Promote your business or product on 700level.com. For
more information about advertising with us CLICK HERE!

First time around they smeared him with the gimpy knee, for the record. They were trying to sign him and smearing him at the same time.

Trotter doesn't seem to think so. He didn't think they tried to "smear" him until after he started lobbing insults at Reid and Banner

BTW, he did have bad knees at the time, so I'm not sure how that's smearing

"They go against the grain, spend big on a couple players who have tread left on the tires and will be here after this last ditch run..."

Not in a thousand Mormon lifetimes...

There is no "last ditch" mentality with this regime. That would go against their whole philosophy of winning multiple Super Bowls.

Remember, they're the GOLD STANDARD and they have their eye on many championships.

BTW, he did have bad knees at the time, so I'm not sure how that's smearing

So why did they tell us (constantly)? They made is overtly clear that his knees were bad to help soften the blow when he signed elsewhere (if he didn;t sig for their price).

See, they thought he was plenty healthy for that $25 million deal they offered him, but too much risk for the $30 million the Skins gave him.

They wanted to make sure the fans had "bad knees" drilled into their heads.

But it was true. Smearing is when it's not true, it's slander.

And again, it wasn't until he got pissed at the franchise tag that "knee" business started. They tried to sign him to a contract then, he was pissed, adn then they started the knee campaign.

The whole point is, they didn't start it right off the bat.

Smearing doesn't have anything to do with a basis in fact. It's simply an effort to destroy a reputation or denegrate someone (whether to actual smear campaign is based in fact or fiction).

KB, what the hell are you talking about?

I have no idea what your point is here.

They chose to go negative on Trot as soon as they were unsure if he'd be back every time there was a question of whether or not he'd be back (by FA or performance).

Is that even in question?

f-d, to smear is to vilify or defame, they're both based on untruths. The knee problem wasn't untrue.

KB, what the hell are you talking about?

Jesus, I'm simply answering some side points that came up.

My main point is very clear.

Dear God.

It doesn't have anything to do with fact or fiction...it's an attack on one's reputation.

Tattoo- I think Fitz would require a trade, and Im certain CJ would- he is NOT a F.A. in 2008.

Also, you can take to the bank, that NO restructuring of Kearse's contract will even be CONSIDERED.
He's history.

f-d, it's very simple to look at definitions of words. To smear, like in a political campaign, means to vilify or defame. If you mean they harped on something negative, fine. I'm simply pointing out that what they did wasn't untrue.

Also, you can take to the bank, that NO restructuring of Kearse's contract will even be CONSIDERED.
He's history.

That's surprising. If they could get him back at the right price (another year off the knee surgery) I'd be interested.

I think he is DONE.

Think Rice, Simeon.

f-d, it's very simple to look at definitions of words. To smear, like in a political campaign, means to vilify or defame. If you mean they harped on something negative, fine. I'm simply pointing out that what they did wasn't untrue.

That's not the only definition of "smear", KB. Smearing simply means you're attempting to stain the reputation of, undermine the credibility of, or attack the character of a person or group of people.

It can be based in fact or made up, but the key is the negativity (not the origin of the information).

f-d, "slanderous defamtion" is the exact definition of it. To vilify is the second. You can argue with dictionary.com if you want, but it's common sense it relates to untruths.

Anyway, I'd be surprised if they didn't try to keep Kearse with a restructured contract, but I think Seth is right about him being more like Simeon Rice.

KB you always draw a long argument about the dumbest stuff.

fd you are his enabler.

Was that a "smear"?

No, that was true

Here's a list of free agents for next year. Not sure how up to date it is.

Linc

I don't know what the definition of they do is but its pretty evident they will go to the extremes to get a player at their price or they grease the skids for their departure. Its that simple.

f-d, "slanderous defamtion" is the exact definition of it. To vilify is the second. You can argue with dictionary.com if you want, but it's common sense it relates to untruths.

Dictionary.com gives that definition as one, among others.

Smearing can be lie, in which case it's slanderous or libel.

Smearing can be a negative truth that isn't considered legal slander or libel.

If The Republicans started a negative campaign against Hilary Clinton saying she shits her pants 3 times per day because her asshole control was compromised from years of whoring around in College, it would be a smear campaign even if all those things were true.

good lord, f-d

Here's a list of free agents for next year. Not sure how up to date it is.

Linc

Those FA WRs are awful. If they want to have a chance at a good WR, it's going to be a trade.

I'm really hoping Fitzgerald is really going to be available. Second choice would be Roy Williams, as there have been rumors he'll be available and wants out.

Chad Johnson is another option , but he's the oldest and the biggest pain in the ass.

1 2  3 4 5 6 7 8