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

[patsfan13]

No sh!t.

My point was, he didn't elaborate on whether that past tense had a time limit.

Now, maybe my Jedi mindtrick isn't working as well as yours, but you're making an assumption while I'm just interpreting what he's saying.

During the season BB only refers to the players on the roster and their impact on the next game the only situation where he goes "all time" is in the off season when a player retires see T Brown & T Bruschi everything else is the current team and the next opponent.

How can anyone who has watched team during the BB era miss this?

 

[MassPats38]

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."?

On the same line of reasoning as you appear to offer, if he meant to say "best ever," wouldn't he have said "best ever"? He didn't. As Deus noted, use of the past tense verb "had" without a time limitation is ambiguous as to the time reference, meaning the event happened in the past - the past nanosecond or the history of man, we don't know. That ambiguity is not subject to debate. Based on the context of the statement, you can make a reasonable or unreasonable effort at discerning what the intended time frame for the statement is. If you asked someone "Did you have lunch?," would you mean "Did you ever have lunch?" or "Did you just have lunch?" If the context is a question posed 30 minutes after the designated lunch hour, it is unreasonable to interpret that ambiguity as meaning ever rather than in the last day.

In the absence of references to prior name LBs, and Belchick does name drop when he is complimenting a player like Brady or Bruschi in historical terms with references to guys like Lawrence Taylor, I submit it is unreasonable, in the context of a player's progress during the season, to conclude that discussion references anything other than the current year. Deus gave the full context for Belichick's statement. If you want to read that statement as implying Burgess is the best ever with 35 tackles and 4 sacks, I leave you to your interpretation.

 

[upstater1]

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.

I made no judgment about what Belichick meant. That's clear to anyone who can read. Obviously, you have trouble understanding what you read, and that you would call that "being informed" is just another aspect of your megalomania.

Whenever you're wrong or misinterpret something, then starts the obfuscating and strawman arguments. Just admit you were wrong or misinterpreted what someone wrote, and move on.

 

[RayClay]

I can't believe you are all still arguing about fictiosious quotes Borges spun. Pleas go back a page and check quotes from a globe story that are obviously the real quote the Borges changed to be sensational.

I can't believe you are falling all over liar borges when the responsible Globe reporter has the real quotes.

Talk about arguing about nothing.

It's Borges, the proven plagiarist.

 

[Wheelssps]

I can't believe you are all still arguing about fictiosious quotes Borges spun. Pleas go back a page and check quotes from a globe story that are obviously the real quote the Borges changed to be sensational.

I can't believe you are falling all over liar borges when the responsible Globe reporter has the real quotes.

Talk about arguing about nothing.

It's Borges, the proven plagiarist.

Right. This thread only needed to be about 2 posts long. First by the OP, who didn't realize the author when posting it, then someone else to notice that it was written by Borges, and then the obligatory rant on Borges by that second poster. Done.

 

[RayClay]

Right. This thread only needed to be about 2 posts long. First by the OP, who didn't realize the author when posting it, then someone else to notice that it was written by Borges, and then the obligatory rant on Borges by that second poster. Done.

Well, three actually. Wouldn't want to miss the Globe article with the same structure showing how Borges changed the real quotes until it was a lie.

“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.’’

Patriots’ Burgess a sad sack no more - The Boston Globe

 

[BSR]

1. The title of this thread is very misleading. No where does Belichick ever say anthing about 3-4 OLBs or who the best is.

2. When I read his quote in Borgess' article it sounded pretty innocent. Just he typical praise. “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.” He uses "as good as we've seen" or "as good as there is" almost on a weekly basis. It is also pretty incomplete. It screams for context. By itself there isn't any reasonable assumptions about what he is trying to imply. You need context and Borges is just ready to supply it no matter how inaccurate or baised it seems to be. Borges's next sentence offers up Seymour as a comparison. All of a sudden everyone is thinking he is comparing him to everyone BB has ever coached. Yeah that's reasonable [sarcasm].

3. Then when you go to the actual transcript, you can plainly see how absolutely out of context this has been taken. Read the whole thing and you read about how he Burgess is having a "solid" year. Not the best year or even a great year, just a solid year. How anyone can read that entire transcript and reasonably conclude that he is saying what Borges is implying is beyond all reason. Really.

 

[NovaScotiaPatsFan]

Wow, Borges so thoroughly mangled Belichick's words that it should be a fireable offense. Absolutely ridiculous.

Don't blame him, he probably plagiarized the word mangling from someone else.

 

[mgteich]

I agree with all your comments.

A) Belichick says that Burgess is having a solid year and some of those here (and perhaps on the team) that think differently go ballistic, exagerrate and generally make a mess of the discussion.

For the record, I have stated before that I think that Burgess should be re-signed through 2011 (as many others have been). I would expect that he would be a backup, but he could need to again play over 50% of the defensive reps if no one else can beat him out. In any case, he is a very reasonable backup and a fine asset to the patriots.

B) It is apparent that you fail to understand the nature of many posts and posters. Reading comprehension is a skill that many lack, some consistently, some on an occasional and selective basis. The need to be logical is often not present. Facts often just get in the way of argument. You need to get used to this reality or you will continue to be frustrated.

1. The title of this thread is very misleading. No where does Belichick ever say anthing about 3-4 OLBs or who the best is.

2. When I read his quote in Borgess' article it sounded pretty innocent. Just he typical praise. “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.” He uses "as good as we've seen" or "as good as there is" almost on a weekly basis. It is also pretty incomplete. It screams for context. By itself there isn't any reasonable assumptions about what he is trying to imply. You need context and Borges is just ready to supply it no matter how inaccurate or baised it seems to be. Borges's next sentence offers up Seymour as a comparison. All of a sudden everyone is thinking he is comparing him to everyone BB has ever coached. Yeah that's reasonable [sarcasm].

3. Then when you go to the actual transcript, you can plainly see how absolutely out of context this has been taken. Read the whole thing and you read about how he Burgess is having a "solid" year. Not the best year or even a great year, just a solid year. How anyone can read that entire transcript and reasonably conclude that he is saying what Borges is implying is beyond all reason. Really.

 

[Wheelssps]

Well, three actually. Wouldn't want to miss the Globe article with the same structure showing how Borges changed the real quotes until it was a lie.

Very good point.
In that vein of thinking, there might be four posts, the fourth linking to another journalist's work at another paper to show the original source that Borges plagiarized.

 

[Shockt327]

Dude, there's no assumption on my part, read what he says!!!

If you don't agree with him, then fine. I certainly don't. But to assume he's saying something else when his qoute is right there in front of us is lunacy.

You lack basic reading comprehension skills. Either that, or you are Ron Borges.

 

[Kasmir]

Occam's razor would suggest that since the "this-year" reading of Belichick's remarks doesn't make him out to be a raving fool, it is no doubt the correct interpretation. Poor choice of syntax on his part, perhaps, but there's no conceivable basis for Belichick anointing Burgess the best OLB he's ever had. The reading should be obvious.

I also note from the article that the anonymous DL's were informed about what Belichick said as alleged by Borges, who no doubt chose the absurd interpretation implied in the article, probably without mincing lies. Borges is a sh*t-stirrer.

 

[Wheelssps]

Occam's razor would suggest that since the "this-year" reading of Belichick's remarks doesn't make him out to be a raving fool, it is no doubt the correct interpretation. Poor choice of syntax on his part, perhaps, but there's no conceivable basis for Belichick anointing Burgess the best OLB he's ever had. The reading should be obvious.

I also note from the article that the anonymous DL's were informed about what Belichick said as alleged by Borges, who no doubt chose the absurd interpretation implied in the article, probably without mincing lies. Borges is a sh*t-stirrer.

The only real question that this article should have raised was why any Pats DL player was talking to Borges about the quote anyway. If I were a Pats player, Borges would have a tendency to find himself stuffed into an empty locker any time he ventured into the Pats locker room.

I suppose that Borges just have made up the entire Pats DL quotes, too.

 

[RayClay]

Well, three actually. Wouldn't want to miss the Globe article with the same structure showing how Borges changed the real quotes until it was a lie.

Very good point.
In that vein of thinking, there might be four posts, the fourth linking to another journalist's work at another paper to show the original source that Borges plagiarized.

Uh, no yhat was covered in #3. Seriously, it's obviously the same BB monologue enhanced by Borges. Part of Borges bittereness is that he has had no sources since Belichickis in town. why would BB repeat the same monologue for Borges, spiced up with the sensational stuff, he just delivered for everyone, or just for the globe reporter?

Former Borges locker room sources were Bledsoe and maybe Samuel and Seymour, as Borges loves to leech onto those dissatisfied with contracts.

What do those three have in common? They're gone.

Of course Borges always played fast and loose with the anonymous sources, but since he's gone to the scandal sheet it seems he figures he can just make stuff up, since that's pretty much the editorial philosophy there, anyway.

For anyone who thinks this article isn't enhanced with the anonymous "player quotes" made up...You been punk'd.

 

[RayClay]

My translation of BB's assessment of Burgess? He's not just a pass rusher. He's got a lot of work to do at OLB, but he's not a *****, he tackles people.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

I personally think, given Borges' track record, that he simply made up the "that explains Chad Jackson" anonymous quote, because the quote tickled him, and he has shown pretty light regard for journalistic ethics in the past.

 

[BSR]

I personally think, given Borges' track record, that he simply made up the "that explains Chad Jackson" anonymous quote, because the quote tickled him, and he has shown pretty light regard for journalistic ethics in the past.

Seeing how he took a portion of BB's statement and clearly placed it in a context that made him look bad, there's probably a very good chance that he did the same with the DL quotes. For all we know the entire quote could have been...that explains Chad Jackson, he was always defending that guy in the media and then he was cut. Its meaningless without context and you can't trust the context Borgie puts it in. Its really sad that such a blatant hatchet job is tolerated by the Herald editor.

 

[RayClay]

My translation of BB's assessment of Burgess? He's not just a pass rusher. He's got a lot of work to do at OLB, but he's not a *****, he tackles people.

You can't say cat?

 

[RayClay]

Seeing how he took a portion of BB's statement and clearly placed it in a context that made him look bad, there's probably a very good chance that he did the same with the DL quotes. For all we know the entire quote could have been...that explains Chad Jackson, he was always defending that guy in the media and then he was cut. Its meaningless without context and you can't trust the context Borgie puts it in. Its really sad that such a blatant hatchet job is tolerated by the Herald editor.

Actually, it looks like he added words to BB's statements too. (see globe article please).

 

[RayClay]

Seeing how he took a portion of BB's statement and clearly placed it in a context that made him look bad, there's probably a very good chance that he did the same with the DL quotes. For all we know the entire quote could have been...that explains Chad Jackson, he was always defending that guy in the media and then he was cut. Its meaningless without context and you can't trust the context Borgie puts it in. Its really sad that such a blatant hatchet job is tolerated by the Herald editor.

The Herald had editors? When did this happen?