RD5 #13/#159: K Justin Rohrwasser, Marshall

Leather

given himself a skunk spot
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
28,451
Tell you what. Complete an inventory of all the tattoos in the draft, and what YOU think they mean versus what the wearers think they mean, and I'll flip through the list to decide which ones I'm OK with. Otherwise, identifying one kid to destroy because you are opposed to what you think it represents to him (in spite of his denials) is pretty lame. I hope you or one of your children never face the same mob mentality.

Edit: He also has a very visible tattoo of an American flag, are you ok with that?
Even assuming that he didn’t know what the symbol meant when he got it* , the fact that he’s kept it uncovered up until now at a minimum leads to an inference that he was unconcerned with the symbol’s meaning up until the point it became advantageous for him to express concern. Yeah, maybe he’s a good kid and it’s all a zany mixup, but that’s not the most logical explanation.

And saying you are “pro troops” doesn’t earn you any bonus points. Using troops and veterans to deflect criticism from a poor personal decision is some cynical bullshit.

*which I suspect is baloney, too. The symbol is not something that is obviously “pro troops”; it’s a III surrounded by stars. If his goal was to get ink that was pro troops, why did he choose that one? It’s like having a tattoo of the iron cross and explaining it was because you really liked Volkswagen.
 

BrazilianSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 11, 2006
3,751
Brasil
Tell you what. Complete an inventory of all the tattoos in the draft, and what YOU think they mean versus what the wearers think they mean, and I'll flip through the list to decide which ones I'm OK with. Otherwise, identifying one kid to destroy because you are opposed to what you think it represents to him (in spite of his denials) is pretty lame. I hope you or one of your children never face the same mob mentality.

Edit: He also has a very visible tattoo of an American flag, are you ok with that?
Could you point to someone complaining about the American flag tattoo? It's there another player with similar tattoos that people are knowingly disregarding?

You're too fired up about this and you're not making much sense.

This isn't an abstract design that could mean one thing for some and another for others. It's the symbol of an organization with white supremacists ties.

The government won't/can't do shit about it, and so his first amendment rights aren't being trampled. But his employers, and it's customers, sure have the right to not want to be associated with someone expressing, and a tattoo is a form of expression, this kind of views.
 

BroodsSexton

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 4, 2006
12,630
guam
Edit: He also has a very visible tattoo of an American flag, are you ok with that?
lol. Yeah, because whatever else we know, criticizing white supremacist symbolism implies you don’t support the American flag. I mean—can you even imagine someone making that rhetorical move in the same way about gang tats associated with minorities? Game, set, match. Pull up your pants, your ass is showing. And I don’t even know what that means.

Ironically, it would probably be the threeper who wants to overthrow the government. So who the hell knows what this guy is up to.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,386
Robert Kraft is moderately orthodox Jewish. Does anyone here think that Kraft would be okay having a white supremacist neo-Nazi on his team, representing him, his family, and his organization?
 

BroodsSexton

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 4, 2006
12,630
guam
Ok, then I'm gonna be left in the dark. I'm not familiar with the world of neo-nazis or white supremacists.
Perfect response. Honestly, you couldn’t respond better if you knew who he was.

I assume a more centrist form of orthodoxy, as opposed to the conservative orthodox Jews who we might typically recognize visually by the way they dress etc.
This is like an Abbott and Costello routine. You’re mixing up Conservative, Orthodox, black kippah, and black hat. It is confusing, for sure.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,386
Perfect response. Honestly, you couldn’t respond better if you knew who he was.


You’re mixing up Conservative, Orthodox, black kippah, and black hat. It is confusing, for sure.
Yes I probably am. I'm just going by what was said on his wiki page about him.
 

BroodsSexton

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 4, 2006
12,630
guam
Stephen Miller is an extremist who serves as a close and high up advisor to 45.
He is also Jewish—hence the connection to the question about Kraft. Unfortunately, there is a long history of assimilated Jews turning a blind eye towards anti-minority policies, such that the original point “Would Kraft — who is Jewish — have a white supremacist on the team” is sort of interesting rhetorically and intellectually has appeal as an intuitive rejoinder, but ignores ample historical precedent. Arguably goes back to Egypt and the story of Joseph.
 

RetractableRoof

tolerates intolerance
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 1, 2003
3,836
Quincy, MA
I'm not sure anyone in this thread is still arguing the kid should be cut or face any kind of real consequences for having this tattoo, so I'm not sure what you're up in arms about. Jemele Hill isn't on this message board.

I want to make sure I'm understanding - are you arguing he should never have been questioned about it? That he should not have to answer for whether or not he belongs to a group with white supremacist ties?
1) I disagree with the first statement. AFTER he was asked about and answered the questions about his tattoo, there have been posts in here continuing to try to knock him down. Post "calling BS" on his story, posts showing old photos and twitter investigators attempting to discredit his statement, post from Jamelle Hill (and she didn't post them here, so clearly people here value her opinion enough to post it), a post referencing Guerrero calling him a white supremacist (and she didn't post it here, so people value her opinion enough to post it), people demanding answers from ownership explaining why a white supremacist was drafted, and more. I repeat, AFTER he denied it, distanced himself from the organization and it's current views, and that it will be covered up. Hell two or three posts above, people are still calling BS - "he didn't get rid of them fast enough", and one post above are still saying they and his employers have the right to not want to be associated with him because of his views. I'm thinking those are real consequences.

2) I've said repeatedly, he was asked, and he answered in a manner that denies the very thing people are trying to cause him "consequences" for. What more can the kid do? Are people looking for an hour of self flagellation? Two? Why is this kid assumed guilty? Is that what we want for our country?

Even assuming that he didn’t know what the symbol meant when he got it* , the fact that he’s kept it uncovered up until now at a minimum leads to an inference that he was unconcerned with the symbol’s meaning up until the point it became advantageous for him to express concern. Yeah, maybe he’s a good kid and it’s all a zany mixup, but that’s not the most logical explanation.

And saying you are “pro troops” doesn’t earn you any bonus points. Using troops and veterans to deflect criticism from a poor personal decision is some cynical bullshit.

*which I suspect is baloney, too. The symbol is not something that is obviously “pro troops”; it’s a III surrounded by stars. If his goal was to get ink that was pro troops, why did he choose that one? It’s like having a tattoo of the iron cross and explaining it was because you really liked Volkswagen.
1) The truth is often the most logical explanation. You are trying to find something that may or may not be there, and there is no way for the kid to defend himself from the "guilty until proven innocent" mentality.

2) He's a young kid who stated he was a teenager honoring family members who served their country. That's not wrapping yourself in the flag, unless one is a cynical asshole. It's wrapping yourself in your family and their values

3) Now you are an expert on tattoos, and the thought process of a teenager and what it might mean to him. I'm glad you are an expert - I've been around them my whole life (my dad is covered with them, and so are about 500 of his acquaintances) and if I've learned one thing about them, it's that what they mean to the wearer is exactly what the wearer says they mean - no matter the opinion of those looking at them. YMMV

Could you point to someone complaining about the American flag tattoo? It's there another player with similar tattoos that people are knowingly disregarding?

You're too fired up about this and you're not making much sense.

This isn't an abstract design that could mean one thing for some and another for others. It's the symbol of an organization with white supremacists ties.

The government won't/can't do shit about it, and so his first amendment rights aren't being trampled. But his employers, and it's customers, sure have the right to not want to be associated with someone expressing, and a tattoo is a form of expression, this kind of views.
1) I just asked a question: You've decided the meaning of one of his tattoos to him - is what you decide it is. I'm just asking what other tattoos of his you have a problem with. The question of intent was asked and answered by him. You continue to deny and overlook his answer to meet whatever bias you are carrying.

2) Not fired up, just tired of the mob mentality, in this case at a 23 year old kid. I made my fair share of bad choices in my teens through early 20s, and wouldn't want to have them examined and called a liar when I explained my decisions to people who've never met me. I've also got a 20 year old son who's put stuff on his social media that has embarrassed me as a parent and as a human being. And when he applies for a job after college, I wouldn't want him to face the same scrutiny over a stupid youthful decision. This kid touched a 3rd rail of sorts, we can all say it was a poor choice given what the organization has come to stand for. That doesn't mean he is a bad kid - nor should he be punished as such the way people in this thread are suggesting.

3) It isn't an abstract design, it is one that initially meant something very specific for the men who wore it. It was a symbol indicating permanent oath of loyalty/service by ex-military to their country. That is the symbol that he tattooed in support of various family members who served. That the organization was corrupted, or devolved to something else shouldn't sentence this kid to the professional consequences suggested by this thread.

lol. Yeah, because whatever else we know, criticizing white supremacist symbolism implies you don’t support the American flag. I mean—can you even imagine someone making that rhetorical move in the same way about gang tats associated with minorities? Game, set, match. Pull up your pants, your ass is showing. And I don’t even know what that means.

Ironically, it would probably be the threeper who wants to overthrow the government. So who the hell knows what this guy is up to.
1) That's not what I was suggesting, so perhaps you should check your own drawers. There is more than one tattoo on this kid, I'm wondering which others he doesn't approve of. I think it's a valid question.

2) I can't imagine anyone making any move associated with gang tats associated with minorities, because no one can ask the question without sparking their own storm of outrage. But that's a topic for another day, eh?

----------

Note: Still waiting for a show of hands of current/former military who want to tar and feather this kid...
 
Last edited:

BroodsSexton

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 4, 2006
12,630
guam
1) That's not what I was suggesting, so perhaps you should check your own drawers. There is more than one tattoo on this kid, I'm wondering which others he doesn't approve of. I think it's a valid question.
Not letting you off so easy. Literally no one has said that having a tattoo is, itself, an issue. So your connection was either nonsensical or you were making a specific connection there between objecting to a threeper tattoo and objecting to the American flag. I don’t think your argument is gibberish, so I’m going to take you at your word that you think one has a connection to the other—or at least that’s what you implied.

2) I can't imagine anyone making any move associated with gang tats associated with minorities, because no one can ask the question without sparking their own storm of outrage. But that's a topic for another day, eh?
Bullshit. You want to talk about guys with gang tats? Happy to discuss it. We can also have a wide ranging discussion about the social implications of street gangs versus white supremacy. It’s an interesting topic. Stop your victim attitude — it doesn’t exist. Guess what, there’s no War on Christmas either.

3) Still waiting for a show of hands of current/former military who want to tar and feather this kid...
What is the relevance? And should this make anyone feel better
 

Shaky Walton

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 20, 2019
717
What does "moderately orthodox" mean?
I think he means Kraft is a committed Jew or that Judaism is important to him. As far as I know, Kraft does not observe the Sabbath. I think he’s at Saturday Pats games. Also, he’s had at least one girl friend post Myra who is not Jewish.
 

PC Drunken Friar

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 12, 2003
14,542
South Boston
Note: Still waiting for a show of hands of current/former military who want to tar and feather this kid...
I'd also like to question current/former military that if they see a man walking down the street with a iii tattoo....do they automatically assume that dude is supporting the military?

He says he got it because a lot of the family is in the military. Did no one in his family tell him...yeah, that's not what that means? If military sees that tattoo and are cool with it, that man/woman is part of the problem.
 

Marciano490

Urological Expert
SoSH Member
Nov 4, 2007
62,312
1) I disagree with the first statement. AFTER he was asked about and answered the questions about his tattoo, there have been posts in here continuing to try to knock him down. Post "calling BS" on his story, posts showing old photos and twitter investigators attempting to discredit his statement, post from Jamelle Hill (and she didn't post them here, so clearly people here value her opinion enough to post it), a post referencing Guerrero calling him a white supremacist (and she didn't post it here, so people value her opinion enough to post it), people demanding answers from ownership explaining why a white supremacist was drafted, and more. I repeat, AFTER he denied it, distanced himself from the organization and it's current views, and that it will be covered up. Hell two or three posts above, people are still calling BS - "he didn't get rid of them fast enough", and one post above are still saying they and his employers have the right to not want to be associated with him because of his views. I'm thinking those are real consequences.

2) I've said repeatedly, he was asked, and he answered in a manner that denies the very thing people are trying to cause him "consequences" for. What more can the kid do? Are people looking for an hour of self flagellation? Two? Why is this kid assumed guilty? Is that what we want for our country?


1) The truth is often the most logical explanation. You are trying to find something that may or may not be there, and there is no way for the kid to defend himself from the "guilty until proven innocent" mentality.

2) He's a young kid who stated he was a teenager honoring family members who served their country. That's not wrapping yourself in the flag, unless one is a cynical asshole. It's wrapping yourself in your family and their values

3) Now you are an expert on tattoos, and the thought process of a teenager and what it might mean to him. I'm glad you are an expert - I've been around them my whole life (my dad is covered with them, and so are about 500 of his acquaintances) and if I've learned one thing about them, it's that what they mean to the wearer is exactly what the wearer says they mean - no matter the opinion of those looking at them. YMMV


1) I just asked a question: You've decided the meaning of one of his tattoos to him - is what you decide it is. I'm just asking what other tattoos of his you have a problem with. The question of intent was asked and answered by him. You continue to deny and overlook his answer to meet whatever bias you are carrying.

2) Not fired up, just tired of the mob mentality, in this case at a 23 year old kid. I made my fair share of bad choices in my teens through early 20s, and wouldn't want to have them examined and called a liar when I explained my decisions to people who've never met me. I've also got a 20 year old son who's put stuff on his social media that has embarrassed me as a parent and as a human being. And when he applies for a job after college, I wouldn't want him to face the same scrutiny over a stupid youthful decision. This kid touched a 3rd rail of sorts, we can all say it was a poor choice given what the organization has come to stand for. That doesn't mean he is a bad kid - nor should he be punished as such the way people in this thread are suggesting.

3) It isn't an abstract design, it is one that initially meant something very specific for the men who wore it. It was a symbol indicating permanent oath of loyalty/service by ex-military to their country. That is the symbol that he tattooed in support of various family members who served. That the organization was corrupted, or devolved to something else shouldn't sentence this kid to the professional consequences suggested by this thread.


1) That's not what I was suggesting, so perhaps you should check your own drawers. There is more than one tattoo on this kid, I'm wondering which others he doesn't approve of. I think it's a valid question.

2) I can't imagine anyone making any move associated with gang tats associated with minorities, because no one can ask the question without sparking their own storm of outrage. But that's a topic for another day, eh?

----------

Note: Still waiting for a show of hands of current/former military who want to tar and feather this kid...
I don’t think I fit your book definition, but my sister is active duty, my brother in law is in Iraq with the army and my dad’s in the army, too, and they all think right wing militias are pernicious. Again, who do you think the militias fight in the endgame scenario?

Also, Kraft went isn’t any kind of Orthodox, not that it matters. He goes, or at least went when Myra was alive, to a conservative temple in Newton.
 

RetractableRoof

tolerates intolerance
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 1, 2003
3,836
Quincy, MA
Not letting you off so easy. Literally no one has said that having a tattoo is, itself, an issue. So your connection was either nonsensical or you were making a specific connection there between objecting to a threeper tattoo and objecting to the American flag. I don’t think your argument is gibberish, so I’m going to take you at your word that you think one has a connection to the other—or at least that’s what you implied.


Bullshit. You want to talk about guys with gang tats? Happy to discuss it. We can also have a wide ranging discussion about the social implications of street gangs versus white supremacy. It’s an interesting topic. Stop your victim attitude — it doesn’t exist. Guess what, there’s no War on Christmas either.


What is the relevance? And should this make anyone feel better
The most common photo of the kid I have seen, he's showing north of 5 tattoos. One says "Liberty or Death", one is a star around his elbow. One is a US flag, one is the III tattoo. One shows the ace of spades surrounded by words I can't make out, parts of another with what looks like wings, perhaps an air force reference. I meant what I said, what of his other tattoos did he have a problem with. Liberty or Death? Surely there is some jerkwad group somewhere that has co-opted that into a negative connotation. The US Flag is shown as a tattered version, is there an issue with that one? If you think it was a gibberish point, or that it flew to close to the sun, so be it.

I'm not claiming victim status, not at all. I am saying that anyone in the main stream media who dared to approach the topic of a person of color having a tattoo which suggested violence, or hate, or the like wouldn't get far before they were fired. It's lousy, and it's true. In fact the very last time I tried on this very board to have a conversation about race, and its implications, I was told as a white person that I didn't have a voice that mattered on the topic. And you can be all funny and stuff, but it is what it is. Frankly, I don't know enough about white supremacy groups to fill a thimble. Have that conversation with someone else.

As to the military question, it's a point of curiosity. I'm betting not many members of the military have a problem with the kids explanation. Nothing more, nothing less.

I'd also like to question current/former military that if they see a man walking down the street with a iii tattoo....do they automatically assume that dude is supporting the military?

He says he got it because a lot of the family is in the military. Did no one in his family tell him...yeah, that's not what that means? If military sees that tattoo and are cool with it, that man/woman is part of the problem.
I bet they did 5-8 years ago... though I would suspect at that point mostly ex-military had them, so the support would have been implied. (Again, I profess my ignorance to the timeline, and when the organization devolved into what it is known for today.)

Is it possible that he has relatives who have the very same tattoo (let's say also from before the organization went to hell in a handbasket) and that's where he saw it? And saying that would be throwing them under the bus? It's a reasonable thought. Again, you are only viewing this thing through your eyes. You have to find fault in this kid, this scenario - because he can't be telling the truth in your mind. I'm not sure why that is.

I don’t think I fit your book definition, but my sister is active duty, my brother in law is in Iraq with the army and my dad’s in the army, too, and they all think right wing militias are pernicious. Again, who do you think the militias fight in the endgame scenario?

--snip--
Thanks for the answer, but it didn't address the actual question. I asked if someone in their shoes would be in the "tar and feather this kid" camp. [Presuming they've heard his denial of course.]
 

Jinhocho

Moderator
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2001
10,283
Durham, NC
The Oath Keepers and 3% types were basically libertarian/classical liberal/constitutionalist/conservative groups. There is a lot of stuff packed in there, but essentially it boils down to if government becomes a threat to liberty it is folks obligation to resist it. It is not much different than the founders rhetoric. Obviously, there are differences between rhetoric and action. There are lots of folks around the edges or even involved who believe quite a bit more than this and try and take it into their own direction but my guess/sense is that much of the attention those folks get is...based on the reaction of people who so want them to be white supremacists. It is the same folks who feel the Gadsen and Betsy Ross flags are symbols of hatred it. Honestly, I dont fly either one of those and never have BUT I also can see that people opposing them are going through considerable ju jitsu to make the case that anyone who endorses any of that stuff is a white supremacist. I cant believe people are arguing about this stuff on here.
 

Oppo

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 5, 2009
1,576
The Oath Keepers and 3% types were basically libertarian/classical liberal/constitutionalist/conservative groups. There is a lot of stuff packed in there, but essentially it boils down to if government becomes a threat to liberty it is folks obligation to resist it. It is not much different than the founders rhetoric. Obviously, there are differences between rhetoric and action. There are lots of folks around the edges or even involved who believe quite a bit more than this and try and take it into their own direction but my guess/sense is that much of the attention those folks get is...based on the reaction of people who so want them to be white supremacists. It is the same folks who feel the Gadsen and Betsy Ross flags are symbols of hatred it. Honestly, I dont fly either one of those and never have BUT I also can see that people opposing them are going through considerable ju jitsu to make the case that anyone who endorses any of that stuff is a white supremacist. I cant believe people are arguing about this stuff on here.
This
 

Darnell's Son

He's a machine.
Moderator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 23, 2010
9,532
Providence, RI
The most common photo of the kid I have seen, he's showing north of 5 tattoos. One says "Liberty or Death", one is a star around his elbow. One is a US flag, one is the III tattoo. One shows the ace of spades surrounded by words I can't make out, parts of another with what looks like wings, perhaps an air force reference. I meant what I said, what of his other tattoos did he have a problem with. Liberty or Death? Surely there is some jerkwad group somewhere that has co-opted that into a negative connotation. The US Flag is shown as a tattered version, is there an issue with that one? If you think it was a gibberish point, or that it flew to close to the sun, so be it.

I'm not claiming victim status, not at all. I am saying that anyone in the main stream media who dared to approach the topic of a person of color having a tattoo which suggested violence, or hate, or the like wouldn't get far before they were fired. It's lousy, and it's true. In fact the very last time I tried on this very board to have a conversation about race, and its implications, I was told as a white person that I didn't have a voice that mattered on the topic. And you can be all funny and stuff, but it is what it is. Frankly, I don't know enough about white supremacy groups to fill a thimble. Have that conversation with someone else.

As to the military question, it's a point of curiosity. I'm betting not many members of the military have a problem with the kids explanation. Nothing more, nothing less.


I bet they did 5-8 years ago... though I would suspect at that point mostly ex-military had them, so the support would have been implied. (Again, I profess my ignorance to the timeline, and when the organization devolved into what it is known for today.)

Is it possible that he has relatives who have the very same tattoo (let's say also from before the organization went to hell in a handbasket) and that's where he saw it? And saying that would be throwing them under the bus? It's a reasonable thought. Again, you are only viewing this thing through your eyes. You have to find fault in this kid, this scenario - because he can't be telling the truth in your mind. I'm not sure why that is.


Thanks for the answer, but it didn't address the actual question. I asked if someone in their shoes would be in the "tar and feather this kid" camp. [Presuming they've heard his denial of course.]
Can you stop calling him a fucking kid? He's in his early 20s for fuck's sake.

He was already, no doubt, in a diverse locker room at Marshall. The idea that the Patriots, who look very seriously into issues of team ethic, would have no idea if he couldn't get along with large blocks of his teammates is ridiculous.
Their recent history suggests that the man at the top does not particularly care about ethics (see: Hernandez, Aaron).

Not tattoos but lots of basketball players throw up gang signs after big shots, including James Harden. I think I remember Marquis Daniels having a bloods tattoo.
Oh neat, so there are bad people on both sides of the color spectrum.

You do realize that the right to freedom of speech is to protect from government restrictions?

You have the right to say whatever you want, but that doesn't remove society's right to judge the fuck out of you for it.
No, I don't think he really does.

So, do people think playing Tupac at a stadium is the same as playing a white supremacist punk or metal band? Because that’s nuts.

And people can believe whatever they want, but I never quite got how supporting militias supports our troops. I mean, who are they planning to fight?
This spider-loving asshole gets it.
 

Shaky Walton

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 20, 2019
717
I'm not getting into anything political. Or casting blame at the Pats.

It just sucks to have another thing to have to deal with that is NOT on the field. Whether it's the Sox trading Betts over money, the Sox cheating "scandal," the nonsense about them getting too light of a penalty because they had some kind of a wink-wink nod-nod with the Commish, the Pats being investigated for Sypgate 2.0, all the Brady build up, the Gronk add on and now this kicker thing, it seems like it's "always something" off the field with these teams.

Could this be my Boston fan bias speaking? I mean, it's possible. But I note that the Cs and Bs rarely make this kind of news, and I follow all four teams avidly.

Anyway, here's to the K doing whatever he needs to do to make this go away.

Onto the field, it's just so Patriots to not go for Blankenship. It's as if the Pats put zero stock in what the various pundits have to say. Not "as if." They just don't. We saw that with the WRs this year too. I wonder if their preparation includes scouring certain media and third party evaluations. I would think that Bill would want the benefit of all available information. But on the flip side, he might view stuff from outside the organization as either a waste of time or as corrupting their process.

They're a fascinating team to watch. I just could do with a little less off field drama.
 
Last edited:

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,386
I'm not getting into anything political. Or casting blame at the Pats.

It just sucks to have another thing to have to deal with that is NOT on the field. Whether it's the Sox trading Betts over money, the Sox cheating "scandal," the nonsense about them getting too light of penalty because they had some kind of a wink-wink nod-nod with the Commish, the Pats being invested for Sypgate 2.0, all the Brady build up, the Gronk add on and now this kicker thing, it seems like it's "always something" off the field with these teams.

Could this be my Boston fan bias speaking? I mean, it's possible. But I note that the Cs and Bs rarely make this kind of news, and I follow all four teams avidly.

Anyway, here's to the K doing whatever he needs to do to make this go away.

Onto the field, it's just so Patriots to not go for Blankenship. It's as if the Pats put zero stock in what the various pundits have to say. Not "as if." They just don't. We saw that with the WRs this year too. I wonder if their preparation includes scouring certain media and third party evaluations. I would think that Bill would want the benefit of all available information. But on the flip side, he might view stuff from outside the organization as either a waste of time or as corrupting their process.

They're a fascinating team to watch. I just could do with a little less off field drama.
I think the biggest reason they went with him is because he's proven he can be nails in tough conditions. If the Pats played in a dome, Blankenship may have been their guy. My biggest concern is why spend a 5th rounder on a guy that virtually everyone thought could have been had as a UDFA. But we know that BB thinks differently - when he has a guy he wants, he doesn't wait to hope he's around later. He just takes him.

If this guy turns out to be really good, it won't be long before we forget all about the fact that he was taken in the 5th round. If he turns out to stink, or if the tattoo business undermines his chances of even playing for them, then losing that 5th round pick will sting.
 

Shelterdog

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Feb 19, 2002
15,375
New York City
I think the biggest reason they went with him is because he's proven he can be nails in tough conditions. If the Pats played in a dome, Blankenship may have been their guy. My biggest concern is why spend a 5th rounder on a guy that virtually everyone thought could have been had as a UDFA. But we know that BB thinks differently - when he has a guy he wants, he doesn't wait to hope he's around later. He just takes him.

If this guy turns out to be really good, it won't be long before we forget all about the fact that he was taken in the 5th round. If he turns out to stink, or if the tattoo business undermines his chances of even playing for them, then losing that 5th round pick will sting.
The "you could have gotten him later" argument is really not a good one in almost all circumstances. It only takes one other team to agree with your assessment for you to lose your player.

The fact that various public player evaluations rate him as an UDFA really says as much about their reliability as it does about his talent level. I initially had the same reaction as everyone-who is this guy?--and then you look at him and you see 18/21 as a senior at a solid program, pretty big leg and a lot of touchbacks, kicked outside in the northeast, apparently good record in 4th quarter and overtime--that's a very solid prospect. Lord if I know how he compares to Blankenship or Bass but for sure the Pats scouting department and special teams couch--and you can bet every other organization looking at kickers--knew who he was.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,386
The "you could have gotten him later" argument is really not a good one in almost all circumstances. It only takes one other team to agree with your assessment for you to lose your player.

The fact that various public player evaluations rate him as an UDFA really says as much about their reliability as it does about his talent level. I initially had the same reaction as everyone-who is this guy?--and then you look at him and you see 18/21 as a senior at a solid program, pretty big leg and a lot of touchbacks, kicked outside in the northeast, apparently good record in 4th quarter and overtime--that's a very solid prospect. Lord if I know how he compares to Blankenship or Bass but for sure the Pats scouting department and special teams couch--and you can bet every other organization looking at kickers--knew who he was.
I agree. And I felt this way about Dugger. First reaction: WTF? Then I realized that just because *I* hadn't heard of him, doesn't mean that NFL people hadn't. Because they sure as hell HAD. And he wasn't lasting much longer than where BB picked him. Every NFL evaluator was high on him.
 

BigJimEd

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2002
4,432
I wonder if their preparation includes scouring certain media and third party evaluations. I would think that Bill would want the benefit of all available information. But on the flip side, he might view stuff from outside the organization as either a waste of time or as corrupting their process.
Leading up to the draft a few years ago there was a report that the Patriots were one of only a few teams that did not subscribe to the big national scouting services.
They wanted their scouts to look at players without any preconceived notions.
 

BroodsSexton

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 4, 2006
12,630
guam
The "you could have gotten him later" argument is really not a good one in almost all circumstances. It only takes one other team to agree with your assessment for you to lose your player.

The fact that various public player evaluations rate him as an UDFA really says as much about their reliability as it does about his talent level. I initially had the same reaction as everyone-who is this guy?--and then you look at him and you see 18/21 as a senior at a solid program, pretty big leg and a lot of touchbacks, kicked outside in the northeast, apparently good record in 4th quarter and overtime--that's a very solid prospect. Lord if I know how he compares to Blankenship or Bass but for sure the Pats scouting department and special teams couch--and you can bet every other organization looking at kickers--knew who he was.
Exactly--I mean, by definition, anyone who rates him as an UDFA has made an error, just as anyone who rates a player lower (or higher) than he is selected has erred.
 

mauf

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers
Moderator
SoSH Member
Rohrwasser went roughly where the first placekicker has gone in most recent years, so unless you know enough about kickers to say that some other kicker was more talented, I think it’s hard to find fault with the pick.
 

RetractableRoof

tolerates intolerance
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 1, 2003
3,836
Quincy, MA
Can you stop calling him a fucking kid? He's in his early 20s for fuck's sake.
-- snip--
Um, no. He's fresh out of college, wet behind the ears, and while I may not have much more knowledge than him, there's a desert behind mine. Relativity being what it is, he's just a kid.

Also, raising the volume and spewing profanity doesn't make you sound wiser either. If you as a dope are asking me to stop characterizing him as a kid - then I'd ask you to be more polite in your request - there's nothing in my posting that would indicate your need to be a horses ass. If it's a non-dope request, then respectfully, no. When others on this site refer to anyone who walks through a church door as a "bible thumping hater", I think you can handle someone referring to a very young inexperienced person as a kid. It's not a slur, it's a reminder. Still bothered by it? Use the ignore mechanism.
 

RetractableRoof

tolerates intolerance
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 1, 2003
3,836
Quincy, MA
--snip--
Onto the field, it's just so Patriots to not go for Blankenship. It's as if the Pats put zero stock in what the various pundits have to say. Not "as if." They just don't. We saw that with the WRs this year too. I wonder if their preparation includes scouring certain media and third party evaluations. I would think that Bill would want the benefit of all available information. But on the flip side, he might view stuff from outside the organization as either a waste of time or as corrupting their process.

They're a fascinating team to watch. I just could do with a little less off field drama.
Just out of curiosity, doesn't the Patriots run of success over the last 20 years imply they are collectively doing something better than the rest of the league (in terms of playoff/championship results)? If BB listened to the pundits (like Borges?) and others, Brady was done 6-8 years ago. There's 2 superbowls gone from the team, etc. I don't mean to say "in Bill we trust", because that's not it. But for me, it's certainly "in Bill I trust more than some half baked pundit who's trying to generate clicks versus building a team with expectations of winning". Or am I missing your point?
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,386
I wonder, like many of us, how much of BB's success is due to Tom Brady. I wonder the reverse, too. But it's possible that Brady is even better than he appears, that maybe he covered up for a lot of BB errors that now might be exposed with a much lesser QB and leader at the helm.

But absolutely I trust Bill more than any pundit. Doesn't make him infallible or anything like it (and I would hope nobody is suggesting you're claiming others), but it does mean that if I have to bet on Bill making a right decision or a wrong decision, football-wise, I'm putting my money on the right decision.
 

luckiestman

Son of the Harpy
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
32,622
I wonder, like many of us, how much of BB's success is due to Tom Brady. I wonder the reverse, too. But it's possible that Brady is even better than he appears, that maybe he covered up for a lot of BB errors that now might be exposed with a much lesser QB and leader at the helm.

But absolutely I trust Bill more than any pundit. Doesn't make him infallible or anything like it (and I would hope nobody is suggesting you're claiming others), but it does mean that if I have to bet on Bill making a right decision or a wrong decision, football-wise, I'm putting my money on the right decision.

A lot of his success is due to Tom Brady but he picked and started Tom Brady. BB was a great coordinator for many years and was doing a good job until the rug was pulled in Cleveland.
 

mauf

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers
Moderator
SoSH Member
Perhaps in at least one way:
- The markings they adorn their bodies with are governed under their constitutional rights.
One group wears their markings without issue, without strangers 1000s of miles away making broad proclamations of whether they are suitable to pursue their professions with an employer that shows interest. The other not so much.

And let's not forget the kid has stated (with no evidence to the contrary) that he thought it was a positive message of support to the military of our country, disavowed himself with the current perception/leanings of the group, and that it would be covered. But it's not enough for those in this thread, they've declared it's BS, because they know what this stranger's personal body art means to him - even though they'd never heard of him 10 days ago. And the team owners should have to explain themselves by golly. Oh, and now we hear those voices of support from the teammates of color that have been around him for years - they don't count either because "locker room code". Interesting, I hope those making these points, and these judgments get the same clarity of thought from others when it comes to their own turn in the spotlight.
Would you feel the same if Rohrwasser had a tattoo of a swastika on his arm? That's constitutionally protected free speech too.

I'll assume that you wouldn't be OK having someone with a swastika tattoo playing for the Pats. So this has nothing to do with free speech, and is instead an argument that "Three Percenters" are, in the grand scheme of things, not all that bad. Reasonable opinion can disagree on that, but there's a big difference between arguing "there isn't evidence that Rohrwasser is a racist" and "it doesn't matter if Rohrwasser is a racist." A lot of the heat you're catching in this thread is because you've been unwittingly arguing the latter when I think you really meant to be arguing the former.


The kid deserves to have his words taken at face value. We all do as Americans, otherwise it's guilty until proven innocent, and as far as I can tell we know that doesn't work.
I'm assuming you don't regularly take strangers' words at face value, because if you did, you would've sent your life savings to some Nigerian prince and wouldn't have enough money left to pay for the Internet connection you're using to participate in this debate.

My parents taught me that actions speak louder than words. Rohrwasser chose to get that tattoo, then chose not to get it covered in the years since. I think those actions are more likely to reflect his true feelings than a statement he only gave when having that tattoo threatened to hurt him professionally.

But reasonable opinion can certainly differ. I think @TSC laid out the counterargument nicely upthread -- Three Percenters have taken a turn toward white nationalism in the past few years, but weren't historically that way, and Rohrwasser got his tattoo before that bad turn. Unless more facts emerge to cast doubt on that story, I think Rohrwasser will get the benefit of the doubt from both the public and his teammates, though I do think he'll have to offer a public mea culpa to get the Boston media to drop the story.
 

Marciano490

Urological Expert
SoSH Member
Nov 4, 2007
62,312
I wasn’t the first to notice it, but the dude also has an all seeing eye tattoo. It goes with the liberty or death and the ace of spades and the don’t tread on me tattoo. It’s a constellation of related tats. None are specifically damning, but it’s not like the 3% is out of place on his canvas.