felger's column

[SVN]

http://patriots.bostonherald.com/patriots/view.bg?articleid=152734&format=&page=1
goes on again about vinateri and what he heard on air during the atlanta game and what the truth is..cant let go.
And how about this for some objective/impartial journalism
" One thought from watching the commercials during Friday’s telecast: Peyton Manning’s continued playoff failures certainly haven’t deterred him from marketing himself, have they? "

I mean i dislike the colts and manning and all but a journalist taking pot shots in news paper sounds weird.Seems like his radio show talk translates to the newspaper.

 

[BelichickFan]

At least it had some content unlike his Sunday column in which he ranked all the NFL head coaches. That's a nice thing to do in, say, June. But it was very disappointing for Sunday after the first preseason game. I actually had no problem with Monday's column.

 

[NE39]

This is typical Felger, giving his opinion and trying to pass it off as fact.

He reports what **** Enberg and Randy Cross said was Belichick's stated reason for letting Vinatieri go:

“As Bill told us this morning, you can’t have the highest paid guy at every position,†said Cross. “You just can’t do that. There are some places where you have to make your best offer, and if that doesn’t do it, that doesn’t do it.â€
Added Enberg: “(Belichick) said, ‘Of course, we would have liked to keep Vinatieri. (But) the money runs out.’ â€

That isn't good enough for Felger, he has to correct it:

Here’s an explanation closer to the truth: The Vinatieri decision was based purely on a projection of production. Belichick felt Vinatieri had begun to slip and that the slippage would continue in the years to come. Believing that, the Pats put a value on him and were not comfortable making him the highest paid kicker in the history of the game. Makes sense.

OK, how is that "the truth"? Even if it is the truth, how is he to know? The only evidence he has is what Belichick stated to Enberg and Cross.

I don't mind him criticizing the move, or even saying he doesn't believe they let him go just because of the cap. However, don't make up his own scenario and present it like it is factual.

 

[Slagathor]

With regards to his column and the valid idea that Vinatieri was let go because of a projected decline in his game, I think we saw evidence of that last year.

His point production was still good, but field position is such a HUGE part of the game and he was starting to severely lack in that category.

As much respect and admiration I will always have for the guy, it got to the point last season where I honestly put dents in my tv screen evertime his kickoffs reached the 5 or 10 yardline barely and returned to the 35-39 yard-line.

What are the effects of that? For the opposition it's obvbious.

For the Pat's special teams and defense, it had to kill them emotionally.

God knows Seely wasn't gonna yell at Vinatieri for the opponents great field position.

And the defense almost immediately has its back to the wall.

It was nice seeing Gostkowski put the ball 6-8 yards deep in the endzone.

 

[Hoodie]

OK, how is that "the truth"? Even if it is the truth, how is he to know? The only evidence he has is what Belichick stated to Enberg and Cross.

And I'm not sure I totally believe Enberg and Cross quoted BB accurately. I was sure that I'd read that the pre-production meeting had been cancelled due to the Pats horrific travel adventures. So when exactly did BB say that?

 

[mgteich]

I guess if I were writing, I would say "probably closer to the truth" instead of "closer to the truth"

This explanation makes sense to me. Many here have posted the same idea of the truth of the matter.

This is typical Felger, giving his opinion and trying to pass it off as fact.

He reports what **** Enberg and Randy Cross said was Belichick's stated reason for letting Vinatieri go:

“As Bill told us this morning, you can’t have the highest paid guy at every position,†said Cross. “You just can’t do that. There are some places where you have to make your best offer, and if that doesn’t do it, that doesn’t do it.â€
Added Enberg: “(Belichick) said, ‘Of course, we would have liked to keep Vinatieri. (But) the money runs out.’ â€

That isn't good enough for Felger, he has to correct it:

Here’s an explanation closer to the truth: The Vinatieri decision was based purely on a projection of production. Belichick felt Vinatieri had begun to slip and that the slippage would continue in the years to come. Believing that, the Pats put a value on him and were not comfortable making him the highest paid kicker in the history of the game. Makes sense.

OK, how is that "the truth"? Even if it is the truth, how is he to know? The only evidence he has is what Belichick stated to Enberg and Cross.

I don't mind him criticizing the move, or even saying he doesn't believe they let him go just because of the cap. However, don't make up his own scenario and present it like it is factual.