DR.Z at it again
 

[url=http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/writers/dr_z/05/24/michael-vick/index.html]SI.com - Writers - Dr. Z: Latest dog-fighting twist, HOF candidates and more - Thursday May 24, 2007 12:49PM[/url]

The sad thing is this guy is paid to be a professional journalist, you would think he would actually pay attention to a situation, rather than use his obvious bias towards the Redskins to take yet another shot at the organization. I understand he said the email came from a reader, but im talking about the "take your apology and shove it" quote, which i do believe came from Dr.Z. Im sorry but i do not remember Chris Samuels having much to do with what Portis said, actually Samuels seemed sort of shocked that Portis said those things. I feel bad for Clinton, he is really a stand up guy who gives to the community and never gets in trouble on or off the field, and he decided to take up for a friend, wow what a terrible time we live in when a few words can lump you in with the AJ Nicholson and Chris henrys of the world, i especially was irritated by the caption under the picture of Portis, "Portis shows his true colors", Clintons a good guy, and for a scumbag like DR.Z to even put the thought in peoples heads that Portis is a fraud absolutely frustrates the hell out of me. I dont know if im the only one now, but I support Clinton Portis and i sort of understand what he was trying to get at when he said those things.

Re: DR.Z at it again
 

No comment

Re: DR.Z at it again
 

The guy obviously has a stick up his ass and some major issues other than football.

"Can the Redskins be the 2006 Saints this year? No, because I don't think they have the offensive players nor scheme. But don't go by me. I'm always wrong about this team, as brother [B]Snyder[/B] is always quick to point out."

It sounds like he thinks he can do a better job, which in my opinion is preposterous. I wonder what his stance on the franchise's 3 superbowl championships is?

Re: DR.Z at it again
 

I don't know if Z will see it but i sent him a little nasty gram.

Re: DR.Z at it again
 

I'm not reading too much into this. So he generalizes about the actions of players over the words of a couple guys.
Portis & Samuels deserve criticism, but I don't think he's so much as criticizing them personally as he is the general behavior of nfl players & pro athletes.

Re: DR.Z at it again
 

[quote=freddyg12;313463]I'm not reading too much into this. So he generalizes about the actions of players over the words of a couple guys.
Portis & Samuels deserve criticism, but I don't think he's so much as criticizing them personally as he is the general behavior of nfl players & pro athletes.[/quote]

Why does Samuels deserve criticism, he did nothing wrong

Re: DR.Z at it again
 

You know, we're at the point now where Clinton Portis is taking more criticism for his [I]comments[/I] than what Michael Vick is actually *accused of*.

Re: DR.Z at it again
 

I think what Dr. Z forgot to mention is that football players are also humans and at times we all make mistakes. Yes Portis and Samuels did it on a much larger platform but by gosh calm down a little - if the guys say they are sorry than let it go for crying out loud. Portis said he does not condone dog fighting after the comment - but unless he comes out and gives a 4 hour apology and donates his time to the ethical treatment of animals that is not good enough for the media? I believe what is occuring is the media is making this out to be more than it is. Samuels even said after the comments I think this could be a mess - because the media are like the very animals that fight in the pits they are talking about.

Re: DR.Z at it again
 

[quote=GiantsSuck703;313456][URL="http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/writers/dr_z/05/24/michael-vick/index.html"]SI.com - Writers - Dr. Z: Latest dog-fighting twist,*HOF candidates and more - Thursday May 24, 2007 12:49PM[/URL]

The sad thing is this guy is paid to be a professional journalist, you would think he would actually pay attention to a situation, rather than use his obvious bias towards the Redskins to take yet another shot at the organization. I understand he said the email came from a reader, but im talking about the "take your apology and shove it" quote, which i do believe came from Dr.Z. Im sorry but i do not remember Chris Samuels having much to do with what Portis said, actually Samuels seemed sort of shocked that Portis said those things. I feel bad for Clinton, he is really a stand up guy who gives to the community and never gets in trouble on or off the field, and he decided to take up for a friend, wow what a terrible time we live in when a few words can lump you in with the AJ Nicholson and Chris henrys of the world, i especially was irritated by the caption under the picture of Portis, "Portis shows his true colors", Clintons a good guy, and for a scumbag like DR.Z to even put the thought in peoples heads that Portis is a fraud absolutely frustrates the hell out of me. I dont know if im the only one now, but I support Clinton Portis and i sort of understand what he was trying to get at when he said those things.[/quote]


dr. z is a dumbass

Re: DR.Z at it again
 

You guys still read Dr. Z's articles? Weird.

Re: DR.Z at it again
 

[quote=724Skinsfan;313469]You guys still read Dr. Z's articles? Weird.[/quote]


hell no

Re: DR.Z at it again
 

I discount what DR. Z ever says and to be honest SI in general. SI is like to sports what People Magazine is to Hollywood. Mostly hype, not much substance. Man this PC stuff is killing this nation and turning it into a bunch of pansies. OK, what Clinton said was quasi moronic in defense of Vick, but to me he was just trying to defend Vick and take a libertarian approach to it. I mean we have created a slaughterhouse in Iraq with actual human beings being wasted and folks here care more about dogs fighting. Dumb, just dumb. And guess what? The DA in the Vick case admits there is no solid evidence to link Vick with the dogfights, so guess who will get off fairly clean or just with a fine. All of this hubub for nothing, just another sensationalist story.

Re: DR.Z at it again
 

What a bad writer he is. SI has had some decent writers like Dan Jenkins and Rick Reilly. They must be embarrassed when they see such incipid drivel.

Re: DR.Z at it again
 

it is amazing that when people say one negative thing about the Redskins, how people out here call them the worst writers, dont deserve to have the job, morons, ect... The guys have a loyal following, and trust me, he doesn't give two shits if you read his columns. he gets paid the same amount of money. Ports and Samuels did come off as a couple of Jack asses in that interview. Laughing about something this serious is stupid. What portis said was stupid. I dont care if he apologized, it was plain stupid to say what he did. It shows he has been to a few fights himself! Just because a writer points out the obvious, all of the sudden he an idiot??? They will not be the Saints this year. When are you Redskins fans on this site become realistic? What have the Redskins done in the last 10 years that makes you think they are going to win?? I HOPE they go 16-0 and win it all, but given our history, underacheiving is more the norm that making the playoffs. Mr Z is not saying anything bad about the org. you people need to take off the burgandy & gold shades and look through the clear shades of the realistic Redskin fans. Stop bashing a writer because he says something (by the way that is NOT OFF BASE) about our Skins. More often than not, what these guys have written has turned out to be true!!

Re: DR.Z at it again
 

DR. Z has something against the skins. He doesn't just point out the obvious. He targets the skins intentionally. He writes stupid collums and is always wrong. He picked us to win 3 games the year that we won 10. He is a moron.

Re: DR.Z at it again
 

[QUOTE=BigSKINBauer;313498]DR. Z has something against the skins. He doesn't just point out the obvious. He targets the skins intentionally. He writes stupid collums and is always wrong. He picked us to win 3 games the year that we won 10. He is a moron.[/QUOTE]yea that's right and id like to kick him in the nutz , clown..

Re: DR.Z at it again
 

[quote=#56fanatic;313491]it is amazing that when people say one negative thing about the Redskins, how people out here call them the worst writers, dont deserve to have the job, morons, ect... The guys have a loyal following, and trust me, he doesn't give two shits if you read his columns. he gets paid the same amount of money. Ports and Samuels did come off as a couple of Jack asses in that interview. Laughing about something this serious is stupid. What portis said was stupid. I dont care if he apologized, it was plain stupid to say what he did. It shows he has been to a few fights himself! Just because a writer points out the obvious, all of the sudden he an idiot??? They will not be the Saints this year. When are you Redskins fans on this site become realistic? What have the Redskins done in the last 10 years that makes you think they are going to win?? I HOPE they go 16-0 and win it all, but given our history, underacheiving is more the norm that making the playoffs. Mr Z is not saying anything bad about the org. you people need to take off the burgandy & gold shades and look through the clear shades of the realistic Redskin fans. Stop bashing a writer because he says something (by the way that is NOT OFF BASE) about our Skins. More often than not, what these guys have written has turned out to be true!![/quote]

You are joking right, take off the B&G shades, give me a break. Im a Redskins fan, win or lose, im going to defend my team to anyone. It has nothing to do with a realistic fan, try talking bad about another fans team and see if they just sit there and allow you to do so.

Re: DR.Z at it again
 

[QUOTE]dr. z is a dumbass[/QUOTE]
and only on his best days!

Re: DR.Z at it again
 

[quote=#56fanatic;313491]Just because a writer points out the obvious, all of the sudden he an idiot??? They will not be the Saints this year. When are you Redskins fans on this site become realistic? What have the Redskins done in the last 10 years that makes you think they are going to win?? ....... Stop bashing a writer because he says something (by the way that is NOT OFF BASE) about our Skins. More often than not, what these guys have written has turned out to be true!![/quote]

Z definitely has a history of negativity towards the Skins, most folks on this board know that and are bashing him because this is his M.O., we are sick of it, and he is way off-base. He has also been one of the major players keeping Art Monk out of the HOF for years.

There are a three points in this article which don't make any sense or show a well thought out point of view. Z totally killed Portis and Samuels. Yet he would "definitely" vote for Ray Lewis for the HOF, who although not convicted due to his plea bargain, many believe was involved in a murder. How can he destroy Portis & Samuels in one paragraph over comments and then put Ray Lewis in the HOF in the next???? Lewis is a great player, but guys involved in murders probably shouldn't be in the HOF, no matter how good they are. This sounds to me like a pretty obvious double standard and shows his bias against the Skins. Let's not forget Portis only made comments, he is not linked to any type of dog-fighting charge.

If Z actually watched the interview from WAVY-10, where the comments were originally made (and he had half a brain), he would not have lumped Samuels in with Portis on this. The expression on Samuels' face and NERVOUS laughter throughout the interview showed how uncomfortable he was with CP's comments but he wasn't going to throw Portis under the bus in a TV interview, no matter how stupid and callous his comments were. They are teammates.

Third, his analysis that the Skins won't be the Saints of 2006 because they don't have the offensive players or the scheme is just flat wrong. What players is he talking about? Portis & Betts, Santana Moss, Cooley, Samuels, Jansen, Thomas, ARE. The scheme, oh you mean the scheme that had the Chiefs (with much less talent) in the top 5 in the NFL for years. His whole point makes no sense. If he wanted to say he expects the defense to struggle due to age/expected injury or JC would not develop, then fine, those would be points that could make sense.

Re: DR.Z at it again
 

I agree with Slingin' Sammy...if someone wants to say were not going to be the Saints of 2006, all they have to say is the defense is unproven and the needs across the defensive line were not addressed...and it sounds like a very educated statement. The one about the offense, imo, doesnt sound very educated.

Re: DR.Z at it again
 

[quote=BigSKINBauer;313498]DR. Z has something against the skins. He doesn't just point out the obvious. He targets the skins intentionally. He writes stupid collums and is always wrong. He picked us to win 3 games the year that we won 10. He is a moron.[/quote]


that is because his name is Dr.Z the guy is an idiotic jackass and we will leave it at that

Re: DR.Z at it again
 

My beef with him is the apalling nature of sentences like:

"Now animal lovers on the Redskins, the firm of [B]Portis[/B] & [B]Samuels[/B], is weighing in with its, 'What's the big deal?' approach."

A better version:

Now, the animal loving firm of Portis and Samuels is weighing in...

or:

Now, animal loving Redskins Portis and Samuels are weighing in...

It's seems "lovers" was going to be the subject, but then the good doctor took off in another direction and left the first clause sitting there like one of Cousin Vick's neglected dogs.

Re: DR.Z at it again
 

[QUOTE=70Chip;313473]What a bad writer he is. SI has had some decent writers like Dan Jenkins and Rick Reilly. They must be embarrassed when they see such incipid drivel.[/QUOTE]

Not only is he a bad writer in content, but he is apparently also a bad writer grammatically:

"The story that won't go away: Michael Vick and the dogfights. I hate to belabor this ("Like hell you do," says F. Red) but new stuff keeps coming up. Now animal lovers on the Redskins, the firm of Portis & Samuels, is weighing in with its, "What's the big deal?" approach. This was brought to the fore by my E-mailer of the Week, Gabe of Tallahassee, who expressed outrage at the indifference these two guys showed ... actually acceptance, rather than indifference. The Skins have issued an apology. So has Portis. So has Samuels. Hey, fellas. Hey, Redskins. Take [B][I]you're[/I][/B] apologies and stick 'em."

Nationally syndicated columnists really need to learn the difference between "you're" and "your"...I learned it in 4th grade...especially IN THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF YOUR ARTICLE.

Re: DR.Z at it again
 

Dentist Zim!!

I can only assume that he failed out of med school.

Re: DR.Z at it again
 

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;313548]Z definitely has a history of negativity towards the Skins, most folks on this board know that and are bashing him because this is his M.O., we are sick of it, and he is way off-base. He has also been one of the major players keeping Art Monk out of the HOF for years.

There are a three points in this article which don't make any sense or show a well thought out point of view. Z totally killed Portis and Samuels. Yet he would "definitely" vote for Ray Lewis for the HOF, who although not convicted due to his plea bargain, many believe was involved in a murder. How can he destroy Portis & Samuels in one paragraph over comments and then put Ray Lewis in the HOF in the next???? Lewis is a great player, but guys involved in murders probably shouldn't be in the HOF, no matter how good they are. This sounds to me like a pretty obvious double standard and shows his bias against the Skins. Let's not forget Portis only made comments, he is not linked to any type of dog-fighting charge.

If Z actually watched the interview from WAVY-10, where the comments were originally made (and he had half a brain), he would not have lumped Samuels in with Portis on this. The expression on Samuels' face and NERVOUS laughter throughout the interview showed how uncomfortable he was with CP's comments but he wasn't going to throw Portis under the bus in a TV interview, no matter how stupid and callous his comments were. They are teammates.

Third, his analysis that the Skins won't be the Saints of 2006 because they don't have the offensive players or the scheme is just flat wrong. What players is he talking about? Portis & Betts, Santana Moss, Cooley, Samuels, Jansen, Thomas, ARE. The scheme, oh you mean the scheme that had the Chiefs (with much less talent) in the top 5 in the NFL for years. His whole point makes no sense. If he wanted to say he expects the defense to struggle due to age/expected injury or JC would not develop, then fine, those would be points that could make sense.[/quote]



1st - I can't stand the Ravens, let me make that clear. Ray Lewis was never convicted of any crime, so you can't keep a guy out of the hall of fame. Maybe he just doesn't feel Monk has the creds to be in the hall (how ridiculous that sounds) that could be true.

comments or not - Samuels and Portis should have kept their mouths shut when it came to that stuff - I agree that Samuels was joking and laughing, but not everyone (non-redskins) fan know what a class act Samuels is and just lumps him in with the rich smart ass athlete catagory. I know he was joking, but I can see how it could come across the wrong way. Bad choice by Portis - he sounded like an Idiot and deserved the bashing.

As far as being the saints - I dont know that we will or we wont. I hate to keep putting predictions on this team. year in and year out they just underacheive. No one has any reason the believe this year will be any different. Plus, just making the playoffs doesn't make them this year saints. impressive regular season record (11-5??) offense ranked #1 in the NFL, scoring against just about anyone, consistant play, not up and down with your oppenents. There is a lot to being last years saints. I think that may be what he was getting at. Players?? I think we have better players than they had in KC when the O was outstanding, but they had Trent Green and TG, and Priest. Campbell - Cooley - Portis/Betts dont equate to that just yet.

Re: DR.Z at it again
 

[quote=70Chip;313590]My beef with him is the apalling nature of sentences like:

"Now animal lovers on the Redskins, the firm of [B]Portis[/B] & [B]Samuels[/B], is weighing in with its, 'What's the big deal?' approach."

A better version:

Now, the animal loving firm of Portis and Samuels is weighing in...

or:

Now, animal loving Redskins Portis and Samuels are weighing in...

It's seems "lovers" was going to be the subject, but then the good doctor took off in another direction and left the first clause sitting there like one of Cousin Vick's neglected dogs.[/quote]

Clearly his was an honorary Ph.D. from Phoenix University Online ...

Re: DR.Z at it again
 

You must realize that Dr. Z isnt paid to write accurate or inside information...he's paid to get people to read his articles. Therefore they are overly sensationalist...more like tabloids for football. Given that the redskins have the largest fan base in the NFL, by attacking them he outrages a large portion of NFL fans and gets skins fans to read his stuff. He is the sports equivalent of Howard Stern or Don Imus. Dont buy into the game...just stop reading his stuff

Re: DR.Z at it again
 

[QUOTE=Beemnseven;313466]You know, we're at the point now where Clinton Portis is taking more criticism for his [I]comments[/I] than what Michael Vick is actually *accused of*.[/QUOTE]

Very true. It's a real shame it's come to that.

I don't wish injury on anyone but man wouldn't you just love to see CP running into the end zone for the game winning touchdown on Super Bowl Sunday with such momentum that he sprints through the end zone and barrels over Dr. Z whose standing on the side line...then maybe does a little Haynesworth on him.

Re: DR.Z at it again
 

[QUOTE=SmootSmack;313701]Very true. It's a real shame it's come to that.

I don't wish injury on anyone but man wouldn't you just love to see CP running into the end zone for the game winning touchdown on Super Bowl Sunday with such momentum that he sprints through the end zone and barrels over Dr. Z whose standing on the side line...then maybe does a little Haynesworth on him.[/QUOTE]rolfmao yea that would be soooooo sweet!!!!

Re: DR.Z at it again
 

[quote=SmootSmack;313701]Very true. It's a real shame it's come to that.

I don't wish injury on anyone but man wouldn't you just love to see CP running into the end zone for the game winning touchdown on Super Bowl Sunday with such momentum that he sprints through the end zone and barrels over Dr. Z whose standing on the side line...then maybe does a little Haynesworth on him.[/quote]

I wonder if they would suspend him for doing that to nurse Z

Re: DR.Z at it again
 

[quote=GiantsSuck703;313456][URL="http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/writers/dr_z/05/24/michael-vick/index.html"]SI.com - Writers - Dr. Z: Latest dog-fighting twist,*HOF candidates and more - Thursday May 24, 2007 12:49PM[/URL]

The sad thing is this guy is paid to be a professional journalist, you would think he would actually pay attention to a situation, rather than use his obvious bias towards the Redskins to take yet another shot at the organization. I understand he said the email came from a reader, but im talking about the "take your apology and shove it" quote, which i do believe came from Dr.Z. Im sorry but i do not remember Chris Samuels having much to do with what Portis said, actually Samuels seemed sort of shocked that Portis said those things. I feel bad for Clinton, he is really a stand up guy who gives to the community and never gets in trouble on or off the field, and he decided to take up for a friend, wow what a terrible time we live in when a few words can lump you in with the AJ Nicholson and Chris henrys of the world, i especially was irritated by the caption under the picture of Portis, "Portis shows his true colors", Clintons a good guy, and for a scumbag like DR.Z to even put the thought in peoples heads that Portis is a fraud absolutely frustrates the hell out of me. I dont know if im the only one now, but I support Clinton Portis and i sort of understand what he was trying to get at when he said those things.[/quote]
The problem is he took up for a friends actions that are "illegal" if he is arrested and found guilty of the crime. The funny thing is if "Vick" is never arrested for this then he can say look I told you I had nothing to do with dog fighting, but "Clinton" cannot go back after supporting the criminal act because he has allready done so. I was watching a show last night (its a show that follows Animal Control people in some big city) and they were picking up dogs which had just been in a dog fight. These dogs had some major injuries and I find it very hard that someone one could support someone doing this to an animal.

Re: DR.Z at it again
 

[quote=SmootSmack;313701]Very true. It's a real shame it's come to that.

I don't wish injury on anyone but man wouldn't you just love to see CP running into the end zone for the game winning touchdown on Super Bowl Sunday with such momentum that he sprints through the end zone and barrels over Dr. Z whose standing on the side line...then maybe does a little Haynesworth on him.[/quote]

It is interesting to note the difference in tone in this thread as compared to the earlier one that was generally an extended attack on Portis with some even suggesting that his remarks might hasten his departure from D.C. I guess when an outside source criticizes a Redskin it galvanizes support, but it is interesting nonetheless.

Re: DR.Z at it again
 

[QUOTE=SC Skins Fan;313874]It is interesting to note the difference in tone in this thread as compared to the earlier one that was generally an extended attack on Portis with some even suggesting that his remarks might hasten his departure from D.C. I guess when an outside source criticizes a Redskin it galvanizes support, but it is interesting nonetheless.[/QUOTE]

It was the wrong statement for CP to make but I'm not sure where Dr. Z gets off saying that Portis is now showing his true colors. He's trying to paint him as an awful human being based on one comment

Re: DR.Z at it again
 

I think in a way CP does show his true colors, that he's an dimwit with little sense of right & wrong. I'm not disappointed because I always suspected CP was dim and he proved me correct. I'm not surprised or disappointed. Samuels on the otherhand is a disappointment. I always thought he had better sense but it turns out I was wrong. He's also a misguided dimwit.

Anyone who puts any stock in what athletes say or do outside of blocking, tackling, & running is making a mistake.

Re: DR.Z at it again
 

I can't stand Dr. Z, are you guys ready for a year full of his non-sense!

Re: DR.Z at it again
 

[quote=mmil12;313992]I can't stand Dr. Z, are you guys ready for a year full of his non-sense![/quote]
I always hear everyone here complain about how much he is this and that but someone must be reading all his stuff because the min. he writes about the skins it is posted here. For that matter every writer that gets bashed here gets posted here around the same time it is posted on the web. For these guy's to suck so much they get allot of reading from members here.

Re: DR.Z at it again
 

[quote=firstdown;313872]The problem is he took up for a friends actions that are "illegal" if he is arrested and found guilty of the crime. The funny thing is if "Vick" is never arrested for this then he can say look I told you I had nothing to do with dog fighting, but "Clinton" cannot go back after supporting the criminal act because he has allready done so. [/quote]

Couldn't agree more. I think many of the CP supporters on here have completely missed this point. It doesn't matter if Vick is actually guilty or not. Portis condoned the very behavior that Vick is being accused of. At least Samuels's comments were related to withholding judgment on Vick until after he is actually proven innocent.

Re: DR.Z at it again
 

[quote=irish;313932]I think in a way CP does show his true colors, that he's an dimwit with little sense of right & wrong. I'm not disappointed because I always suspected CP was dim and he proved me correct. I'm not surprised or disappointed. Samuels on the otherhand is a disappointment. I always thought he had better sense but it turns out I was wrong. He's also a misguided dimwit.

Anyone who puts any stock in what athletes say or do outside of blocking, tackling, & running is making a mistake.[/quote]

You say you're disappointed in Samuels, but then you end with saying we shouldn't take stock with what these guys say.

So do you really care what they say or not?

Re: DR.Z at it again
 

[quote=irish;313932]I think in a way CP does show his true colors, that he's an dimwit with little sense of right & wrong. I'm not disappointed because I always suspected CP was dim and he proved me correct. I'm not surprised or disappointed. Samuels on the otherhand is a disappointment. I always thought he had better sense but it turns out I was wrong. He's also a misguided dimwit.

Anyone who puts any stock in what athletes say or do outside of blocking, tackling, & running is making a mistake.[/quote]


that is ridiculous when samuels was laughing because he was nervous

Re: DR.Z at it again
 

[quote=Mattyk72;314136]You say you're disappointed in Samuels, but then you end with saying we shouldn't take stock with what these guys say.

So do you really care what they say or not?[/quote]
I don't think this is a question of taking stock in what these guy's say its the fack that he is supporting an illegal ack. Now if they were talking politics then the term "taking stock in what they say" would be the correct response.