SVN

Does this micheal david smith work for PFT ?
How he twists BB's words. BB says he doesnt tape walkthrough and this guy interprets that BB means walkthroughs arent important.
Iam wondering if BB shoudlve talked at all especially if no one is going to look at this objectively(felger's favorite word)

http://sports.aol.com/fanhouse/2008/...alsh-but-argu/

BrianPat

Why post stupid stories ? Opinions of morons don't interest me !

Pats726

Felger's words..."objectively"?? That is a laugh for Mt contrarian..who will always look at the negative.. So what are his arguments for not holding up?? I don't wish to read the stories of Patriot haters...linking on as hits to things that are obviously manure...

pao

If you break down BB's statement there is much to be desired as far as a denial goes. I think it was full of ambiguity cloaked in sincerity. It's good enough for me though, until more info comes out (and IF there is more info it WILL come out).

pao

DefenseRules

Jeez, it would have been better if they didn't say anything at all.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
AKA "Ladypatsfan"

upstater1

Uh, that guy can't read. No need to link to him. His brain is addled.

Watson's IQ

Michael David Smith is an ignorant moron, he's pretty much the sole reason I no longer read Fanhouse. He's just unbearable, and nearly half his stories are anti-Pats drivel. Even Pats haters I know can't stand him.

__________________
“I'm tired of hearing about money, money, money, money, money. I just want to play the game, drink Pepsi, wear Reebok…”
-Shaquille O'Neal

MoLewisrocks

Yup. He's the same nitwit who chose his SB PC to ask BB if in the wake of Rodney getting caught up in an HgH sting in August he had reason to believe any of his other players were using PED's...

Speaking of Mr. Objectivity, Holley is on a mission today questioning Felgie's logic. Earlier it was how he is disingenuous in criticizing others for not attacking their scheduled guests when in fact he doesn't have the stones to ask Vrabel why he went missing down the stretch...(I believe though the answer to this is knowing how they feel about him already Mike can't risk being assaulted on or off the air...).

Holley just pointed out to a caller that Felger persists in characterizing Walsh as someone who was promoted in 2002 (because it dovetails with one of his theories that the culture may have led to poor Matt doing something he expected to be rewarded for - taking the initiative to tape something he wasn't even asked to just because the opportunity presented itself and he just assumed his bosses would welcome the data). Holley knows things about this guy, won't spit it out but believe me, he knows because he stated the taping of Pioli wasn't the only reason he was fired, just the last straw for a guy already on thin ice. He was not promoted, he was laterally transferred from one "coaching assistant" position to another, from video to scouting, but he remained essentially a gopher or intern level employee in each division.

Patriotic Fervor

Even the Devil can quote Scripture for his own purposes.

Breaking down statements does a lot to remove context. That's important.

I don't think Smith's insights are particularly insightful or important.

But, hey - that's just me....

__________________
....and that's the way I see it!

upstater1

Show us what is ambiguous.

I have never seen a tape of a walkthrough in my entire coaching career is a pretty definitive statement.

Here's the actual quote: "I have never authorized, or heard of, or even seen in any way, shape, or form any other team's walkthrough."

I can't imagine why you believe this is ambiguous. He is saying that not only has he never seen a tape of a walkthrough in his entire career, but that he's never HEARD of another team's walkthrough being discussed in "any way, shape or form."

I can't imagine a more definitive or absolute statement than that.

How did you manage it?