NFL Week 12

[SouthSideRyan]

What do you mean he asked it in a respectful manner? Just because he wasn't yelling at him doesn't mean it wasn't a leading question.

[Soul]

I already said why. He asked for the context of the conversation. To me that's not disrespectful.

 

It would have been easy at that point for Anderson to just say the context was something unrelated to the game. He could even have said the details aren't anyone's business, but it wasn't laughing at the fact that they were losing. Issue over.

 

I've heard this question asked before, and that's the wrong way to answer it.

[jersey cubs fan]

I already said why. He asked for the context of the conversation. To me that's not disrespectful.

 

It would have been easy at that point for Anderson to just say the context was something unrelated to the game. He could even have said the details aren't anyone's business, but it wasn't laughing at the fact that they were losing. Issue over.

 

I've heard this question asked before, and that's the wrong way to answer it.

 

There's just no reason to ask the question at all. I saw the video after reading about it and that is not laughing at a joke on the sideline. That's the kid of grin somebody has at a funeral when another person tries to lighten the mood. It's inconsequential and a very stupid thing to ask about in a press conference.

[Soul]

Reporters ask questions, but why ask that one? Why not ask more questions about the game and why the Cardinals lost and how they can improve? Why does it matter that Lutui told a joke and Anderson laughs at jokes?

 

I just don't get the point in asking that particular question.

 

How likely do you think it is that reporters will stop asking that question, in that situation?

 

I guess it seems to me like you are asking for something to happen that won't ever happen.

[jersey cubs fan]

Reporters ask questions, but why ask that one? Why not ask more questions about the game and why the Cardinals lost and how they can improve? Why does it matter that Lutui told a joke and Anderson laughs at jokes?

 

I just don't get the point in asking that particular question.

 

How likely do you think it is that reporters will stop asking that question, in that situation?

 

I guess it seems to me like you are asking for something to happen that won't ever happen.

 

I would guess that in every single game somebody on the losing side smiles while on the sideline and 99% of the time nobody asks them why in the press conference.

[erik316wttn]

Gore out for the year with a hip injury.

 

Not to sound uncompassionate, but at least the Niners won't have their biggest weapon next week against us in Lambeau.

[Soul]

The Niners would need a lot more than Gore to be competitive with the Pack at Lambeau.

 

Beeelloowwwout.

[erik316wttn]

The Niners would need a lot more than Gore to be competitive with the Pack at Lambeau.

 

Beeelloowwwout.

 

True, as I think we still win with or without Gore, but this just makes it easier. Hopefully.

Edited November 30, 2010 by erik316wttn

[jersey cubs fan]

The Niners would need a lot more than Gore to be competitive with the Pack at Lambeau.

 

Beeelloowwwout.

 

True, as I think we still with with or without Gore, but this just makes it easier. Hopefully.

 

You really don't need it any easier. Green Bay has manhandled just about every bad team they've faced. And San Francisco is as bad as any team they have faced with or without Gore and his three rushing touchdowns.

[JonJayCutler]

With as good as Westbrook looked last night I doubt there will be much of a dropoff.....meaning GB will still win by 30.

[SouthSideRyan]

I already said why. He asked for the context of the conversation. To me that's not disrespectful.

 

It would have been easy at that point for Anderson to just say the context was something unrelated to the game. He could even have said the details aren't anyone's business, but it wasn't laughing at the fact that they were losing. Issue over.

 

I've heard this question asked before, and that's the wrong way to answer it.

 

What do you think the motivation was of the asker? Really wanted to hear a good joke?

[dew1679666265]

How likely do you think it is that reporters will stop asking that question, in that situation?

 

I guess it seems to me like you are asking for something to happen that won't ever happen.

 

Like goony said, it's likely not all that uncommon for a person to smile or laugh when sitting on the losing sideline and yet they don't get asked why they laughed. The only reason he was asked is because it happened to get on camera and because Gruden pitched a fit about it.

 

That said, reporters like questions that are likely to get a player pissed off and asking a guy who just led his team to a 21 point defeat against a 3-7 why he's laughing (when the answer is extremely obvious) is likely to piss him off. No matter how respectfully it's asked.

[dew1679666265]

I already said why. He asked for the context of the conversation. To me that's not disrespectful.

 

It would have been easy at that point for Anderson to just say the context was something unrelated to the game. He could even have said the details aren't anyone's business, but it wasn't laughing at the fact that they were losing. Issue over.

 

I've heard this question asked before, and that's the wrong way to answer it.

 

What do you think the motivation was of the asker? Really wanted to hear a good joke?

 

If I were to ask that question, that would be the reason. I strongly doubt it was his, though.

[Guest]

Johnson and Finnegan were each fined $25,000 but not suspended for their fistfight yesterday. They can thank the Richard Seymour precedent of "slugging guys who probably deserve it."

 

I don't know how Johnson got off without a suspension.

 

I think an unprovoked sucker punch getting just a fine one week before pretty much sealed the deal for Johnson, since that was actually a provoked fight.

 

There's a big difference between what Johnson and Seymour did. Seymour's can hardly be considered a punch, more like a shove to the face. Johnson ripped off Finnegan's helmet and the punched him while Finnegan was on the ground.

[jersey cubs fan]

There's a big difference between what Johnson and Seymour did. Seymour's can hardly be considered a punch, more like a shove to the face. Johnson ripped off Finnegan's helmet and the punched him while Finnegan was on the ground.

 

Yes there is a difference. Seymour punched a guy in the face unprovoked while Johnson got in a fight that was provoked by another player.

[Guest]

There's a big difference between what Johnson and Seymour did. Seymour's can hardly be considered a punch, more like a shove to the face. Johnson ripped off Finnegan's helmet and the punched him while Finnegan was on the ground.

 

Yes there is a difference. Seymour punched a guy in the face unprovoked while Johnson got in a fight that was provoked by another player.

 

Seymour wasn't unprovoked.

Seymour didn't punch a guy.

[jersey cubs fan]

There's a big difference between what Johnson and Seymour did. Seymour's can hardly be considered a punch, more like a shove to the face. Johnson ripped off Finnegan's helmet and the punched him while Finnegan was on the ground.

 

Yes there is a difference. Seymour punched a guy in the face unprovoked while Johnson got in a fight that was provoked by another player.

 

Seymour wasn't unprovoked.

Seymour didn't punch a guy.

 

Okay, you keep thinking that. If you choose to pretend not to know why he wasn't suspended then that's your right.

[Guest]

There's a big difference between what Johnson and Seymour did. Seymour's can hardly be considered a punch, more like a shove to the face. Johnson ripped off Finnegan's helmet and the punched him while Finnegan was on the ground.

 

Yes there is a difference. Seymour punched a guy in the face unprovoked while Johnson got in a fight that was provoked by another player.

 

Seymour wasn't unprovoked.

Seymour didn't punch a guy.

 

Okay, you keep thinking that. If you choose to pretend not to know why he wasn't suspended then that's your right.

 

If you choose to continue to be wrong, that's also your right.

[jersey cubs fan]

There's a big difference between what Johnson and Seymour did. Seymour's can hardly be considered a punch, more like a shove to the face. Johnson ripped off Finnegan's helmet and the punched him while Finnegan was on the ground.

 

Yes there is a difference. Seymour punched a guy in the face unprovoked while Johnson got in a fight that was provoked by another player.

 

Seymour wasn't unprovoked.

Seymour didn't punch a guy.

 

Okay, you keep thinking that. If you choose to pretend not to know why he wasn't suspended then that's your right.

 

If you choose to continue to be wrong, that's also your right.

One was a sucker punch and the other was two men fighting. Are you being serious?

[Guest]

Have you even seen the Seymour "punch"? Open hand does not equal a punch. Not to mention that the "punch" was the end of it.

 

Johnson ripped off Finnegan's helmet and threw two haymakers and only stopped because the ref came in there. Johnson's punch could have done some serious damage if it connects in a different spot.

 

You're insane if you can't see the difference between the two.

 

I don't know why you're so hung up on Seymour supposedly being unprovoked. Nobody in sports ever gets a weaker punishment simply because they were provoked so that's pretty much irrelevant.

 

And LOL at you justifying it as two men fighting. Like that's ever prevented suspensions from being handed down before.

 

EDIT: Seymour definitely could have been suspended and there would have been nothing wrong with it but Johnson definitely should have been suspended.

[JonJayCutler]

Dwight Howard mocks Derek Anderson

 

LOL.

[jersey cubs fan]

Have you even seen the Seymour "punch"? Open hand does not equal a punch. Not to mention that the "punch" was the end of it.

 

Johnson ripped off Finnegan's helmet and threw two haymakers and only stopped because the ref came in there. Johnson's punch could have done some serious damage if it connects in a different spot.

 

You're insane if you can't see the difference between the two.

 

I don't know why you're so hung up on Seymour supposedly being unprovoked. Nobody in sports ever gets a weaker punishment simply because they were provoked so that's pretty much irrelevant.

 

And LOL at you justifying it as two men fighting. Like that's ever prevented suspensions from being handed down before.

 

EDIT: Seymour definitely could have been suspended and there would have been nothing wrong with it but Johnson definitely should have been suspended.

 

I'm not insane because I can see the difference. Seymour sucker punched a guy and Johnson was in a fight where two guys were punching and grabbing facemasks. You are acting like an idiot by ignoring that difference and painting the Johnson fight as a one man attack.

[Guest]

Whatever. It's not my fault you can't see the difference and prefer to be wrong on the issue.

[jersey cubs fan]

Whatever. It's not my fault you can't see the difference and prefer to be wrong on the issue.

 

I see the difference. It's quite clear. One was a sucker punch and one was a man on man fight.

 

Everybody sees the difference. It's a non-story, except you are playing the dunce for some reason.

[Guest]

Whatever. It's not my fault you can't see the difference and prefer to be wrong on the issue.

 

I see the difference. It's quite clear. One was a sucker punch and one was a man on man fight.

 

Everybody sees the difference. It's a non-story, except you are playing the dunce for some reason.

 

But seriously, if you're okay being wrong, more power to you. Generally people prefer being right but you obviously don't fall into that category.