BB calls Burgess best 3-4 OLB he's had; anonymous players don't buy it per Herald

[dhamz]

Since there were multiple follow up questions about Burgess it is pretty safe to say that those present did not take BB's statements to mean best the Pats have ever had or that he had ever had since both can clearly be considered outrageous statements - the type he pretty much never makes - and most certainly would have resulted in a follow-up asking him to clarify.

The other option is that he meant this season which while not a statement all would agree with is completely consistent with how BB talks about all his players in public when asked about them individually. He praises them endlessly.

 

[JackBauer]

One needn't be contrarian to come up with that interpretation. As a matter of fact, taking your point of view rather than the point of view of the author, is the contrarian position, by definition.

Whatever. If you want to hitch your wagon to Borges' star, feel free.

And you know quite well that I meant contrarian in the context of BB's statements and (one would assume) what would be a reasonable interpretation of said remarks.

 

[condon84]

Whatever. If you want to hitch your wagon to Borges' star, feel free.

And you know quite well that I meant contrarian in the context of BB's statements and (one would assume) what would be a reasonable interpretation of said remarks.

BB said what he said and Borges reported it. There's really nothing to it.

Agree with him or not, but stop trying to spin it into something else.

 

[JackBauer]

BB said what he said and Borges reported it. There's really nothing to it.

Agree with him or not, but stop trying to spin it into something else.

I'm not spinning it into anything.

There are essentially two ways to interpret what BB said. You simply chose to pounce on the irrational and far less likely translation.

If you really have the gall to accuse me of spinning, then what do you call this:

This doesn't need interpretation. Burgess, in Belichick's eyes, is as good as Vrabel, McGinest and Colvin ever was for us.

I mean, yeah. I wonder which interpretation is more likely

 

[Deus Irae]

The link takes me to a Pats1 post that lead off the thread.

As for the rest, your post is ludicrous. A silly snap judgment is my saying Borges framed it in the worst light he could? No, given the alternatives--which everyone in this thread is discussing--its obvious that Borges picked the alternative that would be least flattering to Belichick.

That much Condon and all others on this thread agree on. You're the only one who doesn't believe that Borges picked the worst frame.

Are you truly this incapable of reading comprehension?

I prefer not to make silly snap judgments like "Borges took those comments in the worst possible frame he could find" if I can find the actual text instead.

I wanted to read the text rather than just making the assumption that Borges "framed it in the worst light he could", because making that assumption would be making a snap judgment without having the full context in front of me. How freaking difficult is it for you to follow the English language? You might try reading the thread again. You'll find that I was the one who found the text on ATBB and posted it in the thread, and that I agreed with Sicilian's take on the matter.

 

[condon84]

I'm not spinning it into anything.

There are essentially two ways to interpret what BB said. You simply chose to pounce on the irrational and far less likely translation.

If you really have the gall to accuse me of spinning, then what do you call this:



I mean, yeah. I wonder which interpretation is more likely

We both agree that Burgess is not the best OLB Belichick's ever had. That part is understood.

HOWEVER, you refuse to look at what he is saying and ASSUMING what he meant to say.

 

[BradyManny]

Derrick Burgess the man! Huh? - BostonHerald.com

This was talked about a little bit Wednesday on PFW in Progress. Suprised we haven't heard about it here yet...

Doesn't seem like BB is being completely truthful though. Maybe he's trying to talk up Burgess' play so he'll be signed on the FA market and the Pats can sign a FA, per the final eight rule.

Sounds like Borges or some reporter went to a couple bitter defensive players (Adalius, maybe??) and completely exaggerated what Belichick said.

Belichick didn't say Burgess was the best OLB he's ever had, he used the phrase "as good as anybody"...which he uses all the damn time. So and so "practices as hard as anybody". So and so "runs route as well as anybody". So and so "throws as good a ball as anybody..." Whether its his own players or opposing plays, Belichick hands out these superlatives on a daily basis.

Leave it to the media to turn it into a story...

 

[Brady_12]

We both agree that Burgess is not the best OLB Belichick's ever had. That part is understood.

HOWEVER, you refuse to look at what he is saying and ASSUMING what he meant to say.

Aren't you also making an ASSUMPTION?
BB left the comment open to interpretation, possibly intentionally...

Just my opinion, but I think that saying that Burgess is the best 3-4 OLB he ever coached is the act of an imbecile or a madman.

BB is neither... Again, just my opinion. Some of the posters on this thread may (and probably do) disagree.

EDIT: What I also meant to say is:
Since IMO he's neither an imbecile or a madman, I'm going to proceed from the assumption that he was talking about this year...

 

[Deus Irae]

Whatever. If you want to hitch your wagon to Borges' star, feel free.

And you know quite well that I meant contrarian in the context of BB's statements and (one would assume) what would be a reasonable interpretation of said remarks.

1.) I'm not hitching my wagon to any star.

2.) Your "meaning" of contrarian is erroneous and, again, one can reasonably interpret Belichick's remarks in more than one manner.

 

[upstater1]

Are you truly this incapable of reading comprehension?

I wanted to read the text rather than just making the assumption that Borges "framed it in the worst light he could", because making that assumption would be making a snap judgment without having the full context in front of me. How freaking difficult is it for you to follow the English language? You might try reading the thread again. You'll find that I was the one who found the text on ATBB and posted it in the thread, and that I agreed with Sicilian's take on the matter.

You're the one with the addled brain, not me.

I didn't agree or disagree with Borges. I simply laid out a few possible interpretations of his statement, and then I said that Borges picked the worst one (as it relates to Belichick).

he did.

That much was obvious from reading the one statement alone.

Your statement about a snap judgment is ridiculous on its face since I never made a judgment on what Belichick meant. I simply said, out of all the interpretations, Borges went with the one that made Belichick look foolish.

Simple. To everyone on this topic but yourself.

if you can show me that I was WRONG to assume Borges picked the worst possible interpretation, go ahead. Show me another plausible interpretation that would make it sound like Belichick wasn't a bit blind when it came to judging talent. In fact, Borges calls him blind practically in that very article.

 

[condon84]

Aren't you also making an ASSUMPTION?
BB left the comment open to interpretation, possibly intentionally...

Just my opinion, but I think that saying that Burgess is the best 3-4 OLB he ever coached is the act of an imbecile or a madman.

BB is neither... Again, just my opinion. Some of the posters on this thread may (and probably do) disagree.

EDIT: What I also meant to say is:
Since IMO he's neither an imbecile or a madman, I'm going to proceed from the assumption that he was talking about this year...

How am I making an assumption when this is what he said:

"Derrick really plays consistently on everything and he's done an excellent job in the running game for us – probably as good as we've had as a run player and a pass rusher."

If he meant to say this year, wouldn't he have said:

"Derrick really plays consistently on everything and he's done an excellent job in the running game for us – probably as good as we've had as a run player and a pass rusher this year."?

 

[BrocktonBomber]

Imagine being Burress and reading that hatchet job. I would be spitting fire

 

[Deus Irae]

You're the one with the addled brain, not me.

I didn't agree or disagree with Borges. I simply laid out a few possible interpretations of his statement, and then I said that Borges picked the worst one (as it relates to Belichick).

he did.

That much was obvious from reading the one statement alone.

Your statement about a snap judgment is ridiculous on its face since I never made a judgment on what Belichick meant. I simply said, out of all the interpretations, Borges went with the one that made Belichick look foolish.

Simple. To everyone on this topic but yourself.

if you can show me that I was WRONG to assume Borges picked the worst possible interpretation, go ahead. Show me another plausible interpretation that would make it sound like Belichick wasn't a bit blind when it came to judging talent. In fact, Borges calls him blind practically in that very article.

What YOU assumed was irrelevant for the purposes of it being silly of me to assume it. Again, your inability to read is your problem, not mine.

If you want to be silly enough to make snap judgments without having all the information, that's up to you. You, perhaps don't mind being ignorant. I prefer to be informed.

 

[Brady_12]

How am I making an assumption when this is what he said:

"Derrick really plays consistently on everything and he's done an excellent job in the running game for us – probably as good as we've had as a run player and a pass rusher."

If he meant to say this year, wouldn't he have said:

"Derrick really plays consistently on everything and he's done an excellent job in the running game for us – probably as good as we've had as a run player and a pass rusher this year."?

Since in my world, we, means "this team", which also means "the current players and coaches", I think he means this year.

As I said, it's my opinion that the man hasn't lost his mind and he's far from stupid, so I think I'll go with the rational interpretation.

Agree to disagree I guess.

 

[RayClay]

Where did this supposed confab occur?

This is Wrong Borges, remember? I don't for one second believe a Patriots player made a crack about Chad Jackson, nor do I believe BB or anyone gave Borges a story.

Could it be Borges overheard something and...embelished?

Every similar article sources the herald, except one which is ...similar, but a lot different...in the Globe.

“Derrick has done a good job for us all year. He really has. He’s been productive both in the passing game and in the running game. I think overall his run play has been good. He’s a very consistent player,’’ Belichick said.

“There are some players that rush the passer and they kind of rush the passer on every play and that’s great on the passes, but then sometimes that can hurt you in the running game. Derrick really plays consistently on everything and he’s done an excellent job in the running game for us.

“He’s definitely what we needed as an edge player. He’s given us that.’’

“I think he can do it. I think it just comes down to game planning, matchups, and sometimes how the game unfolds. But I think he’s definitely capable of doing that,’’ Belichick said. “I think this guy has got some football left.’

http://www.boston.com/sports/footba...10/01/08/patriots_burgess_a_sad_sack_no_more/

All the quotes are similar, but no plagiarizer hatchet job with fake comments from anonymous players.

Unless Seymour and Bledsoe are back on the team, you can count out sources for Borges. What a lying hatchet job obviously twisting quotes around.

 

[pats1]

Imagine being Burress and reading that hatchet job. I would be spitting fire

Plaxico doesn't get papers in prison.

 

[BradyFTW!]

How am I making an assumption when this is what he said:

"Derrick really plays consistently on everything and he's done an excellent job in the running game for us – probably as good as we've had as a run player and a pass rusher."

If he meant to say this year, wouldn't he have said:

"Derrick really plays consistently on everything and he's done an excellent job in the running game for us – probably as good as we've had as a run player and a pass rusher this year."?

Uhhhh... can't you say the same thing about your excellent interpretation?

After all, if he wanted to say that Burgess was the best against the run and pass that he's ever had, wouldn't at least one of the words "best" or "ever" have entered the conversation?

All that it really comes down to is that he vaguely defined the context in which he was speaking. If you want to assume that "we" means every Patriots team that he's ever coached then go ahead. But not only does that make no rational sense, but it's also completely inconsistent with Belichick's track record and his M.O.

Hint: Belichick's not hear to talk about the past. He's talking about the team at hand, because however good McGinest or Vrabel were has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on the upcoming game. If you actually need that to be even more explicitly spelled out for you, then maybe you should stick to dissecting the words of more longwinded speakers. Belichick clearly goes over your head.

Seriously, you could just as reasonably say "by 'we' Belichick means the entire history of the NFL, which means that he's calling Derrick Burgess the best defensive player ever. You can't prove that that's not what he meant, so I'm right!"

 

[RayClay]

Since in my world, we, means "this team", which also means "the current players and coaches", I think he means this year.

As I said, it's my opinion that the man hasn't lost his mind and he's far from stupid, so I think I'll go with the rational interpretation.

Agree to disagree I guess.

I wouldn't worry about it. Look at this quote in the globe and ask yourself, did he give this typical BB quote mildly praising a player for the globe, then turn around and change the same quote to a sensational, ridiculous one where he says Burgess is our greatest OLB or DE ever??!!

Or is it the same quote, and you got had by believing unscrupulous Wrong Borges?

“Derrick has done a good job for us all year. He really has. He’s been productive both in the passing game and in the running game. I think overall his run play has been good. He’s a very consistent player,’’ Belichick said.

 

[dhamz]

How am I making an assumption when this is what he said:

"Derrick really plays consistently on everything and he's done an excellent job in the running game for us – probably as good as we've had as a run player and a pass rusher."

If he meant to say this year, wouldn't he have said:

"Derrick really plays consistently on everything and he's done an excellent job in the running game for us – probably as good as we've had as a run player and a pass rusher this year."?

Everyone is making an assumption because "we've had" is not definitive, it is vague and can be meant differently and interpeted differently.

Since BB was not asked to clarify his outrageous opinion as to why he thinks Burgess is better than Vrabel, Willie, etc. but was asked other questions about Burgess it would appear those at the press conference assumed he meant this year.

 

[upstater1]

How am I making an assumption when this is what he said:

"Derrick really plays consistently on everything and he's done an excellent job in the running game for us – probably as good as we've had as a run player and a pass rusher."

If he meant to say this year, wouldn't he have said:

"Derrick really plays consistently on everything and he's done an excellent job in the running game for us – probably as good as we've had as a run player and a pass rusher this year."?

Maybe, maybe not.