apparently not because she had a tweet that said (and this was monday morning) the jets asked zach to start and his reponse was basically nah i'm good. then her own co-worker made a tweet that said sources familiar with wilsons camp said that if he was asked to start he would. then she deleted the tweet. but by then her co-worker contradicted her report and the memes were coming out about it.
just go listen to the whole interview and not the clip lol it's not broom, it's listening to the whole interview and realizing that the person that posted the clip edited out a key word
I don't have to offer proof, and it's not that I meant or didn't mean well. He clearly stated that if anyone said something like that, they wouldn't be in the building. That is not even debatable. That's a flat denial that Zach had said what we're debating he said. All I was doing was pointing out to these guys that they were arguing over the wrong context. I wasn't trying to channel Saleh's intent. His intent is very clear.
It is a matter of fact Zach's character was attacked, how is that a conspiracy or a fantasy? It seems like you are not able to accept basic facts here, which makes it hard to reason. As far as why, I have no idea, nor does it really matter, it could have simply been that the sources didn't have info first hand, but 3d or 4th hand info and then told the reporters inaccurate info. Him not responding to media right away is immaterial - he already said he had support of teammates, and he values that, then addressed at first media availability. That tells us nothing about the validity of the report. Hence I want to get to the next part that does. Where you are ignoring the facts is that Dianna claimed the whole thing happened a week before her interview. According to the report the Jets asked Rodgers to talk to Zach to convince him to start on the 29th of Nov. I mean do we agree on that, can you listen to the interview I provided? If we cannot even agree on the baseline facts we heard from Dianna's own mouth, then I see no point to continue the discussion. I mean this is the essence of the report according to her interview (not me): Two weeks ago when Boyle was already named a starter the Jets came to Zach asking him to start and when he said no got Aaron to talk to him on the 29th of Nov, and he eventually agreed. I mean I am not laying it out like this, this is according to Dianne herself. I gave you the link to the interview where she mentioned the date of Wed the 29th. So, her version of the events actually does claim that they named Boyle a starter and then asked Zach to start. As you admitted this is foolish, and therefore unlikely to have happened. That's really all I am saying, and you are trying so hard to ignore the obvious major aforementioned inconsistency in the story, which makes the story very unlikely to the truth, at least how it was reported. Again, try to look at the facts, then make up your mind not predetermine what you think, and then ignore major flaws in the report to fit the predetermined narrative.
"his character was attacked" LOL maybe they should attack his character more often, it was the only good game he ever played after that
It only took almost his entire rookie campaign for him to look like he was playing a chip. Maybe he needs it.
Ignore that it's Mary Lou Retton's doppelganger. I meant to post this the other day. https://www.msn.com/en-au/sport/nfl...T?cvid=fbb72b55f8ae4801a08b2df54d64856d&ei=29 Edit: I haven't read through the entire thread yet (I got to page 4). but I see there's an allusion to this by @Borat a few posts before me, so, um, nevermind, I guess.
Thanks for sharing from Russini: "But I realized over the last few days, it’s not that they don’t believe the report is accurate. They know the report is accurate, the story is just unbelievable. I think that’s where the issue is.” so true
I love when these opportunistic shitbags claim to be victims of an entire fanbase when some lone moron that probably knows her in real life pops off to her.
The Athletic is pretty reputable at this point, for her to be doubling down like this, it's doubtful they would have let her do so if this was a false report. So I believe it, just like I believe it the entire time. It's the way it was presented, and the context and which it was probably meant, that is disputable. I doubt very much it was, "hey Zach, you're going to play" - "no Coach, I don't want to". People who are insisting that she is making things up are failing to see any gray in this.
Yeah, seems a little paranoid to think that increased traffic outside her house is Jets fans trying to hunt her down. She might be slightly full of herself.
except she deleted a bunch of her "report tweets" and also her report was countered by her own co-worker another reporter for the athletic that said the opposite so clearly 1 of them is wrong. even the MSN article she was quoted as saying look at the bolded. hesitant/reluctant/not wanting to play are not interchangeable. hesitant implies and is used as a weaker version of reluctant, it implies there is a delay. like lets say for instance he was asked and he said let me think about it, and goes back an hour later and says yes. that is being hesitant. reluctant is a stronger version which implies someone doesn't want to do something but does it anyway. like you may be reluctant to sky dive but jump anyway. it's not a hard no not wanting to play as she says now or the more accurate she said zach refused to play, implies he was asked and said flat out no thanks. which is exactly what she tweeted before deleting it. her job is to know how to report/write things accurately or at least it's supposed to be, but clearly she's just interested in click bait nonsense because it gets more attention. we really just need to ignore her existence at this point just like what happened with mehta.
I don't need an English lesson, but since you're giving one, I'll give you one back. Context is important, and the context in which she's saying that implies that she was told something that could be taken a number of ways, and that the Jets, the media, whoever is/was putting pressure on her to state things a different way. If you take a step back and don't read the dictionary definition, hesitant, reluctant, and not wanting to play can be completely interchangeable when you take into consideration that this was not a recorded interview where exactly what was said is clear. She presented a situation where the quarterback for whatever reason had trepidation about playing again. Whether that was a reluctance because of injury, a fuck you to the organization, or anything else, all three words are very interchangeable in this scenario if you stipulate that something was said. Taking that something out of context and having a he said/she said situation doesn't change the fact that they could all absolutely mean the same thing depending on how you want to frame it.
I have no issue with the report that he was hesitant. I said it was likely true, based on the situation and common sense. My issue is when she doubled down and reported he was asked to start and said no thanks, then her own co-worker at the athletic reported "the thinking in wilsons camp is IF, he was asked to start, he would say yes" she then deleted the tweet and started playing semantics. clearly he wasn't asked to start at this point. saleh hadn't made a decision, but she already said he refused to play which is a huge difference then being hesitant. thats when I said between that nonsense and the rodgers wishlist nonsense that she likes to twist things to make them sound worse and then will bold face lie and walk it back so I can't take her seriously.
I thought that point she made at the end was really good, when the QB doesn’t want to play, it’s a story she simply has to report. so why criticize her for any of this? Obviously the Jets would prefer she wouldn’t tell the story, but as fans we deserve to hear it i don’t want to watch a team where we only get team-produced propaganda, especially when they lose
because she took it too far and lied. had she simply said the truth of "zach hasn't been asked to start yet, but sources tell me that he would be hesitant to play due to injury risk if asked" then it wouldn't have been a big deal. also as a reporter she should have reached out to wilsons camp and saleh before reporting that. even if she said "i reached out to wilson and saleh for comment but have not gotten a reply" she didn't do her job, then back tracked, then doubled down on a lie. it's a bad look. of course I wouldn't expect you to understand that
I am not sure if would even buy that either. So in that scenario, Jets coaches approached Zach and said, hey bud, I know we named Boyle the starter a few days back and benched you, but in case if we decide to unbench you later, are you OK to start again? I mean who does that? The story seems less and less likely to be the truth the more you think about it. The only way it makes sense (which is what I originally thought) is if it happened on Sunday night/Monday after Boyle's second start. But that's not when they claimed it occurred. The whole thing is either just inaccurate because of 2nd/3d/4th hand info or blown out of proportion. Btw, you mentioned before Dianne deleted some posts. What did these say?
