"Patriots Arguments don't add up"

[upstater1]

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

You have to remember something. These are quotes from a spoken conversation, and as a good reporter, Reiss is apparently also good at taking notes and capturing Belichick's cadences. Those are qualifiers in many of the sentences, but as anyone who has listened to Belichick knows, this is how he speaks. We're actually holding him to a higher standard than our Presidents in this case.

But the phrase I am focusing on is completely unambiguous and contains no qualifiers.

You wrote: 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.

Think about this. There is no way that Belichick is preparing to throw someone in the organization under the bus for authorizing Walsh to film a walkthrough. When Belichick says I, he means I, in my capacity as head of football operations. Do you really think he would pin this, on, for instance, Pioli who was Walsh's direct superior as head of scouting?

 

[pao]

Re: "Patriots Arguments dont add up"

upstater, didn't see this until now. Sorry I haven't responed.

You have to remember something. These are quotes from a spoken conversation, and as a good reporter, Reiss is apparently also good at taking notes and capturing Belichick's cadences. Those are qualifiers in many of the sentences, but as anyone who has listened to Belichick knows, this is how he speaks. We're actually holding him to a higher standard than our Presidents in this case.

Yes, I see your point. I would much rather have seen a prepared statement for general release. If they wanted to give Reiss the exclusive, fine, but, please, give us a prepared statement. I just think it would have been better for BB, the Patriots, and the NFL if he had. Remember, I believe him.

But the phrase I am focusing on is completely unambiguous and contains no qualifiers

Yes, this was his best statement.

You wrote: 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...

Think about this. There is no way that Belichick is preparing to throw someone in the organization under the bus for authorizing Walsh to film a walkthrough. When Belichick says I, he means I, in my capacity as head of football operations. Do you really think he would pin this, on, for instance, Pioli who was Walsh's direct superior as head of scouting?

No, that's exactly my point. By saying "I" instead of "The Patriots Organisation" it could be interpreted as him setting himself apart from the organisation. I think there is no way anyone in the Patriots organisation authorised anything as far as Walsh goes nor would I expect BB to throw anyone under the bus! In fact just the opposite. That is why I believe he should have said "the Patriots Organisation" (of which BB is obviously a part) instead of "I".

Look, I see your point. People can take it or leave it, they're going to believe what they want anyway. My Dad used to tell me that people will find what they are looking for, whether it's there or not. This is a prime example of that. Thanks for exchanging posts with me on this, it has been very interesting.

pao

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Re: "Patriots Arguments dont add up"

upstater, didn't see this until now. Sorry I haven't responed.
Yes, I see your point. I would much rather have seen a prepared statement for general release. If they wanted to give Reiss the exclusive, fine, but, please, give us a prepared statement. I just think it would have been better for BB, the Patriots, and the NFL if he had. Remember, I believe him.

Yes, this was his best statement.
No, that's exactly my point. By saying "I" instead of "The Patriots Organisation" it could be interpreted as him setting himself apart from the organisation. I think there is no way anyone in the Patriots organisation authorised anything as far as Walsh goes nor would I expect BB to throw anyone under the bus! In fact just the opposite. That is why I believe he should have said "the Patriots Organisation" (of which BB is obviously a part) instead of "I".

Look, I see your point. People can take it or leave it, they're going to believe what they want anyway. My Dad used to tell me that people will find what they are looking for, whether it's there or not. This is a prime example of that. Thanks for exchanging posts with me on this, it has been very interesting.

pao

If he gave a prepared statement the media would have said he was hiding behind the lawyers and that was a clear indication he's not willing to just speak directly to the issue.

If he said the organization rather than I they would have said he's creating plausible deniability for his a staff he can't necessarily speak for and ownership while hiding behind the potential fact that nobody but him knew...


He can't win for trying, but it's been this way since the day he arrived here, and they eviscerated him for ruining the Browns...and claimed his bailing on the poor, misguided JETS via ****tail napkin after they promoted him without first informing him, was a clear indication he had mental problems...

You can't grasp that from SD, it's difficult enough to having lived through it.

 

[pao]

Re: "Patriots Arguments dont add up"

If he gave a prepared statement the media would have said he was hiding behind the lawyers and that was a clear indication he's not willing to just speak directly to the issue.

If he said the organization rather than I they would have said he's creating plausible deniability for his a staff he can't necessarily speak for and ownership while hiding behind the potential fact that nobody but him knew...


He can't win for trying, but it's been this way since the day he arrived here, and they eviscerated him for ruining the Browns...and claimed his bailing on the poor, misguided JETS via ****tail napkin after they promoted him without first informing him, was a clear indication he had mental problems...

You can't grasp that from SD, it's difficult enough to having lived through it.

Actually I do understand to a certain extent. Mostly because of posters like you and upstater. If you notice, at the end of my last post, I say pretty much the same thing. I appreciate your participation. It has been an interesting discussion.

pao

 

[NEPatriot]

Re: "Patriots Arguments dont add up"

You don't need to have your opponent tape to win a game.

If you are a O or D coordinator or player who spend X years in a football team, you will tell your new boss about how your former team plays their O and D after going to a new team.

this spygate is a moot point. I think BB and Pats have to be careful of what they are saying at this point.

 

[upstater1]

Pao, you're a good poster. I understand your hesitations. And you did find ambiguity where I didn't. However, in the end, I think we need to stop looking at this as lawyers. Given Belichick's statement, he will be considered a liar by the media and the NFL's office and all fans if the tape of the walkthrough shows up. So, I see very little ambiguity there, certainly not enough for him to hide behind.

 

[pao]

Pao, you're a good poster. I understand your hesitations. And you did find ambiguity where I didn't. However, in the end, I think we need to stop looking at this as lawyers. Given Belichick's statement, he will be considered a liar by the media and the NFL's office and all fans if the tape of the walkthrough shows up. So, I see very little ambiguity there, certainly not enough for him to hide behind.

Excellent point. Really I guess that is all it boils down to, can he hide behind his statement if anything comes of Walsh's claims. So in that sense I would have to agree that it is NOT ambiguous. I have enjoyed this exchange. Thanks again for your patience.

pao

 

[pao]

Pao, you're a good poster. I understand your hesitations. And you did find ambiguity where I didn't. However, in the end, I think we need to stop looking at this as lawyers. Given Belichick's statement, he will be considered a liar by the media and the NFL's office and all fans if the tape of the walkthrough shows up. So, I see very little ambiguity there, certainly not enough for him to hide behind.

One other thing, I wish this crap would end. Then we could simply talk smack about next year!LOL. Hang in there!

pao