Yuku free message boards

TristansShadow wrote:

---

Brocach wrote:

---

TristansShadow wrote:

---

 Please define the "trend".

Either the batteries in your sarcasm detector need to be recharged or I need to be a lot more obvious.  Ticket for attending Mifflin + jumped on the street = no trend.

Thanks -- I thought that was an odd post coming from you. You are right, I completely missed the sarcasm. But others actually seem to believe a trend exists.

sackman86 wrote:

---

DCBadger7 wrote:

---

wisportswriter wrote:

---

I'll defend Baggot's column to a certain extent.
The one part I will not is the idea Ball owes an explanation to anyone outside of the proper authorities, the University of Wisconsin or his family. I've never subscribed to that line of thinking.
The rest of the column raises fair questions. If you all want to believe Ball is completely innocent and has been in the wrong-place-wrong-time twice this offseason, that is your right. And you may very well be correct. However, until it is proven otherwise, it is also perfectly reasonable to question whether Ball is just having an unlucky offseason or he has been making a string of bad decisions.
And here's the thing about journalists: It's our job to be skeptical. To be frank, it's not hard because if you're not at the start, the job does it to you anyway. Every journalist has covered someone who seemed like the nicest person on the planet, only to find out later that person is dirty as they come. Please note I am not suggesting that is the case with Ball. But in a good journalist's eye, no one gets the benefit of the doubt. No one.
I have no horse in this race. I have interviewed Ball, and he always came off as a terrific young man. If for no other reason than a hope for goodness in every person, I hope there is nothing more to these incidents than appears.
So feel free to defend Ball. No one will (or at least should) attempt to deprive you of your stance. But most of the questions raised in Baggot's column are perfectly fair.

The problem with Baggot's column, besides the "he owes an explanation" tripe, is that he doesn't stop at pointing out the two offseason incidents and then ponder what they mean.  No, he goes further by clearly implying there is a connection between the two incidents - one that itself implies more sinister undertones to the current situation.

That's how I read his column and based on what I've read from Andy previously, I feel confident he's leaping to conclusions so he can justify his stirring of the pot.

All that said, I think you articulate a perfectly rational argument for why a bit of skpeticism is in order here.  I would simply note that we the public don't have nearly enough info to make any firm conclusions concerning the 'rightness' of Montee's behavior this offseason.  For many of us, our default position is to give the kid the benefit of the doubt until we have reason to think differently.  
  

Just read the article after reading all of the posts on here.  I frankly don't see why folks are up in arms here.  I agree with Wissport that there are legitimate questions here, especially now that we know this apparently wasn't a random attack on Montee.  Like people's reactions to some of the high profile legal cases that occur, I am always amazed at how people will form a definite opinion with very little actual evidence but maybe that's the lawyer in me.  Like Wissport, I have no problem with folks giving Montee the benefit of the doubt, but are folks really pollyana to the point of thinking it impossible that Montee may have made some bad decisions here.  Raise your hand if you think Russell Wilson would have been in this situation. None of us know for sure what the facts are and I do agree that Montee doesn't need to make a public statement.  Let's hope that the investigation wraps quickly and that everything works out o.k. and that Montee gets healthy as the one thing that UW does seem to be keeping under wraps is the severity of his injuries.