Originally Posted by LongSufferingToady:
Oh my! A podcast! Well, that settles it then!
Sorry, I misunderstood what you were looking for.
Nate Taylor is an actual journalist. Who actually puts his name on articles. Who is actually in the building and has relationships with Chiefs players. Whose credibility is necessary for his livelihood.
Clay is not an actual journalist. Clay does not put his name on articles. Clay is not in the building and does not have relationships with Chiefs players. And Clay's credibility with respect to the Chiefs Kingdom Editorial Board has no bearing on his actual livelihood.
Originally Posted by TwistedChief:
Sorry, I misunderstood what you were looking for.
Nate Taylor is an actual journalist. Who actually puts his name on articles. Who is actually in the building and has relationships with Chiefs players. Whose credibility is necessary for his livelihood.
Clay is not an actual journalist. Clay does not put his name on articles. Clay is not in the building and does not have relationships with Chiefs players. And Clay's credibility with respect to the Chiefs Kingdom Editorial Board has no bearing on his actual livelihood.
Originally Posted by TwistedChief:
Sorry, I misunderstood what you were looking for.
Nate Taylor is an actual journalist. Who actually puts his name on articles. Who is actually in the building and has relationships with Chiefs players. Whose credibility is necessary for his livelihood.
Clay is not an actual journalist. Clay does not put his name on articles. Clay is not in the building and does not have relationships with Chiefs players. And Clay's credibility with respect to the Chiefs Kingdom Editorial Board has no bearing on his actual livelihood.
See the difference?
I don't care about Clay. Nor do I care about Nate. But naming a "respected" journalist without sources is just as bad as using a non-journalist without sources. Neither named names. Neither identified. So who should I believe?
There's truth in both of them. There's a lot of fantasy in Clay's post as well. You can't just throw out posts you don't like. Neither can I. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Zap Rowsdower:
Let me try and jump into Clay and Marty’s shoes a little bit.
They believe that EB is a bad coach and is hurting the Chiefs. They have heard things from someone that works with the Chiefs that indicate that EB is a bad coach. They believe the local and national media are overly PC and won’t report these stories that make EB look bad. They feel like the Chiefs are worried with the race thing about how they will look if they fire EB. Clay/Marty believe that they are working in the Chiefs fan best interest by posting this info and thus getting rid of EB and helping the Chiefs in the long run.I know Clay isn’t posting in this thread now but if I misrepresented their motivations I hope he would correct me.
My main issue with it is this. For most of us, if we work long enough and at enough places there will be one coworker or employee who won’t like us for whatever reason. Let’s say a blogger comes along with a clear agenda and interviews that coworker - who won’t give their name - and then the blogger writes a one sided story that messes up key details. in almost every instance of the story you are blamed for the things that are happening. Their conclusion is that you should lose your job. To me that is just not very ethical.
It's a weird hill to die on let alone for an OC who looks like he was gonna split anyway. And if key players especially your $500m qb hated EB so much then why do you need an expose for something that probably would've just taken care of itself. This isn't Pioli who infected everything. I want a new OC but I don't see any reason for ill will. [Reply]
Originally Posted by LongSufferingToady:
I don't care about Clay. Nor do I care about Nate. But naming a "respected" journalist without sources is just as bad as using a non-journalist without sources. Neither named names. Neither identified. So who should I believe?
There's truth in both of them. There's a lot of fantasy in Clay's post as well. You can't just throw out posts you don't like. Neither can I.
I love how you've basically convinced yourself that Clay and actual journalists are on the same plain.
Are you familiar with the false equivalence fallacy? Here's a refresher:
Originally Posted by :
A simple example of a false equivalence is saying that a knife and dynamite are both tools that can be used as weapons, so they're pretty much the same thing, and therefore if we allow people to buy knives at the store, then we should also allow them to also buy dynamite.
Originally Posted by Titty Meat:
Clay is a hero and a CP legend
And you know Clay is one of my best friends on here. And that I was the "source" who told him to stop posting in this thread because it was getting to be ridiculous.
I love Clay. But I don't have to love this article and what it represents. [Reply]
Originally Posted by LongSufferingToady:
I don't care about Clay. Nor do I care about Nate. But naming a "respected" journalist without sources is just as bad as using a non-journalist without sources. Neither named names. Neither identified. So who should I believe?
There's truth in both of them. There's a lot of fantasy in Clay's post as well. You can't just throw out posts you don't like. Neither can I.
The fact that a lot of people want to remain anonymous doesn't really have anything to do with anything... Clay has nothing to lose posting a medium.com article without his name on it. Respected journalists do have a lot to lose from outright lying about the team they cover. You can at least trust someone who has access to insider info that he knows a guy or talked to someone.... do you even think there WAS an insider source from this article?
"Adam Schefter is reporting" and "my friend's uncle's boss says" of course carry different weights. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Chiefshrink:
In normal non-woke times yes, BUT in these PC Woke times ???? Seriously ?????? Flores ring a bell for you ??? A man without a contract especially will throw down no doubt !!
Not really an apples to apples comparison.
Flores was fired. Bieniemy’s contract is up. Pretty big difference. [Reply]
Originally Posted by TwistedChief:
Are you seriously insinuating that the Chiefs will be accused of racism if the OC who has been with the team for several years and who no longer has a contract parts ways with the team? And even more, that he'll feel aggrieved enough to actually bring litigation on the basis of racial discrimination?
Some of you have truly been poisoned.
All depends on EB and his character.
EB who already knows he fights his past image of being a 'hot head' around the league who can't get hired as a HC(call it the Mike Zimmer syndrome-took him eons to finally get hired as a HC) even under Andy and tutoring Mahomes which is the ultimate rejection from an NFL coach perspective even though the previous 2 white guys did. EB who knows he has a difficult time getting plays in on time and showed this at Colorado under John Embree (2010) and now continues to struggle as a Chiefs OC(because we see it). And the situation right before half of the ACCG game EB is a part of and didn't help matters regardless of Pat's failure. EB who knows he fights the image of living under Pat's shadow for his(Eric's success) while Eric gets very little credit for anything.
I can see a severely jaded man here who might act differently than we think(pull a Flores depending on what the Chiefs do or don't do)unless he has high character and just owns it and moves on. Which is what I hope happens BUT these are different times. [Reply]
Originally Posted by TwistedChief:
Are you seriously insinuating that the Chiefs will be accused of racism if the OC who has been with the team for several years and who no longer has a contract parts ways with the team? And even more, that he'll feel aggrieved enough to actually bring litigation on the basis of racial discrimination?
Some of you have truly been poisoned.
This. Are some people seriously insinuating that the Chiefs can’t move away from EB simply because of his race?
EB’s contract is up and the Chiefs offense just had an historic collapse in the AFC Championship Game… it’s a perfectly reasonable situation for the Chiefs to hire/promote a new OC. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Chiefshrink:
All depends on EB and his character.
EB who already knows he fights his past image of being a 'hot head' around the league who can't get hired as a HC(call it the Mike Zimmer syndrome-took him eons to finally get hired as a HC) even under Andy and tutoring Mahomes which is the ultimate rejection from an NFL coach perspective even though the previous 2 white guys did. EB who knows he has a difficult time getting plays in on time and showed this at Colorado under John Embree (2010) and now continues to struggle as a Chiefs OC(because we see it). And the situation right before half of the ACCG game EB is a part of and didn't help matters regardless of Pat's failure. EB who knows he fights the image of living under Pat's shadow for his(Eric's success) while Eric gets very little credit for anything.
I can see a severely jaded man here who might act differently than we think(pull a Flores depending on what the Chiefs do or don't do)unless he has high character and just owns it and moves on. Which is what I hope happens BUT these are different times.
This is absurd, chief-NEEDS-A-shrink. The Chiefs are under no obligation to give a new contract to someone that no longer works for them. Race has NOTHING to do with it. He does not work for them anymore. [Reply]
