Latest LT on Belichick

[pao]

Exactly bro. Hes still saying it could have been the coach, because he only "may" be wrong.

Have you heard about the team introductions before the game?

pao

 

[WestPat]

I would think that ESPN is a more objective source than the local newspaper but, hey, give me a link and I'll read your article. If you have information you believe justifies your position then by all means post it. If you came over to the Chargers' board that is how I would handle it. What's the matter with you? Are you lazy?

pao

ESPN is a more objective source????
oh man you really don't know sh*t about sports.
ESPN took the AP story that took the parts from the Globe story that suited them and left the parts that would have made their sensational title a big lie, and that part my friend was when the writer of the article went to BB and asked him about the accusations and got some answers from him...you know this is how objective journalism works, you try to get BOTH sides of the story!

ESPN more objective..

 

[pao]

ESPN is a more objective source????
oh man you really don't know sh*t about sports.
ESPN took the AP story that took the parts from the Globe story that suited them and left the parts that would have made their sensational title a big lie, and that part my friend was when the writer of the article went to BB and asked him about the accusations and got some answers from him...you know this is how objective journalism works, you try to get BOTH sides of the story!

ESPN more objective..

Still haven't seen any links.

pao

 

[WestPat]

Still haven't seen any links.

pao

do you have a disability of any kind that prevents you from going to google, typing Boston Globe, clicking on the link, and going to the sports section?

if so....tell us so a link can be provided for you

 

[pao]

ESPN is a more objective source????
oh man you really don't know sh*t about sports.
ESPN took the AP story that took the parts from the Globe story that suited them and left the parts that would have made their sensational title a big lie, and that part my friend was when the writer of the article went to BB and asked him about the accusations and got some answers from him...you know this is how objective journalism works, you try to get BOTH sides of the story!

ESPN more objective..

You guys crack me up! "Don't know sh*t about sports, "lazy", "don't know football", "disingenuous". Anyone with another point of view must be stupid or lazy or planning some big bash against your team, eh? ESPN's article (actually written by AP), the link for which I posted, is objective. Maybe not as thorough (yet), but objective none the less. It reported the facts as they knew them at the time. If you don't believe your local newspaper reports the news without, at least, a little subjectivity you are a little naive.


pao

 

[pao]

do you have a disability of any kind that prevents you from going to google, typing Boston Globe, clicking on the link, and going to the sports section?

if so....tell us so a link can be provided for you

Like I said, on our board if you want someone to see your point of view, you supply the link or copy and paste the whole article. This eliminates misunderstandings and confusion. Additionally there are other threads on this board dedicated to the Bill B. accusations. I think I'll go over there and do some reading before responding specifically about this story here.

pao

 

[PatsFanInVa]

Just visiting here... only moderately interested in Pats/Chargers picking over the bones of last year's failed campaigns.

But I did have to note this little emoticon of a little dude rolling around and laughing, at the notion that a national outlet is more objective than a local outlet, is just plain silly.

Don't know the arguments here, I just know that local papers' bread and butter is covering the local team. I also know that even in Boston that primarily means writing as if hoping the Pats make and win the Super Bowl. Even the guys who write negatively about Belichik or this or that Patriots blunder (in their eyes,) are basically writing home team sports page articles.

Home team sports page articles, by nature, are less objective than articles produced by the national media.

I do see a recent avalanche of "God we're sick of the Pats," being expressed through various outlets. Any news about the Pats is bad news, and that's good news (league-wide.) Those outlets would probably make the argument that the Pats were the darlings of the league in 2001, were considered unlikely repeaters in 2003, then started to be considered sort of sickening in 2004 - it wasn't until they were missing the super bowl regularly (GASP! 2 in a row!) that it was safe to question their organization. Once it was safe, it was like the tide of articles on what a cap-cheating ass Carmen Policy was, after the 9ers went down.

But can I say the Boston press is more objective than the national media? Nut uh. I CAN say they examine things more in-depth, of course. This is the beginning of the charge of subjectivity. Think about it. The Pats are the center of our world. Outside Boston, they are not. Huge difference number 1, between objective and subjective press. The objective press treats us as 1 of 32 teams. In Boston's press, we're the center of it all. It's a given. That's what "objective" means, that "all things are equal" at the outset. That's much more the case in the national media than the local Boston media. I get plenty of national (objective) media - that's why it's great to come here

PFnV

 

[TripleOption]

You are wrong! EVERY coach at EVERY level, including the NFL, do not pressure their INJURED players to play (some may but not every coach at every level).

You haven't a clue what you are talking about. There are varying degrees of injury. The "hurt vs injured" thing is just semantics.

 

[pao]

Just visiting here... only moderately interested in Pats/Chargers picking over the bones of last year's failed campaigns.

But I did have to note this little emoticon of a little dude rolling around and laughing, at the notion that a national outlet is more objective than a local outlet, is just plain silly.

Don't know the arguments here, I just know that local papers' bread and butter is covering the local team. I also know that even in Boston that primarily means writing as if hoping the Pats make and win the Super Bowl. Even the guys who write negatively about Belichik or this or that Patriots blunder (in their eyes,) are basically writing home team sports page articles.

Home team sports page articles, by nature, are less objective than articles produced by the national media.

I do see a recent avalanche of "God we're sick of the Pats," being expressed through various outlets. Any news about the Pats is bad news, and that's good news (league-wide.) Those outlets would probably make the argument that the Pats were the darlings of the league in 2001, were considered unlikely repeaters in 2003, then started to be considered sort of sickening in 2004 - it wasn't until they were missing the super bowl regularly (GASP! 2 in a row!) that it was safe to question their organization. Once it was safe, it was like the tide of articles on what a cap-cheating ass Carmen Policy was, after the 9ers went down.

But can I say the Boston press is more objective than the national media? Nut uh. I CAN say they examine things more in-depth, of course. This is the beginning of the charge of subjectivity. Think about it. The Pats are the center of our world. Outside Boston, they are not. Huge difference number 1, between objective and subjective press. The objective press treats us as 1 of 32 teams. In Boston's press, we're the center of it all. It's a given. That's what "objective" means, that "all things are equal" at the outset. That's much more the case in the national media than the local Boston media. I get plenty of national (objective) media - that's why it's great to come here

PFnV

Excellent post! You make several good points, including the Pat's being the darlings of the league in '01. I was rooting for them in '01 big time, and actually in all of their SB's and would have been in this one too if they had made it, because I am an AFC guy. Good luck next season to you all.

pao

 

[pao]

You haven't a clue what you are talking about. There are varying degrees of injury. The "hurt vs injured" thing is just semantics.

Nope. If you listen most coaches, and players, will say the same thing. I think it is you that hasn't a clue.

pao

 

[TripleOption]

Nope. If you listen most coaches, and players, will say the same thing. I think it is you that hasn't a clue.

pao

Umm...OK. You MUST be right.

Except I've coached at the Youth and High School level for 8 years. I've talked to coaches from the NFL, Div 1A, 1AA and HS Coaches from around the nation. I subscribe to or read every coaching publication there is, and I have probably more than 40+ books by various coaches from the last 30 years of the game.

And you...uh...read the paper?

 

[upstater1]

You guys crack me up! "Don't know sh*t about sports, "lazy", "don't know football", "disingenuous". Anyone with another point of view must be stupid or lazy or planning some big bash against your team, eh? ESPN's article (actually written by AP), the link for which I posted, is objective. Maybe not as thorough (yet), but objective none the less. It reported the facts as they knew them at the time. If you don't believe your local newspaper reports the news without, at least, a little subjectivity you are a little naive.


pao

Now you're stupid and the lazy. Fella, it's the same exact article!!! But it's been redacted!! In other words, a lot of the paragraphs are missing from the Globe story.

This is kind of like saying Mein Kampf was a noble work. After all, read this passage. "The Jews..... are...... peaceful..... people ........................ and should be............. admired. I will ............. safeguard their ............... well being ........ promise."

 

[upstater1]

Like I said, on our board if you want someone to see your point of view, you supply the link or copy and paste the whole article. This eliminates misunderstandings and confusion. Additionally there are other threads on this board dedicated to the Bill B. accusations. I think I'll go over there and do some reading before responding specifically about this story here.

pao

This isn't your board. This is our board. And on this board, that article has already been posted twice, and everyone here has read it except you. Why are you being so thickheaded? Are you wandering around here wondering who this MacMullan person is?

 

[pao]

You haven't a clue what you are talking about. There are varying degrees of injury. The "hurt vs injured" thing is just semantics.

Examples...

From your own local newpaper...
http://www.boston.com/sports/basket.../01/02/telfairs_time_has_been_telling/?page=2
"I always look at it as there's a difference between being hurt and being injured," West said. "Right now, I'm hurt. I'm not injured. Being hurt only lasts a small amount of time and you take the right steps to get back healthy. I've got to start off games and be aggressive, play my game."

Others...
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4196/is_20060101/ai_n15978114
"He has to understand the difference between being hurt and being injured," one scout said."

http://www.knightcommission.org/about/opening_remarks_by_kareem_mckenzie/
You always hear coaches talking about there’s a difference between being hurt and being injured. Being injured is, you can’t go, you can’t play, they hold you out. When you’re hurt you can go along, even though it’s just a little bruise and nick, something that doesn’t keep you out of the game.

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/football/story/471825p-397056c.html
"Lombardi used to say that there's a difference between being hurt and being injured," Accorsi says. "The minor hurts, yeah a lot of those are mental."

http://aggierugby.com/womens/quotes.html
"There's a difference between being hurt and being injured. If you're hurt suck it up." - Helen McMahan

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/21/AR2006112101362_pf.html
"He relished the soreness a football practice gave, but he needed to relearn the difference between being hurt and being injured, (Virginia Tech running backs coach Billy) Hite said."

Get it?

pao

 

[pao]

Now you're stupid and the lazy. Fella, it's the same exact article!!! But it's been redacted!! In other words, a lot of the paragraphs are missing from the Globe story.

This is kind of like saying Mein Kampf was a noble work. After all, read this passage. "The Jews..... are...... peaceful..... people ........................ and should be............. admired. I will ............. safeguard their ............... well being ........ promise."

Easy big guy. LOL. Calm down. Dang.

pao

 

[WestPat]

Now you're stupid and the lazy. Fella, it's the same exact article!!! But it's been redacted!! In other words, a lot of the paragraphs are missing from the Globe story.

This is kind of like saying Mein Kampf was a noble work. After all, read this passage. "The Jews..... are...... peaceful..... people ........................ and should be............. admired. I will ............. safeguard their ............... well being ........ promise."

there is no reasoning with this lazy fella, he will argue that an article missing some important parts posted on ESPN, is more objective than the source piece that was published in the globe and contained more information. He wants to be spoon fed by ESPN...so let him, knowledgeable sports fans in SD...is there such thing?

 

[TripleOption]

Examples...

From your own local newpaper...
http://www.boston.com/sports/basket.../01/02/telfairs_time_has_been_telling/?page=2
"I always look at it as there's a difference between being hurt and being injured," West said. "Right now, I'm hurt. I'm not injured. Being hurt only lasts a small amount of time and you take the right steps to get back healthy. I've got to start off games and be aggressive, play my game."

Others...
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4196/is_20060101/ai_n15978114
"He has to understand the difference between being hurt and being injured," one scout said."

http://www.knightcommission.org/about/opening_remarks_by_kareem_mckenzie/
You always hear coaches talking about there’s a difference between being hurt and being injured. Being injured is, you can’t go, you can’t play, they hold you out. When you’re hurt you can go along, even though it’s just a little bruise and nick, something that doesn’t keep you out of the game.

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/football/story/471825p-397056c.html
"Lombardi used to say that there's a difference between being hurt and being injured," Accorsi says. "The minor hurts, yeah a lot of those are mental."

http://aggierugby.com/womens/quotes.html
"There's a difference between being hurt and being injured. If you're hurt suck it up." - Helen McMahan

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/21/AR2006112101362_pf.html
"He relished the soreness a football practice gave, but he needed to relearn the difference between being hurt and being injured, (Virginia Tech running backs coach Billy) Hite said."

Get it?

pao

NITWIT...It's a CLICHE. It's like eighty other BS phrases you hear like "Smashmouth football" or "we just need to make plays". It's all crap for the media and idiots like you.

Do you actually think sportswriters know football? Really know the game? Puh-lease.

 

[pao]

Upstater...
See post #74 for an example on how to post links to amplify/prove your point of view. It seems you have alot of hate in you, why is that?

pao

 

[TripleOption]

Upstater...
See post #74 for an example on how to post links to amplify/prove your point of view. It seems you have alot of hate in you, why is that?

pao

A bunch of BS quotes from newspapers? Great job. You could coach in the NFL from all the newspaper reading you do.

 

[pao]

NITWIT...It's a CLICHE. It's like eighty other BS phrases you hear like "Smashmouth football" or "we just need to make plays". It's all crap for the media and idiots like you.

Do you actually think sportswriters know football? Really know the game? Puh-lease.

So I guess everyone else on this board except those with the same or better credentials than you claim to have are not worthy to post here? How many here have a background that TripleOption claims to have? Anyone? Hmmm, not too many, better close down the board. Just because a cliche is a cliche doesn't make it wrong.

pao