Big Blue Huddle

Quote from: Hooper74 on April 18, 2011, 04:08:25 PM
When I see one of these QB coming from a gimmick offense really transition from that to the pro game successfully I think it'll be my first one.

There was this guy named Joe Montana who played ball at the little school called Notre Dame which ran the Triple Option through his tenure at QB.  At the time, it was considered a gimmick offense and is probably why he dropped.

Then in 2004, this kid named Aaron Rodgers fell like a stone.  At first he was the consensus no. 1 pick.  He was not a run-option QB, but he ran a spread style, single back attack under Jeff Tedford at Cal.  Tedford remember is the guy who gave the NFL gimmick QBs like Akili Smith and Joey Harrington, so I understand the reluctance to embrace Rodgers.  

Both Rodgers and Montana did okay.  One is one of the best today, the other is one of the best of all time.  Gimmick's eventually become part of the norm.  

Orton at Purdue ran the spread option and the read option.  I don't know if he ever took a direct snap under center in college.  While not in Montana or Rodger's class, he has had a decent career.  

Drew Brees and Philip Rivers were in shotgun/spread offenses for most of their passes in college.  Rivers was a classic spread QB. All the traditional questions abotu arm strength and his quick side arm style release proved inaccurate as he has done fairly well in the NFL.  Brees was also at Purdue was an option read QB who took all his snaps from the shotgun and worked a spread style attack like Orton.  

There are more that a few.  I suspect as the pistol and option read grow, which they are doing based on spring practice reports, you will get another one of these guys in the NFL.  Dixon on the Steelers looked good before his injury in replacing Big Ben at the start of last season.  He was a total option read/pistol QB.  

Quote from: bamagiantfan on April 18, 2011, 02:55:33 PM
Newton is simply an extremely gifted athlete who you put at QB in College so he can touch the ball every snap. I don't see anyone in the NFL using him that way and I can't imagine him as a drop back QB.

I agree with that 100%.  Cam Newton's skills don't translate into the traditional NFL qb.  but I think a team can build plays around his skills and improve their chance of success.  He is an incredible athlete.  He will be fine, as long as he is willing to work at it. 

Quote from: MightyGiants on April 18, 2011, 12:38:48 PM
Mike,

I have heard multiple scouts, coaches and GMs complain about how the spread offense (what you refer to as the modern offense) has made it much more difficult to scout NFL QBs (and once drafted develop them).   The spread offense is so different from what is done at the NFL level, as compared to the more traditional college level pro style offense) that the QBs coming out lack experience as something as basic as taking the snap under center or calling a play in the huddle or at the line of scrimmage.  Most of the spread QBs haven't even worked a full route tree.   When it comes to spread offense QBs the best NFL scouts can do is scout athletic ability.   That makes the difficult job of scouting college QBs much more difficult.

Rich, what I referred to as modern was the Auburn and Oregon offense, which takes pieces of the spread, the spread option, the option read, the pistol and the no huddle and blends them all together to form a speed based offense.  Its FAR different than calling it a spread offense.  Auburn ran more plays from a "non-spread" last year than the spread. 

Now, I'm sure that every nfl scout would like to see the players they are scouting run the same plays their team runs, but thats just not going to happen.  I also don;t understand what difficulty scouting has to do with this conversation.  The game changes and drafting evaluations change too.  But it is the game.  That it makes a player harder to scout makes no difference.  Scouts have to deal with it, teams have to deal with it.  My whole point was that Peyton Manning and Aaron Rodgers would have been successful no matter what style they played in college.  Its the player, not the system he played in at the college level, that will make him successful or not. 

Whether or not its harder to evaluate the player matters not.  If its harder to scout Cam Newton, its harder to scout him.  But the fact that its harder to scout him does not have any impact on whether or not he will make it in the nfl.  He either will or he won't.  If you are saying a weakness is that he played in a spread offense, I disagree. If you are syaing its harder to scout him for an NFL offense because he played in a spread, well I also disagree with that and its just scouts trying to cover their own butts, but thats another issue.  But the two have little to do with each other. 

Quote from: MightyGiants on April 18, 2011, 10:17:00 AM
Mike,

Simplified is not the same as modern.  Even the more pro style college offenses do not match up the the complication of the NFL offense.  You talk about an offense that is all of 40 or 50 plays.  In the NFL you are talking offenses that are all of 400 or 500 plays.   While the NFL style play calling may seem overly complex, the reality is that the NFL simply have too many plays to memorize.  So what seems like gibberish to the casual fan is actually a full description of the play so the players know what's going to be run.  
Based on what I have just said, I have to disagree with your assertion that running Auburn's simple but effective (at the college level) offense has prepared Cam for what he will face in the NFL.   At the NFL level being the QB is incredibly difficult.  First of all the QB not only has to know his role in the 400-500 plays he has to understand what the other 10 players around him are doing.  He has to understand the offensive line scheme called.   Based on that offensive line scheme he has to understand what potential blitzer his RB will pick up and which one the line will pick up.   He has to understand that his WRs are going to run different routes based on the what the defense does.   An NFL QB is going to have to recognize blitzes and understand what his hot routes are.   The more advanced QBs will have to look over the defense (which the defense is going to disguise) and he not only needs to understand how the offense will run based on that defense, he may be given 1 or more (Peyton has nearly the entire play book at his disposal) of plays to check off to, if he doesn't like the defense that was called for the offense.     That sort of complex offense is light years ahead what Cam saw at Auburn.    As Ed said this lack of experience dealing with the complexity of the NFL offense has not been lost on the NFL scouts.   I have noticed that it has been lost on many of the so called draft experts though.

Well, while simplified does not necessarily mean modern, in the application of the term we are discussing, its the most modern approach to offense.  Its essentially evolved in the past 3 seasons, with Nevada and Oregon leading the way, but its history is the last 10-15 years of spread offenses growing at colleges.  So in that since, its as modern as modern can be, since it is still being created today and tomorrow too.  All the talk at spring practices this year are teams running quick sets like the Ducks and Tigers did in the BCS title game last year.  This is the very definition of modern. 

Anyway, I never suggested that any college offense can be as complex as an nfl offense. In fact, that is exactly my point.  No college offense can be as complex as an nfl offense.  Since that is obviously true, no college player can ever jump into an nfl offense an run it.  But by the very success of others before him, it means that college players can indeed learn to run it.  The fact that a given college does not employ the same style of coaching and the terms of a particular offense dopes not mean that it can not be done.   

I think its about the player himself, and not the offense run at colelge, that dictates success.  It took P. Manning a season to catch up from the pitch and catch offense the Volunteers have run for the past century, yet it was his skills, despite being from a pretty basic offense, that has proven through. 

Also Rich, I never suggested that running Auburn's simple but effective offense has prepared Cam for what he will face in the NFL.   what I am suggesting is that it makes no difference at all where a player plays in college.  Certainly you need to see him produce against decent defense before wasting a draft pick on a total unknown, so in that respect certainly it matters.  But assumign you go to a school where your skill set can be displayed and evaluated, whether or not you can adjust to the nfl offense has nothing to do with the school and the offense that they run. 

Everything you have said about the QB (not only knowing his role, but the other 10 player roles; understanding the offensive line scheme; blitz coverage; WR routes and his own checks on those routes), all have nothing to do with where the QB went to school.  A QB from Oregon or a QB from Auburn is just as likely as a QB from Vanderbilt or Florida, to be able to do this once coached at the nfl level.  Its all about the individual.  If Gruden's point is that Cam Newton is either not intelligent enough to do this or not skilled enough to do this, than his highlighting his lack of use of the terms at Auburn has nothing to do with his point.  I think Gruden was looking for a sound-bite rather than make an actual point.  I'm not saying Newton is smart enough to run an NFL offense or even that he has the ability to do so. I think he will make a far better RB with an arm for the occasional wildcat than a QB, but thats just me. 

My only point is that Gruden's referenced quote mean nothing.  That an offense the Panthers, Giants, 49ers or anyone at the nfl runs may be ahead of the offense at Auburn is meaningless since it is equally light years ahead of the offenses that Peyton ran at Tennesee, Brees ran at Purdue (which was maybe the simplest offense in college in 2001) and the spread offense that Rodgers ran at Cal, which was a predecessor of the speed offense we are talking about at Auburn.  It is Brees, Peyton and Rodgers that made those players able to adapt to the changes at the nfl level, not where they went to school. 

I really don;t know anything about Cam Newton, but I reject any concept that evaluates a player based on the offense he ran in college.  If Gruden is saying Newton is dumb, he should just say it.  Aaron Rodgers, probably had a similar understanding of nfl offensive football terminology having come from Jeff Tedford's Oregon/Cal system (which is and was very simple).  All I am saying is that it is all about the guy, and not what terms he used at college for what they did.  Gruden thinks Newton is stupid, okay.  Then say he won;t make it because he lacks the brainpan, not because he could not play your word game.  Aaron Rodgers would not have been able to do it either, but Rodgers was an academic all american (or at least all pac-10).  I expect a team to evaluate whether he can learn the complexity of the NFL offense, but if he shows the capacity to learn it, this lack of experience dealing with the NFL offense means nothing. 

Just because schools like Auburn and Oregon run a modern offense does not mean the players there can not run a more traditional offense.  Guys like Chip Kelly firmly believe that the trend of complicated offenses and long snap counts to read and react to a defense is a huge problem.  The solution is to set up so that the defense is unable to read what you will do and execute it so quickly that the defense can not even sub out the right personnel to match up against you.  Its not the "spread" offense as much as its a speed attack.  

Auburn and Oregon only run about 15-20 different plays per game, each with 2-3 vareints within them, so its closer to 40-50 is they run each in multiple ways.  But they line up for those plays 6 different ways with 4 different groups of players, so at any given time, the line-up looks like nothing seen before that game.  Each play can look the same but entail 2 designed passes, 2 designed runs and 2 designed options.  Now there is usually only 10-12 seconds from down to snap, so even if the other side can recognize which of the 6 possible plays its is, its still almost impossible to get in a defense to stop it.  And if you do, its 12 seconds until a different play is run.  

Now just because this entire system can be called form the sideline with, in Auburn's case a blackboard with the number "24" written on it, or in Oregon;s case a board with a picture of Darth Vader, a picture of Marv Albert, a greek letter and the cow jumping over the moon, does not mean the actual play is not incredibly complex. Its just that the play is designed to be incredibly easy to call, to be read very quickly and incredibly fast to set up.  

The offense is very complicated, but all the work is done in practice and the locker room.  On the field, its very simple and it move so quickly that no one has time to react.  And they change the key (which numbers or pictures mean what) several time throughout the game, so no one understands what the hell is going on.    

Cam Newton;s real weakness may be that he is not able to run a pro-offense, that he lacks the arm strength or that he is a jerk that will never lead a team, but I don;t think Gruden exposed anything except that the Auburn offense, which tore up the best defenses in college, has nothing whatsoever to do with traditional play calling.  There are about 10 coaches in the world that run this offense right now, all are highly sought after because its been proven to be successful.  Will it work at the pro-level, I doubt it, but its not going anywhere in college right now.  

Instead, lets flip the tables and ask Jon Gruden to call a play by flipping a board with four pictures on it for 2 seconds.  Then ask him where the guards will be pulling, if the center is going to screen for the option to stand up.  Which tackle is going to slip a block, will the back coem up behind you or run past to pick up a blitzer and where the receivers are going, all from board with a picture of Hanna Montana, George Washington, the empire state building and a battleship.  I think Gruden would say, "Uh, ... I don;t get it."  Of course he doesn't.  Its a different language.  Is that exposing Gruden for anything ... no, only that he does not speak "chip kelly."  

Cam Newton is one of the best overall athletes to come out of college in the past 50 years.  Is he going to be a pro-bowl QB, I have no idea. I think no one does because he has never worked the offense that he will be called to work in the pros.  Give him the ball and he can put it almost anywhere on the field and he can out run most running backs and take a hit better too.  But will he be able to master a defense that is trying to read him and prevent him from reading them, who knows.  Its not what he was taught at Auburn, but thats not to say he can;t do it.  Maybe his athleticism buys him time that others don;t get, so he can do it.  Maybe he just gets hit hard and folds.  I think he will be fun to watch no matter what.  

But this is all pretty well known.  He is a huge risk, with an upside somewhere higher than heaven and a downside south of hell.  I would never pick him with the first pick, but someone might.  

Quote from: Philosophers on April 14, 2011, 09:57:03 AM
Vette - we've discussed NFT here like a person wanting advice for a boss who hates him or the Frozen Four or many other things that have no bearing on football.  One of the things I love about this board is the civility with which people talk to each other.  We're not in football season and as you can see by the little activity on this board of new topics, I thought it was an interesting topic (from a variety of angles).

Sorry if I offended you or anyone.  Not trying to.

Thanks Mike for a good discussion.  We're on different sides on this.  I respect yours.

Phil,
I think it was an interesting topic, I just disagree with you on a few points.  I did not think you were offensive, I just disagree with you is all.  Anyway, I too enjoyed our talk.  I respect your right to your opinion and thank you for respecting my right to mine.  I'm sure we will have more good talks.  All the best.

Vette,
Its a tough issue. As you know, I was a regular poster in the back porch and still do not understand why it was put to bed.  But your invitation to comment on how we can manage Non Football Topics merits a great deal of discussion.  IMO, we either need a "back porch" or we have to have a very strict rule about such threads.  This thread did not belong in this particular place. I still think there is a place for such conversation here, but not in this main forum.  I think topics like politics, religion and social justice are far too  sensitive and involve a great many perspectives which are certain to involve passion.  I welcome such passion, but I don;t want to trouble others here with it who do not want such things.  Had this been on the back porch, I feel I would have gone into my feelings with zephirus a bit more, and it likely would have involved far more passion and harsher words.  I still think its fine for two adults to get into a discussion invoking passion and sometimes even use curses.  I don't think there is a thing wrong with that and as long as both members are comfortable, I say let them go at it.  Non-violent disagreement is the best kind of disagreement.  Its not like we are in a bar drinking and throwing fists.  I think its fine to have a place where its not under the rules of gentlemanly behavior and you take the risk to go in there.  If you do not want it, stay out.  Thats why I think the back porch was a good place and it should have changed and stayed.  The problem with it was that you guys were trying to shove a square peg in a round hole.  The back porch and the main forum should be run differently, for the reasons obvious from this thread.   

But since you guys don;t want to have a back porch, after viewing this thread, I think its best to cut off such threads early.  Anyway, thanks for asking our thoughts.  Whatever you decide is fine with me.  There are other forums for having such passionate debates, and if anyone wants to join one, please let me know and I'll be happy to refer you to one.  I can have my giants and sports talk here and have my passionate debates in other places.

Quote from: Philosophers on April 13, 2011, 07:39:44 PM
Mike - I think you are naive to think that just because there are lawyers devoted to employee discrimination that it means that if there is a problem, individuals should not be afraid.  The fact is that many companies will virtually blacklist any potential candidate who sues his/her company over sexual harassment.  While there are obviously some very good cases by some, there are others who are flakes.  A potential company may blend the two groups and not bother to even consider that person for employment.  Additionally, a person who has spent their entire career in an industry (say 20+ years) feels tremendous pressure that if they sue, they will likely never be able to get a job again in an industry in which they've devoted their lives.

By the way, just to be clear, I didn't start this post by suggesting that she had it coming to her or anything like that.  What Favre did was wrong.

I will say that I doubt a self-professed party girl from FSU was making astute business decisions in choosing to get a boob job at 18, 19 20 or whenever she did.  Additionally, she recently said that now she wants them removed because she said that folks don't take her seriously.  She's gorgeous and a 100% diehard sports fan so I give her tremendous kudos for that.  If I were her parent, I'd have told her that a long term route to success would probably have been better than making short term decisions with long term consequences.

Actually Philosophers, I said exactly the opposite.  The fact that there are lawyers devoted to employee discrimination means that if there is a problem individuals should be afraid.  The fact is that many employees who report abuse are blacklisted, fired, held back from promotions, given terrible job assignments and otherwise punished for being nothing other than a victim.  I thought I made my feelings clear on this, I am sorry if I was confusing.  

My only issue with your post was that you seem to suggest this woman made terrible choices and her parents did a bad job.  Both of which I disagree with, the later VERY strongly.  Frankly, who are you to judge parents whom you do not know anything about.  

She has made more money in her career than I have and she is a generation younger than me. I'd call that success.  There is nothing wrong with being a "party girl" when you are young.  I tend to think little of people who frown upon girls who get boob jobs and use their sexuality to their advantage.  I think a woman who does this is maximizing her options and making a tremendous decision.  As you said, she can undo it later (and she already has had them removed).  

I disagree that getting the boob job automatically has long term consequences when I think its clear for her that it has had long term benefits.  Anyone can do basic math to decide whether the medical risks of a boob job (which are minimal) outweigh the benefits.  She did that and I think its clear she made the right choice.  I guess everyone has moral views that filter their overall positions.  Mine are clearly different than yours.  I still see a young girl who achieved tremendous success in two very difficult fields, modeling and media personality.  I wish her more success.

Quote from: zephirus on April 13, 2011, 03:47:17 PM
Mike/T200,
I'm not suggesting that Sterger's refusal to quickly report the harassment in any way condones Favres behavior.  Nor am I suggesting that Favre's actions weren't disgusting.  I'm not even suggesting that her failure to report it makes his behavior warranted.  I'm simply suggesting that if she had reported this quickly and quietly, it would not have garnered the media frenzy that happened later as a result of her waiting.  She probably could have even made the report anonymously.  I totally agree that most women that are victimized by harassment are reluctant to step forward because of the scrutiny it will place on them, but I think it's a terribly weak excuse.  I have a hard time believing an employer would fire a female who reported sexual harassment, usually they are more than accomodating to make sure that the behavior doesn't continue (possibly by firing the perpetrator), and that male colleagues are made aware of what is and isn't acceptable.  I think not reporting it sends one of two messages.  One is that the contact/behavior is ok.  Two is that the texts (in this case) were being ignored.  Neither sends a distinct message to stop.  There was also rumors that Sterger sent a text saying "If that is you in the picture you have a reason to smile", in reference to a picture of Favre's manhood.  If true, it totally undermines her credibility that the contact was unwarranted. 

I think most self respecting females who are made uncomfortable at work by sexual harassment report it immediately.  Until females see it as the best option, this will only be cyclical.

Sadly, I think you are very wrong that had she reported this quickly and quietly, it would not have.  I fail to see how your opinion would even be possible.  Also, I find your opinion that fear of reprisal to be a terribly weak excuse to be itself a weak view.  I have friends whose entire legal practices are employment discrimination.  Sadly, the vast majority of employers take steps that are very much adverse to the harassed employee and supportive of the manager (star QB in our case).  (Also its not always a woman, female to male and same sex sexual harassment is also quite common).  I wish more employers were as accomodating as you suggest.  But its not the case.   

Your comments that most "self respecting females" report harassment immediately has really ended my desire to talk with you about this.  I think your have a great deal to learn about harassment and this is not the forum for it.  Rather than say something ungentlemanly, I think its best if I sign off on this thread. Suffice to say, we disagree and I can't see myself ever agreeing with you, so lets end it here. 

Quote from: zephirus on April 13, 2011, 01:36:42 PM
"While at that team, she was the subject of harassment.  She chose not to report that harassment and never made a single complaint to anyone, other than talking to her friends about her life. "

This is the biggest key of all for me.  If we are going to take sexual harassment seriously it HAS TO BE REPORTED IMMEDIATELY.  Anything less means that the attention was, at best, welcome or warranted, and at worst, ignored.  Unless it is made clear that the actions taken are offensive, the "victim" loses all credibility.  Favre is culpable for harassment.  Sterger is equally culpable for not reporting it.  

I disagree with the notion that what one chooses to wear has no relevance to their ability to be taken seriously.  Most companies have strict dress codes (I myself must wear a tie every day).  I have no problem with anyone selling their sexuality, reporters, models, athletes.  That makes good business sense.  That being said, you can't "cry wolf", if you aren't taken seriously.  Ines Sainz and Jenn Sterger had/have valid complaints, but their appearances in the media wasn't because they asked hard line questions, it was because they have epic figures.  If I recall correctly, Sainz didn't even ask Sanchez football related questions.  And I won't buy the notion that being pretty is a hinderance for women in the media.  There are plenty of attractive women who are good reporters.  Suzy Kolber and Erin Andrews come to mind.  It's interesting to note that I've never seen either of them dress provacatively (Andrews typically goes with turtlenecks).

Zephirus, I could not agree with you more.  Sexual harassment should be reported immediately. Alas, until women who report harassment are not made to feel like they asked for it or otherwise deserved it, its a little unrealistic to ask someone to invite those feelings onto themselves when they did nothing wrong.  So harassment is usually not reported.  However, I think its wrong to suggest that the failure to report harassment actually means that that the harassment was welcome or warranted.  so I disagree that Sterger is at all culpable for not reporting it.  The reason is that this thread even exists.  There are people who think she asked for it or deserved it.  Its why she did not report it.  She liked her job. Once the story broke, her job at Versus ended.  Its a fact of life.  These types of stories are not good for her career.  

I also never suggested that what one chooses to wear has no relevance to their being taken seriously.  I said what SHE choose to wear had no relevance to her beign taken seriously.  What she wore in a playboy shoot was what was required for that job.  What she wore for maxim was what was required for that job. What she wore on versus and what she wore on the Jets gameday shows were likewise what was required for the jobs.  I'm sure when she goes to her nephew's wedding, she does not wear a bikini top like she did at football games.  I wear a suit all day and when I go to games I wear a giants jersey.  I expect to be taken seriously despite what I wear though. I'm the same guy wearing the suit that I am wearing the jersey and jeans.  If you treat me like I'm a suit all the time, I'll probably dislike you.  I tend to think of myself as a jean and t-shirt guy who is stuck in a suit all day, but certainly you dress how you have to dress.  

I think you are misunderstanding the notion of being taken seriously.  She has been unemployed since this stroy broke yet she had steady and increasing paid employment until it broke. She is no longer taken seriously as a sports personality.  As you said, a sports personality can choose to sell their sexuality, just as models and athletes often do.  But its not that she is "crying wolf."  She is being treated differently now that she is viewed by many as a tramp, or whatever word you like.  I googled her earlier today and the number of leads that use the word whore in the page title scared me.  

Also, while I know nothing about Ines Sainz (I remember her name enough to know she was the attractive reporter who was involved in some talk at Jets camp last year, but I could not pick her out of a lineup), I can tell you that Jenn Sterger is hardly getting the jobs for her body.  While she is indeed attractive, every month there are a dozen other girls just as attractive or more so in maxim, playboy or any of a dozen other magazines that would kill to get that Jets job. A TV gig in the no. 1 tv market, its a dream gig.  But she got it. Why because she was able to market herself well.  Its a skill that she has developed and I commend her for it.  

I also agree that being pretty is not a hinderance for women in the media.  Suzy Kolber and Erin Andrews are great examples of women who are pretty and do very good medial work.  There are a great many others.  While I do not know Suzy Kolber's history, I know a lot about Erin Andrews only because I happened to be on a case in Tampa in 2000 and 2001 and practically lived there for 6 months and got to see her every day on the news.  She dressed far sexier in her young florida days, and toned it down when she got the network gigs.  that happens often too.  I'm sure if Sterger ever got on ABC, she would tone it down, but I also do not think Sterger has Erin or Suzy's skills.  But Olivia Munn has made millions by being the attractive female geek media personality and there are millions to be made as the attractive female sports media personality.  Sterger has just as good a chance as any to get a slice of that market.  

Anyway, I respectfully disagree that someone should be punished for not reporting a crime or otherwise disgusting behavior.  I disagree even more that the failure to report it is equal to the actual criminal or disgusting activity.  

Quote from: FuglyStick on April 13, 2011, 01:16:59 PM
Hey, the Jersey Shore cast will be making six figures per episode each for their spin-off shows.  Snooki was paid 32 grand to speak at Rutgers.  Think about that.  This is the world we live in.  These are the values we promote.  This is the future--no, I take that back, this is the PRESENT.

Thats a great point.  I mean if that girl Snooki can make 32 grand for a speaker gig and get $100k per episode, she can earn more in 4 years than I will in my lifetime.  I give her credit for doing it.  If you have something that makes people want to hire you, use it.  Even if its just being offensive.  Fame does not last for most people, so earn it while you can. 

Quote from: jimv on April 13, 2011, 11:34:38 AM
Good answer, Mike.  But, why did you even start this thread, Phil?  I don't want to do anything rash with this thread but, if anyone else chimes in and things start getting bad, I'll zap the whole thing in the blink of an eye.

Thanks Jim. I think we can behave.  Its just a thread about a hot topic right now thats getting play on ESPN.  That it involves a Jets employee makes it even more fun to talk about, plus, I really dislike Favre. 

Quote from: NYSPORTS on April 13, 2011, 11:31:38 AM
Spoken like a true lawyer and you make a strong case.  Facts are fact yet intertwined with more than enough opinion.  If Jen Sterger is an

Quote from: Philosophers on April 13, 2011, 09:49:02 AM
Let's see Jenn.  At around 20 years of age, you are a college student but feel the need to get a boob job.  Did you think that would help you in your Spanish class?  Then, after you luckily are seen on a camera with the Brent Mustburger famous quote, you get some attention only for your looks and then you leverage that into photo shoots in Maxim and Playboy.

You use those looks to help you land a NY Jets gig as a "hostess".  In every shot, you're dress screams cleavage.  A famous football player sends you suggestive texts and voicemessages.

Now you can't get a job and all you want is to be taken seriously with the history of provocative dress. Got news Jenn.  Being taken seriously starts with your brain and goes to your mouth. 

Are you kidding?  Nice job parenting Mr. and Mrs. Sterger. 

I disagree with your opinion of this woman.  The way I see it, this young woman wanted to maximize her ability to make money, so she had plastic surgery to increase her already natural good looks.  The money she made modeling more than made up for that expense, so it sounds like it was a great business decision and shows incredibly sound thinking.   

I'm not sure what her breasts have to do with Spanish class and I really don;t get that reference.  If you are suggesting that students should not be models, I don't get it.  I worked to pay my way through college, why can't she.  Regardless, she was discovered nationally on ESPN, just as every other model was discovered by someone who thought she was beautiful.  She parleyed that fame into further modeling jobs and made even more money.  Then she was able to get a job as a "personality" with an NFL team.  To me, everything she had done up to that point seemed like a great career move.  she was making money at a job she enjoyed.  What seems bad about this to you?

While at that team, she was the subject of harassment.  She chose not to report that harassment and never made a single complaint to anyone, other than talking to her friends about her life.  She just continued to do her job.  Later, when her contract was not renewed, she did not sue alleging that her refusal to sleep with the star QB led to her not being brought back.  Instead, she just kept on looking for work and moving on with her life.  Later, when the NFL launched an investigation into that star QB, she cooperated.  Now, she would like to pick up her life and move on. 

She wants to make money as a public personality.  While I would never want public fame, there are thousands of people who seek this profession.  Its natural that she would go to media outlets to further her marketability.  Again, this shows tremendous business sense to me.  She was the victim of disgusting activity, and instead of rushing off to sue, showed that she can deal with it quietly. If I was in the sports media business, she is exactly what I would like working for me.  she seems incredibly trustworthy and very bright. 

I fail to see why her dress style impacts your ability to take her seriously.  I've never thought she was anything other than 1) an incredibly sexy woman, 2) a sports fan and 3) an astute business woman.  I take her very seriously, or at least as seriously as I take any person in the sports media/marketing business.  I wish her all the best.  I feel badly that this man treated her like he did.  Some people think that just because a woman wears sexy clothing, you have the right to disrespect her.  I do not.   

As for her parentage, I think its clear that you and I know next to nothing about this woman and her parents.  But based solely upon the little bit that I do know, I'd be proud if she was daughter.  She seems like a young woman who does her job and lets jerks and their comments roll off of her.  I think, from the little I have seen, that she was raised very well.   I respectfully disagree with your opinion of her and her parents. 

Again, another topic better fit for the "back porch."   

Quote from: weeze on March 12, 2011, 05:54:59 AM
do i have hope past fourth of july or not? can i degenerate to a summer of...gasp.......NASCAR?...no please PLEASE be competitve!
any cubs fans here?

I'm not really a cub fan, but I do always begin each season pulling for the cubbies to win it all. I think the cubs way overpaid for Garza, but thats another story. 

On this season, I think the lineup is weak.  I don't see much more than a .500 club on paper here, but I would love to be proven wrong.  I think a lot is on Pena to find that power stroke and for Aramis Ramirez to turn back the clock a couple of seasons.  If Matt Garza pitches well, they can compete.  but the offense needs to step it up.  Maybe they can stay in the hunt, but I think it will be about 87 wins and 2nd place without a wild card. 

Quote from: vette on October 21, 2010, 08:06:27 PM
Hi everyone! Speak up here if you would like to get together with the group for this game on Sunday November 7th at 4 pm.

We need to also know where you are coming from so that we can pick a place that is within traveling distance of most members. You can bring whomever you like. We get the tab and split it by the number of attendees including tip.

We have done Fishkill and Menlo Park in the past.  

I planned to be there, but I just found out that my sister is having her daughter's christening that day. I have uncles duties to attend to.  Sorry everyone. Enjoy the day.