ARE YOU NEW HERE? NOT LOGGED IN? PLEASE TAKE A MOMENT TO REGISTER FOR AN ACCOUNT AND LOGIN TO REMOVE THIS WINDOW
Welcome to PatsFans.com. Do you have an account? If not - please take a moment to register for our forum and experience a much smoother experience with fewer ads, along with no longer having to see this notification window. Also learn about how you can receive a free Patriots T-Shirt from the Patriots Official ProShop by CLICKING HERE. Please enjoy your stay here, and Go Pats!
Well I just want to know how it could be interpreted any other way. Belichick has said never in his his time as a coach has he ever had discussions or even heard someone else even mention (for that matter, he never eavesdropped) an opponent's walkthrough.
When you say something is ambiguous, I'd just like to see how. I don't understand.
Ok,I'll have to do it later. It will take some time for me to explain. Thanks for being a great poster. You could have just said "trolls eat ****! LOL. Remember, his statement was good enough for ME but I can see the point of those that it isn't. Could have been better imo.
pao
FEATURED ADVERTISEMENT
DONATE TO PATSFANS.COM
RECEIVE A FREE PATS T-SHIRT AND SAVE 15% OFF WHEN YOU BUY FROM THE OFFICIAL PROSHOP!
Free T-Shirt & Save 15% Off!
Like Our Site? Please help support our site and server costs by DONATING TO PATSFANS.COM and receive a FREE PATRIOTS T-SHIRT and SAVE 15% off EVERY purchase you make from PatriotsProShop.com. You'll also receive added benefits to your account including Removing All Ads During Your Experience Here At Our Forum.
NEEDED YEARLY SITE DONATIONS: 345 | CURRENT # OF SUBSCRIBED SUPPORTERS: 98
Ok,I'll have to do it later. It will take some time for me to explain. Thanks for being a great poster. You could have just said "trolls eat ****! LOL. Remember, his statement was good enough for ME but I can see the point of those that it isn't. Could have been better imo.
pao
I'm not ragging on you. I'm just annoyed at the columnist's article. He could have been a bit more generous to both Belichick and us as readers by explaining why he finds that quote to be weasly. That's the only reason that I'm asking you to explain. I just can't figure out how Belichick's quote gives him an out whatsoever.
I just read P Kings Somethings Fishy" Tuesday Morning QB article where he basically says the same thing as Banks. You know, this whole thing is hopeless. The media doesn't want to know the truth and the other teams Fans will just rag on us because they know the pats are going to beat their asses again next year. So whenever I see any head line mentioning BB or Sypgate I'm just going to ignore it and move on. All these attempts to appease people who have a vested interest in not being appeased are just futile.
Last edited by patpatriot; 02-19-2008 at 03:24 PM..
Say Walsh shows up with a tape of the Rams walkthrough tomorrow.
WHAT DOES IT PROVE???????
unless you show BB fingerprints on the film or can somehow digitally trace the serial number of the perpetrating camera back to one still in the Patriots possession, or show the camera panning back and forth from BB-pioli in a beavis-butthead moment and then panning back to the field ..... EXACTLY how does this NIMROD prove that it came from the Patriots?????
I have no doubt in my mind now that 'jack be nimble' and his class-action lawsuit ambulance chaser out in St L have gotten into the act that every tom, dick and harry in St L who took their own vcr into the stadium is busy at home digitally re-mastering the footage to superimpose a patriots logo over the top of it.
Then these Wile.E.Coyote geniuses will email this crapola into Tomase who will make his next big front page extra.
Doesn't prove jack; but unless Kraft gets his own lawyers in front of this and gets the NFL to own up to the idiocy and double-standard it is enforcing on the Pats this nonsense will go on and on like the energizer bunny.
Say Walsh shows up with a tape of the Rams walkthrough tomorrow.
WHAT DOES IT PROVE???????
unless you show BB fingerprints on the film or can somehow digitally trace the serial number of the perpetrating camera back to one still in the Patriots possession, or show the camera panning back and forth from BB-pioli in a beavis-butthead moment and then panning back to the field ..... EXACTLY how does this NIMROD prove that it came from the Patriots?????
I have no doubt in my mind now that 'jack be nimble' and his class-action lawsuit ambulance chaser out in St L have gotten into the act that every tom, dick and harry in St L who took their own vcr into the stadium is busy at home digitally re-mastering the footage to superimpose a patriots logo over the top of it.
Then these Wile.E.Coyote geniuses will email this crapola into Tomase who will make his next big front page extra.
Doesn't prove jack; but unless Kraft gets his own lawyers in front of this and gets the NFL to own up to the idiocy and double-standard it is enforcing on the Pats this nonsense will go on and on like the energizer bunny.
It doesn't have to prove anything. None of this is criminal. It's all up to Goodell. He can decide whatever he wants about it, and you can bet that if it exists, he'll hold it against Belichick.
Think about this. Belichick just said he has never ever heard anyone even mention an opposition walkthrough in all his years. That makes me think the tape doesn't exist.
If it does, then that statement by Belichick seems incredible. If Walsh did make that tape on his own, surely he showed it to someone on the staff. And Belichick would have heard about it. In other words, Belichick's statement does not even give him plausible deniability. He flat out said he's never heard of an opponent's walkthrough.
Ok, upstater. Here you go. Disclaimer: Interpretations not necessarily those of the poster. This is simply an illustration of how comments COULD be interpreted by even objective readers of Bill’s statement.Remember I believe BB, even if Walsh produces tapes I don't believe that BB authorised it. I don't believe that BB needs to use these types of methods to win. The ONLY reason I pick this apart is because I believe he could, and should, have done a better job of expressing himself or he should have been better prepared by the NE publicity staff. What he said left him open for doubt and criticism IMO.
Quote:
"In my entire coaching career, I've never seen another team's practice film prior to playing that team,"...
Ok, let's start here. This is ambiguous. IF he was quoted correctly he is saying he has never seen "another team's practice film". This is a very poor statement. Literally he is saying that he has not seen a practice film created by the another team. No one has accused the Patriot organisation of using "another team's practice film". Additionally he leaves open to interpretation that SOMEONE ELSE in the Patriots organisation may have. We know what he meant for us to hear and what most Patriots fans would accept. But those with an agenda, or even objective readers, could take this statement and make some noise with it.
Quote:
...he said. "I have never authorized, or heard of, or even seen in any way, shape, or form any other team's walkthrough.
This is his best statement but even it can be picked apart. I believe that, since he is only talking for himself, he leaves the organisation open to further investigation from reporters. He should have said "We as an organisation have never authorised, etc...". A reporter could look at this statement and say that maybe BILL didn't actually do any of this but the TEAM could STILL benefit if SOMEONE else in the organisation did.
Quote:
We don't even film our own. We don't even want to see ourselves do anything, that's the pace that it's at. Regardless, I've never been a part of that."
This is a throwaway statement. It means nothing. Maybe he's trying to minimize the importance of walkthroughs? Whatever. It doesn't help.
These statements are so ambiguous as to the subject it is almost laughable...
Quote:
Belichick added that in his "entire coaching career, I have never filmed a walkthrough, our own.
Of course YOU never have and who cares about your "OWN" anyway? Why put that qualifier in there? It makes this statement and all succeeding statements virtually meaningless.
Quote:
I've never been on a staff that has filmed a walkthrough.
Great statement! Thank you. Too bad it was qualified. And didn't Pioli say that Walsh was never a member of the coaching staff?
Quote:
I'm talking about when I was a head coach. As an assistant, I've never seen a head coach film a walkthrough the day before a game."
Another awkward, ambiguous, throw away statement. We know what he is trying to get to but it is so poorly worded that it just isn't a firm denial imo. Sorry, IMO, he left himself and the organisation for criticism and further investigation by reporters eager for some type of opening.
In conclusion I must say that I take BB at his word, at least what I believe he was trying to say. My only criticism is that it did not really help him OR the Patriot Organisation as much as a carefully prepared statement would have. This statement, IMO, has actually fanned the flames. He and the Patriots could have done a lot better.
Ok, upstater. Here you go. Disclaimer: Interpretations not necessarily those of the poster. This is simply an illustration of how comments COULD be interpreted by even objective readers of Bill’s statement.Remember I believe BB, even if Walsh produces tapes I don't believe that BB authorised it. I don't believe that BB needs to use these types of methods to win. The ONLY reason I pick this apart is because I believe he could, and should, have done a better job of expressing himself or he should have been better prepared by the NE publicity staff. What he said left him open for doubt and criticism IMO.
Ok, let's start here. This is ambiguous. IF he was quoted correctly he is saying he has never seen "another team's practice film". This is a very poor statement. Literally he is saying that he has not seen a practice film created by the another team. No one has accused the Patriot organisation of using "another team's practice film". Additionally he leaves open to interpretation that SOMEONE ELSE in the Patriots organisation may have. We know what he meant for us to hear and what most Patriots fans would accept. But those with an agenda, or even objective readers, could take this statement and make some noise with it.
This is his best statement but even it can be picked apart. I believe that, since he is only talking for himself, he leaves the organisation open to further investigation from reporters. He should have said "We as an organisation have never authorised, etc...". A reporter could look at this statement and say that maybe BILL didn't actually do any of this but the TEAM could STILL benefit if SOMEONE else in the organisation did.
This is a throwaway statement. It means nothing. Maybe he's trying to minimize the importance of walkthroughs? Whatever. It doesn't help.
These statements are so ambiguous as to the subject it is almost laughable...
Of course YOU never have and who cares about your "OWN" anyway? Why put that qualifier in there? It makes this statement and all succeeding statements virtually meaningless.
Great statement! Thank you. Too bad it was qualified. And didn't Pioli say that Walsh was never a member of the coaching staff?
Another awkward, ambiguous, throw away statement. We know what he is trying to get to but it is so poorly worded that it just isn't a firm denial imo. Sorry, IMO, he left himself and the organisation for criticism and further investigation by reporters eager for some type of opening.
In conclusion I must say that I take BB at his word, at least what I believe he was trying to say. My only criticism is that it did not really help him OR the Patriot Organisation as much as a carefully prepared statement would have. This statement, IMO, has actually fanned the flames. He and the Patriots could have done a lot better.
pao
Your post proves my point. There is *no* appeasing those who do not want to be appeased. Why bother trying?
Re: "Patriots Arguments dont add up"
Linear Mode
