Updated: Landry Reports to OTAs, Springs Still a No-Show

[jdlea]

Originally Posted by GMScud

I don't think it will be a big factor either. But the guy has flaked on numerous autograph signing commitments, is a walking unsportsmanlike penalty, and is now flaking on offseason workouts. I think he's a phenomenal player, but thus far he's also proven he's kind of a punk.

I wanted to name this thread "Landry continues to prove he's a punk," but I would have been negative repped into my Warpath grave.

There were people who proposed that the team cut Sean Taylor after his rookie season for all of the "trouble" he was getting into. He was suspended for a game by Gibbs, had the whole gun charge BS to work through and (somehow this drew a lot of anger) he wanted to changes his number. Laron Landry is a kid, he'll probably see the light in a few more seasons of being around veterans and start to act more like a professional, but I don't think we've got any reason to get bent out of shape.

[GMScud]

Originally Posted by jdlea

There were people who proposed that the team cut Sean Taylor after his rookie season for all of the "trouble" he was getting into. He was suspended for a game by Gibbs, had the whole gun charge BS to work through and (somehow this drew a lot of anger) he wanted to changes his number. Laron Landry is a kid, he'll probably see the light in a few more seasons of being around veterans and start to act more like a professional, but I don't think we've got any reason to get bent out of shape.

I hope you're right. Make no mistake, I'm not "freaking out" over this, I just think it's a mild concern worth discussing.

Laron's behavior does warrant some criticism.

[SmootSmack]

Why don't we post an actual quote from Zorn (according to the link from the first post here)

"I'm going to try to get a feel for why they didn't want to come ...It's not something that I'm going to make a huge spectacle of. We'll just see what happens."

There's also this, which I actually find more peculiar. Either way, not a huge deal.

"While Zorn and defensive coordinator Greg Blache said that they hadn't heard from the missing defensive backs, teammates said they had heard from them and that each had missed his flight."

[MTK]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Why don't we post an actual quote from Zorn (according to the link from the first post here)

"I'm going to try to get a feel for why they didn't want to come ...It's not something that I'm going to make a huge spectacle of. We'll just see what happens."

There's also this, which I actually find more peculiar. Either way, not a huge deal.

"While Zorn and defensive coordinator Greg Blache said that they hadn't heard from the missing defensive backs, teammates said they had heard from them and that each had missed his flight."

Bah, it's more fun to just jump to conclusions without knowing the entire story.

[SC Skins Fan]

Originally Posted by jdlea

There were people who proposed that the team cut Sean Taylor after his rookie season for all of the "trouble" he was getting into. He was suspended for a game by Gibbs, had the whole gun charge BS to work through and (somehow this drew a lot of anger) he wanted to changes his number. Laron Landry is a kid, he'll probably see the light in a few more seasons of being around veterans and start to act more like a professional, but I don't think we've got any reason to get bent out of shape.

It seems to me that your point actually proves the opposite point. Taylor had to go to the precipice (and have a child) before he really started growing up. I really hope Landry doesn't have to go that far. The point is that that the Redskins should cut ties with Landry, that is absurd and not one person is saying anything approaching that, it is that Landry is displaying a pattern of behavior that indicates he has some maturing left to do (and that extends onto the playing field so even if you say nothing outside of the gridiron matters than there still is cause for some concern). The odds are he'll play fine on the field, demonstrate tremendous athleticism, make some spectacular plays, but I think he also has some maturing left to do (which is not an issue for Springs, another thing that separates the two).

I also don't really like the 'he's just a kid' excuse. I'm only 2 1/2 years older than Landry and I can't just blow off committments (I know OTA's are 'voluntary', but as GMScud points out this sort of decision making extends to other arenas as well). And if I did there would be consequences. Come on.

[SBXVII]

Coach was asked and he answered, of course he is not going to be happy but these are adults and the training is "voluntary" so as the coach says he's not going to make a big deal about it.

I will say that "I" personally feel that all players should be at the team facility training in the off season. How many other jobs do you know that will pay you millions of dollars a yr to "Play" a game you enjoy and not expect you to be around the office atleast a few times a week. I personally would be treating the game as a business and expect the players at the facility working out, learning the play book, running, and allowing them to take their vacations as anyone else in the work force.

I think it's funny how there are other jobs out there that are more life threatening then football and the people get paid less and they are required to be at work everyday and only get 2 days off a week. They only get 4 weeks vacation for the whole year if that. However the NFL players get a bye on the "voluntary" part. Sorry for my rant. Players sign a contract and are employees of a team, they should be at all work outs. Unless they have requested vacation or family emergencies.

I could go on....Players should have medical and dental. LOL. Retirement. I'm not saying the owners should be providing all this but it should be a manditory contract policy that the player had X number of $ taken out and put into a retirement fund as well as some form of medical/dental. Options for life insurance.

If it's such a business now then treat it like one.

[GMScud]

Originally Posted by SC Skins Fan

It seems to me that your point actually proves the opposite point. Taylor had to go to the precipice (and have a child) before he really started growing up. I really hope Landry doesn't have to go that far. The point is that that the Redskins should cut ties with Landry, that is absurd and not one person is saying anything approaching that, it is that Landry is displaying a pattern of behavior that indicates he has some maturing left to do (and that extends onto the playing field so even if you say nothing outside of the gridiron matters than there still is cause for some concern). The odds are he'll play fine on the field, demonstrate tremendous athleticism, make some spectacular plays, but I think he also has some maturing left to do (which is not an issue for Springs, another thing that separates the two).

I also don't really like the 'he's just a kid' excuse. I'm only 2 1/2 years older than Landry and I can't just blow off committments (I know OTA's are 'voluntary', but as GMScud points out this sort of decision making extends to other arenas as well). And if I did there would be consequences. Come on.

Perfectly stated. Thank you.

[jdlea]

Originally Posted by SC Skins Fan

It seems to me that your point actually proves the opposite point. Taylor had to go to the precipice (and have a child) before he really started growing up. I really hope Landry doesn't have to go that far. The point is that that the Redskins should cut ties with Landry, that is absurd and not one person is saying anything approaching that, it is that Landry is displaying a pattern of behavior that indicates he has some maturing left to do (and that extends onto the playing field so even if you say nothing outside of the gridiron matters than there still is cause for some concern). The odds are he'll play fine on the field, demonstrate tremendous athleticism, make some spectacular plays, but I think he also has some maturing left to do (which is not an issue for Springs, another thing that separates the two).

I also don't really like the 'he's just a kid' excuse. I'm only 2 1/2 years older than Landry and I can't just blow off committments (I know OTA's are 'voluntary', but as GMScud points out this sort of decision making extends to other arenas as well). And if I did there would be consequences. Come on.

I think you're misunderstanding that I don't disagree he has growing up to do, I'm pretty sure I said that myself.

I also never said that anyone on this board said anything about the Skins cutting ties with Landry. I pointed out that Sean Taylor had had some troubles and when he was skipping voluntary workouts and not returning coaches phone calls a few people suggested he should be released. I did not once imply that anyone said that about Landry.

Also, I never mentioned anything about Springs.

As for him being a kid, I don't think Zorn should totally blow it off, but as a fan, I'm not going to get bent out of shape because he doesn't show up to a voluntary workout. I don't show up to voluntary things for my job all the time.

Finally, as for being marginally older than Laron, I'm only 23, but I've grown up a lot in the last 2 1/2 years. Come on.

[jdlea]

Originally Posted by GMScud

Laron's behavior does warrant some criticism.

I will agree with that. I think my point is a bit misconstrued. I'm not saying we shouldn't discuss it, I'm not even trying to justify Laron's absence, I'm more concerned that people will blow this way out of proportion when the coach doesn't seem too upset about it.

I think Laron should be there. It's a little disrespectful to a new coach to not show up to his first OTA. That would bother me a little, but if you want 100% attendance, make it mandatory. Is it something that, if I were Zorn, I'd talk to him about? Definitely. I think Laron should be there because it goes a long way to showing respect to a new coach, but like I said before, Sean went through much the same thing and Laron wasn't a huge headache off the field at LSU where it's easy to find trouble. I'm not too concerned about his missing voluntary workouts and think everything will be fine.

[GMScud]

Originally Posted by jdlea

I will agree with that. I think my point is a bit misconstrued. I'm not saying we shouldn't discuss it, I'm not even trying to justify Laron's absence, I'm more concerned that people will blow this way out of proportion when the coach doesn't seem too upset about it.

I think Laron should be there. It's a little disrespectful to a new coach to not show up to his first OTA. That would bother me a little, but if you want 100% attendance, make it mandatory. Is it something that, if I were Zorn, I'd talk to him about? Definitely. I think Laron should be there because it goes a long way to showing respect to a new coach, but like I said before, Sean went through much the same thing and Laron wasn't a huge headache off the field at LSU where it's easy to find trouble. I'm not too concerned about his missing voluntary workouts and think everything will be fine.

Well, 20+ posts so far on this thread and it's worked out just like I hoped. Some good discussion about it, and no one freaking out yet.

And if he did in fact "miss his flight" (I don't buy that at all) and he shows up tomorrow, then we can put it to bed.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by jdlea

Didn't we already go through this once with a hard hitting young safety with a propensity to make a few bonehead plays? Don't read too much into this folks, it didn't hurt Sean and I doubt that it will be a big factor in regards to the development of Laron Landry.

Well one could argue that it might have cost ST his life. When he did not show up he got in trouble with the law over the ATV thing. Over that he was no longer allowed to posses a firearm and that my have had saved his life.

[GMScud]

Originally Posted by firstdown

Well one could argue that it might have cost ST his life. When he did not show up he got in trouble with the law over the ATV thing. Over that he was no longer allowed to posses a firearm and that my have had saved his life.

That's a bit of a reach.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by GMScud

That's a bit of a reach.

He was trying to protect his family with a machety (spelling) against a person armed with a gun. So why is it a reach to say that by not being able to own a gun could have cost ST his life?

I really do not want to get into this but I was just responding to what another poster had said.

[GMScud]

Originally Posted by firstdown

He was trying to protect his family with a machety (spelling) against a person armed with a gun. So why is it a reach to say that by not being able to own a gun could have cost ST his life?

Yeah, I suppose. I don't know. Seems to me that if Sean had a gun there would have been a few people killed that night, not just one.

[GMScud]

Originally Posted by firstdown

He was trying to protect his family with a machety (spelling) against a person armed with a gun. So why is it a reach to say that by not being able to own a gun could have cost ST his life?

I really do not want to get into this but I was just responding to what another poster had said.

Agreed. Def don't want to get started on this subject. Dropped.