What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Kellen Winslow Suspended (1 Viewer)

i would also add in general that the people defending Winslow and bashing Savage might want to listen a little closer to the people in this thread from Cleveland who are posting about this situation as we have our ears to the ground a little closer than some of the rest of you might.
:lmao: :lmao:
 
Did it occur to anyone that maybe Drew Rosenhaus knows what the hell Kellen did to get his staph? He already went through one embarrassing situation with one client ("next question"), and I'm guessing he doesn't want to get involved in another circus. I'm sure Drew wasn't expecting this situation when he took Kellen as a client.

People in this thread are forgetting Kellen wants a new contract. As I stated earlier, as did one other, I really believe Savage thinks Kellen is worth maybe another couple of years, tops. He already drafted Kellen's replacement, and he already released LeCharles Bentley because of his end of usefulness. The Browns stood by Kellen and paid him for his stupidity when a lot of other teams would've dropped his broken ###. Kellen wants as much cash as possible because he knows the end is coming sooner rather than later.

Call me a Browns honk, but if the Browns are claiming HIIPA, it has to be because this injury was off the field, obviously. Kellen has yet to disclose how the hell he got this, but it seems pretty obvious it didn't have to occur.

And again, not ONE player has his back at the moment. That's pretty telling.
:rolleyes: First bolded part - They didn't drop him because he still had way too much value...31 other teams would have put in a claim to pick him up on waivers.

Second bolded part - Considering that Savage has acted like a dictator and suspended him for just revealing what he had...do you really think anyone else would jump up to speak? That's like someone yelling they aren't a witch at the Salem Witch trials.

Your homerism and bias is clouding your view on the situation.
you are correct on the first part. the Browns kept him because he had too much value.and you do bring up an interesting point about other players not wanting to speak out after someone has been suspended, but i would urge you to go back and read some of the comments from the other players which i posted yesterday.

i would also add in general that the people defending Winslow and bashing Savage might want to listen a little closer to the people in this thread from Cleveland who are posting about this situation as we have our ears to the ground a little closer than some of the rest of you might.
Not that they are the experts, but Jamie Dukes and Rod Woodson's reaction says enough for me to believe that most of the players would feel the same. Though they might not say it outloud, as many people don't do at their own job to their bosses, they are surely leary of the team's medical facilities or staff.As for the ear to the ground, you mean you are in the area where public relations spin is at it's maximum. Like all other NFL city areas, they have colored glasses on when it comes to their team. That doesn't mean they don't talk about negative things regarding the team, but they butter the bread more than not.

 
The Browns players arent getting staph infections from the Browns facilities, they are probably cleanest in the NFL, they are getting them from the Cleveland Clinic. If there is anyone to blame it should be them.

Hospitals are not clean places. Im sure there are reasons for Savage not wanting to call out the CC publicly.

Winslow should have kept his mouth shut. Who knows how much of the truth he is telling anyway.

This is all about K2 wanting more money, period. He hinted at holding out in the offseason and now he says he thought about asking for a trade, why, to get a new contract/ signing bonus.

K2's knees are bad, REALLY BAD. The dude can barely walk off the field let alone walk up a flight of stairs. He has no more than 2 1/2 years left of playing football for a living and he might be done after next season. He wants a big fat signing bonus to set himself up for life after football and frankly I cant blame him. I just diagree with the way he goes about it.

Make no mistake, K2 gives everything he has when hes on the field and I, as a die hard Browns fan love him for it. I will enjoy the short time we have left with him.
:rolleyes: How this can be taken as a posturing move for more money is beyond me. Weak arguement for anyone to make as the subject matter is way off.

I'd also point out that the Browns are responsible for having the contract with the CC. If that place is at fault over these past years, then it's the organizations fault for continuing to use them. It's naive to think that it's just Clinic's issue.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
How this can be taken as a posturing move for more money is beyond me. Weak arguement for anyone to make as the subject matter is way off.
:lmao: Very well respected local columnist Terry Pluto claimed just this earlier this week...

Cleveland Browns tight end Kellen Winslow's ranting really has to do with his contract

Cleveland Plain Dealer

Terry Pluto

Tuesday, October 21, 2008

I don't know the exact nature of Kellen Winslow's medical condi tion, other than he said it was a staph infection - somewhere.

How severe? Where? And how did he catch it? Very few people know, and no one is answering those questions.

I do know Winslow was right when he said "this is bigger than the game" about his emotions following the Browns' 14-11 loss at Washington on Sunday.

It's not about General Manager Phil Savage failing to call Winslow during his three-day hospital stay. Nor is it all about the staph infection, although that is scary and frustrating, assuming Winslow's explanation is correct.

I do know it's really about money.

Winslow has wanted a new contract since last spring, when Dallas Clark signed a six-year, $42 million deal with Indianapolis. The tight end was guaranteed $27 million over the first three seasons.

The Browns tight end looked at that deal and thought, "I'm a better player than Clark." He thought about how he made the Pro Bowl - Clark did not.

He thought about how he caught 82 passes -- Clark caught 58.

He thought about how his body has been taking a beating, at least three knee operations and other problems. He thought about holding out and how he would be "underpaid" this season at about $4 million. He thought about how he made only $2 million annually in 2006 and 2007, when he caught 171 passes.

The more he thought about all that, the more he felt like a victim. He hired Drew Rosenhaus as his new agent and thought about holding out this season.

Right before the NFL trading deadline, Winslow thought about asking to be sent to another team -- as the tight end admitted on Sunday. He has decided he's a "piece of meat," as he called his status with the Browns on Sunday.

Like many players in the middle of a contract dispute with his team, Winslow's thinking has been very selective.

What he doesn't think about is how he was paid $11.6 million in his first two seasons, when he played a grand total of two games.

As a rookie, he broke his leg in the second game of the 2004 season trying to recover an onside kick at Dallas. If anyone is to blame for that, it was former Browns coach Butch Davis, who had his top draft pick and starting tight end on the field with his kickoff team, something not often done.

But before he was fully recovered from the broken leg, Winslow had that frightening motorcycle accident where he was doing tricks in the parking lot. He suffered a major knee injury and other physical problems. Because motorcycle riding violated a clause in his contract, the Browns could have refused to pay him a $4.4 million roster bonus in 2005.

They gave him the money while he recovered from the motorcycle accident. They worked out a new deal for him that ran through 2010 -- while he was still hurt and no one knew how strong (or even if) he could come back. The team and Savage did not take advantage of this situation, no matter what Winslow thinks of it.

When Winslow gets upset about Clark hitting it rich with the Colts, he forgets Clark was an unrestricted free agent -- while Winslow has two years left on his contract. Winslow is upset the Browns won't give him a new deal early, the Browns believing they'd like him to play the 2008 season (and stay healthy) before making another long-term investment.

Heading into this season, the Browns have paid Winslow $15.6 million over four years. It will be more than $20 million after 2009. If he is underpaid, it's because his own motorcycle accident cost him valuable time and contract leverage.

Yes, the staph infection issue with the Browns doesn't seem to go away. But I'd like more details on this before rushing to judgment about the team or Cleveland Clinic, which supplies medical care for the Browns. Yes, Savage should have called Winslow to check on him. Yes, it is understandable for Winslow to be upset.

But the real issue is Winslow's contract. That's why he wanted to be traded and why he lashed out at the team Sunday.
 
How this can be taken as a posturing move for more money is beyond me. Weak arguement for anyone to make as the subject matter is way off.

I'd also point out that the Browns are responsible for having the contract with the CC. If that place is at fault over these past years, then it's the organizations fault for continuing to use them. It's naive to think that it's just Clinic's issue.
Its more of a "get me the F out of here" move...
 
How this can be taken as a posturing move for more money is beyond me. Weak arguement for anyone to make as the subject matter is way off.

I'd also point out that the Browns are responsible for having the contract with the CC. If that place is at fault over these past years, then it's the organizations fault for continuing to use them. It's naive to think that it's just Clinic's issue.
Its more of a "get me the F out of here" move...
Now that is something I can see or entertain the thought of.
 
How this can be taken as a posturing move for more money is beyond me. Weak arguement for anyone to make as the subject matter is way off.
:no: Very well respected local columnist Terry Pluto claimed just this earlier this week...

Cleveland Browns tight end Kellen Winslow's ranting really has to do with his contract

Cleveland Plain Dealer

Terry Pluto

Tuesday, October 21, 2008

I don't know the exact nature of Kellen Winslow's medical condi tion, other than he said it was a staph infection - somewhere.

How severe? Where? And how did he catch it? Very few people know, and no one is answering those questions.

I do know Winslow was right when he said "this is bigger than the game" about his emotions following the Browns' 14-11 loss at Washington on Sunday.

It's not about General Manager Phil Savage failing to call Winslow during his three-day hospital stay. Nor is it all about the staph infection, although that is scary and frustrating, assuming Winslow's explanation is correct.

I do know it's really about money.

Winslow has wanted a new contract since last spring, when Dallas Clark signed a six-year, $42 million deal with Indianapolis. The tight end was guaranteed $27 million over the first three seasons.

The Browns tight end looked at that deal and thought, "I'm a better player than Clark." He thought about how he made the Pro Bowl - Clark did not.

He thought about how he caught 82 passes -- Clark caught 58.

He thought about how his body has been taking a beating, at least three knee operations and other problems. He thought about holding out and how he would be "underpaid" this season at about $4 million. He thought about how he made only $2 million annually in 2006 and 2007, when he caught 171 passes.

The more he thought about all that, the more he felt like a victim. He hired Drew Rosenhaus as his new agent and thought about holding out this season.

Right before the NFL trading deadline, Winslow thought about asking to be sent to another team -- as the tight end admitted on Sunday. He has decided he's a "piece of meat," as he called his status with the Browns on Sunday.

Like many players in the middle of a contract dispute with his team, Winslow's thinking has been very selective.

What he doesn't think about is how he was paid $11.6 million in his first two seasons, when he played a grand total of two games.

As a rookie, he broke his leg in the second game of the 2004 season trying to recover an onside kick at Dallas. If anyone is to blame for that, it was former Browns coach Butch Davis, who had his top draft pick and starting tight end on the field with his kickoff team, something not often done.

But before he was fully recovered from the broken leg, Winslow had that frightening motorcycle accident where he was doing tricks in the parking lot. He suffered a major knee injury and other physical problems. Because motorcycle riding violated a clause in his contract, the Browns could have refused to pay him a $4.4 million roster bonus in 2005.

They gave him the money while he recovered from the motorcycle accident. They worked out a new deal for him that ran through 2010 -- while he was still hurt and no one knew how strong (or even if) he could come back. The team and Savage did not take advantage of this situation, no matter what Winslow thinks of it.

When Winslow gets upset about Clark hitting it rich with the Colts, he forgets Clark was an unrestricted free agent -- while Winslow has two years left on his contract. Winslow is upset the Browns won't give him a new deal early, the Browns believing they'd like him to play the 2008 season (and stay healthy) before making another long-term investment.

Heading into this season, the Browns have paid Winslow $15.6 million over four years. It will be more than $20 million after 2009. If he is underpaid, it's because his own motorcycle accident cost him valuable time and contract leverage.

Yes, the staph infection issue with the Browns doesn't seem to go away. But I'd like more details on this before rushing to judgment about the team or Cleveland Clinic, which supplies medical care for the Browns. Yes, Savage should have called Winslow to check on him. Yes, it is understandable for Winslow to be upset.

But the real issue is Winslow's contract. That's why he wanted to be traded and why he lashed out at the team Sunday.
Hmm, a columnist stating only opinion and nothing on fact to stir the pot. Josh, imagine that... :no: You'd think that he was getting paid, oh yeah...he is. He says "I do know it's really about money," but gives nothing more than speculation. Still waiting to hear the evidence that he knows KW2's comments were done because of money/contract. Checking watch....

Insert Jeopardy Theme

 
Hmm, a columnist stating only opinion and nothing on fact to stir the pot. Josh, imagine that... :IBTL: You'd think that he was getting paid, oh yeah...he is. He says "I do know it's really about money," but gives nothing more than speculation. Still waiting to hear the evidence that he knows KW2's comments were done because of money/contract.

Checking watch....

Insert Jeopardy Theme
:rolleyes: Pluto knows more about the Browns than you or I ever will.

Maybe you should just stick to threads about your own team, b/c you're swinging and missing in this thread.

:bye:

 
:IBTL: Pluto knows more about the Browns than you or I ever will.Maybe you should just stick to threads about your own team, b/c you're swinging and missing in this thread. :rolleyes:
He's still just a columnist giving his opinion. An opinion no doubt influenced by thinks people inside the Browns FO tell him.
 
This big mess is fine by me...it allowed me to get Winslow from an owner who never would have dealt him.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Last edited by a moderator:
Good job by Mr. Pluto. He makes the Cleveland Browns look even more stupid than they already did.
How?
The Browns involved themselves in a cover up. Winslow exposed the cover up. Thus, the Cleveland Browns are wrong. I don't see how anyone could see it any other way.
No worries Scooby...the propaganda Savage and the Browns Front Office have put out have taken hold of him. You could tell him the sky is blue and he'd say different.
 
Hmm, a columnist stating only opinion and nothing on fact to stir the pot. Josh, imagine that... :goodposting: You'd think that he was getting paid, oh yeah...he is. He says "I do know it's really about money," but gives nothing more than speculation. Still waiting to hear the evidence that he knows KW2's comments were done because of money/contract.

Checking watch....

Insert Jeopardy Theme
:rolleyes: Pluto knows more about the Browns than you or I ever will.

Maybe you should just stick to threads about your own team, b/c you're swinging and missing in this thread.

:nerd:
:goodposting:
 
I can think of ONE media outlet in Cleveland that never bashes the organization, and that's WTAM, the flagship, and there are still a couple of guys on that station that "sort of" tell it like it is.

However, the others, such as the Plain Dealer, WKNR (which is almost the opposite), the Akron Beacon Journal, etc. never sugar coat anything.

I don't buy Savage being a "dictator". That's ridiculous. Butch Davis, yes. Not Phil Savage in the least. If Kellen was completely in the clear here, you'd hear from other Browns players, period.

There's obvious Browns-hate in this thread.

 
Hmm, a columnist stating only opinion and nothing on fact to stir the pot. Josh, imagine that... :lmao: You'd think that he was getting paid, oh yeah...he is. He says "I do know it's really about money," but gives nothing more than speculation. Still waiting to hear the evidence that he knows KW2's comments were done because of money/contract.

Checking watch....

Insert Jeopardy Theme
:D Pluto knows more about the Browns than you or I ever will.

Maybe you should just stick to threads about your own team, b/c you're swinging and missing in this thread.

:bye:
Didn't know you were leaving...okay :bye: to you too. As for the topic, when you notice that you are one of a few in the group that have a jadded view, then you realize who is missing "it." Take off the Browns glasses :cry: and you might actually see what is going on yourself. :doh: It's not too late...BTW - I post more outside of my team's thread than in it because I play well with others. :yes:

 
I can think of ONE media outlet in Cleveland that never bashes the organization, and that's WTAM, the flagship, and there are still a couple of guys on that station that "sort of" tell it like it is.

However, the others, such as the Plain Dealer, WKNR (which is almost the opposite), the Akron Beacon Journal, etc. never sugar coat anything.

I don't buy Savage being a "dictator". That's ridiculous. Butch Davis, yes. Not Phil Savage in the least. If Kellen was completely in the clear here, you'd hear from other Browns players, period.

There's obvious Browns-hate in this thread.
LOL, can't speak for others, but there is absolutely nothing in me that would hate the Browns. For God's sake, they are an AFC team that my team plays once in a blue moon. A spade is a spade and heart is a heart, no sugar coating about it.Didn't say he was a dictator, but he he's acted like one. His actions are not rational and it was severe, why would anyone speak up after seeing that?

BTW - For others, we're still waiting to hear the evidence that teh columnist knows KW2's comments were done because of money/contract. After all he did say "I do know it's really about money."

Still checking watch....

Play Jeopardy Theme on continuous loop

 
Bizkiteer, are you basing your opinion soley on stuff you've seen on tv, or do you have some additional insight to share with the rest of us?

you seem very sure of yourself and i was just wondering if there's some more info we're missing out on.

 
also there's no need to bring the Jeopardy theme song into this.

you can disagree with people without the theatrics i would think.

 
and i haven't seen anyone comment on this:

Savage was asked about Winslow's claim that the team wanted to keep his staph infection quiet and not inform teammates.

Savage responded, "From a legal standpoint ... HIPAA [Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act] laws ... we can't even reveal the nature of someone's illness without their approval. Due to the nature of this particular situation, it seemed that the people involved wouldn't want it out there. So our hands are tied in certain situations. And it was all agreed upon. It's a non-football illness. It occurred during the bye week."
do you feel Savage is making this up?
 
Freedom of speech not always welcomed in NFL

By Michael Silver, Yahoo! Sports

1 hour, 32 minutes ago

Steven Jackson was watching TV when he got the news about Kellen Winslow’s expensive suspension, a development that sent shivers down the Rams halfback’s spine – all the way to the wallet in his back pocket.

“Boy,” he said to his girlfriend, Supriya Harris, “I might need to start watching what I say.”

As an outspoken NFL star who has been repeatedly cautioned by team officials to avoid controversial public comments, Jackson got the message delivered by Cleveland Browns general manager Phil Savage loud and clear. By docking Winslow a game check – in the talented tight end’s case $235,294 – for blasting the club’s handling of staph infections, Savage made it clear that anything a player says can and will be used against him at the team’s discretion.

Or, to put it more bluntly: Put a sock in it, or we’ll put a foot where the sun doesn’t shine.

This is just the latest illustration of a disturbing trend, one which includes an inconsistent and overly harsh approach by the NFL office when it comes to fining employees for criticizing officials and an egregious attempt by some teams to muzzle dissenting or unpopular voices.

First it was Terrell Owens, who among other offenses in 2005 made public statements critical of Philadelphia Eagles management and quarterback Donovan McNabb, provoking a disciplinary process that began with a four-game, $764,706 suspension for conduct detrimental to the team.

Last year, after the Atlanta Falcons cut defensive tackle Grady Jackson, then-teammate DeAngelo Hall ripped the organization and coach Bobby Petrino. That cost Hall $50,000 – the portion of an earlier fine for an on-field meltdown that the organization was prepared to forgive if he behaved to their satisfaction.

Now Winslow, pending an appeal by the NFL Players Association that will be heard next Tuesday, is being told to surrender a substantial share of his personal wealth – and we’re all poorer because of it.

Before some of your heads start to explode, let’s address a few of the visceral arguments against this line of thinking.

Yes, I concede that some speech, at least from a league perspective, is damaging enough to justify monetary sanctions. For instance, statements by players, coaches or owners which call into question the intentions of officials – and thus the integrity of the game – are so potentially harmful to the brand that they should be regulated. I do think there needs to be a distinction between someone voicing disagreement with a call (not fine-worthy, in my opinion) and implying that an official is biased against one’s team. Saying an official is incompetent, as Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones essentially did last month of Ed Hochuli (for which he was later fined $25,000 by the league), would fall somewhere in between.

To elaborate on the first point: The NFL recently fined Miami Dolphins linebacker Joey Porter $20,000 for essentially saying a call by referee Hochuli late in Miami’s Oct. 12 defeat at Houston was wrong. “I thought we won the game, actually, but they kept getting calls,” Porter said. In my opinion, that doesn’t constitute an assault on Hochuli’s or the game’s integrity, and Porter should have been spared the fine. Conversely, when Porter, then with Pittsburgh, said after the Steelers’ 2005 divisional playoff victory over the Colts, “I know (the officials) wanted Indy to win this game … I felt they were cheating us,” the league had every right to fine him. Amazingly, after acknowledging that the officials had blown a key call questioned by Porter, the NFL let him off the hook.

Secondly, I’m well aware that, at least in the cases of Owens and Hall, the players in question were guilty of other disruptive actions that factored into their respective employers’ decision to discipline them. I’m not being so cavalier as to suggest that a boss won’t hold critical comments against an employee and that such behavior might push him to trade or release the player in question. What I’m disputing is the notion that “statements which bother me” can be directly equated to “conduct detrimental to the team,” which I believe is the case with Winslow.

Thirdly, I’ve certainly considered the concept that I or anyone else who conspicuously criticizes his or her employer, in any field, could stand to face serious consequences. (That’s why I make a point of ripping my editors privately. Kidding!)

Finally, as a sports journalist who aspires to get the people I interview to speak openly and expansively, I obviously have a degree of self-interest in all of this. At this point, it’s time to clear up what for some of you is a major misconception: You, too, have a measure of self-interest in players speaking the truth.

I know it’s hard to imagine now that the NFL is an exquisitely packaged, made-for-TV monolithic entertainment machine, but this was a league whose popularity was built on the free publicity that media-friendly commissioner Pete Rozelle openly courted. Currently, we live in an era in which societal attitudes about the media have turned largely negative. Yet, more than ever, fans have an almost insatiable appetite for pro football coverage that is enhanced when players are neither muted nor prone to presenting themselves as painfully and intentionally bland.

And while some of you might insist that you’d happily live in a world in which athletes never gave me and my colleagues the time of day, the bottom line is that it’s not for you to decide. A responsibility to talk to the media is in every standard player contract; it’s an obligation that comes with the privilege of playing pro football.

As Jackson says, “You can’t ask us to talk to the media, and ask us to be honest – I mean, you can’t tell us to lie, and when we start spewing all that chalkboard, cliché stuff, you hate it – and then say it’s ‘conduct detrimental’ anytime we say anything the team might not like. It’s really a thin line.”

In Winslow’s case, I don’t believe he crossed that line. The tight end had recently been hospitalized for what he said was his second staph infection since 2005 – and the seventh such infection from which a Browns player had knowingly suffered during that span. One of them, center LeCharles Bentley, described his ailment as “life-threatening”; it was likely career-ending as Bentley has not played a game since suffering the ailment in 2006. Winslow had a right to be scared and frustrated when, following the Browns’ 14-11 defeat to the Redskins Sunday, he told the Cleveland Plain Dealer, “There’s obviously a problem and we have to fix it. Just look at the history around here.”

Further, Winslow had been the subject of Internet rumors about the source of his undisclosed ailment, and he claimed the Browns had intentionally hid his illness. (Savage later alleged that the team had kept the player’s condition private at Winslow’s insistence.) Winslow said he felt as though he’d been treated like a “piece of meat” and that he was upset Savage hadn’t contacted him during his three-night hospital stay.

Raise your hand if you think Savage’s strong reaction to Winslow’s comments has something to do with the fact that he was called out by name. OK, you can put it down now. Throw in the fact that the two men reportedly had a somewhat heated conversation in a hallway outside the visitors’ locker room at FedEx Field just before Winslow made his comments, and this seems more like “conduct detrimental to Phil Savage” than to the Browns’ organization.

To former Giants halfback Tiki Barber, now an NBC analyst, Winslow’s behavior was understandable.

“I know that coaches and organizations would rather have things handled in-house,” Barber says. “Here’s the problem: If you try to handle it in-house and nothing changes, you almost have no choice but to bring public attention to it. If someone like Kellen Winslow thinks a situation is detrimental him – as a person, not just as a player – he has no choice but to speak up. That’s what this country is founded on: The right to speak your mind, and the notion that public accountability is an essential part of the process.”

As a player, Barber occasionally gave blunt and revealing interviews that riled his employers, but in those cases he made a point of sticking to his convictions. “If you are going to speak your mind, you have to accept that there’s going to be a backlash,” he says. “But you have to be principled enough not to back away from what you say – to know that you are speaking the truth, and that in the end it doesn’t matter what you say, it’s how you play.”

It certainly helped that Barber, who emerged as one of the league’s top backs in the latter part of his career, had the status both as a performer and as a hard-worker to cushion the fallout. Had he been a less integral part of the team, his bosses might have decided his principled outspokenness wasn’t worth the trouble.

Guys like Jeremy Shockey, Pete Kendall and even pre-Patriots Randy Moss weren’t so well-positioned.

And you wonder why NFL writers sometimes rely on anonymous locker-room sources.

On the other hand, recent retirees such as Barber, Michael Strahan, Trent Dilfer, Warren Sapp and Keyshawn Johnson had a vested interest in speaking their minds: In essence, they were auditioning for second careers as TV analysts, and the network executives who control those jobs typically aren’t looking for ex-players who were boring or unrevealing in interviews.

A less cynical way of looking at it: The same drive and intensity that helped turn these men into elite competitors sometimes compels them to ignore discretion and simply tell it like it is. To a proud player, this can be a means of clearing up what he perceives to be the misconceptions of outsiders.

Given the fame and relative fortune enjoyed by many NFL players, albeit with a short career-expectancy, I don’t expect many of you to sympathize with the Winslows of the world. When I reminded Barber, as many of you surely will remind me, that most employees in other endeavors who were openly critical of workplace conditions would risk the wrath of their bosses, he responded, “First of all, most people don’t have to face the media on a regular basis. They don’t have people publicly questioning why you’re not performing every day or whether you’re doing your job well enough. Most people aren’t forced to be publicly accountable in their jobs. They can (expletive) up and find a hole to hide in. Everything a pro football player does is scrutinized. That’s the difference.”

Another distinction Barber makes: “Look, I realize there’s a tendency to think that sports are trivial. But Kellen Winslow’s not just complaining about football. This is his livelihood. If he thinks working conditions (are unsafe), of course he’s stressed.”

I’m glad that the NFLPA, which too often as of late has been tepid in defending the rights of its members, seems to be solidly in Winslow’s corner. I hope that the union convinces an arbitrator to award him most or all of the game check the Browns rescinded and that such an outcome reminds players around the league that reasonably free speech still exists in the NFL.

In the meantime, if I decide to write a story on the Rams’ resurgence and Jackson tells me that he’s “playing within myself and taking things one game at a time,” you can thank Phil Savage.
 
This situation is the Browns doing, not Winslow's. Your JOB as a coach is to put your talent in a position to succeed. Losers screw around with other goals. This is another Randy Moss situation. You have certain clubs unable to figure out how to get the most out of Randy Moss so to cover up for their OWN deficiencies as coaches, its just "Randy Moss sucks" or "Randy Moss is over the hill". Then he goes to the Patriots where a real coaching staff knows how to get him to perform, and suddenly everything is fine again and he's a stud.

I'd fire both Savage and Crennel if they can't work this out with Winslow. There's just no point in going forward.

Hell, Tom Brady went against the Patriots' team request to do his knee surgery with their doctor and went out to Los Angeles or something to have it done and it went wrong. You don't see the Patriots putting Brady in the doghouse do you? No, they are going to work things out. There's a difference between a mature, stable orgzanization and one that has no idea how to lead.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Good job by Mr. Pluto. He makes the Cleveland Browns look even more stupid than they already did.
How?
If it is about the contract as Pluto says, then the Browns mishandled that too. Unless you think they wanted the situation to get to where there a public feud between Winslow and management int he press, which I don't think is what either of them wanted.
 
I can think of ONE media outlet in Cleveland that never bashes the organization, and that's WTAM, the flagship, and there are still a couple of guys on that station that "sort of" tell it like it is.

However, the others, such as the Plain Dealer, WKNR (which is almost the opposite), the Akron Beacon Journal, etc. never sugar coat anything.

I don't buy Savage being a "dictator". That's ridiculous. Butch Davis, yes. Not Phil Savage in the least. If Kellen was completely in the clear here, you'd hear from other Browns players, period.

There's obvious Browns-hate in this thread.
I don't understand the bolded part. This isn't a popularity contest. Savage isn't trying to win "Miss NFL 2008". We're trying to win a super bowl. The goal is to put players with all sorts of personality types into the BEST position to succeed in the NFL, not hold hands and sing a song.
 
hypothetical question, and i want to be careful how i say this but:

what if Winslow's comments weren't entirely truthful? or at least fairly misleading? would that change anyone's opinion on this?

 
Does anyone dispute these facts?

-Winslow recently was in the hospital due to a staph infection (his second).

-This is the Browns 7th reported staph infection since 2005. One was reported to have nearly cost LeCharles Bentley his life.

-Until Sunday nobody besides Winslow and Browns management knew that he had a staph infection.

For me it's not that difficult to see what Savage's interest is here. In my opinion Savage is confusing the best interests of the team with the best interests of Browns management. The best interest of Browns management is not to alert their own players and the media that their best player is in the hospital with another staph infection. It's the last distraction management needs as they try to dig their way out of another underachieving season.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
These comments really underscore the staph paranoia around the Browns, easy to see why Savage didn't want this cat out of the bag...

It's not known where Winslow got staph this time. But despite his concerns of a widespread problem at Cleveland's training complex, linebacker Andra Davis said he's not overly concerned about getting sick, and that the team has taken adequate precautions to ensure the player's protection.

"Our equipment guys and our training room guys do everything to make sure we're comfortable," he said. "We have our own rags, our own towels, our own everything. It's not scary."

One of Cleveland's team captains, Davis said he wasn't bothered by Winslow's claims or their timing.

"To each his own," Davis said. "Kellen's our teammate, we'll never turn our back on him. We'll definitely support him 100 percent."

Tight end Darnell Dinkins, the Browns' player representative, said Winslow's latest bout with staph has some players concerned.

"Anybody who has staff, you're talking about your life," he said. "It's bigger than football. It's bigger than a game. Kellen is a good friend of mine. Anyone who has a condition or issue like that, you want to make sure he's protected and he's healthy. I'm glad he's healthy and I hope we can contain it."

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5inJA__q...AWX-gAD93UGPNG0
 
I can think of ONE media outlet in Cleveland that never bashes the organization, and that's WTAM, the flagship, and there are still a couple of guys on that station that "sort of" tell it like it is.

However, the others, such as the Plain Dealer, WKNR (which is almost the opposite), the Akron Beacon Journal, etc. never sugar coat anything.

I don't buy Savage being a "dictator". That's ridiculous. Butch Davis, yes. Not Phil Savage in the least. If Kellen was completely in the clear here, you'd hear from other Browns players, period.

There's obvious Browns-hate in this thread.
I don't understand the bolded part. This isn't a popularity contest. Savage isn't trying to win "Miss NFL 2008". We're trying to win a super bowl. The goal is to put players with all sorts of personality types into the BEST position to succeed in the NFL, not hold hands and sing a song.
I don't understand what you are responding to.What I am saying is if this was such an injustice to Kellen Winslow as all of these NFL "experts", media members, and FFA know-it-all's claim, I would think we would've heard from at least ONE Browns player also saying so, in spite of the so-called "dictators" repercussions.

It would certainly be nice to know WHY he had staph in the first place. Something tells me that would make Kellen look pretty bad if he admitted that.

 
hypothetical question, and i want to be careful how i say this but:what if Winslow's comments weren't entirely truthful? or at least fairly misleading? would that change anyone's opinion on this?
Let's follow this line of thinking. Ok Winslow becomes the target here and they dig and dig and find untruthful or misleading statements. And then what? You cut him or trade him away for nothing? Then maybe he goes somewhere like New England and becomes an all-pro for 5 years or something. How does any of this help the Cleveland Browns? Management should make sure this isn't the end result. Its their JOB to put talent in a position to succeed.
 
What bothers me the most is that this feels like a situation where a good leader would step in and have a good long talk to clear the air and in one afternoon put all of this behind the club. But there's no-one on the team willing or capable of doing that.

 
Kellen Winslow issue a tricky one for NFL, Browns

October 24, 2008

Mike Florio

On Tuesday, the NFL Players Association will attempt to persuade an independent arbitrator that the Cleveland Browns should not have been permitted to suspend tight end Kellen Winslow for his recent statements that reflected negatively on the organization. Winslow's absence for Sunday's game at Jacksonville is academic; the only question moving forward is whether Winslow will receive his $235,000-plus game check.

The Collective Bargaining Agreement between the NFL and the NFLPA allows a team to suspend a player without pay for up to four games for conduct detrimental to the team. The CBA doesn't attempt to define what is and isn't "conduct detrimental to the team." The only requirement applicable to the team is that discipline be imposed uniformly on all players for the same offense; since Winslow's situation is likely unprecedented for the Browns, it'll be hard for Winslow to claim someone else received lesser consequences for doing the same thing.

And so the core question will likely be whether the Browns, or any NFL team, may suspend without pay a player who has made public statements that the organization regards as detrimental to its interests.

Implicit within this assessment should be the word "legitimate." If a team is trying, as Winslow claims, to cover up a potentially serious health issue for himself and other players by concealing the fact Winslow suffered the franchise's sixth staph infection since 2005, Winslow's words would be detrimental to the team's efforts to cover up the problem, but those likely aren't the type of interests the CBA is intended to promote.

As a practical matter, a major factor in the arbitrator's decision as to whether the Browns are attempting to protect legitimate interests will be whether Winslow told the truth when saying he had a staph infection -- and whether the team told the truth when taking the position that the reason for Winslow's hospitalization was kept under wraps at the request of the player, not at the behest of a front office that hoped to avoid further bad press for its perceived health issue. Chances are the arbitrator will try to find a way to find against the party that isn't being honest on one or more important points.

At the core of this controversy resides an issue that is often mentioned regarding the ill-advised words of players and coaches. Does the First Amendment right to free speech overcome the ability of the NFL and its teams to discipline employees who criticize officials or otherwise talk out of school?

On the surface, the answer is easy. The First Amendment applies to the government, not in private employment. So, yes, the NFL and its member clubs can tell players, coaches, and anyone else who draws a paycheck to zip their lips.

But hasn't the NFL become a matter of intense public interest, played in stadiums funded in whole or in part by public money? At a certain point, these privately-owned companies cannot credibly claim that their affairs should be shielded from external scrutiny or oversight.

So, again, the focal point for the arbitration process could be (and perhaps should be) whether the legitimate interests of the Browns exclude silencing a player who is attempting to expose a potentially serious problem that, to date, the franchise has reportedly yet to solve.

If any of us had family members or friends in that locker room, our position probably would be a loud and resounding "yes."

http://www.sportingnews.com/experts/mike-f.../1065460-p.html
 
I havent read this thread all the way through, but I am wondering, why hasn't Jeremy Shockey been suspended? Didn't he basically say something similar - questioning the organization and talking about his health?

 
Does anyone dispute these facts?

-Winslow recently was in the hospital due to a staph infection (his second).Yes

-This is the Browns 7th reported staph infection since 2005. One was reported to have nearly cost LeCharles Bentley his life.Yes, see above

-Until Sunday nobody besides Winslow and Browns management knew that he had a staph infection.Yes, see above.

For me it's not that difficult to see what Savage's interest is here. In my opinion Savage is confusing the best interests of the team with the best interests of Browns management. The best interest of Browns management is not to alert their own players and the media that their best player is in the hospital with another staph infection. It's the last distraction management needs as they try to dig their way out of another underachieving season.
I will agree that he did have some type of infection, he's unhappy about his contract, he and his wife were hearing the rumors that he had a STD, he had balls as big as basketballs, and his agent is Drew Rosenhaus and knows that the Browns can't say that he had anything, staph or otherwise. I'll also agree that he and his father strong-armed the Browns from divulging injury info about him in the past. I'll agree that his media statements could kill a whole lot of birds with 1 stone as well. Oh and I'll also agree that if it was staph, it was some of the fastest healing staph in medical history and that really isn't consistent with the MRSA that is supposed to be going around the locker-room. I'll also agree that he's not getting support from any of the other players on the team.And hopefully we can all agree that there is a lot more to this than has been reported by the press.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
amnesiac said:
Bizkiteer, are you basing your opinion soley on stuff you've seen on tv, or do you have some additional insight to share with the rest of us?you seem very sure of yourself and i was just wondering if there's some more info we're missing out on.
What is clearly seen is that several people have an axe to grind because of their distain for KW2. No additional insight, just common sense. I'm sure that if anyone else was in the same position and rumors were to affect their family & livelyhood...they would do the same. The info is pretty clear for most, it's just a matter of if you really want to look at it.
 
Kosar said:
kaa said:
Kosar said:
I can think of ONE media outlet in Cleveland that never bashes the organization, and that's WTAM, the flagship, and there are still a couple of guys on that station that "sort of" tell it like it is.

However, the others, such as the Plain Dealer, WKNR (which is almost the opposite), the Akron Beacon Journal, etc. never sugar coat anything.

I don't buy Savage being a "dictator". That's ridiculous. Butch Davis, yes. Not Phil Savage in the least. If Kellen was completely in the clear here, you'd hear from other Browns players, period.

There's obvious Browns-hate in this thread.
I don't understand the bolded part. This isn't a popularity contest. Savage isn't trying to win "Miss NFL 2008". We're trying to win a super bowl. The goal is to put players with all sorts of personality types into the BEST position to succeed in the NFL, not hold hands and sing a song.
I don't understand what you are responding to.What I am saying is if this was such an injustice to Kellen Winslow as all of these NFL "experts", media members, and FFA know-it-all's claim, I would think we would've heard from at least ONE Browns player also saying so, in spite of the so-called "dictators" repercussions.

It would certainly be nice to know WHY he had staph in the first place. Something tells me that would make Kellen look pretty bad if he admitted that.
The post right before yours has this quoted at the end of the story:
"One of Cleveland's team captains, Davis said he wasn't bothered by Winslow's claims or their timing.

"To each his own," Davis said. "Kellen's our teammate, we'll never turn our back on him. We'll definitely support him 100 percent."

Tight end Darnell Dinkins, the Browns' player representative, said Winslow's latest bout with staph has some players concerned.

"Anybody who has staff, you're talking about your life," he said. "It's bigger than football. It's bigger than a game. Kellen is a good friend of mine. Anyone who has a condition or issue like that, you want to make sure he's protected and he's healthy. I'm glad he's healthy and I hope we can contain it."
There goes the nobody backing him part, right?Basically the situation is like when you see your boss act irrational, is that when you bring up a gripe? When he's angry, is that when you ask for a raise or to get vacation approved? No, because you know the chance of it being treated fairly is not high. Since you seem to enjoy the dictator analogy I used before, we'll continue along those lines...much like one that strikes fear into others, it changes the will be striking fear into those around them. Is he an actual dictator? No! His irrational actions are similar enough and you still wonder why someone else isn't jumping up & down to say something outloud. A prime example, is the the article posted about Stephen Jackson reacting to KW2 suspension. It had him saying that he should re-think about what he says because of the fear or repercussion. He's not even on the team and Savage's actions had impact on him.

 
MCguidance said:
I havent read this thread all the way through, but I am wondering, why hasn't Jeremy Shockey been suspended? Didn't he basically say something similar - questioning the organization and talking about his health?
Good point, but the Saints GM has his testosterone in check. Thus, he's doesn't have to puff out his chest.
 
I'm glossing here so blast me if I have the facts wrong.

KWII got into a motorbike accident and the Browns treated him good.

He got a 2nd staph infection and they kept it quiet upon Winslow's request. To their own benefit as well.

KWII blasts the Brown's organization becaue he believes Savage did not pay proper respect.

I imagine the Browns managment has made many efforts to remedy the staph infection problem. What organization would want this mess.

In what vocation can you blast your employer and not suffer consequences. The Browns backed him up in the past and are probably taken extra measures to deal with this staph infection problem. So what does KWII do? He hangs them out to dry.

 
amnesiac said:
Bizkiteer, are you basing your opinion soley on stuff you've seen on tv, or do you have some additional insight to share with the rest of us?

you seem very sure of yourself and i was just wondering if there's some more info we're missing out on.
What is clearly seen is that several people have an axe to grind because of their distain for KW2. No additional insight, just common sense. I'm sure that if anyone else was in the same position and rumors were to affect their family & livelyhood...they would do the same. The info is pretty clear for most, it's just a matter of if you really want to look at it.
i agree that some of the rumors were out of line. i do not believe that Winslow is being entirely truthful with this situation.

i do not have an "axe to grind" with him. i think he is one of the few players in the league that gives 100% all the time, and i do respect him for that fact.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
amnesiac said:
and i haven't seen anyone comment on this:

Savage was asked about Winslow's claim that the team wanted to keep his staph infection quiet and not inform teammates.

Savage responded, "From a legal standpoint ... HIPAA [Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act] laws ... we can't even reveal the nature of someone's illness without their approval. Due to the nature of this particular situation, it seemed that the people involved wouldn't want it out there. So our hands are tied in certain situations. And it was all agreed upon. It's a non-football illness. It occurred during the bye week."
do you feel Savage is making this up?
anyone?
 
kaa said:
amnesiac said:
hypothetical question, and i want to be careful how i say this but:what if Winslow's comments weren't entirely truthful? or at least fairly misleading? would that change anyone's opinion on this?
Let's follow this line of thinking. Ok Winslow becomes the target here and they dig and dig and find untruthful or misleading statements. And then what? You cut him or trade him away for nothing? Then maybe he goes somewhere like New England and becomes an all-pro for 5 years or something. How does any of this help the Cleveland Browns? Management should make sure this isn't the end result. Its their JOB to put talent in a position to succeed.
bgp, i agree, in an ideal world, everyone could agree to get along.Savage is not the first manager that couldn't get along with one of his employees.and it already sounds like they don't need to do much "digging" as you put it.
 
I'm glossing here so blast me if I have the facts wrong.KWII got into a motorbike accident and the Browns treated him good.He got a 2nd staph infection and they kept it quiet upon Winslow's request. To their own benefit as well.KWII blasts the Brown's organization becaue he believes Savage did not pay proper respect.I imagine the Browns managment has made many efforts to remedy the staph infection problem. What organization would want this mess.In what vocation can you blast your employer and not suffer consequences. The Browns backed him up in the past and are probably taken extra measures to deal with this staph infection problem. So what does KWII do? He hangs them out to dry.
First I want to say that comparing Football to other professions is always a mistake. If I blasted my employer I would get fired, not suspended, and I would go get a job somewhere else. Something tells me that the Browns are not going to fire Winslow.Secondly, while I agree that motorbike accident was total stupidity by Winslow, the Browns treated him good by making him renegotiate his contract to a lower amount. Seems like they were just protecting their interests there. Why would it be in Winslow's interest to keep his staph infection a secret? I am sure the giganticus family jewls rumor was much more too his liking. And I love the non-football injury line. Yeah it was totally unconnected from his being a Cleveland Brown. I believe that. Really I do.While I appreciate the Browns might be trying to take care of their colossal staph infection problem, I don't see where keeping it a secret benefits the players.
 
I'm glossing here so blast me if I have the facts wrong.

KWII got into a motorbike accident and the Browns treated him good.

He got a 2nd staph infection and they kept it quiet upon Winslow's request. To their own benefit as well.

KWII blasts the Brown's organization becaue he believes Savage did not pay proper respect.

I imagine the Browns managment has made many efforts to remedy the staph infection problem. What organization would want this mess.

In what vocation can you blast your employer and not suffer consequences. The Browns backed him up in the past and are probably taken extra measures to deal with this staph infection problem. So what does KWII do? He hangs them out to dry.
First I want to say that comparing Football to other professions is always a mistake. If I blasted my employer I would get fired, not suspended, and I would go get a job somewhere else. Something tells me that the Browns are not going to fire Winslow.Secondly, while I agree that motorbike accident was total stupidity by Winslow, the Browns treated him good by making him renegotiate his contract to a lower amount. Seems like they were just protecting their interests there.

Why would it be in Winslow's interest to keep his staph infection a secret? I am sure the giganticus family jewls rumor was much more too his liking. And I love the non-football injury line. Yeah it was totally unconnected from his being a Cleveland Brown. I believe that. Really I do.

While I appreciate the Browns might be trying to take care of their colossal staph infection problem, I don't see where keeping it a secret benefits the players.
What if it wasnt staph?
 
How many cases of staph infection occur in any city each year? How can ANYBODY, even K2, say where he got it? IMO, because the Browns are actively doing their best to combat infections at their facility, it's more likely that he got it elsewhere, like at a tatoo parlor or something.

 
How many cases of staph infection occur in any city each year? How can ANYBODY, even K2, say where he got it? IMO, because the Browns are actively doing their best to combat infections at their facility, it's more likely that he got it elsewhere, like at a tatoo parlor or something.
especially since it was during the bye week.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top