PDA

View Full Version : Panthers Owner Jerry Richardson Doesn't Want Cam Newton To Have Tattoos


Brown Leader
08-24-2011, 10:27 PM
http://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2011/8/24/2381893/jerry-richardson-panthers-cam-newton-tattoos

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/08/24/jerry-richardson-to-cam-newton-no-tattoos-no-piercings/


I don't remember any discussion about this in April. In short, within the realm of sports, I'd say Richardson's position is off base. What say you? Let's see how long this can be discussed rationally.

Brent
08-24-2011, 10:31 PM
He is his employer, and is paying him millions of dollars. He is entirely justified in asking Cam Newton to not have tattoos.

wordofi
08-24-2011, 10:41 PM
The quarterback is the face of the franchise, and you want him to look presentable. Imagine Tom Brady or Peyton Manning with tattoos. Not an attractive sight. Call me a racist if you choose, but no owner wants their quarterback looking anything remotely close to Allen Iverson.

Richardson is right about Newton. He looks the part. No tattoos and dresses well.

Brown Leader
08-24-2011, 10:44 PM
Eh, filled with hyperbole but I'm more in line with this hilarious comment...

Other things Richards would prefer Cam Newton abstain from:
Jazz music
Speakeasies
Voting
Looking him in the eye
Education beyond elementary school
The talkies
Not wearing a hat
Wearing a hat indoors
Flappers
The big city
The horseless carriage.


It's sports/entertainment remember. Iverson was and still is one of the most marketable athletes.

holt_bruce81
08-24-2011, 10:47 PM
The quarterback is the face of the franchise, and you want him to look presentable. Imagine Tom Brady or Peyton Manning with tattoos. Not an attractive sight. Call me a racist if you choose, but no owner wants their quarterback looking anything remotely close to Allen Iverson.

Richardson is right about Newton. He looks the part. No tattoos and dresses well.

Allen Iverson? Wasn't he one of the most marketbale players in basketball a few years ago?

Halsey
08-24-2011, 10:50 PM
People get tattoos because they want to feel different and rebellious. They should be glad when an old fuddy-duddy like Richardson gives them confirmation.

yo123
08-24-2011, 10:57 PM
I love when situations like this come up and people act like the NFL is just any old job. He's not working at a desk here, it shouldn't matter if he has tattoos. It's not a huge deal, but it's just weird to me.

V.I.P
08-24-2011, 11:20 PM
Vick has tattoos, and he's doing just fine?

Also, don't remember this being said to Clausen last year, hmmm.

wordofi
08-24-2011, 11:29 PM
Allen Iverson? Wasn't he one of the most marketbale players in basketball a few years ago?

That's because it's basketball. You're comparing apples to oranges. He'd be unmarketable as an NFL quarterback. Also, he looks like a thug.

wordofi
08-24-2011, 11:30 PM
Vick has tattoos, and he's doing just fine?

Also, don't remember this being said to Clausen last year, hmmm.

You don't see him doing to amount of commercials that Brady or Manning are doing. Also, there's still people who are boycotting him.

Hurricanes25
08-24-2011, 11:34 PM
You don't see him doing to amount of commercials that Brady or Manning are doing. Also, there's still people who are boycotting him.

People are boycotting Vick because he killed dogs, not because he has tattoos.

V.I.P
08-24-2011, 11:35 PM
That's because it's basketball. You're comparing apples to oranges. He'd be unmarketable as an NFL quarterback. Also, he looks like a thug.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-cnJQ9sxp4Ko/TbggFKAeb9I/AAAAAAAAAJA/x0JWIdjFXao/s1600/racist.jpg

People are boycotting Vick because he killed dogs, not because he has tattoos.

Yo beat me to it.

bearsfan_51
08-24-2011, 11:39 PM
I love how racist people always tell you they're not racist right before they say something racist. It's like when people tell you how cute their ugly kid is.

For the record, I agree with Brent, it's totally valid to tell an employee they can't have tats. You can make that argument and not be racist. Although Jerry Richardson is a 75 year old rich white guy from the South, so yeah, he's probably a little racist.

Complex
08-24-2011, 11:41 PM
You don't see him doing to amount of commercials that Brady or Manning are doing. Also, there's still people who are boycotting him.

He used to have Coca-Cola commercials,Mike Vick experience commercial,Mike and T.O commercial,powerade commercial,all those Nike commercials, and so many others that I don't remember.

This was all before the dog stuff.

wS4uO19uKX0

bam bam
08-25-2011, 12:20 AM
I love when situations like this come up and people act like the NFL is just any old job.

You are right, it is much more important and much more public than any old job. There are cameras surrounding him all day as the head of a multimillion dollar franchise.

He just got paid $20 million, I think the guy who gave it to him has every right tell him not to get ink or piercings.

bearsfan_51
08-25-2011, 12:31 AM
You are right, it is much more important and much more public than any old job. There are cameras surrounding him all day as the head of a multimillion dollar franchise.

He just got paid $20 million, I think the guy who gave it to him has every right tell him not to get ink or piercings.
To be fair, he's not "giving" it to him. Cam Newton is going to make Jerry Richardson some cash. This isn't UNICEF.

FUNBUNCHER
08-25-2011, 12:32 AM
Crap argument. Most casual sports fans don't even know what most football players look like, because of the helmet.

The owner should worry more about Cam leading the Panthers to a SB, not his ink.

Even the U.S. military has dropped its restrictions on enlisted soldiers being tatted. Ink is good enough for Uncle Sam, but below the standards of Jerry Richardson ?
If Cam becomes a really good NFL QB playing under his first contract, I think comments like this one make it unlikely he re-signs with the Panthers.


Richardson should just wear a tee shirt that says ' SLAP ME. I'M OLD'.

EDIT: Complex, what movie is that from with the chick peeling her panties off?? Nice.

bam bam
08-25-2011, 12:47 AM
Crap argument. Most casual sports fans don't even know what most football players look like, because of the helmet.

The owner should worry more about Cam leading the Panthers to a SB, not his ink.

Even the U.S. military has dropped its restrictions on enlisted soldiers being tatted. Ink is good enough for Uncle Sam, but below the standards of Jerry Richardson ?
If Cam becomes a really good NFL QB playing under his first contract, I think comments like this one make it unlikely he re-signs with the Panthers.


Richardson should just wear a tee shirt that says ' SLAP ME. I'M OLD'.

EDIT: Complex, what movie is that from with the chick peeling her panties off?? Nice.


Talk about a crap argument.

Yes, most casual sports fans know exactly what the star player of their team looks like.

The military dropped that requirement because their standards have been forced to go ever downwards, as finding quality volunteers is becoming more and more difficult.

And your military argument is fallacious in the manner that it assumes that the military is the standard we must compare everything to, an appeal to authority if you will.

And also, the military is not a private employer.

Bengalsrocket
08-25-2011, 12:50 AM
When did we fall back out of the 21st century? Is it really unacceptable to have tattoos again?

Tattoos can be in poor taste, just like any other art. But it's the content of the tattoos that Richardson should be worried about, not their existence. I'm actually embarrassed for people who just blindly think all tattoos that exist are in poor taste and part of some regrettable youth rebellion.

On a side note, tattoos or not, if Cam Newton is winning games then he'll be marketable. The problem with someone like Manning, is that he doesn't sell athletic sports wear at all. You can't run an advertisement that says "If you wear these shoes, you'll be able to read defenses like Peyton". If Newton is running side line to side line and making defenders miss, he'll tap into a market that is to scared to endorse Vick anymore (although I do remember hearing that Nike gave Vick a new contract recently, but not 100% sure - either way, there is room for both).

niel89
08-25-2011, 12:50 AM
Yeah, casual football fans absolutely know what star players look like. If a player is going to be an entertainer and an icon, then you should expect that people will know what he looks like.

Shane P. Hallam
08-25-2011, 01:19 AM
As an employer, if Richardson has this in Newton's contract, fine. If it is something that only came up recently and isn't a part of Newton's contract, then I don't think Richardson has any ground to stand on. Nor do I think Newton will care. If he plays well and wins games, he can look like Lady Gaga and Jerry Richardson won't give a crap and still resign him and pay him.

tjsunstein
08-25-2011, 01:24 AM
This is stupid, really. Tattoos are self expression, an art form. It shouldn't matter if he does or doesn't have tats. It won't impact his play whether or not he has ink on his arms, neck, wherever he chooses to.

Ness
08-25-2011, 01:30 AM
You don't see him doing to amount of commercials that Brady or Manning are doing. Also, there's still people who are boycotting him.

That's because of the dog scandal. He had those tattoos before when everyone was marketing him.

V.I.P
08-25-2011, 01:46 AM
Tattoos can be in poor taste, just like any other art. But it's the content of the tattoos that Richardson should be worried about, not their existence. I'm actually embarrassed for people who just blindly think all tattoos that exist are in poor taste and part of some regrettable youth rebellion.


Thank You! This is so true. there are many tats that have symbolic meaning of something to people. Religious, spirtual, cultural ect...Just as long as Cam isn't getting "WHERE MY *****es AT?" inked across his face, or something like that, it shouldn't be a problem. I have several tattoos on my forearms & even 1 on my neck that shows, but they're nothing derogatory or demeaning in any way...My employer has no problem with them what so ever, and it had no affect in me being able to work in my career..

Ness
08-25-2011, 01:50 AM
Steve McNair had a tattoo on the side of his left arm. And it was just acknowledging his fraternity. No one ever complained about that. Richardson should just ask what kind of tattoo does Newton intend to get.

FUNBUNCHER
08-25-2011, 03:34 AM
Talk about a crap argument.

Yes, most casual sports fans know exactly what the star player of their team looks like.

The military dropped that requirement because their standards have been forced to go ever downwards, as finding quality volunteers is becoming more and more difficult.

And your military argument is fallacious in the manner that it assumes that the military is the standard we must compare everything to, an appeal to authority if you will.

And also, the military is not a private employer.


So having tats indicates a lowering of standards by the military?
What 'standard' does not having ink represent??
Even special forces have ink.smh

Sorry, but catching bullets for your country is slightly more consequential than working in the sports entertainment industry.

The baseline for the industry, the NFL, is pro-tattoo. It's ridiculous that Richardson would even make this exception for Newton considering he just signed Jeremy Shockey, who looks like a roadie in a traveling circus. How many Panthers have ink?? THere's no way he can make the 'Cam rule' against tattoos.

Richardson should be thankful he just signed the 1/1 pick in the draft to a bargain basement contract and let the dude play ball.

Ness
08-25-2011, 07:26 AM
Next thing you know Jerry Richardson is going to tell him about who he can and can't date. Seriously though Newton is a grown man and when it comes to tattoos and piercings he should let some heat subside. If I was in his position I'd probably take the angle of not wanting any piercings other than earrings and no ink on his face, but really that's about it. I get the notion that Richardson wants Newton to be marketable and a face of the franchise, but Richardson shouldn't just act like this is a black and white issue.

bam bam
08-25-2011, 08:11 AM
So having tats indicates a lowering of standards by the military?
What 'standard' does not having ink represent??
Even special forces have ink.smh

Sorry, but catching bullets for your country is slightly more consequential than working in the sports entertainment industry.


The military has been forced to accept more and more, how do you say it, of those at the bottom 25% of their graduating high school classes because volunteers are becoming harder and harder to come by. Lower class people tend to have more tattoos. Are there exceptions? Certainly. But for the most part it is true. Same trend of desperate recruiting shown in lowering the fitness standards.

And your second argument is another logical fail. I never said anything about consequences. I said that the military is not the standard of comparison. "If the military does/doesn't x, then y shouldn't be a problem".

But if you want to talk consequences, ok. It must first be an established fact they are doing something for the country before you can say that they are taking bullets 'for the country'. But since hardly anybody wants to be where we are now, doing what we are doing, and the fact it is costing a ******** of money the country must eventually pay, its pretty clear we can say they are not working for the country but for certain interests under the name of our country.

Furthermore, the NFL is a multi-billion dollar a year industry that has a tremendous effect on the economy. It creates wealth, products, and markets. A soldier actually participates in the destruction of wealth, as money gets spent on bombs, bullets, helicopters etc that get blown up and blow up things. That is destruction of wealth, not the creation of wealth. Furthermore, he is a burden on the market, as money must be forcefully reallocated from its desired locations and directions to pay him instead. The creation of wealth is much more important than being a pawn sent to bomb people half way across the world in one of various nonsensical wars nobody cares about or wants to be in. So therefore, being an NFL star is much more important than being a soldier, unless there is a legitimate defensive war going on, but that is not the case.

Now that I just had to spend all that time refuting something I shouldn't of had to, because you could not make sense of what I was saying and lack reason, I am going to have to ask you to please stop.

And I Funbunched your mom.

descendency
08-25-2011, 08:31 AM
In the real world - where media doesn't (tend to) report things - people get turned down for jobs all of the time and there are far stricter dress codes than that.

I have zero problems with telling your #1 overall pick and QB that you want him to be held to a higher standard than everyone else, including a washed up stop gap TE.

Ness
08-25-2011, 08:35 AM
In the real world - where media doesn't (tend to) report things - people get turned down for jobs all of the time and there are far stricter dress codes than that.

I have zero problems with telling your #1 overall pick and QB that you want him to be held to a higher standard than everyone else, including a washed up stop gap TE.
Except a key difference here. Carolina was the team that chose him. Newton didn't go up to Richardson begging for a job. Are we to think that Richardson may have passed on Newton simply because he may have had a tattoo here or there? Because that's pretty dumb. Having a tattoo doesn't mean you are this or that. Edgerrin James had gold teeth and dreadlocks his entire career...doesn't mean he wasn't a professional.

FUNBUNCHER
08-25-2011, 09:14 AM
The military has been forced to accept more and more, how do you say it, of those at the bottom 25% of their graduating high school classes because volunteers are becoming harder and harder to come by. Lower class people tend to have more tattoos. Are there exceptions? Certainly. But for the most part it is true. Same trend of desperate recruiting shown in lowering the fitness standards.

And your second argument is another logical fail. I never said anything about consequences. I said that the military is not the standard of comparison. "If the military does/doesn't x, then y shouldn't be a problem".

But if you want to talk consequences, ok. It must first be an established fact they are doing something for the country before you can say that they are taking bullets 'for the country'. But since hardly anybody wants to be where we are now, doing what we are doing, and the fact it is costing a ******** of money the country must eventually pay, its pretty clear we can say they are not working for the country but for certain interests under the name of our country.

Furthermore, the NFL is a multi-billion dollar a year industry that has a tremendous effect on the economy. It creates wealth, products, and markets. A soldier actually participates in the destruction of wealth, as money gets spent on bombs, bullets, helicopters etc that get blown up and blow up things. That is destruction of wealth, not the creation of wealth. Furthermore, he is a burden on the market, as money must be forcefully reallocated from its desired locations and directions to pay him instead. The creation of wealth is much more important than being a pawn sent to bomb people half way across the world in one of various nonsensical wars nobody cares about or wants to be in. So therefore, being an NFL star is much more important than being a soldier, unless there is a legitimate defensive war going on, but that is not the case.

Now that I just had to spend all that time refuting something I shouldn't of had to, because you could not make sense of what I was saying and lack reason, I am going to have to ask you to please stop.

And I Funbunched your mom.

Swing and .....MISS.

'Consequential' = important, relevant, significant.

Has nothing to do with 'consequences', or outcomes.

All those words wasted, and I'm still waiting for you to answer how a potential candidate for military service who has prior tattoos represents a 'lowering of standards' by the military??

And the American economy would not skip a beat if the NFL disbanded tomorrow. Entertainment dollars in one sector don't drive the U.S. economy.

Stop wiping your ass with the American flag, hippie.

The military as an institution isn't the problem, it's how those forces are deployed and to what ends that's sometimes at odds with stated U.S. foreign policy.

And if you tried anything stupid with my mom, she would make you sit-and-spin on a broom handle.

So stupid, yet so mature. I'm touched.

IMO you're doing a bad njx9 impression, but you aren't really that good at it.

Caddy
08-25-2011, 09:22 AM
Awesome. Just awesome.

Splat
08-25-2011, 09:27 AM
He is his employer, and is paying him millions of dollars. He is entirely justified in asking Cam Newton to not have tattoos.

Thread/...

Ness
08-25-2011, 09:33 AM
As long as Richardson doesn't get too carried away with how Newton wants to live his life, I suppose it's not that big of a deal. Really, I'd have to hear the actual conversation to get a better idea of how Richardson feels about what he said.

EDIT: Saw the interview. Thoughts haven't changed.

monson
08-25-2011, 09:42 AM
Richardson did ask him this pre-draft. If Cam wanted tatoos then was the time to say so.

Caddy
08-25-2011, 10:00 AM
Did he check to see whether or not Cam was circumcised?

NY+Giants=NYG
08-25-2011, 10:17 AM
I have no issue with this. It's his team if that's the rule then so be it. The Yanks have a rule that every player has to be clean shaven. If that's the corporate culture they want in that organization then so be it.

ShutDwn
08-25-2011, 10:28 AM
I have worked for minimum wage as a delivery driver and an employee at Hollister for a bit and neither wanted me to have tattoos. How come I didn't get a thread? It's because I'm white isn't it???

bearsfan_51
08-25-2011, 10:30 AM
I have worked for minimum wage as a delivery driver and an employee at Hollister for a bit and neither wanted me to have tattoos. How come I didn't get a thread? It's because I'm white isn't it???
No, it's because you're completely insignificant.

bam bam
08-25-2011, 10:37 AM
All those words wasted, and I'm still waiting for you to answer how a potential candidate for military service who has prior tattoos represents a 'lowering of standards' by the military??

I already told you.

And the American economy would not skip a beat if the NFL disbanded tomorrow. Entertainment dollars in one sector don't drive the U.S. economy.

Its irrelevant what would happen if the NFL were to disband. The reality is that it drives billions of dollars annually, creates wealth, and therefore is much more high profile and important. I never made the claim that it drives the entire economy, so good job building that straw man.

Stop wiping your ass with the American flag, hippie.

Actually, I wiped my jizz of your moms chest with that flag, not my ass.

The military as an institution isn't the problem, it's how those forces are deployed and to what ends that's sometimes at odds with stated U.S. foreign policy.

I never said the institution itself was a problem on its own, I said that it destroys wealth rather than the opposite. And that is the point I made above. So thanks for stealing my point and making it your own.




Richardson knows how high profile a QB is, and he wants his to be extremely polished. Its the way he wants to run his show.

bearfan
08-25-2011, 12:42 PM
Considering that Newton is/will be the face of the franchise, I think that this request is acceptable. There is nothing stopping Newton from going and getting it, but now he knows the standard the organization wants him to live up to. Clean cut role model in the community.

V.I.P
08-25-2011, 01:53 PM
I heard as long as he gets this tattoo, Richardson will be cool with it.

http://fastcache.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/7/2011/01/guccimane.jpg

khorn
08-25-2011, 02:30 PM
Except a key difference here. Carolina was the team that chose him. Newton didn't go up to Richardson begging for a job.

By submitting his name into the NFL Draft, Newton in fact went up to all the owners 'begging for a job". The Panthers were just the ones that decided to take him and they have every right to want him to present himself a certain way. They're taking a huge risk by investing the amount of money and the pick they did on him, he may never see a full return on his product. The least he can do is not look like a hoodlum.

bantx
08-25-2011, 02:39 PM
I thought we were way past that no tattoos thing already. But asking to not have long hair or piercings is kinda dumb. Is he going to tell Cam what clothes he can and can't wear either? Might as well get his outfit ready for him each day.

D-Unit
08-25-2011, 03:35 PM
I heard as long as he gets this tattoo, Richardson will be cool with it.

http://fastcache.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/7/2011/01/guccimane.jpg
Ahahahaha! That's the stupidest tat I've ever seen.

I agree with Richardson's opinion, but he can't seriously enforce it.

FUNBUNCHER
08-25-2011, 03:41 PM
The NFL is more important than the U.S. military???
You must think the New England Patriots really did fight in the Revolutionary War.

Tattoos equal 'lower class'??? Have you ever stepped on a college campus in the 21st century, geezer??

How many commissioned officers graduating from Annapolis or West Point do you think have ink??

Maybe if you believe a man who wears an earring is secretly a pirate, that nonsense about only lower class people having a couple tattoos works.

But in the 21st century people from every strata of society have ink.
It has nothing to do with someone's socio-economic background.

Stop talking crazy like you were dropped on your head as a baby, bam bam.

Ness
08-25-2011, 05:15 PM
By submitting his name into the NFL Draft, Newton in fact went up to all the owners 'begging for a job". The Panthers were just the ones that decided to take him and they have every right to want him to present himself a certain way. They're taking a huge risk by investing the amount of money and the pick they did on him, he may never see a full return on his product. The least he can do is not look like a hoodlum.
But he didn't go up to one specifically. Newton didn't select just Carolina. They selected him. Basically it wasn't down to just Carolina. If Richardson didn't want to Newton because he may have or was thinking about getting a tattoo, then on to the next owner. Newton had options. Is that even in his contract? Let's remember that Newton doesn't have to do this. Like I said earlier as long as it's a request and not a command and Richardson isn't controlling every aspect of Newton's life, then I'm fine with it. Can you imagine Tennessee passing on Steve McNair because he had this tattoo?

http://stupidcelebrities.net/wp-content/old_pictures/steve-mcnair1.jpg

Or Atlanta and Philadelphia deciding not to select Vick because of his tattoos?

http://www.gossiponthis.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/mike-vick.jpg

Just because a person has a tattoo doesn't mean they are lower. If Newton wanted to get one I'd probably ask what kind of tattoo he wanted to get and where it would be.

Rabscuttle
08-25-2011, 05:29 PM
Being a cheater and a thief is no biggie but a tattoo or a piercing is a deal breaker? Who is this guy, the head of the RNC?

PackerLegend
08-25-2011, 05:41 PM
Who the **** cares how he looks. It shouldnt matter. All that should matter is if he goes out an beasts it up. Obviously you dont want him to look like a complete ****ing bum but some tats wouldnt make him look like one.

phlysac
08-25-2011, 09:48 PM
Ahahahaha! That's the stupidest tat I've ever seen.

It 's so far from the stupidest tat, though. It's amazing what ink some people have gotten.

SchizophrenicBatman
08-25-2011, 10:51 PM
i could have told you guys that richardson was a senile old "southern businessman" (read: racist) before this went down. in fact i think i did last year

anyway cam has bigger things to worry about right now. like completing more than half his passes and playing on the terrible roster richardson and his incompetent sycophant marty hurney have put together

this clean cut image/no tats issue is being blown a little out of proportion anyway. first, this convo happened a while back and I remember reading about it before the draft. second, cam's advisors probably told him the same thing if he wants to be an "icon and entertainer" why do you think kevin durant has no visible tats?

http://larrybrownsports.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/kevin-durant-tattoos-530x684.jpg

bam bam
08-25-2011, 10:55 PM
The NFL is more important than the U.S. military???
You must think the New England Patriots really did fight in the Revolutionary War.

Again, and not surprisingly, you failed to read my post. That joke is not funny.

Tattoos equal 'lower class'??? Have you ever stepped on a college campus in the 21st century, geezer??

Yes, and overwhelmingly, tattoos remain more popular among the lower class. And that joke isn't funny either.

How many commissioned officers graduating from Annapolis or West Point do you think have ink??

Doesnt matter, and you have yet again decided to cast aside reason. Exceptions don't dismiss a rule, jabroni.

Maybe if you believe a man who wears an earring is secretly a pirate, that nonsense about only lower class people having a couple tattoos works.

Wow, this is what, four attempts to divert an absolute irrefutable observation with a lame joke.

But in the 21st century people from every strata of society have ink.
It has nothing to do with someone's socio-economic background.

As has been stated, and is clearly observable walking outside the front door, the numbers of those with ink in the lower classes vastly outnumbers those outside of it.





1234567890

ellsy82
08-26-2011, 01:54 AM
I really don't get what the big deal is. Personally, a person should have the right to do whatever he wants to his body (barring injury as a professional athlete). Its silly to me this was a clause in his contract. And this is coming from a guy with no tatoos.

M.O.T.H.
08-26-2011, 09:36 AM
They're tattoos, I could care less...That said, you dont really see a lot of Qbs all tatted up, visibly at least. More so just an observation, more than anything else.

Now we've got this guy, though...

http://a57.foxnews.com/static/managed/img/World/396/223/Nevada%20quarterback%20Colin%20Kaepernick.jpg

FUNBUNCHER
08-26-2011, 11:05 AM
I bet 80% of ALL NFL QBs have at least one tatoo, some small little thing that's covered by their uni.

Drew Brees has his wife's named tattooed somewhere on his bod.
Roethlisberger has three tats, small and hidden, two dedicated to family members.

Tom Brady allegedly has a Pee Wee Herman tattoo(gangta b*tches!!).

killxswitch
08-26-2011, 11:24 AM
This is such a dumb discussion. Why do people still care about tattoos?

YAYareaRB
08-26-2011, 12:49 PM
whats he gonna do to Cam if he does get tattoos?

Bengalsrocket
08-26-2011, 01:55 PM
whats he gonna do to Cam if he does get tattoos?

Nothing. It wasn't a threat, it was a suggestion.

J-Mike88
08-26-2011, 02:26 PM
From Twitter just now:

@evansilva NFL scout on #Panthers rookie QB: "If this weren't Cam Newton, you'd say this guy has no business being on the field."