The reporter is internationally renowned and has won two Pullitzer prizes. It be foolish to just dismiss him.
I believe that some people said the stuff that's being attributed to "anonymous sources". I'd also bet that the stuff being attributed to anonymous source came from people who weren't willing to attach their name to anything because a) they're nobodies and/or b) what they're saying isn't true.
If you talk to a former Patriots coach and he says Ernie Adams was an idiot, then you later talk to an unnamed former player who says he's sure the Pats bugged their locker room because how else could they know what plays were coming, it's pretty easy to write a story where you have a bunch of anonymous sources--which include former Pats coaches--who have accused the Pats of bugging opposing locker rooms.
However renowned the reporter is, today's OTL piece read like something that belongs in the Rolling Stone. And that is not a compliment. Just look at how the Marshall-Faulk-as-KR thing was framed up. Because the Patriots kicked the ball near the sideline and "forced" Faulk out of bounds on his kickoff return, this demonstrates that they must have cheated to develop this bold, incredible strategy for neutralizing him as a returner. Let's look at all the ways this is wrong:
- It assumes that the Pats must have known in advance that Faulk would line up as KR.
- It assumes that the strategy in place was specifically planned for Faulk. There's no reason to believe that.
- It assumes that Belichick couldn't have a general strategy for "how to handle unexpected substitutions at KR". Knowing Belichick as well as we do, I wouldn't be surprised at all if he has a few wrinkles that he likes to throw out at any player who's being lined up at KR without being accustomed to that role. Kicking the ball near the sidelines and seeing if he runs out of bounds rather than taking the free 40 yards seems like a good one. No KR who knows what he's doing would field that ball, but a RB who has no idea what he's doing might.
- It assumes that they somehow forced Faulk to run out of bounds. Sounds like Faulk just sucked at being a KR, because if it's so close he could easily just let the ball roll out of bounds and get the ball at the 40. It's impossible to "pin" a KR with an OOB kick.
If anything, this sequence of events is a great example of the Rams ****ing up a
very simple thing and failing to capitalize on an opportunity. Instead, it's written in this article as evidence that the Pats must be cheaters because they actually plan ahead.
In any case, I'm officially at the point that, if suspicion or innuendo is sourced to an unnamed person, I refuse to assume there's any truth to it. It's as likely as not that either the source is made up or the source is making stuff up. Real journalists sometimes get this. Sports journalists almost never do.
