Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 81
  1. #16

    Re: Bernard Pollard responds



    Quote Originally Posted by Purpleguy View Post
    If Cam Cameron was one of the issues that the players spoke up about then Pollard should be put in the ring of honor. All that I know is that before the "mutiny" it looked like a lost season. A couple weeks after the "mutiny", we became unbeatable. I think Harbaugh needed a foot up his ass.
    Before the alleged "mutiny" we were 5-2




  2. #17
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    2,545
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Bernard Pollard responds

    Quote Originally Posted by Ravenswintitle View Post
    But he made some great plays in the playoffs - including that hit in New England. What's done is done, I wish him luck but he's not a Raven anymore
    He did, and I'll love him for it because it was a part of something special. Pollard always was a big thumper, but the liability in coverage probably made him expendable.




  3. #18

    Re: Bernard Pollard responds

    If the mutiny resulted in Bisciotti getting wind that damn near every player on the team hated Cam, thus making Bisciotti force Harbaugh to fire him a few weeks later, then it was the best thing to ever happen to this team.

    Harbaugh was never going to fire "Coach Cam". Just watch all of the mic'ed up stuff. Every other clip is Harbaugh patting Cam on the back with a "great call, coach Cam". Harbaugh gave him game balls for Christ's sake. He was never going to fire him, until Bisciotti put his own ass on the line. Obviously Harbaugh is still a little sore about losing his bestest bestie.




  4. #19
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Pasadena
    Posts
    10,125
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Bernard Pollard responds

    Quote Originally Posted by Dirt1 View Post
    So the "leaders" on the Ravens should just keep their mouths shut? Does anyone believe that when the chips are down, that the Ravens players look to John Harbaugh as their leader? Strong veteran leadership played a big role in the Ravens winning the Super Bowl this year. Why would any player speak up now that they know that doing so will earn them a ticket off the team?
    There are right and wrong ways to voice an opinion. Harbaugh has said that he has a leadership team consisting of certain vets on the team that he consults with.




  5. #20
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Where Ravens Fans Roam Free
    Posts
    1,988

    Re: Bernard Pollard responds

    Quote Originally Posted by Paintballguy View Post
    There are right and wrong ways to voice an opinion. Harbaugh has said that he has a leadership team consisting of certain vets on the team that he consults with.
    Supposedly, that meeting that was characterized as a "near mutiny" was where Harbaugh encouraged players to speak freely. Pollard was the player rep, and was elected to that post by his fellow players. I would think that he would have been a member of that "leadership team". I just think this sets a very bad precedent. The message being conveyed is shut up, collect your check, and don't play hurt. If the team fails, then so be it.




  6. #21

    Re: Bernard Pollard responds

    Quote Originally Posted by Dirt1 View Post
    Supposedly, that meeting that was characterized as a "near mutiny" was where Harbaugh encouraged players to speak freely. Pollard was the player rep, and was elected to that post by his fellow players. I would think that he would have been a member of that "leadership team". I just think this sets a very bad precedent. The message being conveyed is shut up, collect your check, and don't play hurt. If the team fails, then so be it.
    Unless, of course, the "real" reason BP and Reed are no longer here is because:
    1) Pollard isn't very good in coverage, and
    2) Reed is no longer a $5Mil/year Safety.

    Radical stuff, know. I mean, how often are players released just because the team thinks it can find better or cheaper replacements?




  7. #22

    Re: Bernard Pollard responds

    Quote Originally Posted by Dirt1 View Post
    Supposedly, that meeting that was characterized as a "near mutiny" was where Harbaugh encouraged players to speak freely. Pollard was the player rep, and was elected to that post by his fellow players. I would think that he would have been a member of that "leadership team". I just think this sets a very bad precedent. The message being conveyed is shut up, collect your check, and don't play hurt. If the team fails, then so be it.
    It hasn't hurt the Giants. They've won two SBs since their 'mutiny'. They weren't immediately shipped off, but did leave in time - that was more to do with performance or other things (Barber retired and Shockey was shipped off to the Saints more for things afterwards) than the 'mutiny'.

    It may have added, but they weren't let go for that reason alone. If they were, the Ravens wouldn't have competed for Reed.




  8. #23
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Kent Island
    Posts
    1,008

    Re: Bernard Pollard responds

    Quote Originally Posted by MarkS View Post
    Unless, of course, the "real" reason BP and Reed are no longer here is because:
    1) Pollard isn't very good in coverage, and
    2) Reed is no longer a $5Mil/year Safety.

    Radical stuff, know. I mean, how often are players released just because the team thinks it can find better or cheaper replacements?
    My working theory is that once the Ravens realized they weren't going to be able to keep Ellerbe and Reed at their price, they just decided to REALLY overhaul the defense, and cutting Pollard because of his lack of coverage skills was a part of that. If he was a locker room headache that probably didn't help him, but I doubt the Ravens' coaching staff/FO is that thin skinned given the amount of success they've had.




  9. #24
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    2,173
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Bernard Pollard responds

    Quote Originally Posted by Tyrian View Post
    It hasn't hurt the Giants. They've won two SBs since their 'mutiny'. They weren't immediately shipped off, but did leave in time - that was more to do with performance or other things (Barber retired and Shockey was shipped off to the Saints more for things afterwards) than the 'mutiny'.

    It may have added, but they weren't let go for that reason alone. If they were, the Ravens wouldn't have competed for Reed.
    It was also a totally different situation. Coughlin had a council of veterans whom he spoke with weekly. In one of their meetings they brought their concerns to him and told him things really needed to change. That is the right way to do things.

    On the other hand, it was reported that Pollard and others blindsided Harbaugh in the middle of practice, in front of the entire team and refused to practice until he addressed their concerns. That's NOT the right way to do things.




  10. #25
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    2,405
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Bernard Pollard responds

    The more I read about the whole incident, the less I believe the rumor mongers at PFT.com and Yahoo and their whole notion that Pollard was dumped by Harbaugh because of his role in a locker room mutiny.

    In the end, I don't believe this was a knee-jerk reaction to Pollard's outspokenness, as PTF.com would have you believe.

    I've changed my view and now think they factored in a number of things in making their decision to move on from Bernard; money, performance, and personality were all factors, but none more than any other.

    This idea that it was retaliation for the "mutiny" feels more and more like an invention of a couple writers trying to dress up speculation as fact. Look at how PFT got quotes from Bernard. They went to him and said, in effect, "there is speculation that you were cut because of the mutiny, how do you feel about that?" And they got him to react, and say that Harbaugh should have been more honest.

    Think about it. You have a situation where no one who was involved is on record saying this was about the mutiny, and in fact they are all on record saying it was about other issues, and in fact the "mutiny" turned into a positive thing according to everyone. And yet PFT goes to Pollard and pokes him with a stick, asking him to comment on ... the speculation they/Mike Silver themselves cooked up!

    Even their anonymous league source doesn't really tell you much about why he is cut, and this is as close as they've come to a confirmation about Pollard being cut because he is a troublemaker. They are quoting speculation by an unnamed third party who falls short of actually explaining what exactly he seems to be inferring....

    As one league source said in response to the news, “Three teams in how many years. Soon four. What does that tell you?”
    I don't know, Mr. Unnamed Source. Why don't you just tell me what it tells me?

    It sounds like the league source thinks Pollard is a cancer. But you still don't know -- maybe it tells you the league thinks he's a hard hitting safety who doesn't carry out his individual assignment, freelances, and botches coverage assignments -- he's too one dimensional. Maybe that's what it tells me.

    I realize Harbaugh, and maybe the source, isn't going to come out and trash Pollard for being a trouble maker.

    But if you read accounts of the "mutiny" episode back in October--direct quotes from Harbaugh--he certainly goes out of his way to explain that he wasn't bothered by players speaking up.

    God knows Harbaugh rarely gives you anything, so for him to speak candidly about the incident, it makes me think he isn't bullshitting us. It would be too easy for him to do what he normally does, say nothing, if he didn't want to reveal how much Pollard (and Reed) were problems in the locker room.

    Here is what Harbaugh did say on the topic (which Mike Florio at PFT.com seems to go out of his way to exclude in his reporting of the "mutiny backlash.")....

    [Pollard and Reed] had some good points, and I had some good points. Other guys stood up and said some great things. To me, it embodied everything that you should have on a team. The point was that, we have what I call ‘Open Mic,’ and we can all say anything that we need to say and have to say. You know then that you’re responsible — when you say it, everybody’s gonna hear it, so you’d better make it your best stuff. That brings out the best. Otherwise, it’s ‘Why are they sneaking around talking behind corners?’ You know what I mean? If you’ve got something, you put it right out here in front of me. I’m man enough to handle it. If you’re right, then you’re right! It’s OK to be right. But more important it’s OK to be wrong. And it’s OK for me to be wrong, too.
    Does that sound like the statement of a coach who would get rid of a player for speaking up and do it in a sneaky way where he doesn't even speak up and tell the player the real reason he was cut?

    At worst, it sounds like Harbaugh had a problem with Reed and Pollard privately making cancerous statements to fellow players -- and he addressed it by making sure it was all put out in the open.

    He could have avoided the locker room sickness and just cut out these cancers at the end of the year, but instead it seems like he successfully treated the issue right on the spot.

    When I think about Harbaugh I think of a guy who, at the very least, would feel obliged to advise the player how he needs to act differently at his next stop -- if in fact he had a problem with that player's behavior.

    PFT.com also left out of their reporting the way in which Silver originally reported the locker room reaction to the "mutiny." Back when it happened Silver quoted an unnamed player as saying...

    But the way Coach Harbaugh handled it was amazing. He let people have their say, and he listened, and he explained himself, and pretty soon it was like a big group-therapy session. In the end, a lot of positive things were said. We didn't practice in pads, but we came out of there stronger as a group."
    So the only people going on record in this story characterize the "mutiny" as a positive event for the team... but you have PFT.com running back to Pollard for a quote about their purely speculative conclusion that Harbaugh cut him out of retaliation for being outspoken.

    Sounds like PFT.com is more interested in generating controversy than reporting truth. And normally I don't trash them.
    Last edited by Shas; 04-01-2013 at 04:46 PM.




  11. #26

    Re: Bernard Pollard responds

    Quote Originally Posted by Shas View Post
    Sounds like PFT.com is more interested in generating controversy than reporting truth.




  12. #27
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    2,533
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Bernard Pollard responds

    Quote Originally Posted by Brien Jackson View Post
    My working theory is that once the Ravens realized they weren't going to be able to keep Ellerbe and Reed at their price, they just decided to REALLY overhaul the defense, and cutting Pollard because of his lack of coverage skills was a part of that. If he was a locker room headache that probably didn't help him, but I doubt the Ravens' coaching staff/FO is that thin skinned given the amount of success they've had.
    I agree. I think it has far more to do with what they want from the defense- and especially strong safety- than Pollard being outspoken.

    The "near mutiny" was Harbaugh's finest hour last year. It ended up solidifying him as The Leader of the team. I doubt he holds a grudge over it.

    Pollard wasn't as bad at coverage as he played in the SB, but he wasn't anything to write home about in that regard, either. No one gets giddy thinking of Pollard in pass coverage, and QB's and receivers are anything but fearful. Ozzie has tried to beef up the run defense in the front seven: it's reasonable to think he's looking more towards pass defense in the back end.




  13. #28
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    2,173
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Bernard Pollard responds

    Quote Originally Posted by Shas View Post
    The more I read about the whole incident, the less I believe the rumor mongers at PFT.com and Yahoo and their whole notion that Pollard was dumped by Harbaugh because of his role in a locker room mutiny.

    In the end, I don't believe this was a knee-jerk reaction to Pollard's outspokenness, as PTF.com would have you believe.

    I've changed my view and now think they factored in a number of things in making their decision to move on from Bernard; money, performance, and personality were all factors, but none more than any other.

    This idea that it was retaliation for the "mutiny" feels more and more like an invention of a couple writers trying to dress up speculation as fact. Look at how PFT got quotes from Bernard. They went to him and said, in effect, "there is speculation that you were cut because of the mutiny, how do you feel about that?" And they got him to react, and say that Harbaugh should have been more honest.

    Think about it. You have a situation where no one who was involved is on record saying this was about the mutiny, and in fact they are all on record saying it was about other issues, and in fact the "mutiny" turned into a positive thing according to everyone. And yet PFT goes to Pollard and pokes him with a stick, asking him to comment on the speculation they/Mike Silver cooked up.

    Even their anonymous league source doesn't really tell you much about why he is cut, and this is as close as they've come to a confirmation about Pollard being cut because he is a troublemaker. They are quoting speculation by an unnamed third party who falls short of actually explaining what exactly he seems to be inferring....



    I don't know, Mr. Unnamed Source. Why don't you just tell me what it tells me?

    It sounds like the league source thinks Pollard is a cancer. But you still don't know -- maybe it tells you the league thinks he's a hard hitting safety who doesn't carry out his individual assignment, freelances, and botches coverage assignments -- he's too one dimensional. Maybe that's what it tells me.

    I realize Harbaugh, and maybe the source, isn't going to come out and trash Pollard for being a trouble maker.

    But if you read accounts of the "mutiny" episode back in October--direct quotes from Harbaugh--he certainly goes out of his way to explain that he wasn't bothered by players speaking up.

    God knows Harbaugh rarely gives you anything, so for him to speak candidly about the incident, it makes me think he isn't bullshitting us. It would be too easy for him to do what he normally does, say nothing, if he didn't want to reveal how much Pollard (and Reed) were problems in the locker room.

    Here is what Harbaugh did say on the topic (which Mike Florio at PFT.com seems to go out of his way to exclude in his reporting to the "mutiny backlash.")....



    Does that sound like the statement of a coach who would get rid of a player for speaking up and do it in a sneaky way where he doesn't even speak up and tell the player the real reason he was cut?

    At worst, it sounds like Harbaugh had a problem with Reed and Pollard privately making cancerous statements to fellow players -- and he addressed it by making sure it was all put out in the open.

    He could have avoided the locker room sickness and just cut out these cancers at the end of the year, but instead it seems like he successfully treated the issue right on the spot.

    When I think about Harbaugh I think of a guy who, at the very least, would feel obliged to advise the player how he needs to act differently at his next stop -- if in fact he had a problem with that player's behavior.

    PFT.com also left out of their reporting the way in which Silver originally reported the locker room reaction to the "mutiny." Back when it happened Silver quoted an unnamed player as saying...



    So the only people going on record in this story characterize the "mutiny" as a positive event for the team... but you have PFT.com running back to Pollard for a quote about their purely speculative conclusion that Harbaugh cut him out of retaliation for being outspoken.

    Sounds like PFT.com is more interested in generating controversy than reporting truth. And normally I don't trash them.
    I don't know. The main weird thing is they gave him an extension last year. They knew what they had in terms of his performance on the field. Did his performance really change THAT much that they go from giving him an extension to dumping him? Or were there external forces at work?

    I think it was a combination of both but it is unusual for Ozzie to cut a guy the year after giving him an extension. Where theres smoke I think there has to be SOME fire.




  14. #29

    Re: Bernard Pollard responds

    Shas is spot on. The title of the original article says it all - "Mutiny" (their own quotes) may have been (my underlining)....

    And the evidence presented? None.

    Even in the original reporting, Ed Reed took issue with the players' performance in that same practice. Coach agreed to leave the pads off, and Ed called everyone out because he didn't think they were giving it their best. So clearly the "mutiny" did produce some goodwill or meeting of the minds between Ed and Harbaugh.

    It's odd, I never heard any stuff about Pollard being a loudmouth or a pain in the ass in the locker room until after he was cut. Other than this "mutiny" story, which doesn't sound much like a mutiny at all to me.




  15. #30

    Re: Bernard Pollard responds

    Even though it may have been necessary, releasing Pollard and trading Boldin were the only two moves the team has made this offseason that bothered me.




Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Russell Street Report Website Design by D3Corp Ocean City Maryland