Red zone and 3rd down

[imac_21]

Not a big difference at all when he name drops a specific player.

Again, it's not a huge deal, but if you can't see why the Panthers might be offended, you need to take your rose colored glasses off.

I know why the Panthers are offended. Smith named them as losers.

 

[imac_21]

The Panthers are offended. And they're offended he used Cam's name in particular.

He could've made his point without mentioning any names. Any time you put QB in the same sentence as wins/losses it's a touchy subject, especially coming from another player.

So the Panthers wouldn't have taken offense if he had uttered the same quote but said "they had lots of 300 yard passing games" instead of singling out Cam?

Stop being so tunnel-visioned.

 

[jayviabay]

Couple thoughts:

First, let’s clear up the obvious confusion surrounding the phrase "called out". Calling someone out has two distinct meanings. 1: To challenge someone, or 2: To simply mention someone's name in association with an event or circumstance. Smith did the latter. Such as Imac & Bemular were called out for prolonging this senseless discussion.

Second, comparing the QB to any other position in the context of this discussion is beyond senseless. Right or wrong, W's & L's are attributed to QB's. Nobody I know runs around making comments such as: "Patrick Willis was 13-3 as a starting LB" or "Neil Rackers was 5-11 as the starting PK"

"Yeah, Cam Newton threw for a lot of 300-yard games. That's great. You're not winning, though."

The above sentence resolves grammatically, logically and rationally to be a comment about Cam Newton. Clearly, Smith is calling out Newton, clearly he is referencing his 300-yard games AND clearly he is saying Newton is not winning as a result of throwing for 300+ yds/gm.

His position that the Yds/Gm is an overrated stat was supported by raising the yds accumulated while playing from behind argument which was supported by calling out Cam Newton as a specific example of that argument; saying that, while "Cam Newton threw for a lot of 300-yard games" He didn't win.

That is what the word "you're" means in the last sentence. Now, if you want violate the generally accepted rules of grammar and loosely attribute the word "you're" to the noun "team" as opposed to the Pnoun "Cam Newton" - Great, knock yourself out.

The only thing that is "clear", is your perception of his statement. When you state that a persons accomplishments are "great", how are you calling them out?

One of the first things you learn in the study of communication, is to validate your understanding of what someone is stating... The only way for it to be "clear" is for you to be in the conversation with smith, so you can request validation...

For example: " So, Smith are you calling out Cam?" Smith replies, "yes, that is correct". Then it would be fair to say, it is "clear"... Without validation you are saying that it is impossible for his statement to be took out of context...

 

[threelittleturds]

The only thing that is "clear", is your perception of his statement. When you state that a persons accomplishments are "great", how are you calling them out?

One of the first things you learn in the study of communication, is to validate your understanding of what someone is stating... The only way for it to be "clear" is for you to be in the conversation with smith, so you can request validation...

For example: " So, Smith are you calling out Cam?" Smith replies, "yes, that is correct". Then it would be fair to say, it is "clear"... Without validation you are saying that it is impossible for his statement to be took out of context...

The way he said that... in the context of the quote, I'd say Smith was being dismissive and sarcastic by using great.

Just an example... Oh, you're a millionaire?? That's great... (imagine an eye roll)

Now the rest of my post isn't directed at your statement.

Smith was just trying to argue that his lack of 300 yard games doesn't matter, because the 49ers won... and like I said before, he tried to argue his point from a very weak standpoint. I don't think he meant to call out Cam though, like I also said... Smith is widely considered a bust who just rode coattails this year... I'm sure he knows that he is perceived in this way.

Only a total asshole would go out and say this sort of thing about Cam while knowing how he is perceived... and this type of asshole wouldn't participate in the search for missing girls. So, from what I can tell of Smith's character... he isn't the type to call others out. He isn't an asshole, no matter how the media spins this Cam quote... he is a good dude.

 

[jayviabay]

The way he said that... in the context of the quote, I'd say Smith was being dismissive and sarcastic by using great.

Just an example... Oh, you're a millionaire?? That's great... (imagine an eye roll)

Now the rest of my post isn't directed at your statement.

Smith was just trying to argue that his lack of 300 yard games doesn't matter, because the 49ers won... and like I said before, he tried to argue his point from a very weak standpoint. I don't think he meant to call out Cam though, like I also said... Smith is widely considered a bust who just rode coattails this year... I'm sure he knows that he is perceived in this way.

Only a total asshole would go out and say this sort of thing about Cam while knowing how he is perceived... and this type of asshole wouldn't participate in the search for missing girls. So, from what I can tell of Smith's character... he isn't the type to call others out. He isn't an asshole, no matter how the media spins this Cam quote... he is a good dude.

I can agree with the way you have worded your opinion of his quote but i cant agree with the statement that it is "clear". Like you said, he is a good dude, if he was an asshole i would probably have a different perception.

 

[MHSL82]

I think you are missing his point along with everyone else. The whole point is that it is not disrespecting Cam at all. He did not call out Cam at all. People who think so do not know how to read or listen to what people are saying correctly.

2 years ago if someone said "Frank Gore runs for 100 yard games, but they're not winning though." That is not a disrespect to Frank Gore. It is not calling out Frank Gore. It is calling out the 49ers. That is the "they're" used in the sentence. The 49ers, not Frank Gore.

He is stating the fact that the Panthers were down late in games and had to run the no huddle. That the Panthers had to throw more because that was their only shot at winning the game.

This is more a shot at the Panthers inability to get a lead and hold it by running and running out the clock. Nothing more and nothing less.

Only sports pundits want to make this a bigger issue that it is to create a controversy to have something to stir the pot. Congratulations to all the people who fell into their trap and don't think for themselves.

That's what I said. Perhaps my post was too convoluted or had too many double negatives. But that was my point. I was trying to explain IMAC's post, saying that Smith was NOT disrespecting Cam at all. My fault.

 

[clyde_carbon]

It had to be if I hoped for you to understand it.

Good one.

 

[LONGBALL]

Stop. RBs, Kickers, or any non-QB position aren't judged directly by wins/losses. QBs, rightfully or wrongfully, are judged by wins/losses. You'll never hear anyone say, "Oh, Adrian Peterson runs for a lot of yards and TDs, but he doesn't win football games." You know why? Because he's a RB. That analogy is not applicable in this case.

Saying a QB doesn't win games holds a lot more shock value than saying a Kicker or a RB doesn't win games.

why do YOU think alex smith said that about the panthers ?