Actually yes it very well could be based on Matt Moore's on words, "does it really matter what I do in practice?"
Preceded by a description of his effort to improve practice performance... and followed by a statement that he thinks game performance should be most important. <--- MOST... as in other things (practice) have importance too.
I know you don't like the guy as a player... but have just a little empathy? Here's a guy called a "gamer" from day 1 (presumably from Ireland/Sparano's work with him in Dallas)... signs late... few reps because team has new O, and Henne gets the majority... Henne goes down... Moore comes in, and at minimum saves the team from a fresh embarrassment to rival 2007.. coach is fired... new one hired... Moore is interviewed in January saying "All I can really ask for and expect is a chance to compete..." he gets trashed by the team #1 receiver at the Pro Bowl, and handles it with class... team signs Garrard, after (at least in the press) playing footsies with every QB on the market... team trades last years #1 receiver, who proceeds to trash Moore again, which is again handled with class by Moore... team drafts Tannehill...
- paused for readability. lol
team announces intention to hold 3 way competition... goes through the offseason program working with both guys, learning yet another new offense... reports of harmony and good competition between the 3 of them... take a few weeks off after offseason program, to take the family camping in California... comes back a few days before camp to find the CW in the media is he's behind n the competition <-- to quote the article "And it seems like every time he turns on the radio or reads an article online, it’s Garrard, not Moore, who most people expect will open training camp Friday as the first-team quarterback." ... gets interviewed by reporter who asks... so do you think your behind because of this reputation as a gamer you have, that you play better than your practice?
Is it surprising in the least, that in the middle of a competition for his job, which everyone seems to think he's already losing - that he would want to emphasize his own good points? Heck.. you did throughout your WHOLE response to me (not one partial sentence at the end of an interview) - and we're not competing for anything. lol So first off he admits there's some truth to the accusation (okay dude, your already 15 miles better than Allen Iverson IMO)... says he's been working to improve it his whole career.... and then to emphasize his good points (and unless he's Job, probably with a little defensiveness and edge at this point) says does it really matter what I do in practice, I'd like to think what happens in games is most important.
B.F.D. The guys been through all that above... not to mention the whole Carolina adventure... never says a bad word... never causes controversy... always says the right things... just wants a chance to compete... comes back from vacation, to find based on third handed reports of all of 10 pajama practices, and weeks of classroom/weight-room work the perception is he's behind... and makes one defensive comment regarding himself to a reporter whose been reminding him the whole interview that the perception is he's behind. and BOOM!!!
Someone comes along... quotes the partial sentence, and says "STUPID! Allen Iverson-like!"
Unfair, uncool, and unwarranted cheap shot in my book.
Here's a guy with Chad Johnson for a teammate... whose getting being associated with Allen Iverson, for a partial sentence in defense of himself at the end of an interview - in the midst of the entire world telling him they think he's losing his job. Just d@&%! LOL
Your evidence is what one guy in this thread said, and you're assuming why he said it. You could just ask him.
Not evidence. An example. One I picked at random, from available examples in this thread and elsewhere on this site. And in the context of an open forum anyone can read... especially a thread where he/she already posted... haven't I already asked why? It was an example... I have no idea what influenced the poster to pose the question the way he did. I did read the article though... and I know it sure as heck didn't cause me to wonder whether Moore was a diva, who thought of himself as a star who didn't need to practice. Nothing I've ever read anywhere about Moore has ever given me that impression. Maybe you know of some articles that do paint him in that manner? If so.. let me know... I'd like to read them. But back to the point... if I haven't read anything anywhere that suggests Moore is a diva who thinks he's a star and doesn't need to practice... where would someone get that impression? Whoops... 'someone' called him Allen Iverson-like? Which leads to my second point.
I doubt it has anything to do with me.
Modest of you... but unrealistic. Unlike what I said in the paragraph above... your not just 'someone'. As stated... I have no idea why the question was asked by the poster. He/she/they may not know you from Adam... may despise you ... maybe never even read your comment - though with the similar comments in the thread its seems unrealistic to think he/she/they didn't read some of the other posts in that vein... BUT - I do know that if I seek out your posts, because I find them entertaining, informative, knowledgeable, etc... that there's a probably a more than pretty good chance that others do as well. That makes you not just "someone". That makes you at least a respected, poster... or at minimum one who is probably widely read.
All the talking that gets done about pro athletes being role models... its always been my opinion that most role models are people you see and interact with everyday. People you respect. People (especially young people) look to others to see how to act... they identify people who's opinion they trust, based on perceived knowledge, or reasoned arguments, or whatever... people they respect help form the person they are.
Now before someone goes all hokey pokey... saying this is just a frickin football messageboard dude... don't put that on him. I'm just sayin... CK does radio interviews. I've heard them. CK's been interviewed by a Dolphins owned radio show. I heard it. IMO... he's not just someone. But this IS just a message board... and I don't want CK sitting there saying good grief... can't I even go be myself on a board and talk about my favorite team without getting blamed for every lame-o comment... ... so just FORGET the above argument. lol
But for the record. That's how I feel about it.
Allen Iverson's message was that it doesn't matter what he does in practice because it's just practice.
Allen Iverson's message was... I am the franchise player! Why are you even asking me a question about practice? Practice? Really? I die in games.. but practice???
Don't pretty it up, and boil it down to make it sound better. This is what your associating Matt Moore with.
Matt Moore repeated the same message. That was HIS bad choice of words. In DIRECT answer to Matt Moore's question, yes it absolutely does matter what you do in practice because what you do helps your entire team prepare for the games, especially in a rhythm and timing based west coast offense.
No he didn't. I agree it wasn't the best choice of words... but given the circumstances explained in detail above, and CONTEXT, as in: MOST important? Performing at your best when preparing in practice to play? Or playing at your best when actually playing? Yes I know they are both important... and Moore didn't say they weren't. He said he'd like to think one was MOST important. Agree? Disagree?
The way you go on to lecture Matt that it absolutely matters preparing for games and rhythm and such... one would think we'd heard multiple reports about Moore's lack of effort... or lackadaisical attitude... and player or coaches grumbling about Moore holding the team back... or SOMETHING... something besides a guy who admits he's always worked to perform better in practice, and he'd like to think that what happens in games is most important.
What do you think a "gamer" is? I've heard the term for a good portion of my life... but I don't think it's defined anywhere. I've actually been called a gamer myself in the far dark past. lol Maybe the problem is I don't know what "gamer" means. I've always thought it referred to being just a little off while practicing and preparing... off on ball location... or off a foot or two from making that INT... or just generally performing better in actual games, than you do in practice... whether that be by a little or alot. I mean coaches I had actually told us... make your mistakes now boys, lets get'em corrected now. I thought it meant a guy who thrived on pressure... who performed his best under pressure.... a guy who rose to the occasion.
I never associated it (gamer) with lack of effort... or lackadaisical attitude towards practice... or sandbagging and goldbricking all week, and saving your strength for Sunday. Do you? Does Moore deserve to be associated with that? Allen Iverson does.
You keep focusing on the fact that he's actively trying to improve how he practices, but you don't know WHY he's done that. You would have us believe that he does it because he realizes the worth of practice performance and therefore he just decided to for some unknown reason blatantly contradict himself from one sentence to another. Rather, I think it more likely he didn't contradict himself. He's focused on improving in practice because he knows that's what coaches want, but deep down, he doesn't agree. In his own words, practice doesn't matter, the games matter.
Those last four or so sentences above, is just disappointing to me. Oh well...
Here's a guy I think you respect on Moore:
http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/20...-brandon-marshall-dolphins-coach-tony-sparano
Even back then, Karl Dorrell could sense a difference in Matt Moore when the pressure increased and the moment intensified. Dorrell, now the Dolphins' quarterbacks coach, was then entering his first season as head coach at UCLA. And Moore, now the Dolphins' quarterback, was a sophomore for the Bruins.
In those early practices, Dorrell liked Moore's arm. Liked his intelligence. The way he carried himself. But those were practices.
"Whenever it was a scrimmage situation," Dorrell said, "the lights came on, so to speak."
This is the kind of description that has followed Moore — this notion that he rises to the occasion and responds to pressure — from his college years through his matriculation into the NFL. Dolphins coach Tony Sparano has described Moore that way. So have his teammates.
Doesn't sound to me like the guy your describing. As for MY reasoning on why Moore has said he's tried to improve practice performance ...
I infer from Jeff Ireland and Tony Sparano calling Moore a gamer on the day he signed, that they formed that opinion while they had him in Dallas his rookie year... not that they were privy to the Panthers practices the past four years. I infer from that they had likely told him at some point in Dallas that they considered him a gamer, and maybe even mentioned that they'd like to see him practice at the same level of performance that he displayed while playing/scrimmaging. That's my reasoning, which at least seems to jibe with Moore claiming to try to improve his practice performance year by year. I won't attempt a deep dark secret soul search, wherein I determine the inner motivations of a player from afar.
I think your inference that deep down Moore doesn't think practice matters is bunk. I think if it weren't bunk, there would have been some comment by someone somewhere along the way in five years that would provide evidence that Moore doesn't think practice is important... and back up your assertion. I haven't seen it if it exists.
Moreover... i think this whole thing is completely overblown. A reporter asking a dumb question based on conventional wisdom that may or may not have any basis in fact whatsoever... mixed with a reputation a player acquired, portrayed in the most negative light (I mean shouldn't it be a good thing Moore performs best when playing)... and posed to a player bewildered that everyone thinks he's behind when camp hasn't even started and no one official has ever even mentioned a depth chart. And then to associate that with Allen Iverson? Cheap shot.
You can stop right there because you've already gone off road. What I initially said had nothing to do with "the totality of Matt Moore's career". I insinuated that what Matt Moore CHOSE TO SAY to Ben Volin, was a dumb thing to say, because IT (the statement) was Allen Iverson-like. You keep stretching things, erecting straw men. It's like if I said so-and-so did a bad thing and then you keep insisting that I just called so-and-so a bad person. I did not say that. I did not imply it. That is BAD application of logic.
You misunderstood my comment. I wasn't implying you directly compared Moore entire career to Iverson... though once you associated them, I don't think you cared too much where the chips fell (at this point). I was implying that YOU should know about Matt Moore, and his career, and yet you (and apparently just dozens of people you know - who its easy to assume are as up on football and Miami as you are, but may be a bad assumption) immediately chose to associate Moore with Iverson.... because they both dealt with practice? I stick by my assertion that to go ahead and associate Moore to Iverson (with his franchise star attitude, obvious lack of practice EFFORT, being called on it by his own head coach, etc...) when you KNOW or should KNOW about Matt Moore... is lazy, and unthoughtful.
If you say so. I do not agree that you did an adequate job.
Well I've made a more detailed and lengthy effort above. See what you think now.
Nice contradiction. No offense, but you're an idiot. See how that works? I didn't actually just insult you, you see...because I warned you not to take offense to what I was about to say next, therefore it wasn't an insult. Get it?
Not really. I didn't insult you there at all... and I didn't impugn your motives as far as WHY you chose to associate Moore with iverson (which is what I promised)... I specifically chose NOT to make the charge that you unsympathetically associated Moore to Iverson publicly - because you never liked the player, his signing, or his potential... and you sum him up in a word. Backup. I'd still like to think that's not the case. But then as you noted... I'm an idiot.
The 2nd part there... which you clearly took as impugning your motives I guess... was just a statement of observations. I have seen you take great pains, and write volumes when someone said something bad about a player you liked, and had a positive evaluation on. I've read them. Actually was just being humorous there.... far from impugning your motives.
First off, that's not a direct quote from Steve Ross. That's a summarization offered by a fan who had a phone conversation with Steve Ross in which the fan described himself as "nervous as hell, ... shaking, and everything." Soooo, yeah, maybe you're confident that this nervous as hell fan who was literally shaking while on the phone with the billionaire owner of the Miami Dolphins was able to transcribe Ross' statements word-for-word to the point where you're comfortable mincing exact wordings, but I don't think I am.
At this point, your dug in tight as a tick. So whatever... I'll just go ahead and concede that what the fan heard as "Don't you think if my coach wanted Matt Flynn, he would be on the team?" could really in actuality have been "Don't you think if my coach and GM could actually agree on whether Matt Flynn were a franchise QB, he would be on my team?" LOL Yeah... and then the coach who apparently had a 30 minute conference call with Steve Ross the morning after Ross popped off about expecting Moore to start - and told the press about it afterwards, see's that he's been published by Ross as NOT wanting Matt Flynn enough - and just lets that hang out there. LOL
As for the term "franchise", Steve Ross I believe on multiple occasions referred to Peyton Manning as having been evaluated, including by Joe Philbin, as the only franchise quarterback available. Exact direct quote, "But you know we gave it a big effort. (Peyton Manning) was the only franchise quarterback out there that we saw and what he could do for that team."
I agree 100%. I've read the direct quotes myself.
That's your judgment call. We're talking direct contradiction where Jeff Ireland described losing out on Matt Flynn as having been as much our call as Flynn's call, whereas Joe Philbin said he absolutely made a hard run at Matt Flynn, called him several times and tried his best to get him to sign here, and that if you want to know why we lost Matt Flynn you'll have to ask Matt Flynn. Joe Philbin also directly stated he has nothing to do with the numbers side of things at all, that he didn't get involved in any of that.
I've seen the interviews your referencing... and while I think overemphasizing a little... its accurate. But then as I recall the interview was taking place at a function, maybe the NFL meetings or something.... and it was hectic... and Joe is getting peppered with questions from reporters... and someone asks him about Flynn and he responded. I didn't take anything more from it than "yeah... we offered him a contract, we wanted him to sign it. (duh) Taking Joe up on his advice... Matt Flynn says he signed in Seattle because the "vibe in the building was better", and he "just got a real good feeling from the coaches", and a "real positive feeling about the direction of the team".
Sounds more like to me, Matt Flynn got to Miami.... was informed his offensive coordinator for his entire career in Green Bay, didn't think he was franchise starter material... found out that Miami would be running Mike Sherman's offense... not McCarthy/Philibin's... found out since Miami wasn't sure he was a sure fire starter material and wanted him to compete with Matt Moore (who they weren't sure he was better than)... and found out Miami wanted to pay him like a guy competing with Matt Moore... and thought the "vibe in the building" was better in Seattle. lol
I'm sure others can infer differently... but that's what it sounds like to me. And none of that contradicts Philbin saying "going hard after Flynn"... "calling him a couple of times"... etc..
So yeah, if I have a theory that Joe Philbin wanted Flynn but that Jeff Ireland didn't think he was worth more than Matt Moore and so Jeff Ireland made the decision to low ball Flynn below-market on the terms, I think that's a pretty valid theory.
Ehhh... its not impossible.. but there isn't really any evidence for it, beyond putting your own twist on Philbins interview comments. I've also heard Philbin state on several occasions (when asked about working with Jeff Ireland, and other topics) that he and his coaching staff have agreed with all the moves the team made... every pick...every free agent... If you have a theory, you can find quotes and occurrences to make it come alive in your own mind, and the minds of others if your convincing enough, and maybe respected enough. Doesn't make it so though. And to someone who doesn't buy into your theory... it just looks like your seeking to blame Ireland for something you can't prove even happened, and that there's direct evidence against.
The narrative focuses the blame for the contract impasse on Dawn Aponte when it's a simple fact she reports to Ireland and he could snap his fingers at any moment and end the holdout. Yes, the MEDIA narrative that this is Dawn Aponte's fault is another way of alleviating Jeff Ireland from blame that clearly falls on him. Whether you buy into that media narrative, repeat it, ignore it, or whatever...is up to you. But it is what it is.
Ehhhh... I don't know. Is mentioning Eric Holder is insisting on keeping Fast and Furious documents secret from congress, a way to alleviate Barak Obama from the blame that clearly falls on him in keeping the records secret? I mean he could snap his fingers, and the records would be released. Earlier you mentioned someone implied Dawn Aponte had "global autonomy" over Tannehills contract!?!??! Who actually said that? I haven't seen it, or read it anywhere... here or in the media. Now were down to the "media narrative" supplying a sacrificial lamb to kill upon the alter of absolving Jeff Ireland? Okay.. whatever.
You were out to prove that I have been hypocritical. I call that out to "get" me or "catch" me.
No. Everyone is hypocritical at times, or on certain subjects. EVERYONE. What I resented a little was you accusing others of being so hypocritical, while providing ample opportunity to be perceived as being JUST as hypocritical yourself.
Yes. I do not believe I have been hypocritical on this issue and furthermore most people do not see themselves as hypocritical (try looking up the phrase 'cognitive dissonance' some time) and so I don't see how in the world you would have expected this accusation of hypocrisy to go completely undefended by me.
They might not see it, but they are. Smart ones realize it... and don't get their panties in a wad when called on it. Dumb one's go on to be completely objective reporters... so they tell themselves. lol
I go back to the "you're an idiot" example,
Great.... the one paragraph you apparently understood none of, when you responded to it. lol
and let's say I concocted some complex piece of argumentation based on things you have said, that one logical step after another insinuates that what you just said is something idiots say, and asked you to comment on it. I guess I should just expect you to agree that you're an idiot and then I'll say "Thank you" and move on. Riiiiiiight.
Incomprehensible. For the record however.... above, I did agree with your noting that I'm an idiot, and then I moved on. lol Here's your
thank you too by god!
Absolutely. Accusing someone of "rank hypocrisy" (your own words) isn't negative. Not at all. Not even in the slightest.
Well instead of saying YES... you dug in... defended some terrible arguments and conjectures about Moore that the kid really doesn't deserve... topped that by claiming complete objectivity in assigning blame to Jeff Ireland for sabotaging Philbins desire for Flynn... and then expect me not to mention that I saw your two stances as rank hypocrisy too??? With a cherry on top? lol
There you go again. "Weeeeee! It's not an insult if I thinly veil it and act like I'm some proper British lord! G'day mate!!! Smiley face proves I'm not actually insulting you, see!"
I have a tendency to joke. Sue me. Maybe I should have gone with, your not really paranoid if they really are out to get you???? LOL
Similarly, thank you for the comments. Although it's a bit of a disappointment that someone professing to be such a "fan" of my work would approach me with so many thinly veiled insults and blatant dis-ingenuity.
I didn't profess to be a "fan" of your "work". I professed to enjoy your opinions and analysis and writings. A "fan" can be a blind homer... overlook flaws... defend the indefensible (as I've seen you call out on many occasions)...
I think you clearly misunderstood some things I wrote for insults... because if I wanted to insult you, I'm quite capable. Veiled thinly, thickly, or not at all. lol Wasn't my purpose at all. But I do call them like I see them. I saw a cheap shot on Moore, and called it out. I saw hypocrisy in your charges that others seek to avoid blaming Ireland, while you seek to blame him.... and I brought that to your attention. I'm disappointed you dug in so tight on some of the above points.... especially as far as you did on Moore at points. But that's life... full of disappointments.
