My email to Wilbon

[old 55]

In October 2007, you stated that you would go after Tom Brady late in order to injure him if you were playing against him.

When you said this, I felt it was totally irresponsible to suggest this as a national sports writer.
Now Brady has been taken out by a cheap shot dive to the knee, just like you suggested.

My question is: Are you happy now?

You must be so proud that someone took your advice to heart.

-----------------------------------------------------
I just sent this on the Washington Post website since Wilbon is one of their writers.

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/staff/email/michael+wilbon/

 

[BadMoFo]

So how is it a cheap shot when the NFL ruled it a legal hit. You're only making Pats fans sound like bigger whiners than they already are.

 

[upstater1]

So how is it a cheap shot when the NFL ruled it a legal hit. You're only making Pats fans sound like bigger whiners than they already are.

And the troll finally reveals that he's not a Patriots' fan.

Like there was ever any doubt.

 

[Pats726]

In October 2007, you stated that you would go after Tom Brady late in order to injure him if you were playing against him.

When you said this, I felt it was totally irresponsible to suggest this as a national sports writer.
Now Brady has been taken out by a cheap shot dive to the knee, just like you suggested.

My question is: Are you happy now?

You must be so proud that someone took your advice to heart.

-----------------------------------------------------
I just sent this on the Washington Post website since Wilbon is one of their writers.

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/staff/email/michael+wilbon/

I wonder what the bozo will say??

 

[Watson's IQ]

In October 2007, you stated that you would go after Tom Brady late in order to injure him if you were playing against him.

When you said this, I felt it was totally irresponsible to suggest this as a national sports writer.
Now Brady has been taken out by a cheap shot dive to the knee, just like you suggested.

My question is: Are you happy now?

You must be so proud that someone took your advice to heart.

-----------------------------------------------------
I just sent this on the Washington Post website since Wilbon is one of their writers.

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/staff/email/michael+wilbon/

Unfortunately, I think most of us have concluded that the case you make above is a very generous interpretation of what actually happened.

Trust me, if people really thought it was as dirty as you think, you'd be seeing much more of an uproar about it here.

 

[Kontradiction]

Why is everyone e-mailing Wilbon again? This hit was 100% pure accident.

 

[BadMoFo]

And the troll finally reveals that he's not a Patriots' fan.

Like there was ever any doubt.

Because I am someone who doesn't buy into this whiny conspiracy theory crap like many here do. It's football, injuries happen. When Wilfork did the same thing a year ago, we defended him like he was facing the death penalty. But now that it happens to our QB, it has to be a cheap shot.

Why in the world would the Chiefs, more than likely fighting for the No. 1 overall choice in next year's draft than a playoff spot, want to intentionally injure Tom Brady? Did they feel that if they hurt Tom Brady now, it would make their AFC Championship match-up against us that much closer.

Grow the **** up.

 

[Pats726]

Unfortunately, I think most of us have concluded that the case you make above is a very generous interpretation of what actually happened.

Trust me, if people really thought it was as dirty as you think, you'd be seeing much more of an uproar about it here.

Whether one sees the hit as leagl or not..Wilbon suggested it be done..basically taking him out...THAT is the point..

 

[BadMoFo]

Why is everyone e-mailing Wilbon again? This hit was 100% pure accident.

Because wilbon paid off Pollard, of course.

 

[DW Toys]

So how is it a cheap shot when the NFL ruled it a legal hit. You're only making Pats fans sound like bigger whiners than they already are.

This is the same NFL that ruled VW's hit illegal against Lossman and this one legal? Could you not tell BB was BS? Please sir........

OK it was legal this week to hit a guy from the knees down yet or VW needs his check back Roger!

Wilbon might have said it tongue in cheek, but there is blood on his hands now.
DW Toys

 

[Deus Irae]

Because I am someone who doesn't buy into this whiny conspiracy theory crap like many here do. It's football, injuries happen. When Wilfork did the same thing a year ago, we defended him like he was facing the death penalty. But now that it happens to our QB, it has to be a cheap shot.

Why in the world would the Chiefs, more than likely fighting for the No. 1 overall choice in next year's draft than a playoff spot, want to intentionally injure Tom Brady? Did they feel that if they hurt Tom Brady now, it would make their AFC Championship match-up against us that much closer.

Grow the **** up.

If Wilfork's was 'dirty', this one was dirty. There were essentially the same plays. That's the point. I thought Wilfork's play should not have been fined, but it was. So, using the same logic, this hit should also have resulted in a fine.

 

[old 55]

Unfortunately, I think most of us have concluded that the case you make above is a very generous interpretation of what actually happened.

Trust me, if people really thought it was as dirty as you think, you'd be seeing much more of an uproar about it here.

I felt it was very similar when I first saw it to the Wilfork play last year.

As I have seen it repeated and heard Morris' comments on the play, you can see that he lunged for the knee as soon as Morris was letting him get up.
I believe Morris was afraid of a holding call, even though the play started with Pollard cutting Morris' legs first.
As soon as Morris lets up, Pollard dives forward at the knee, leading with his helmet.

Remember what BB said - "We coach our guys that they are responsible for hitting the QB above the knee.."

 

[Watson's IQ]

Whether one sees the hit as leagl or not..Wilbon suggested it be done..basically taking him out...THAT is the point..

But reason and the eyeball test dictate that "taking him out" is not what happened here. So Wilbon is a blowhard, but blaming him for what happened to Brady seems particularly fruitless.

 

[BadMoFo]

If Wilfork's was 'dirty', this one was dirty. There were essentially the same plays. That's the point. I thought Wilfork's play should not have been fined, but it was. So, using the same logic, this hit should also have resulted in a fine.

Why do we even care if Pollard gets a fine. How's that going to make you us feel better. I'd rather he not get fined and that piss off the team that much more.

 

[Watson's IQ]

If Wilfork's was 'dirty', this one was dirty. There were essentially the same plays. That's the point. I thought Wilfork's play should not have been fined, but it was. So, using the same logic, this hit should also have resulted in a fine.

Maybe so, maybe not. It's really impossible for us to judge the intent of either guy beyond their own words on the subject. The fact is, Wilfork's hit looked a lot worse, because he led with the elbow which appeared to be a more deliberate act. The appearance of the thing seems to be what matters, for better or worse.

My faith in human nature means I'm willing to give a grown man (both Pollard and Wilfork) the benefit of the doubt when he says he wasn't trying to hurt a fellow athlete.

 

[czech54]

I think everyone REALLY needs to quit whining about there not being a fine.

WHO CARES IF HE'S FINED $10,000.

it means nothing.

 

[old 55]

But reason and the eyeball test dictate that "taking him out" is not what happened here. So Wilbon is a blowhard, but blaming him for what happened to Brady seems particularly fruitless.

Let me ask you - if you were Wilbon and made his stupid remarks from last year about going after Brady, how would you feel today?

I personally would be asking myself if my words were at least somewhat responsible for what happened. I would be feeling pretty guilty if I had advocated going after Brady as a national sportswriter and ESPN pesonality.

BTW Watson's IQ, you may feel I and others are wrong in our view of what happened, but we believe what we believe and are entitled to express our outrage against someone we feel contributed to the "get Brady" mentality.

 

[czech54]

Maybe so, maybe not. It's really impossible for us to judge the intent of either guy beyond their own words on the subject. The fact is, Wilfork's hit looked a lot worse, because he led with the elbow which appeared to be a more deliberate act. The appearance of the thing seems to be what matters, for better or worse.

My faith in human nature means I'm willing to give a grown man (both Pollard and Wilfork) the benefit of the doubt when he says he wasn't trying to hurt a fellow athlete.

It's also much easier to believe that pollard was not trying to injure, compared to a guy that deliberately tries to poke other players in the eye. (wilfork)

 

[Pats726]

But reason and the eyeball test dictate that "taking him out" is not what happened here. So Wilbon is a blowhard, but blaming him for what happened to Brady seems particularly fruitless.

Pollard didn't take Brady out with a knee to the helmet?? Am I missing something? Take a look at Wilbon's words..what he said..encouraging that a player be injured is HARDLY something responsible for a journalist to do..THAT is all.. It isn't a question of blame, but irrespoinsibility.

 

[Watson's IQ]

Let me ask you - if you were Wilbon and made his stupid remarks from last year about going after Brady, how would you feel today?

I personally would be asking myself if my words were at least somewhat responsible for what happened. I would be feeling pretty guilty if I had advocated going after Brady as a national sportswriter and ESPN pesonality.

BTW Watson's IQ, you may feel I and others are wrong in our view of what happened, but we believe what we believe and are entitled to express our outrage against someone we feel contributed to the "get Brady" mentality.

I'm not condoning what Wilbon said, and I certainly didn't at the time. No one should at any time advocate intentionally injuring someone else, and to do so makes him nothing more than the punk I already thought he was.

But in the end, it was just words, and has essentially nothing to do with what happened on the field.

You feel Brady was intentionally taken out, an opinion you are more than entitled to, but most have concluded that was not the case, so just don't be expecting an apologetic e-mail back from Michael Wilbon, okay?