacking-district-dinner-article-1.1075342 An excited Woody gushing with joy when asked about Tebow... Sure doesn't sound like Tebow was "forced" on him. I think he's way more involved with the team than he lets on.
Thread hijacking means changing the subject of the thread by posting something that has nothing to do with the current thread. If you start your own thread, you're ok. Posting it here is frowned upon.
Bahahaha. So when you accuse Woody of being behind it with no evidence whatsoever, it's rational, but when he claims it seems like Tanny, it's the most absurd notion ever. You guys really crack me up with this negative nonsense. Hello Mr Kettle, I just noticed you were black. Yeah, because Woody definitely told the press this info in an attempt to clear his name... Oh wait, it's 3rd party information leaked from an interview candidate that neither Woody nor anyone else has vouched for. Nah, the rational people are saying "proof or it didn't happen" about people's assumptions about it being a Woody move, while the insane negative people are assuming it to be true with no facts whatsoever and are calling other people irrational or homers because they don't buy their unsubstantiated nonsense. People act like its some massive Woody conspiracy to screw the Jets. Um, you are referring to PR talk. Do you honestly think Woody is going to bash the move or say bad things about him right after they sign him? Is that seriously how you want our owner to act? It's a giant Woody conspiracy I swear! Woody doesn't care about winning! It's all about back page news, despite the fact that winning is what attracts fans more than anything and its a proven formula! Woody wants us to look like a circus to gain lots of attention!!! Ahhhhh!
I have no idea if he lied or not. I just think basing a media storm around a tweet when that tweet represents hearsay is ridiculous. If Woody had tweeted that Tebow was forced on him then we should be having the conversations that are going on right now. To be having them because somebody else says that Woody said something is just silly. It's entirely representative however of the way the Jets have been covered by the media over the last year, with occasional breaks for objective reporting.
Obvious to me that this apparently unemployable douche Sunkist is just pissed at flunking out of another interview and still having to list "blogger" as his occupation
I think it was Rex who did it. I remember, at the time of the Tebow trade, the reports on ESPN were that Rex lost the locker room and the players were fighting amongst each other. Everyone was unhappy. Tebow was seen as this unifying, locker room healing entity. If Red did do it, Woody can't put the blame on him. So just blame tanny.
I DID start my own thread on this and the moderator CLOSED the thread for NO reason at all. No reason. No explaination. I even sent a message to the moderator to find out WHY and was completely ignored. What other recourse does a user of this site have in that case? Moderators have a responsibility to be fair and just, and to not let the little bit of power that they are given in life go to their heads. That's a poor way to do business in my opinion. If a site user has a question or concern about something and reaches out in a civil way to a moderator for answers, they should not be ignored. The user should be treated civily in return and given an answer to thier concerns. Moderators should not ignore users simply because the moderator possess no valid answer or because they CAN.
I still don't understand the uproar , it's as if the jets fan base and media want to focus on a single player that had little to do , if anything at all, with how the season turned out . As if focusing on this player delays having to really examine what's wrong with the Jets . Taking the hearsay story at face value it perplexes me . Woody Johnson hires other people to make player decisions. By saying it was " forced on him " it implies that player personnel decisions go through him . welcome to Jerry Jones world Jets fans .
There's three sides to any story, in this case there is only one, Skunkquist. Why would he divulge anything that was said to him during a hiring process interview? Be a man, accept the fact that you did not get the job and move on, who cares what woody said to him, it's part of the interview, how are you going to handle this personnel move? Woody is not the greatest owner in football but if his intention is to hire a GM with a to do list and getting rid of Tebow is on the list, then I'm supporting him. Do I agree with woody on everything? No, but if he realized that he was convinced to okay a personnel move that he was not to crazy about to begin with shame on him. Like the old saying goes, "fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me" Woody won't be fooled again into making Tebow like moves again.
The term hearsay does not mean all forms of such evidence are equally or inherently unreliable. There are a number of exceptions to the hearsay rule. The point is not that we need to find a specific legal exception here, since this is not a court of law, as it is to recognize that your implication, that this statement is inherently unreliable and should be ignored, is overstated and not a basis for ignoring the statement. You are partly correct in identifying there is a question here regarding the accuracy of the statement. But... several considerations tend to support it. First of all Woody and the Jet FO have so far not denied that he said what he was quoted as saying. Second, Sundquist would seem to have no clear reason to misstate what he heard. That I think not only includes his own personal motives, which on this point would seem to not be present, but also concerns the importance of the statement - this would not have been something someone in Sundquist's position would hear casually, and therefore at greater risk of misunderstanding what was said. On the other hand you are saying perhaps that the media story itself is a misleading take on what Sundquist in effect said he heard. True enough, that kind of one step removed chain of testimony is very much the kind of simple level understanding of what hearsay means. But at the same time, unless one is prepared to believe Sundquist was misquoted in the article, and he has not as far as I am aware made any such claim, the regular reporting of a statement that has not been refuted is reporting in the normal course, and does not amount to inadmissable hearsay evidence. But the main problem with labelling this hearsay and arguing this is a reason to ignore what Sundquist said about the interview is that what we are talking about here is not really hearsay in the legal sense at all. The sense in which labelling something hearsay means it should be ignored is where the statement itself is supposed to be an indication that what was allegedly said proves the truth of what was said. In other words, that would be taking the meaning of what Woody said to Sundquist to be that it is true that Woody was mislead by Tanny and "forced" to accept the deal. No one is arguing that. In fact in this case what Woody said to Sundquist is being taken as proof that Woody was lying. Or so that clearly seems to be the argument. Remember Sundquist is in effect in the position of saying "I was in the room with Woody, and this is what he said." It is the FACT of Woody having said what he was quoted as saying that is the story here, not whether WHAT Wood said is TRUE. THe very nature of the debate here is on whether Woody lied when he said that. And in that connection there is one other point to make about the hearsay rule. There is an exception to the rule called a declaration against interest, which is similar to the exception for admissions by a party opponent. The basis for both exceptions is that people tend not to say things that cast them in a bad light. When and if they do, the law tends to assume that such statements are more likely true that not. Here the relevance of the exception seems clear to me. In an attempt to lay blame elsewhere, Woody had to engage in the fiction that Tanny somehow had the power to force Woody to accept the Tebow trade. Which of course is nonsense. In other words, in attempting to excuse Woody's own role in what virtually all now acknowledge was a disatrous decision, he made himself look like an idiot owner who didn't realize that he had the authority to overrule Tanny. Does anyone really believe that Woody thought he had to go along with what Tanny wanted, whether Woody was opposed or not? Of course not. In short, application of hearsay analysis does not make this a non-story, but to the contrary tends to show exactly why the available evidence supports the view that Woody is a lying sack of shit.
One thing is for certain, Skunkquist will never be a GM ever in the NFL. 2nd, I don't believe Woody for a second, he's spit some bullshit previously in press conferences and quotes, I don't see how this is any different.
