News Archives

New York Giants’ Steve Weatherford Wants Apology from S.W.A.T.S. Co-Owner Mitch Ross

February 4th, 2013 at 2:15 PM
By Dan Benton

Shortly after dropping the name of Baltimore Ravens linebacker Ray Lewis, S.W.A.T.S. co-owner Mitch Ross continued to make accusations about clients he and his company allegedly provided banned substances to. Included among the names on his long list was New York Giants punter Steve Weatherford, who immediately denied the accusations.

'Steve Weatherford of the New York Giants' photo (c) 2012, Marianne O'Leary - license: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/

During halftime of the New York Knicks-Sacramento Kings game on Saturday evening, Weatherford was asked about Ross' comments and took things a step further. Not only did Weatherford continue to deny even knowing Ross, he said he would like a public apology from him.

"I've never met Mitch Ross, I've never taken any of his products, I've never taken an illegal substance and his claims were totally unsubstantiated. And I've contacted legal council regarding his slanderous statements," Weatherford said at halftime of the Knicks-Kings game on Saturday.

Ross alleged that his company, Sports With Alternatives To Steroids, provided Weatherford with hologram stickers known as "performance chips." As it turns out, these "chips" are not banned by the NFL, and merely "encode radio waves emitted near them" (citing Sports Illustrated).

Legal or illegal, Weatherford maintains that he's not had a relationship with Ross or S.W.A.T.S, and shortly after the allegations were made, his lawyer tweeted to that effect.

"As his attorney, I can promise you that [Steve Weatherford] is looking into all legal options and will not tolerate a snake oil salesman's slander," Peter Siachos tweeted.

As we've mentioned previously here on Giants 101, Weatherford has been an upstanding citizen his entire career and even more so since joining the Giants. We'll take his word over a man who believes every human has two separate brains.

Also…

Facebook Twitter Plusone Pinterest Linkedin Digg Delicious Reddit Stumbleupon Tumblr Posterous Email

Tags: Football, New York, New York Giants, NFL, Ray Lewis, Steve Weatherford

No related posts.

75 Responses to “New York Giants’ Steve Weatherford Wants Apology from S.W.A.T.S. Co-Owner Mitch Ross”

1 2 3 4
  1.  Nosh.0 says:

    Thank you. This is what I’ve been screaming about. The absurd notion that Nicks is far and away better than Cruz. And that Cruz’s success is simply a product of Nicks being so good.

    Now when 100% healthy Nicks is better because he has maybe the best hands in the league. He can catch a ball with a defender all over him.

    However, the extreme favoritism Nicks gets on here is leading people to completely overlook that his injuries are very concerning. Especially the broken foot from non contact. Look no further than Bradshaw if you want to see how a broken foot can linger and effect a players career and longevity.

  2.  Nosh.0 says:

    Now on to Marty B. The man is simply Jerimichael Finley. A guy with all the talent in the world whose on field production has never matched that talent.

    I know it is a dream/fantasy of many that finding a dynamic pass catching TE will take this offense to new heights. However in 2012 Marty B did about the same thing for our offense as Jake Ballard in 2011, and Kevin Boss in 2010. The guy, for all is physical gifts, is replaceable. And honestly, I trusted Ballard and Boss more in a big spot than I did Marty.

    Right now there’s only 3 TE’s in the NFL worth paying. Gronk, Vernon Davis, Jimmy Graham. And Marty ain’t on that level. Kid is gone. You don’t pay TE’s in this league unless they’re special. Marty B aint that.

    Marty B unfortunately never took our offense to new great heights. You know who did though? Victor Cruz. When him and Nicks were both healthy they took our offense to new heights, and that’s why they’re both staying. Marty B is not even in the same discussion as these two.

    •  GOAT56 says:

      No one is saying you pay Marty B elite money but you are overlooking the blocking aspect which is a huge part of his value. Look at the dead last running offense rose to top 10 in yards per carry without MM and with a gimpy Nicks. His impact is way more than just numbers. That’s what makes him light years better than a player like Finley. Ballard and Boss each dropped balls too, it’s just your gut and there’s little evidence to support it.

      Can we replace him? Of course anyone but Eli, JPP and Nicks are replaceable. But Bennett is the perfect TE for how we play and should be reasonable to keep.

    •  fanfor55years says:

      No one will break the bank for Bennett. He’s a good tight end with upside.

      There aren’t going to be tight ends for the Giants who have great stats. Their offense isn’t oriented that way. But Bennett fits their needs (excellent blocker, more-than-adequate receiver) and DOES have one “extra” in that he is able to get downfield. He cannot come close to matching Vernon Davis (none can) but he is as good a downfield threat as Graham and Gronk (who are clearly the better players but in Graham’s case might NOT be as valuable for the Giants as is Marty B.).

      For all any of us know Robinson could prove the best of the bunch. But right now I’d certainly say Davis and Gronk are in another league altogether, Graham is at the next level, and Bennett is among the dozen best in the league, and plenty good enough for what the Giants need.

      •  Nosh.0 says:

        Boss at one point was in the top 12 in the league too. The point is, Marty B is replaceable. The offense will still be able to function just fine without him.

        It’s the same thinking that went into Manningham leaving. He was a luxury. Same goes for Bennett.

  3.  GOAT56 says:

    Repost:

    GOAT56 says:
    February 4, 2013 at 12:14 PM
    There’s a different facet of the Cruz discussion that I talked in length about several months ago and Jfunk mentioned last thread. I don’t think paying 2 WRs probably 15 mil plus a year combined is the right way to build a team. It’s too much invested in the wrong position. I feel this is an area that Indy made a mistake with Peyton. Indy invested so much in the salaries of their skill position (mainly WRs & TEs) players that their roster wasn’t as balanced as it should be. I think that’s a major reason they didn’t win more SBs. I understand when looking at Cruz vs a Canty or Webster or another overpriced vet many think what’s the decision just re-sign Cruz and let those guys go. But when you invest heavily in one position it hurts the quality you can amass at other positions. JR has to view this long term and not just what works best for a year or two. I have long thought (I was criticized heavily here) that the best way to move forward is to just keep either Nicks or Cruz. I always favored Nicks but at mid-season I thought it was a fair debate and I had some conflict. To me the last half or final 6 games as Dan detailed showed that Cruz isn’t a true #1 WR. That doesn’t mean he isn’t a very good or even great WR but that definitely hurts what he’s worth. The reason you would pay 2 WRs so much money is that they are each dynamic and could still be great if something happened the other WR. I don’t think that’s the case with Cruz though even if it was I think you would have to choose to keep just one WR.

    The negative aspect of drafting well in today’s NFL is you can’t afford to keep everyone if they are good. So you have to not only make an assessment on the player but the position. That’s why re-signing Beatty is important. I think Eli has proven over his career that he can adjust to losing his so called “security blanket.” With both Plax to Steve Smith many argued that these players were need for Eli to be successful. But that’s not the case, Eli will function fine without any single WR as long as another talented option is added. I think choosing to keep just Nicks is much more about Eli than it’s about Cruz. Having great WR who take up significant salary is just not the way to build a roster that gives us the best chance to win SBs.

    Reply
    sonnymooks says:
    February 4, 2013 at 1:59 PM
    I just want to start off by saying, that I am NOT a conspiracy theorist or a gossip monger, and don’t generally believe in rumors, but this one rumor I remember hearing aligns a little bit with what you are saying, to a small extent, and it has/had to do with the steelers.

    The story was that Coach Tomlin wanted Bruce Arians back, and had already informed him (this part isn’t rumor, thats confirmed), then rumor is that Rooney stepped in, and wanted Arians out (hence the mismanaged story of retirement), not because Arians was a bad coordinator, but because the teams more pass oriented offense was to difficult financially to maintain.

    The story/rumor was that Rooney believed that in passing systems, everyone gets paid more. WRs put up better numbers, so they become worth more, and when it comes to FA time, they leave, and new ones have to be drafted, then developed (WRs take longer to develop then say, RBs). Also, OL that can pass block are more expensive then OL that are better run blockers, simply by supply and demand, there are more good run blocking OL then there are pass blocking OL, and running a passing attack, puts a preimum on a smaller supply of OL guys, who then have to be replaced when they hit the market via the draft. Going with a run heavy attack, does allow the RBs to put up the number, but its easier to find good RBs then it is to find good WRs, and easier to develop RBs then WRs, and its also easier to find and develop good run blocking OL guys then good pass blocking OL guys. Thus, a run oriented offense is cheaper and less expensive and easier to maintain then a passing heavy attack, and that frees up money that can be spent on the defense.

    Its always been a rumor, and I have no idea if its actually true or just an attempt to rationalize the sloppy departure/ouster of Arians when he was the Pitt O.C. but the logic is very sound, and makes sense.

    That said, losing Cruz hurts Nicks, losing Nicks hurts cruz, you get maximum production out of both by having both, one without the other, diminishes the one you keep. Add to that the Giants run a very complex and complicated passing system, and it further retards development unless the receiver is ultra talented. Eli has done a fantastic job developing WRs, but its stressful for him to be put in a position to have to continuely develop chemistry with new receivers, and make no mistake, it doesn’t help him.

    Its a real quandry, and how Reese handles it, determines everything.

    Reply

    •  Nosh.0 says:

      Not really fair to say that Cruz isn’t a #1 because of the last 6 games of the season. The whole team played like garbage the last 6 weeks. If we go by that than Eli isn’t very good, JPP stinks, and basically we have a bottom 10 roster in football because that’s pretty much how we played down the stretch.

      •  GOAT56 says:

        It’s possible you’re right. But there is no evidence that Cruz can be a #1 and we know Nicks can be a #1 WR. You don’t shell out big money for hope.

        But the main point of my post is we should only pay one WR given what they will likely cost.

    •  GOAT56 says:

      “you get maximum production out of both by having both” – in what sense? At WR yes but at what cost to the other facets of the team? It’s like when the Carolina paid 2 RBs tons of money. Paying 2 WRs makes more sense than 2 RBs but it’s still a bad investment IMO.

      Yes both WRs are important but they play different positions and #1 WR is more import than the position Cruz plays. It’s just much more costly to find just a competent #1 WR compared to a good #2/slot WR.

    •  Krow says:

      Sonny makes a good analysis concerning the cost of a passing attack vs a running one.

  4.  Nosh.0 says:

    And that’s the last I’ll say on the Cruz matter. Because I look around this roster and the first guys I need to lock up are the difference makers. The guys who change games. Who other teams worry about, and who for lack of a better word, are irreplaceable.

    Cruz and Nicks are difference makers. Teams are scared of them. Marty B? No. Corey Webster? Def No. Tuck? Maybe. Same for Canty and Boley.

    Landfill? Right now, not really. I’d argue the same for Beatty.

    Look even a defense loaded with Talent like San Fran needed to put up major points to get to the SB. It’s a passing league, an offense driven league.

    If I need to let some guys on Defense walk to keep Nicks and Cruz I’m doing it. Because those 2 take the offense to an elite level. You want to get back to the SB you keep the guys you can’t replace, the guys teams are scared of that change games. JPP, Cruz, Nicks, Eli.

    •  GOAT56 says:

      I don’t get your posy about Bennett. Including blocking Bennett was still much better at TE than anyone since Shockey. And he still has upside as a WR. Finley doesn’t block so don’t even compare the two players.

      Different makers are not all equal. Having a 2 great WRs helps but it’s not the same as 2 DEs or 2 CBs. You’re using the philly dream team formula. SB champs are made from the 53 man roster. You do need some difference makers but you can only keep so many so you can have pretty good players at the end of your roster instead of bums.

      •  GOAT56 says:

        And so we weakened a defense that was already the worse in franchise history? We have Cruz for 2013 unless we get a first round pick. So we have plenty of time to find and/or develop his replacement.

  5.  Nosh.0 says:

    And yes surprising that Nicks injury history has gotten no play when discussing signing him long term. Broken foot on non contact. Ask Ahmad Bradshaw how well those heal up.

  6.  Nosh.0 says:

    And really, I don’t see why you couldn’t give Cruz and Nicks 9 mill a year both for 2-3 years? In 2 -3 years one will have inevitably faded, that’s just the nature of football.

    In fact that is my game plan going forward. Keep both WR’s until one shows who is far and away better. Even if it’s year to year. All I know is that Cruz and Nicks have to be on this team in 2013. Then after another year of evidence maybe you can more easily make a choice.

    •  GOAT56 says:

      Do you not see that we are over the cap? We already have Beatty that we need to re-sign. So we pay Cruz 9 mil for 3 years and then do what with Nicks? Because Nicks is worth 9 mil plus a year. So that means in 2014 we either are paying our WRs 18 mil plus a year or we have no Nicks and have to hope Randle or Cruz can be that player.

      You sign Cruz to the RFA tender and call it a day. There is no need to give him extra money in 2013 unless he’s giving a discount. 8-10 mil per year is far far from a discount. If a team wants to pay Cruz and give us a first round pick then so be it.

  7.  Nosh.0 says:

    I can’t do this anymore. Here’s some facts.

    - Nicks when healthy is better than Cruz.

    - The phrase “assuming health” gets G.M.’s and coaches fired.

    - Marty B is not getting big $$$ from us. Either he takes a dirt cheap deal or he is gone. Reese don’t pay TE’s. Especially under achieving ones.

    - Cruz and Nicks will be on the roster in 2013.

    - Victor Cruz still remains the #1 most underrated/ under appreciated Giant. Taking the crown from 2009/2010 Osi.

    •  fanfor55years says:

      Five propositions:

      1) Hakeem Nicks is among the five best wide receivers in the NFL at full health (look at 2010-2011 for proof) and is still young;

      2) Victor Cruz is the top slot receiver in the NFL, and is young;

      3) The X-receiver is, in today’s NFL, the second most important player on a team, right after the quarterback. If you don’t have an elite one you can be defensed easily by a solid defense;

      4) An offense can be very successful with a “solid” slot receiver who can readily beat the defense’s third corner or a safety, but cannot succeed with just a “solid” X-receiver. That player must be better than that;

      5) The Giants are not giving rich long-term contracts to players whom they have any reason to believe are not physically sound.

      Draw your own conclusions.

    •  fanfor55years says:

      As you know, I was leading the charge regarding Osi being underrated, and said the same about the vastly underrated McKenzie.

      I really don’t think anyone underrates Cruz. You are simply refusing to recognize that some see this as a business proposition rather than a question of Cruz’s obvious talent.

      •  Nosh.0 says:

        Ohh no it’s def not business. If it was people would be far more concerned with giving Nicks big $$$ with his health concerns. This is simply that people LOVE Nicks and grossly underrate Cruz.

        Peace out. See you mofos in March, or the draft. Who knows.

    •  jfunk says:

      Impressive. Way to take a strong stand against a bunch of points nobody ever made. You’re really good at arguing with ghosts.

      1 – Yep, you agree with everybody you claim to have been arguing with over the past several days.

      2 – It’s the doctors’ call and that’s all anybody can rely on.

      3 – Nobody has ever advocated “big money” to Marty B and he didn’t underachieve this year.

      4 – Yep, nobody has ever suggested either wouldn’t. Nicks is under contract and the only question on Cruz is whether it will be on a RFA tender contract or not.

      5 – By whom? You agree with most here in your first point – Nicks is better – that’s the only “negative” thing anybody has ever said about him. How is saying Nicks is more important underrating Cruz?

  8.  fanfor55years says:

    Nosh.0 says:
    February 4, 2013 at 2:21 PM

    Now onto other players.

    Will Beatty- I get the sense that the organization is not thrilled with him. I don’t think he has that toughness that you want your OL to have. That being said he’s young and played pretty well for a time last year. He will be back in 2013 but if I’m the Giants I see if I get get a look at him in 2013 without a long term deal, to really see what this guy is worth. Ditto for the landfill.
    Reply

    fanfor55years says:
    February 4, 2013 at 2:38 PM

    Perhaps you could enlighten the rest of us by explaining how one gets a free agent left tackle to sign a short-term contract.

  9.  LUZZ says:

    There is no chance Beatty takes a contract that’s less than market value. He is a very solid LT who still has more upside. He’s not going to agree to a short term deal. solid LTs are in demand, so there will be no short term deal for Beatty. He’s going to get paid on this contract and it will be a 5 or 6 year deal.

  10.  Nosh.0 says:

    But yeah the idea that Nicks is far and away more valuable than Cruz is wrong. Nicks when healthy is better. By a little.

    Same as the argument that Cruz only had a great year because of Nicks. One day you guys will all see. Probably in the next year or 2 when Nicks is hurt again and Randle is beasting on the outside. With Cruz calmly having another 80 catch, 1000 yard, 10 td year.

1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Login with: