I agree that this is also an assumption, but I don't think that it is a leap. Anderson tried to pay his check for a reason, and I doubt that it was because Watson was the one instigating this. But, still, an assumption.
Deshaun Watson spotted at Innisfree Tuscaloosa
- Thread starter CrimsonProf
- Start date
I agree that this is also an assumption, but I don't think that it is a leap. Anderson tried to pay his check for a reason, and I doubt that it was because Watson was the one instigating this. But, still, an assumption.
That doesn't jive with the statement made by Innisfree or the witnesses there saying the Bama players were asked to leave as well. This is just publicist spin to protect their clients image pre-NFL draft. One video shows pretty animated body language/speaking for it to have been 'cordially' picking up a tab.
Did Innisfree name Anderson and/or Gilberry? The statement I saw didn't give names, just said person/people involved.
Whoa! Whoa! Whoa! Whoa! Whoa! Whoa!
Bama players were drinking in a party school town and a (mild) altercation broke out with a rival????? And.....why is this news???
Look DW knew before he got there what could happen if he went to T-town and partied with a bunch of drunk college kids. Nobody got hurt (with the exception of some egos) so i just call this "the off-season". Not news
RTR
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Bama players were drinking in a party school town and a (mild) altercation broke out with a rival????? And.....why is this news???
Look DW knew before he got there what could happen if he went to T-town and partied with a bunch of drunk college kids. Nobody got hurt (with the exception of some egos) so i just call this "the off-season". Not news
RTR
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
This is what I heard also. Has Watson publically commented on what happened? Media, social media, other.... Sure would be a good time for him to say something one way or the other.
Lot's of places he can celebrate; I have to think his choice of a T Town student bar was a poke in the eye and one step past tolerable.
I watched a Bama lineman (who we all know but I will not name) in 1975, the week following the Missouri game come into a Tuscaloosa student bar and absolutely crush a pinball machine. Stuff happens.
It's worth noting that Innisfree - at least during the day - is as much of a bar as Buffalo Wild Wings or Baumhower's. It's more of a bar at night but it's pretty family friendly during the day.
So it is your belief that he came hundreds of miles out of his way to antagonize Alabama fans, and he decided to do this by wearing a cammo hoodie rather than Clemson colors?
Whether you think it's a big deal or a small deal or a non issue, fine we can agree to disagree about the magnitude, but nobody should be rationalizing the fact that it's not okay to harass a guy out of a restaurant just cause he beat you in football. I can't believe there are adults on this thread trying to rationalize this. You can say that's just the way it is and DW should "know better", sure, because some people are rude and we can't exactly stop that, but not that that's the way it should be. If you think that's how it should be you need to look in a mirror and think more about what you want to be when you grow up.
So it is your belief that he came hundreds of miles out of his way to antagonize Alabama fans, and he decided to do this by wearing a cammo hoodie rather than Clemson colors?
Of course not; he was obviously either applying for graduate school or didn't want to miss the March Madness sale at McFarland Mall. "Hundreds of miles out of his way ... blah blah" was your conclusion and nothing near what I said. It is my belief that someone in Tuscaloosa was bound to react poorly and that is exactly what happened.
Last edited:
Big difference between rationalizing something, which implies some level of approval and understanding how something could happen or could be prevented.
He doesn't have to explain why he was in Tuscaloosa. Free country. Anyone who has a problem with him being there needs to grow up.
Why is freedom often expressed as one way thing? That's nonsense. Yes, he's free to go there, and people are free to be unhappy about it. I'm tired of people saying this is a free country, in such a way that means they can do what they want yet others are unable to do what they want. That doesn't make a bit of sense.
Wow, really? this is sports and even a slight explanation could send this right to non-sports, but in a nutshell, you are free in order to live a life determined by your own conscience, not to affect other people because you are unhappy. You are free to be unhappy if that suits you, but not to affect others negatively.
That's not really true, at least in relation to what I said. Now, in B1G's defense, I'm not sure he intended to come off quite like he did, as I was arguing with what he said which might not be how he might actually feel. But what he said was along the lines of there's no issue with Watson going there because it's a free country, yet right after the he expressed the sentiment that there's something wrong with people who took exception to that. Both of those things though fall under freedom of expression!
Now, the truth is this entire topic is non-sports as it never had anything to do with actions on a football field. Having said that it is the offseason. To make things a bit more clear, freedoms are allowable to the point of infringement. In this case, Watson had a right to go into a bar even though he obviously knew this might cause an adverse reaction. On the other hand, every single patron in that bar has ever right to be incensed by his being there and to express their displeasure! The only point in which that might veer into infringement upon his rights or the rights of the proprietors would be at the point he was asked to leave. Even then, the manner in which it was done would dictate if it was an infringement. For instance if someone said "I'd really prefer you not be in here" how on earth is that anything other than their exercising their right to freedom of expression? It is only when and if they (assuming they are not the proprietor) took it upon themselves to deny him access or threaten him with harm that it becomes anything beyond that.
That's how freedom works, or at least how it should work. Freedom can't be applied in a one way manner, and it can't end at the point it effects others but rather at the point it infringes on others. Merely causing a negative reaction is not reason enough to deny me my rights. I take exception to fact that people often use their right to freedom of speech or what have you, to do things then claim their rights are violated when people respond to their actions. The right to do something is not the right to live free of consequences.
Last edited:
Trending content
Latest threads
-
ICE Officer Kills Motorist In Minneapolis- Started by Its On A Slab
- Replies: 2
-
-
ESPN: 'This is one of the big moments in college football': Demond Williams Jr.'s case will test if contracts can be enforced
- Started by TideFans Reporter
- Replies: 0
-
-
-