Absurdly Metro
Third String But Playing on Special Teams
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2007
- Messages
- 580
- Reaction score
- 173
I just read the transcript of Mike Vrabels comments with the Kansas City media today and found myself convinced that, while he doesn't say it, Mike Vrabel is clearly pissed at BB for trading him.
Check it out...
Notice he doesn't answer the question with a strong "That's not true." Instead he answers with a hazy "I wouldn't say that is necessarily true." His language leaves several possible interpretations as to what someone could say about the situation. Vrabel himself wouldn't say that is necessarily true but someone else might be able to say it. Also why does he qualify the truth by putting the word necessarily in front of it? What does that mean exactly anyway?
Again, instead of plainly stating, "That's not accurate" he muddies the water so that we don't really know how accurate it is. I mean how can we know if Vrable himself doesn't know.
And then we have what may be a thinly veiled shot at Bill Belichick...
While I wouldn't say this IS necessarily a thinly veiled shot at BB, I don't know how accurate it is to say it isn't.
What do you think? Is Mike Vrabel pissed at BB for trading him to Kansas City?
Check it out...
Q: Did you want out of New England?
VRABEL: “I wouldn’t say that is necessarily true, but the situation is what it is. To be anything but excited wouldn’t be giving the Chiefs, players, and the fans the respect that they deserve. I am playing for the Chiefs. Whoever I was going to be playing for this year, I would give them the same effort.”
Notice he doesn't answer the question with a strong "That's not true." Instead he answers with a hazy "I wouldn't say that is necessarily true." His language leaves several possible interpretations as to what someone could say about the situation. Vrabel himself wouldn't say that is necessarily true but someone else might be able to say it. Also why does he qualify the truth by putting the word necessarily in front of it? What does that mean exactly anyway?
Q: Is it accurate that you will be playing with a chip on your shoulder?
VRABEL: “I don’t know how accurate that is. This is a production business and the bottom line is, it is all about production. You put those eight years up against a lot of different guys, then I would be really happy with what I did in those eight years. With that being said, I know that I have got some more football left. I can still play and I can still help the Chiefs and I will help the Chiefs. I have never gone into a season and said, ‘I am going to do this, this and this.’ I will promise you that I will work, I’ll be consistent and God willing I will be durable. Those are the things that I like to think that I brought to the table in New England and will bring to the table in Kansas City.”
Again, instead of plainly stating, "That's not accurate" he muddies the water so that we don't really know how accurate it is. I mean how can we know if Vrable himself doesn't know.
And then we have what may be a thinly veiled shot at Bill Belichick...
Q: Are you a vocal leader in the locker room?
VRABEL: “I am not going to give a pregame speech or anything like that but I think what guys respect is someone that can go out and be counted on, be accountable and play every week. Bring that same style of football, preparation every week. That is what guys respect. They don’t respect a guy that gets up and screams and yells. Everybody is in this thing together. All the guys want to find a role and go out there and play. At the end of the day it doesn’t matter who is coaching your football team; the coaches find the talent and the players have to go out there and play together and they have to play well.”
While I wouldn't say this IS necessarily a thinly veiled shot at BB, I don't know how accurate it is to say it isn't.
What do you think? Is Mike Vrabel pissed at BB for trading him to Kansas City?
Last edited: