"Patriots Arguments don't add up"

[pao]

Re: "Patriots Arguments dont add up"

Here you go:

Belichick said:

http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/articles/2008/02/18/belichick_and_pioli_speak_out/

Thanks Mo.

pao

 

[PatsFanJess]

Re: "Patriots Arguments dont add up"

I used to be a fan of the Patriots but I won't be until Belichick is no longer the coach. That guy is the most unlikeable in all of pro sports. He knows damn well who Matt Walsh is and probably ordered him to film other teams. Maybe they fired him because he refused to do it. Either way, Belichick is lying. Why did he wait so long to issue a denial? Simple. Just like Roger Clemens, he was trying to piece together a defense plan with his attornies.

Also thought you guys would get a kick out of this reader's response. I sure did. LOL. sucker.

 

[upstater1]

Re: "Patriots Arguments dont add up"

Nope, it's not ambiguous.


I just explained to you why it was ambiguous

Because then if Walsh produces a tape you can argue that even though a tape was made the ORGANISATION as a whole never saw it and didn't gain a competitive advantage from it.

So then why was a tape of the walkthrough made at all if absolutely no one in the organization knew about it? Anyone reading that would consider it an ambiguous statement.

I threw that together in two seconds. You're telling me the Pats Publicity dept couldn't have fixed that in the month since this was first announced. Come on.

I presented you with Belichick's actual quote and challenged you to tell me how it was ambiguous, as you stated in the first thread of this post. His quote was a lot more unambiguous than yours. He said he had never heard even mention of an opposing team's walkthrough in all his years of coaching.

I still like mine better. But like I said, I accept BB's comments, there are alot of people that haven't.

I'm not saying he does. And the minutae of "legal argument" is bull crap. The Patriots have a publicist of some sort that would write the correct words.

Again, show me how Belichick's words are ambiguous. You haven't done that yet. You need to do that before portraying your very ambiguous statement as less ambiguous than his unambiguous statement.

And still, I believe my statement, written in two seconds, would have been better for him.

Here we go again. Why is it better? Show me how Belichick's statement is ambiguous.

Dude, I'm not looking for "verbal gamesmanship"! Especially since he is innocent, or so I believe. There is no need for verbal gamesmanship if he is innocent. HIS statement is too easily seen as verbal gamenanship though.
Wow! Do you really believe this? So if Walsh shows up with a tape BB knew about it? Or should have? Man, you better HOPE that Walsh has NOTHING.

Walsh has nothing.


pao

10 characters.

 

[BradyisGod]

Re: "Patriots Arguments dont add up"

Pao.

Please start spelling organization right if you are going to be using it so often as a linchpin to your arguments.

 

[pao]

Re: "Patriots Arguments dont add up"

Pao.

Please start spelling organization right if you are going to be using it so often as a linchpin to your arguments.

Organisation is an acceptable spelling.

pao

 

[pao]

Re: "Patriots Arguments dont add up"

10 characters.

I'll break it down for you but you'll still disagree. Sometimes people just disagree.

pao

 

[upstater1]

Re: "Patriots Arguments dont add up"

I'll break it down for you but you'll still disagree. Sometimes people just disagree.

pao

Well I just want to know how it could be interpreted any other way. Belichick has said never in his his time as a coach has he ever had discussions or even heard someone else even mention (for that matter, he never eavesdropped) an opponent's walkthrough.

When you say something is ambiguous, I'd just like to see how. I don't understand.

 

[Hardboiled]

Re: "Patriots Arguments dont add up"

I did find this interesting or possibly ambiguous...

"In my entire coaching career, I've never seen another team's practice film prior to playing that team"

 

[Rob0729]

Re: "Patriots Arguments dont add up"

I did find this interesting or possibly ambiguous...

"In my entire coaching career, I've never seen another team's practice film prior to playing that team"

Are you going to play a semantics game here? What good would be watching a practice film after you played a teams? Belichick most likely wasn't playing a word game.

 

[upstater1]

Re: "Patriots Arguments dont add up"

I did find this interesting or possibly ambiguous...

"In my entire coaching career, I've never seen another team's practice film prior to playing that team"

Right, but that came elsewhere. That's a whole other sentence that didn't qualify the other one.

He tried to restate this multiple times.

 

[pao]

Re: "Patriots Arguments dont add up"

Well I just want to know how it could be interpreted any other way. Belichick has said never in his his time as a coach has he ever had discussions or even heard someone else even mention (for that matter, he never eavesdropped) an opponent's walkthrough.

When you say something is ambiguous, I'd just like to see how. I don't understand.

Ok,I'll have to do it later. It will take some time for me to explain. Thanks for being a great poster. You could have just said "trolls eat ****! LOL. Remember, his statement was good enough for ME but I can see the point of those that it isn't. Could have been better imo.

pao

 

[upstater1]

Re: "Patriots Arguments dont add up"

Ok,I'll have to do it later. It will take some time for me to explain. Thanks for being a great poster. You could have just said "trolls eat ****! LOL. Remember, his statement was good enough for ME but I can see the point of those that it isn't. Could have been better imo.

pao

I'm not ragging on you. I'm just annoyed at the columnist's article. He could have been a bit more generous to both Belichick and us as readers by explaining why he finds that quote to be weasly. That's the only reason that I'm asking you to explain. I just can't figure out how Belichick's quote gives him an out whatsoever.

 

[Hardboiled]

Re: "Patriots Arguments dont add up"

Right, but that came elsewhere. That's a whole other sentence that didn't qualify the other one.

He tried to restate this multiple times.

But the rest is specifically about walk-throughs, not practices.

And Rob, I'm not trying to play semantics and I'm not arguing any point, except that I pay attention to words. BB's quote stood out to me as odd.

 

[CrazyDave]

Re: "Patriots Arguments dont add up"

I found BB's statement very un-ambiguous.

 

[patpatriot]

Re: "Patriots Arguments dont add up"

I just read P Kings Somethings Fishy" Tuesday Morning QB article where he basically says the same thing as Banks. You know, this whole thing is hopeless. The media doesn't want to know the truth and the other teams Fans will just rag on us because they know the pats are going to beat their asses again next year. So whenever I see any head line mentioning BB or Sypgate I'm just going to ignore it and move on. All these attempts to appease people who have a vested interest in not being appeased are just futile.

 

[Gumby]

Re: "Patriots Arguments dont add up"

Say Walsh shows up with a tape of the Rams walkthrough tomorrow.

WHAT DOES IT PROVE???????

unless you show BB fingerprints on the film or can somehow digitally trace the serial number of the perpetrating camera back to one still in the Patriots possession, or show the camera panning back and forth from BB-pioli in a beavis-butthead moment and then panning back to the field ..... EXACTLY how does this NIMROD prove that it came from the Patriots?????


I have no doubt in my mind now that 'jack be nimble' and his class-action lawsuit ambulance chaser out in St L have gotten into the act that every tom, **** and harry in St L who took their own vcr into the stadium is busy at home digitally re-mastering the footage to superimpose a patriots logo over the top of it.
Then these Wile.E.Coyote geniuses will email this crapola into Tomase who will make his next big front page extra.

Doesn't prove jack; but unless Kraft gets his own lawyers in front of this and gets the NFL to own up to the idiocy and double-standard it is enforcing on the Pats this nonsense will go on and on like the energizer bunny.

 

[upstater1]

Re: "Patriots Arguments dont add up"

Say Walsh shows up with a tape of the Rams walkthrough tomorrow.

WHAT DOES IT PROVE???????

unless you show BB fingerprints on the film or can somehow digitally trace the serial number of the perpetrating camera back to one still in the Patriots possession, or show the camera panning back and forth from BB-pioli in a beavis-butthead moment and then panning back to the field ..... EXACTLY how does this NIMROD prove that it came from the Patriots?????


I have no doubt in my mind now that 'jack be nimble' and his class-action lawsuit ambulance chaser out in St L have gotten into the act that every tom, **** and harry in St L who took their own vcr into the stadium is busy at home digitally re-mastering the footage to superimpose a patriots logo over the top of it.
Then these Wile.E.Coyote geniuses will email this crapola into Tomase who will make his next big front page extra.

Doesn't prove jack; but unless Kraft gets his own lawyers in front of this and gets the NFL to own up to the idiocy and double-standard it is enforcing on the Pats this nonsense will go on and on like the energizer bunny.

It doesn't have to prove anything. None of this is criminal. It's all up to Goodell. He can decide whatever he wants about it, and you can bet that if it exists, he'll hold it against Belichick.

Think about this. Belichick just said he has never ever heard anyone even mention an opposition walkthrough in all his years. That makes me think the tape doesn't exist.

If it does, then that statement by Belichick seems incredible. If Walsh did make that tape on his own, surely he showed it to someone on the staff. And Belichick would have heard about it. In other words, Belichick's statement does not even give him plausible deniability. He flat out said he's never heard of an opponent's walkthrough.

 

[pao]

Re: "Patriots Arguments dont add up"

Ok, upstater. Here you go. Disclaimer: Interpretations not necessarily those of the poster. This is simply an illustration of how comments COULD be interpreted by even objective readers of Bill’s statement.Remember I believe BB, even if Walsh produces tapes I don't believe that BB authorised it. I don't believe that BB needs to use these types of methods to win. The ONLY reason I pick this apart is because I believe he could, and should, have done a better job of expressing himself or he should have been better prepared by the NE publicity staff. What he said left him open for doubt and criticism IMO.

"In my entire coaching career, I've never seen another team's practice film prior to playing that team,"...

Ok, let's start here. This is ambiguous. IF he was quoted correctly he is saying he has never seen "another team's practice film". This is a very poor statement. Literally he is saying that he has not seen a practice film created by the another team. No one has accused the Patriot organisation of using "another team's practice film". Additionally he leaves open to interpretation that SOMEONE ELSE in the Patriots organisation may have. We know what he meant for us to hear and what most Patriots fans would accept. But those with an agenda, or even objective readers, could take this statement and make some noise with it.

...he said. "I have never authorized, or heard of, or even seen in any way, shape, or form any other team's walkthrough.

This is his best statement but even it can be picked apart. I believe that, since he is only talking for himself, he leaves the organisation open to further investigation from reporters. He should have said "We as an organisation have never authorised, etc...". A reporter could look at this statement and say that maybe BILL didn't actually do any of this but the TEAM could STILL benefit if SOMEONE else in the organisation did.

We don't even film our own. We don't even want to see ourselves do anything, that's the pace that it's at. Regardless, I've never been a part of that."

This is a throwaway statement. It means nothing. Maybe he's trying to minimize the importance of walkthroughs? Whatever. It doesn't help.


These statements are so ambiguous as to the subject it is almost laughable...

Belichick added that in his "entire coaching career, I have never filmed a walkthrough, our own.

Of course YOU never have and who cares about your "OWN" anyway? Why put that qualifier in there? It makes this statement and all succeeding statements virtually meaningless.

I've never been on a staff that has filmed a walkthrough.

Great statement! Thank you. Too bad it was qualified. And didn't Pioli say that Walsh was never a member of the coaching staff?

I'm talking about when I was a head coach. As an assistant, I've never seen a head coach film a walkthrough the day before a game."

Another awkward, ambiguous, throw away statement. We know what he is trying to get to but it is so poorly worded that it just isn't a firm denial imo. Sorry, IMO, he left himself and the organisation for criticism and further investigation by reporters eager for some type of opening.

In conclusion I must say that I take BB at his word, at least what I believe he was trying to say. My only criticism is that it did not really help him OR the Patriot Organisation as much as a carefully prepared statement would have. This statement, IMO, has actually fanned the flames. He and the Patriots could have done a lot better.

pao

 

[patpatriot]

Re: "Patriots Arguments dont add up"

Ok, upstater. Here you go. Disclaimer: Interpretations not necessarily those of the poster. This is simply an illustration of how comments COULD be interpreted by even objective readers of Bill’s statement.Remember I believe BB, even if Walsh produces tapes I don't believe that BB authorised it. I don't believe that BB needs to use these types of methods to win. The ONLY reason I pick this apart is because I believe he could, and should, have done a better job of expressing himself or he should have been better prepared by the NE publicity staff. What he said left him open for doubt and criticism IMO.

Ok, let's start here. This is ambiguous. IF he was quoted correctly he is saying he has never seen "another team's practice film". This is a very poor statement. Literally he is saying that he has not seen a practice film created by the another team. No one has accused the Patriot organisation of using "another team's practice film". Additionally he leaves open to interpretation that SOMEONE ELSE in the Patriots organisation may have. We know what he meant for us to hear and what most Patriots fans would accept. But those with an agenda, or even objective readers, could take this statement and make some noise with it.
This is his best statement but even it can be picked apart. I believe that, since he is only talking for himself, he leaves the organisation open to further investigation from reporters. He should have said "We as an organisation have never authorised, etc...". A reporter could look at this statement and say that maybe BILL didn't actually do any of this but the TEAM could STILL benefit if SOMEONE else in the organisation did.
This is a throwaway statement. It means nothing. Maybe he's trying to minimize the importance of walkthroughs? Whatever. It doesn't help.


These statements are so ambiguous as to the subject it is almost laughable...
Of course YOU never have and who cares about your "OWN" anyway? Why put that qualifier in there? It makes this statement and all succeeding statements virtually meaningless.
Great statement! Thank you. Too bad it was qualified. And didn't Pioli say that Walsh was never a member of the coaching staff?

Another awkward, ambiguous, throw away statement. We know what he is trying to get to but it is so poorly worded that it just isn't a firm denial imo. Sorry, IMO, he left himself and the organisation for criticism and further investigation by reporters eager for some type of opening.

In conclusion I must say that I take BB at his word, at least what I believe he was trying to say. My only criticism is that it did not really help him OR the Patriot Organisation as much as a carefully prepared statement would have. This statement, IMO, has actually fanned the flames. He and the Patriots could have done a lot better.

pao

Your post proves my point. There is *no* appeasing those who do not want to be appeased. Why bother trying?

 

[pao]

Re: "Patriots Arguments dont add up"

Your post proves my point. There is *no* appeasing those who do not want to be appeased. Why bother trying?

Indeed.

pao