Note: I have to separate this into two posts because my original response was too long. Have fun with this one.
I don't recall saying that Belichick's pressers were indicative of his persona with the players, with family, at the grocery store or at the dentist. Perhaps in your crazy mind I made some sort of connection there.
Swing and a miss...
Given that he just defended Moss for ESPN, along with Brady, Bruschi and Rodney, yea, I'd say he's probably going to reinforce his support of Randy more than tear him down this week. But hey, maybe he's just being polite? That is, after all, what Belichick is known for -- indulging and placating the media.
Only a moron would join the chorus of people publicly, defiantly defending Moss and then go behind close doors and undress him in front of the one group of people he needs to support him most.
This is absurd, absolutist nonsense. Belichick of all people knows that certain personalities need different handling. How forcefully he's addressed the press, which he himself holds in utter disdain, to clear Moss' name on this issue makes it clear.
Implicit in his (and the team's) forceful defense of Randy is that he will go out of his way to protect, what he himself calls, one of their best players.
You've been arguing in this entire thread that BB's persona is the exact same with his players as when he's addressing the media. That's actually been the central theme of your argument - that BB isn't going to "tear down" Moss because he vehemently defended him in the press. Can't wait to see how you argue semantics on this one. Strike 1.
I side-stepped nothing. I answered the question directly.
If that's your version of "answering the question directly" then your version of side-stepping probably sees you throwing your computer against the wall.
And plagiarism is bad form. Is that how you tried to coast through your logic class as well, off of the work of others?
Don't be jealous that this is the only place where I plagiarize your work. I couldn't very well cause my professors to have a mild coronary at the sheer stupidity and ridiculousness of "my" papers. By the way, since I know you care so much, I got a 94 on my exam.
You did no such thing. In fact, your entire series of posts here have been a smorgasbord of confused, schizophrenic conflations, false dilemmas, strawmen and flat out false statements.
That's only because I'm trying to sort through your idiotic logic. The fact that you aren't even sure of what you're saying is hilarious.
You're awfully sure of this for someone who hasn't been able to form a coherent position or rebuttal on this issue.
Sure I have. You might have missed it since you're probably in your office playing a tape recorder of yourself talking and masturbating to the sound of your own voice while Janice holds the calls from your mother who wants to know if you're ever going to give her a grandchild, but it was there. My position is that BB and Brady and anyone else should damn well support Moss in the media to get him firmly on the bandwagon with the team. My position is that BB should then refrain from cutting Moss slack behind closed doors in the team meeting and let him know that his performance (along with the performance of a Sammy Morris, Tom Brady, and pretty much the entire O-Line) needs to improve. I've backed up my position to show that BB never really throws anybody under the bus to the press, which is why it shouldn't come as a suprise that he's defending Moss. I've backed up my position on BB's lack of cutting anybody slack by pointing out a potentially horrible situation which included the death of a family member of another former superstar that was on the team. The same superstar was then deactivated for a quarter for taking the extra day (whether he called in to request it or not) to mourn the loss. And I've also backed up my position on the fact that BB won't show Moss any more slack than the rest of the team by pointing out exactly what he said to Moss when he first arrived in New England.
Your position includes stating that BB will NOT point out Moss' bad play in the film room and have backed it up by pointing out how he talked about Moss to the press. This is a point which you have since not been able to "recall". Perhaps some Alzheimer's medication is in order for you?
Do you guarantee it, Anthony Smith?
Oh, how the ROFLcopters are flying with that one! What a knee slapper! You must be a huge hit at Brandsmart USA's yearly Christmas parties. And no, I'll do you one better. I'll guarun-damn-tee it.
That was two years ago, this was two days ago. It seems you're not terribly good with timelines or temporal reasoning.
Weak attempt at a point. Two years ago or not, BB isn't the type to go back on his word, especially when that word comes to his policy about how he's going to handle any one player or the team.
That Belichick sure is stubborn for someone who's known to adapt to the situation in front of him.
Another weak attempt at a point. Adapting to the situation in front of him on the field and adapting to the situation in front of him with a player that, pretty clearly, gave up on plays during a game are two different things. Add in the fact that Moss is a team captain and a supposed leader, and your attempt at a point becomes even more ridiculous. Strike 2.
I dismissed it because the events were one month apart, and supposedly Randy actually contacted Brady later to express hurt from the first incident. Since then, Brady has defended Moss to the media and been seen trying to give him a pep talk on the sideline. That doesn't really support anything you drooled onto your keyboard.
Sigh. Timing is everything with your argument in this one, as you can't even remember inferring that I was a moron for thinking that BB would actually back Moss up in the press and then confront him about his play behind closed doors. I responded by asking you if you think that Brady is moronic for doing the same thing. By the way, Brady has been asked these questions about Moss before this past Sunday. But I guess that pointing that out would be inconvenient to your argument, wouldn't it?
That was then, this is now.
That was then, this is now.
BB also let a starting safety named Lawyer Milloy go because he thought other guys could step up and replace him. That was the 2003 season. BB then let a starting defensive end named Richard Seymour go because he wanted to get a pick for him and thought other guys could step up and replace him. That was the 2009 season. Your "that was then, this is now" argument is weak. BB has, pretty clearly, shown that he carries the same method in executing his job over a period of years... much less months.
That was Seymour, this is Randy.
And they are only different in the position that they play, name, height, weight, and number. Other than that, both were (in the case of Seymour) and are (in the case of Moss) superstars on the team, one of the best (if not THE best in Seymour) guys on the field when their unit is in, and team leaders/captains. How he dealt with Seymour should, without a shadow of a doubt, give some sort of hint of how he's going to deal with Moss. Are you really having that much trouble understanding this? Surely you aren't this obtuse.
Again with the attempt at a wild goose chase. You don't even qualify what you're looking for, you're just flailing.
Oh yeah. I should have remembered who I was talking to. The guy that needs everything set in stone for him to know what he needs to do. What I am looking for is clear, undeniable evidence (you can find this on Google if you'd like) that Bill Belichick has given any one player a free pass in the film room a week after that player, along with others, did not have a good game. You have yet to offer up anything relevant that has even remotely backed up your point that BB will give Moss a free pass for the Panthers game because he is not in a good mental state. Instead, you've substituted your opportunity to offer up this evidence with repeatedly trying make it look like I'm the one in this debate that has no offered up anything to back up his own point. Powerful debate tactic if you're an idiot. Unfortunately, it isn't going to work in this case.
I mean, this is how I assume you look right now:
And this is how I assume you look right now...
