Belichick checks in [mergedx3]

[BrianPat]

In a story that will run in Tuesday's editions of the Boston Globe and was posted on Boston.com Monday night, Patriots coach Bill Belichick touches on the Matt Walsh situation and his thoughts on a proposed rule change that would allow defensive players to have a communication device in their helmet.

http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/reiss_pieces/

 

[fgssand]

BB reiterates Globe comments...per Reiss

http://www.boston.com/sports/footba.../03/31/belichick_addresses_walsh_videotaping/


http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/reiss_pieces/



"[A reporter] asked a question before, and I said in my career I have never seen a tape of another practice, authorized one, or anything else," Belichick said yesterday when approached as he left a meeting with all NFL coaches.

"So I don't know [why the issue still lingers]. Allegations have been out there, but there has really been nothing to substantiate it. Nobody has come forward with anything else that there is really to address."

I wonder if we will see any of these comments from Mr Clayton of ESPN???

 

[DefenseRules]

Re: BB reiterates Globe comments..per Reiss

Now why would ESPN do a thing like that?

 

[RayClay]

Re: BB reiterates Globe comments..per Reiss

http://www.boston.com/sports/footba.../03/31/belichick_addresses_walsh_videotaping/


http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/reiss_pieces/



"[A reporter] asked a question before, and I said in my career I have never seen a tape of another practice, authorized one, or anything else," Belichick said yesterday when approached as he left a meeting with all NFL coaches.

"So I don't know [why the issue still lingers]. Allegations have been out there, but there has really been nothing to substantiate it. Nobody has come forward with anything else that there is really to address."

I wonder if we will see any of these comments from Mr Clayton of ESPN???

I think this link goes with the article.

http://www.boston.com/sports/footba.../03/31/belichick_addresses_walsh_videotaping/

Interesting stuff on rule changes, though.

Personally, I'd stick with the force out rule. Doesn't seem to cause a problem.

No need to encourage more missile attacks from out of control safeties IMO.

 

[fgssand]

Re: BB reiterates Globe comments..per Reiss

I think this link goes with the article.

http://www.boston.com/sports/footba.../03/31/belichick_addresses_walsh_videotaping/

Interesting stuff on rule changes, though.

Personally, I'd stick with the force out rule. Doesn't seem to cause a problem.

No need to encourage more missile attacks from out of control safeties IMO.

Yup.....all fixed now...thanks.

 

[Rob0729]

Re: BB reiterates Globe comments..per Reiss

http://www.boston.com/sports/footba.../03/31/belichick_addresses_walsh_videotaping/


http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/reiss_pieces/



"[A reporter] asked a question before, and I said in my career I have never seen a tape of another practice, authorized one, or anything else," Belichick said yesterday when approached as he left a meeting with all NFL coaches.

"So I don't know [why the issue still lingers]. Allegations have been out there, but there has really been nothing to substantiate it. Nobody has come forward with anything else that there is really to address."

I wonder if we will see any of these comments from Mr Clayton of ESPN???

Hey give John Clayton a break. He thought he scooped the world by revealing today a "new revelation" that the Pats claim that Walsh has no confidentiality agreement.

I'm sure he'll get to this story, but he is working on a bigger story. I hear he is about to break a huge story of cheating. He is about to report that he has learned that the Chicago White Sox including Shoeless Joe Jackson may have thrown the World Series. After that story dies down, I am sure he will get to Belichick's comments.

 

[DarrylS]

Re: BB reiterates Globe comments..per Reiss

Pretty confident that Kraft and BB would be in denial this much is there was a possibility they would be proven wrong.. makes no sense.

 

[PAPatsjunkie]

Re: BB reiterates Globe comments..per Reiss

Hey give John Clayton a break. He thought he scooped the world by revealing today a "new revelation" that the Pats claim that Walsh has no confidentiality agreement.

I'm sure he'll get to this story, but he is working on a bigger story. I hear he is about to break a huge story of cheating. He is about to report that he has learned that the Chicago White Sox including Shoeless Joe Jackson may have thrown the World Series. After that story dies down, I am sure he will get to Belichick's comments.

Haha... somehow I dont think Chris Mortenson is pleased with Clayton... Mike & Mike on ESPN were just talking about this no confidentiality thing like it was a new revelation as well(even though I emailed them about it weeks ago) and Mort called in to say it was a part of Mike Fish's story several weeks ago. I guess Clayton can't be bothered to read articles at his OWN company that are about the topic he most likes to write about.

 

[unoriginal]

Re: Belichick checks in

They better eliminate the damn force-out. If you don't want to be knocked out of bounds, don't jump along the sidelines. It's not the defender's fault you're out there and need to be tackled.

 

[Rob0729]

Re: Belichick checks in

They better eliminate the damn force-out. If you don't want to be knocked out of bounds, don't jump along the sidelines. It's not the defender's fault you're out there and need to be tackled.

I agree that getting rid of the force out rule is a good thing, but I am surprised that the people who argue passionately against PI becoming a 15 yard penalty because defenders will just purposely commit a flagrant foul than give up a big play aren't coming out against this rule. I don't see the difference.

In fact, I expect defenders taking advantage of this rule change more than if they changed the PI rule. Based on the current proposal for force outs, a defender will be able to push a receiver out of bounds as he is coming down with the ball and force an incomplete pass without a penalty. Under the PI rules change, at least there is a 15 yard penalty.

I am for both rule changes myself. Unfortunately, the force out rule is the only one on the table at this point. Hopefully, PI will be on the table next year.

 

[JoePats]

Re: BB reiterates Globe comments..per Reiss

Nothing like making the ESPN whack-jobs look like idiots.

Edit--Although if i recall correctly, in the Fish article it was a complete throwaway line, like Fish wanted to bury it because it made his ridiculous anti-Patriots agenda look fabricated, which of course it did.

 

[unoriginal]

Re: Belichick checks in

I agree that getting rid of the force out rule is a good thing, but I am surprised that the people who argue passionately against PI becoming a 15 yard penalty because defenders will just purposely commit a flagrant foul than give up a big play aren't coming out against this rule. I don't see the difference.

In fact, I expect defenders taking advantage of this rule change more than if they changed the PI rule. Based on the current proposal for force outs, a defender will be able to push a receiver out of bounds as he is coming down with the ball and force an incomplete pass without a penalty. Under the PI rules change, at least there is a 15 yard penalty.

I am for both rule changes myself. Unfortunately, the force out rule is the only one on the table at this point. Hopefully, PI will be on the table next year.

The difference is that tackling a receiver before he gets the ball is patently unfair; tackling a receiver after he gets the ball is not, and in fact should be encouraged all over the field, including along the sidelines. I hope defenders do take advantage of the rule change.

Before, defensive backs would have to refrain from tackling or playing through a jumpball on the sidelines for fear of automatically triggering a catch due to force out, should they not break up the pass.

It should always be made incumbent on the offensive player to remain in bounds for a catch, he has free movement on the field after 5 yards.

 

[castlelong1]

BB talks about spygate

http://www.patriots.com/homepage/

Audio Title is BB: spygate made us more efficient.

 

[castlelong1]

Re: BB talks about spygate

Sorry to everyone who had threads I posted on. I saw this wasn't here and I only had 46 posts.

 

[bakes781]

Re: BB talks about spygate

hate to break it to ya, but you're not exactly the 1st to post on this subject
http://www.patsfans.com/new-england-patriots/messageboard/showthread.php?t=80432

 

[fgssand]

Re: Belichick checks in

The difference is that tackling a receiver before he gets the ball is patently unfair; tackling a receiver after he gets the ball is not, and in fact should be encouraged all over the field, including along the sidelines. I hope defenders do take advantage of the rule change.

Before, defensive backs would have to refrain from tackling or playing through a jumpball on the sidelines for fear of automatically triggering a catch due to force out, should they not break up the pass.

It should always be made incumbent on the offensive player to remain in bounds for a catch, he has free movement on the field after 5 yards.

So, in the end zone (or anywhere along the sidelines) let the receiver catch the ball and then let the defenders catch the receiver and throw him out of bounds before his feet come down = no catch and no penalty, right??

 

[castlelong1]

Re: BB talks about spygate

hate to break it to ya, but you're not exactly the 1st to post on this subject
http://www.patsfans.com/new-england-patriots/messageboard/showthread.php?t=80432

First with video, nothing against print journalism, but seeing the words come out of Belichick's mouth... not that I doubt Reiss.

But you are right, this link could have gone on that thread.

 

[castlelong1]

Re: Belichick checks in [merged]

http://www.patriots.com/homepage/

Audio Title is BB: spygate made us more efficient.

Seeing the words actually come from BB's mouth is weird.

 

[blackglass3]

Re: Belichick checks in [merged]

Pete Prisco returns with a nice BB hack job. http://cbs.sportsline.com/nfl/story/10753572

Lots of "if's", of course. But he has always been anti Pats, so it's no suprise. What a tool.

Don Banks had a pretty fair article, though.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/writers/don_banks/04/01/belichick.breakfast/index.html

One thing, though. All these guys note that he isn't in his cutoff hoodie. What the f**k do they expect, him to cut the sleeves off and sit around sweating in Palm Beach all freakin day?

 

[BPF]

Re: BB talks about spygate

I think BB did a great job here, he was very clear on his thoughts. He said this will never happen again and also gave some insight on how this helped the organization going forward. Thanks for posting.