There are 154 users in the forums

Remember
Not a member? Register Now!

Tramaine Brock Thread

dp
[ Edited by 21SandersMoss84 on Oct 7, 2013 at 12:05 AM ]
Should of??
Originally posted by AB81Rules:
He should of read it himself also, he has a copy, you should know what to do, and not rely on someone else, what is this pre-school. He shouldn't need someone to tell him, "hey show up, or you loss 2M", he should of known of it. He is a dumbass then, read the f**king contract. It's on both Agent, and Brown.

I'm in the music biz and I've seen a professional contract or two. Trust me, that sh*t is almost like another language. While I can do well enough on my own, not everyone is equipped to decipher contract speak - especially not your average athlete. I've seen some of the brightest be boggled by the legal speak. That's why you have things like lawyers and agents who's job it is to interpret and speak this language.

It's possible that, even had Brown read the contract himself (and honestly we don't even know that he didn't for sure), he might not have been able to interpret the clause correctly.

I assure you that no one in pre-school would know what the hell any of that sh*t means. And it most definitely wouldn't be as simple a read as "you have to be here or your forfeit 2 Million dollars".

EDIT: And speaking of literary things, it's should have or should've (contraction of should + have), not should of. "Should of" makes absolutely no sense in the english language. I hate when people do that.
[ Edited by trellblaze on Oct 7, 2013 at 12:28 AM ]
Originally posted by trellblaze:
Originally posted by AB81Rules:
He should of read it himself also, he has a copy, you should know what to do, and not rely on someone else, what is this pre-school. He shouldn't need someone to tell him, "hey show up, or you loss 2M", he should of known of it. He is a dumbass then, read the f**king contract. It's on both Agent, and Brown.

I'm in the music biz and I've seen a professional contract or two. Trust me, that sh*t is almost like another language. While I can do well enough on my own, not everyone is equipped to decipher contract speak - especially not your average athlete. I've seen some of the brightest be boggled by the legal speak. That's why you have things like lawyers and agents who's job it is to interpret and speak this language.

It's possible that, even had Brown read the contract himself (and honestly we don't even know that he didn't for sure), he might not have been able to interpret the clause correctly.

I assure you that no one in pre-school would know what the hell any of that sh*t means. And it most definitely wouldn't be as simple a read as "you have to be here or your forfeit 2 Million dollars".

EDIT: And speaking of literary things, it's should have or should've (contraction of should + have), not should of. "Should of" makes absolutely no sense in the english language. I hate when people do that.

I agree with this (minus the grammar lesson - I think we all sometimes make such mistakes while typing). Legalese is a really hard language to decipher, which is why people hire attorneys to read their contracts and advise them. Such clauses in a contract are not very clear, as they are written in very complicated language. This was indeed totally the fault of the agent.
"Should of" isn't a grammatical mistake. It's an indication of a lack of command of the English language.
Originally posted by 21SandersMoss84:
"Should of" isn't a grammatical mistake. It's an indication of a lack of command of the English language.

It would be good if there was a Fat Fairy. She would be a bit like the Tooth Fairy but would suck out your fat.
Originally posted by goldstandard333:
Originally posted by 21SandersMoss84:
"Should of" isn't a grammatical mistake. It's an indication of a lack of command of the English language.

It would be good if there was a Fat Fairy. She would be a bit like the Tooth Fairy but would suck out your fat.

There should of been a Fat Fairy.
Originally posted by 21SandersMoss84:
Originally posted by goldstandard333:
Originally posted by 21SandersMoss84:
"Should of" isn't a grammatical mistake. It's an indication of a lack of command of the English language.

It would be good if there was a Fat Fairy. She would be a bit like the Tooth Fairy but would suck out your fat.

There should of been a Fat Fairy.

Has Baalke signed the fat fairy?
Originally posted by Gore_21:
Originally posted by 24plus25er:
If we could bring back Brock, and Brown along with Cully and draft 2-3 corners we should be golden. With the progression of Reid, Whitner seems to be playing much better than he did when he was back there with Goldson. Outside of that we can take a safety late for depth.

Yeah wouldn't that be nice to sign Brown to a reasonable team friendly deal, have Rogers take a big pay cut and re-sign Brock and draft a guy high but that's a lot of hoping. Brown has been underpaid for years; he probably goes for a pay day. If Brock keeps this up he will go for more money too. Rogers probably won't take a pay cut so he could be cut. Would suck if Culliver is the only one back. In that case we would probably use our RFA and re-sign Cox for 1.4 mil. Can't have all rookies.

And for those wondering Brown, Brock, Cox, Wright are all FA's after this year. Only ones under contract are Culliver and Rogers who will make like 8.094 mil and I don't see us paying him that much.

Tarrell Brown is as good as gone. I think we can get Wright (if they want him), Brock, and Cox back. Rogers has played a lot better, but either he restructures, or is gone as well. It's really sad, but the cash just isn't there to keep everyone together. I could even see Donte Whitner being a cap casualty. Culliver's deal is on the horizon as well (shouldn't his rookie deal be up after the 2014 season)?
I think we have the resources to not really worry about our CB corps next year. We have a great pool of guys already, and we have tons of draft picks to further fortify the area if we lose anyone.

Even without Brown and Rogers, if we were to have a corps of Culliver, Brock, Wright, Morris and a rookie or two, I think we'd be fine.
Originally posted by English:
Originally posted by 21SandersMoss84:
Originally posted by goldstandard333:
Originally posted by 21SandersMoss84:
"Should of" isn't a grammatical mistake. It's an indication of a lack of command of the English language.

It would be good if there was a Fat Fairy. She would be a bit like the Tooth Fairy but would suck out your fat.

There should of been a Fat Fairy.

Has Baalke signed the fat fairy?

Kwame Harris is not welcome back to the niners.
Tramaine Brock as far as I'm concerned has played well enough last to games to hold on to the #3 corner back spot even when Nmamdi comes back his game vs texans was the 1st game I seen a corner of ours have 2 picks and 1 pick 6 since deon sanders played for us in 1994 he has probowl potential if he continues to play like last night its not a coincidence since he been starting last 2 games we have only allowed 14pts in 2 games
I'm liking his solid play ....once Asomugha comes back, and Wright is ready to go, we'll have a Loaded secondary , and thats a good thing, since we will face a lot of pass happy teams later on
Originally posted by Kolohe:
One tipped pass and the crown comes out!!!

can he wear the crown now?
Originally posted by NeeJ49er:
I'm liking his solid play ....once Asomugha comes back, and Wright is ready to go, we'll have a Loaded secondary , and thats a good thing, since we will face a lot of pass happy teams later on

Sometimes I forget about Eric Wright. Just imagine if Culliver was healthy