Felger giving it to Borges...

[TheBostonStraggler]

My personal view is Belichick doesn't like to deliver bad news to players, and it's made some of the players very angry. Bledsoe should have been told that Belichick had changed his mind and decided to go with Brady instead of letting Bledsoe figure it out for himself. Andruzzi should have been told the Pat's weren't going to offer him a new contract, he really wanted to come back but was left hanging. There are probably others and that could have led Borges to conclude Belichick is an awful person.

BB doesn't like to deliver bad news? Someone want to get Bernie Kosar on the phone? I'd be willing to bet BB delivers bad news just fine. My suspicion is BB possibly holds off on delivering bad news if it is advantageous to the team to not yet make the decision absolutely final.
Here is what I expect from BB. Do what's best for the team and let the chips fall where they may. This is what I expect from the players. If selected to play, play your hardest. If let go from the team, seek the very best situation you can somewhere else. This is what I don't expect. Player A to be feeling shocked and jilted if BB goes with Player B, as long as, in BB's opinion, Player B gives the team a better chance to succeed. As a simple fan, it is obvious this is BB's way. I can't believe a player could be that naive about BB. For those thinking it unfair?? If BB no longer gives the team the best chance to win, expect Kraft to go with Coach B. That's the way the cookie crumbles.......

 

[arrellbee]

MoLewisrocks - I won't quote your post but if anyone is tuning in late - it's a must to go up a few posts and read Mo's great info.

One thought that occurs:
When this Bledsoe/Brady situation was taking place it was fairly early in Belichick's tenure here, so it may not have become so obvious yet that Belichick would play the currently most effective player - period. If Bledsoe was not aware of Belichick's method of coaching in Cleveland and the 'starters' that lost their position, he may well have had the simplistic notion that it was his job (after all - look at his 'star' salary package) without even any thought that it might be otherwise. It may not have been obvious also that whomever Belichick felt was currently most effective would get 1st team practice reps and then other players down the depth chart would get reps and it was up to them to show in the reps that they did get that they deserved to get the 1st team reps. Purely speculation, but my impression of Bledsoe is that he doesn't really identify with his actual performance versus what he feels is his 'status' and that he personally regards himself as a top QB - obviously if my pure speculation has any basis, he wouldn't have a clue as to why he was not getting 1st team reps and wouldn't even be able to really logically evaluate what Brady was accomplishing versus his performance in practice.

He meant a lot to New England and he was effective under Parcells coaching in taking the Pats to a superbowl. That was a pretty good accomplishment - there are a lot of QBs who might be regarded as more effective than Bledsoe that haven't been to a superbowl (hee hee - PayMeATon). No-one can ever take that away from him. He seems to be a pretty regular guy. It's sorrowful that his definite shortcomings have given him some unhappy times, but he can be thankful that he has had so many years and indeed has some significant career stats. He will suffer the hurt to his pride at being set aside at this stage of his career, but he should count his blessings that he did get to play all of those years compared to the non-existent or short careers of so many other QBs drafted high into the NFL.

Fare thee well, Drew Bledsoe.

 

[ironwasp]

I am increasingly bewildered that a newspaper with the tradition and ambition of the Globe is prepared to tolerate a situation in which their primary football correspondent is effectively allowing a personal animus against the Patriots' head coach heavily influence their coverage of the sport.

While it is perfectly acceptable for reporters to take issue with a team's management, its personnel decisions, its onfield strategy - everything in fact from the over-arching philosophy of the club to the state of the turf, it is entirely unacceptable for a reporter to do so from a dogmatic personal vantage point that clouds their judgement and effectively slants the paper's coverage.

Ron Borges is a decent writer. He has a nice turn of phrase and a good deal of the stuff he writes shows insight. This week's On Football column about the Pats defence is a case in point. A good deal of the work published on MSNBC.com is very good. (There's a piece about Brady on the NFL homepage right now).

But none of that really matters here anymore because he is no longer a credible source of news and analysis on the New England Patriots because of his incredible personal obsession with Bill Belichick. Some of the stuff he wrote about the Branch affair was unprofessional and embarrassing. He has lost the confidence of the only constituency that matters out there - his readership.

Quite honestly the rant on the Felger show - as described here, I didn't see it unfortunately - is humiliating for him and its humiliating for the Globe. And his editors must surely be asking themselves exactly what his value is to them. If he really does have some dynamite on BB, his editors should be telling him: "Put up or shut up." And if he can't or won't do either, they should invite him to seek employment elsewhere.

 

[arrellbee]

ironwasp - can't give the perspective on Borges any more eloquently than you did. Thanks for an interesting read.

 

[Hoodie]

I no longer read or listen to anything Bogus has to say about BB, Football, or the Pats. He's been wrong so many times it's not even funny.

However, I have come to the conclusion that his hatred is an act. Why? Because he receives a paycheck from the Patriots every Sunday for appearing on the WBCN pre-game radion show. That is a Kraft production, if he hates BB and the Krafts so much, why work for them? Or perhaps Bogus' morals are just a little compromised.

As for BB being a horrible person, I have NO doubt that he can be a tough SOB. He'd have to be to be successful in the job he has. Then I watch him and his kids on the sidelines every Sunday and I think NO awful person would have that kind of relationship with his kids.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

I think this is pretty much how it happened. Because if Patriot Reign is to be believed, both Charlie and Bill knew Brady was probably better than Bledsoe at the start of the 2001 season.

I was AT those training camps and I certainly knew it.
If I knew Brady was better, then BB and Charlie certainly did.

Back then on USENET, brady fans were castigated by the numerous Bledsoe Krishnas still making excuses for Drew and demanding he be re-instated. There was a loud crowd campaining for Drew to win back the job in 2002 training camp but the fortunate trade made that controversey moot.

 

[bishbash]

Why is it a scandal the Borges won't vote for Bledsoe for HOF (which is what the original quote's context indicated)? It would be more of a scandal if he did vote for Bledsoe in the HOF.

Umm, no, the indication was that Borges won't support Belichick. (Or at least has some juvenile attack speech planned)

 

[Garbanza]

This is why I am amazed that the Globe retains Borges' services. His AGENDA IS CLEARLY PERSONAL. He needs to refrain from the PERSONAL and comment on the football. Borges can't do that. Therefore his credibility is shot. Oy!

 

[QuiGon]

This is why I am amazed that the Globe retains Borges' services. His AGENDA IS CLEARLY PERSONAL. He needs to refrain from the PERSONAL and comment on the football. Borges can't do that. Therefore his credibility is shot. Oy!

Since when does the Boston Globe care about credibility of their reporters...? The Globe is a ragsheet that has humiliated itself time and again.

 

[Bella*chick]

I was AT those training camps and I certainly knew it.
If I knew Brady was better, then BB and Charlie certainly did.

Back then on USENET, brady fans were castigated by the numerous Bledsoe Krishnas still making excuses for Drew and demanding he be re-instated. There was a loud crowd campaining for Drew to win back the job in 2002 training camp but the fortunate trade made that controversey moot.

Hey, you were? That's cool. Do you remember any specific examples where you thought, this guy is better. Any particular things Brady did, the way he carried himself, etc.? I always love personal examples based on observation.

 

[kptmorgan04]

I am increasingly bewildered that a newspaper with the tradition and ambition of the Globe is prepared to tolerate a situation in which their primary football correspondent is effectively allowing a personal animus against the Patriots' head coach heavily influence their coverage of the sport.

While it is perfectly acceptable for reporters to take issue with a team's management, its personnel decisions, its onfield strategy - everything in fact from the over-arching philosophy of the club to the state of the turf, it is entirely unacceptable for a reporter to do so from a dogmatic personal vantage point that clouds their judgement and effectively slants the paper's coverage.

Ron Borges is a decent writer. He has a nice turn of phrase and a good deal of the stuff he writes shows insight. This week's On Football column about the Pats defence is a case in point. A good deal of the work published on MSNBC.com is very good. (There's a piece about Brady on the NFL homepage right now).

But none of that really matters here anymore because he is no longer a credible source of news and analysis on the New England Patriots because of his incredible personal obsession with Bill Belichick. Some of the stuff he wrote about the Branch affair was unprofessional and embarrassing. He has lost the confidence of the only constituency that matters out there - his readership.

Quite honestly the rant on the Felger show - as described here, I didn't see it unfortunately - is humiliating for him and its humiliating for the Globe. And his editors must surely be asking themselves exactly what his value is to them. If he really does have some dynamite on BB, his editors should be telling him: "Put up or shut up." And if he can't or won't do either, they should invite him to seek employment elsewhere.

could you please send this post to the Globe. I sent something awhile ago without putting much thought into it after Borges wrote something rediculous and they actually did respond, but not too politely. but this is very thought out and actually states that he can be a decent writer but his personal hatred of Bill is just plain bad business

 

[DarrylS]

I am increasingly bewildered that a newspaper with the tradition and ambition of the Globe is prepared to tolerate a situation in which their primary football correspondent is effectively allowing a personal animus against the Patriots' head coach heavily influence their coverage of the sport.

While it is perfectly acceptable for reporters to take issue with a team's management, its personnel decisions, its onfield strategy - everything in fact from the over-arching philosophy of the club to the state of the turf, it is entirely unacceptable for a reporter to do so from a dogmatic personal vantage point that clouds their judgement and effectively slants the paper's coverage.

Ron Borges is a decent writer. He has a nice turn of phrase and a good deal of the stuff he writes shows insight. This week's On Football column about the Pats defence is a case in point. A good deal of the work published on MSNBC.com is very good. (There's a piece about Brady on the NFL homepage right now).

But none of that really matters here anymore because he is no longer a credible source of news and analysis on the New England Patriots because of his incredible personal obsession with Bill Belichick. Some of the stuff he wrote about the Branch affair was unprofessional and embarrassing. He has lost the confidence of the only constituency that matters out there - his readership.

Quite honestly the rant on the Felger show - as described here, I didn't see it unfortunately - is humiliating for him and its humiliating for the Globe. And his editors must surely be asking themselves exactly what his value is to them. If he really does have some dynamite on BB, his editors should be telling him: "Put up or shut up." And if he can't or won't do either, they should invite him to seek employment elsewhere.

Have said this before that once I was on a train from NYC to Prov and sat next to an accountant from the NY Times.. she was a Pats fan, talked about news coverage, blah, blah.. she was non commital about Borges, however did say that when the NYT bought the Globe all the staff were guaranteed their jobs.. I suspect that this agreement may be the cornerstone of the tolerance of the Globe staff towards Borges.

 

[ironwasp]

Have said this before that once I was on a train from NYC to Prov and sat next to an accountant from the NY Times.. she was a Pats fan, talked about news coverage, blah, blah.. she was non commital about Borges, however did say that when the NYT bought the Globe all the staff were guaranteed their jobs.. I suspect that this agreement may be the cornerstone of the tolerance of the Globe staff towards Borges.

My personal experience of working in newspapers is that there is no such thing as a guaranteed job, and nor should there be. They don't necessarily need to fire him, but they can reassign him to cover the Revolution, or the zoo or just make him get Reiss coffee. (the guy seems to be carrying the entire football writing department and could probably use the help)

 

[ironwasp]

could you please send this post to the Globe. I sent something awhile ago without putting much thought into it after Borges wrote something rediculous and they actually did respond, but not too politely. but this is very thought out and actually states that he can be a decent writer but his personal hatred of Bill is just plain bad business

I actually started writing this as an e-mail to the magaing editor for sports but thought I might test the argument here first. Perhaps I'll try sending it in and see what the response is.

 

[bishbash]

I actually started writing this as an e-mail to the magaing editor for sports but thought I might test the argument here first. Perhaps I'll try sending it in and see what the response is.

I approve! Upon looking up "defence" on dictionary.com, I see that is an accepted British spelling of the word. Just to alert you, it is spelled "defense" here in the states. I'd also leave out any references at the end to this forum. Otherwise, as agreed by others here, looks great - send it in! - report back any reply.
bish

 

[ironwasp]

I just sent it in and I checked it for English American spelling but missed out defence/defense. Bugger.

 

[unleadedword]

They just posted a transcript of some this show and stuff from Borges on

http://www.bostonsportsmedia.com/

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

Hey, you were? That's cool. Do you remember any specific examples where you thought, this guy is better. Any particular things Brady did, the way he carried himself, etc.? I always love personal examples based on observation.

There was Drew, Damon Huard & Michael Bishop at the time IIRC. Couple weeks into his 2nd camp summer 2001 Brady was geting lots of reps. He'd always do well leading the O in scrimmages. Was accurate and 'looked' poised. Knew the offense and the plays. No hesitation and none of the locking onto the one guy where the ball was going. Could see him doing a couple checkdowns. Coaches were spending lots of time & attention on Brady. In retrospect what was happening was that BB was in the process of deciding that Brady, not the decent vet backup Huard, was to be his #2 QB.

OTOH, Drew was all over the place chucking the ball around deep but not moving the 1st down chains consistently like Brady was. Admitedly, I'd soured on Drew's game a couple years previously. Bishop finally got cut.

Camp at Smithfield was very up close and personal.

 

[alamo]

Umm, no, the indication was that Borges won't support Belichick. (Or at least has some juvenile attack speech planned)

My point was that the idea propagating though this thread that Borges wouldn't vote for BB for HOF was entirely due to someone misreading the quote in this thread, and once one person did so everybody responded to that. Typical Internet message board stuff.

I've heard Borges say in the past that he WILL vote for Belichick, and yesterday he said Belichick was "one of the great coaches of all time." When the time comes he will have to give the introductory speech before the HOF electors (which is private, until Peter King writes about it in MMQB) and he didn't say it would be an attack, exactly, just "it will be a helluva speech." I doubt those electors are going to sit still through a long diatribe when they already know they will be voting for BB.

I am not defending Borges, there are plenty of reasons to dislike him, but there's no reason to make stuff up to attack him.

 

[alamo]

On another point -- I think the Globe's making Reiss the primary Patriots reporter was designed to offset Borges. Reiss is a Patriots lap dog who is primarily a reporter with team sources and Borges is a Patriots attack dog who is primarily a columnist and has access primarily to anti-team sources. I believe the Globe thinks as long as you have one you need the other to balance things out and make for more lively journalism.

(Oh, and I am not attacking Reiss by calling him a lap dog, I think he understands the situation and knows the Globe needs an inside team guy and he is doing what makes sense at this point in his career and what his bosses ask him to do.)