But I doubt he was an involved administrator of the program.
The only sexual abuse he would have known about would have been what he did himself.
He was a "hands-on" manager, but not in the way Smith says.
Posted on 11/20/2023 6:33:35 AM PST by Red Badger
If this story turns out to be false, that’s one thing but I’ve had known several men over the years who’ve been sexually assaulted and were shamed into not talking about when they were young and into adulthood. I’ve known older men who could easily fight off other men go on to be sexually assaulted in hospitals where they were either there for long term care or just a few days for surgery.
It’s a well known fact the sexual predators attack others who are weak or vulnerable. Put yourself in that situation. You’re getting old, someday you might end up in a nursing home. Guess what? Men often are abused in nursing homes by deviant perverts. It’s why some of the older men who can’t speak but will refuse to take showers.
I mean, his lifetime regular season record as QB was 62-63-4 with an overall career QB rating of 54.5%. Only 3 playoff games ever in which he was 2-1. That's pretty mediocre territory. I understand he had the one great Super Bowl year. His brief shining moment of true football glory.
Compare to Tom Brady at 251-82-0 regular season with lifetime QB rating of 97.2. Had 48 playoff games in which he went 35-13 with 7 Super Bowl wins (compared to Namath's one).
Namath was a media darling back in the day and that goes a long way! Even doing those pantyhose commercials didn't hurt him one bit. Oh well, I don't even follow football anymore but I always wondered what was so great about Joe Namath.
A cornerstone of Jerry Sandusky case.
But I doubt he was an involved administrator of the program.
The only sexual abuse he would have known about would have been what he did himself.
He was a "hands-on" manager, but not in the way Smith says.
Try to remember that when the accused is a member of an organization that you dislike.
He knows how to manipulate the media....................
He guaranteed a win that everybody thought was virtually impossible, and then he delivered it. Rode that pony for the rest of his life.
He also understood the media zeitgeist of the 70s and played the charming bachelor playboy role perfectly.
Guy was a tight end
“Try to remember that when the accused is a member of an organization that you dislike.”
Back when Judge Kavenaugh was in Nursery School, he didn’t like my hair band...
I can't recall, did anything happen to Paterno for his alleged involvement?
bingo
He may not be one of the greats stat wise, but he was an excellent quarterback and he surely changed the game.
https://www.ganggreennation.com/2013/6/29/4477160/joe-namath-modernizing-his-statistics
He was fired then he died....................
How do you know one or both of us doesn't give someone who is in a group we may dislike, the benefit of a doubt when accused of something?
Do you practice what you preach?
As it goes, I was supplied a link that puts a perspective that gives credit to the story regarding the coach. I haven't read the entire article, but the link is in post #10.
Desperate lawyer seeks deep pockets to plunder.
I quoted you. Would you rather that I had discourteously neglected to ping you?
You will notice that I included “ALL in the address line.
There are people on this forum who DO, in fact, base their judgment (or lack thereof) on the organizational affiliation of the accused. They know who they are.
Namath in classic Noxema ad...."take it off, take it all off," says Farah.
They’ve most likely “paused” the spots, until this “PR problem” is resolved.
How do you know that we do not give those who are in groups we may disagree with, the benefit of doubt when accused of something?
I gave the opposing view of the one BobL presented, and admitted that I do not know which is the case. Neither of us committed our resolve to any view. We both merely made statements. It's what transpires on a board whose purpose is to get people communicating.
I quoted you. Would you rather that I had discourteously neglected to ping you?
With that statement, it implies that your statement was indeed directed at the two whom you specifically pinged.
To expand the question, how do you know if any of those who encompass the all you pinged, also deny those in groups they do not like, their right of being innocent until proven guilty?
Sometimes stating your initial perception, does not prevent people from changing their opinions as facts are presented.
BobL presented one side, while I presented the opposing side, to which prompted you to make your statement.
I'm not criticizing your statement, I'm just responding to the perception that you seem to be accusing both of us, of being incapable of being open minded when we have issues with those whom are part of a group we disagree with, implying that we are too biased to allow the facts come out.
“Can you show me on the football where the man touched you?”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.