BB calls Burgess best 3-4 OLB he's had; anonymous players don't buy it per Herald

[condon84]

Last time I checked, none of those guys are Patriots. He didn't say that Burgess has been as good as anyone they've had since he's coached here. He was talking in a slightly more immediate context...

This is what he says:

Derrick really plays consistently on everything and he's done an excellent job in the running game for us – probably as good as we've had as a run player and a pass rusher.

Note that he says "as good as we've had..."

That's past tense. But he doesn't elaborate if he means this year or in all of the years he's been here in NE.

BB says some funny stuff and I'm not one of those "well if BB says this, then it must be true" fanboys. Quite the opposite.

This is similar to BB saying Bruschi's the best LB he's ever coached.

 

[JackBauer]

This is what he says:

Derrick really plays consistently on everything and he's done an excellent job in the running game for us – probably as good as we've had as a run player and a pass rusher.

Note that he says "as good as we've had..."

That's past tense. But he doesn't elaborate if he means this year or in all of the years he's been here in NE.

BB says some funny stuff and I'm not one of those "well if BB says this, then it must be true" fanboys. Quite the opposite.

This is similar to BB saying Bruschi's the best LB he's ever coached.

Erm, you do realize that this year's regular season campaign is, uh, in the past. Don't you?

Derrick has done a good job for us all year. He really has. He's been productive both in the passing game and in the running game. I think overall his run play has been good. He's a very consistent player. There are some players that rush the passer and they kind of rush the passer on every play and that's great on the passes, but then sometimes that can hurt you in the running game. Derrick really plays consistently on everything and he's done an excellent job in the running game for us – probably as good as we've had as a run player and a pass rusher.

 

[upstater1]

Given that I posted the snap judgment, it's pretty clear that I was, in fact, specific. As for you having a clue any percentage of the time, about what I, or anyone else, is 'going on about', or about anything else for that matter, that's not really something that can be freely discussed here.

You evaded again. You say I posted "something" silly. I asked you what that something was.

Typical of you, you evade.

Because you know you're wrong and can't admit it. Not once have you ever been wrong on this board.

Apparently.

Specifically, what did I post that was silly? What? You haven't stated it in ANY of your posts.

 

[condon84]

Erm, you do realize that this year's regular reason campaign is, uh, in the past. Don't you?

No sh!t.

My point was, he didn't elaborate on whether that past tense had a time limit.

Now, maybe my Jedi mindtrick isn't working as well as yours, but you're making an assumption while I'm just interpreting what he's saying.

 

[JackBauer]

BB could, of course, be referring to himself when he says "we've had," so we can reasonably conclude that he's saying Burgess is the best run/pass linebacker he's ever coached, including Lawrence Taylor.

 

[JackBauer]

No sh!t.

My point was, he didn't elaborate on whether that past tense had a time limit.

Now, maybe my Jedi mindtrick isn't working as well as yours, but you're making an assumption while I'm just interpreting what he's saying.

You're full of it.

You're assuming his use of the past tense didn't have a time limit, while I'm assuming that it did. Which is what most rational people would do, considering the entirety of the quote.

 

[Deus Irae]

You evaded again. You say I posted "something" silly. I asked you what that something was.

Typical of you, you evade.

Because you know you're wrong and can't admit it. Not once have you ever been wrong on this board.

Apparently.

Specifically, what did I post that was silly? What? You haven't stated it in ANY of your posts.

Actually, here's the post with what I stated:

http://www.patsfans.com/new-england-patriots/messageboard/10/311744-bb-calls-burgess-best-3-4-olb-hes-had-anonymous-players-dont-buy-per-herald.html#post1679458

What I said is quite specific.

 

[SVN]

Please.BB as repeateadly praised lawrence taylor over the yrs even when he was not be asked about. And suddenly he thinks burgess is the best ever ? nice way to interpret something out of nothing from ron "73-0 rams over the patriots" borges.

 

[condon84]

You're full of it.

You're assuming his use of the past tense didn't have a time limit, while I'm assuming that it did. Which is what most rational people would do, considering the entirety of the quote.

Dude, there's no assumption on my part, read what he says!!!

If you don't agree with him, then fine. I certainly don't. But to assume he's saying something else when his qoute is right there in front of us is lunacy.

 

[Deus Irae]

You're full of it.

You're assuming his use of the past tense didn't have a time limit, while I'm assuming that it did. Which is what most rational people would do, considering the entirety of the quote.

The quote can be sensibly read either way, even considering the entirety of the quote.

 

[upstater1]

Actually, here's the post with what I stated:

http://www.patsfans.com/new-england-patriots/messageboard/10/311744-bb-calls-burgess-best-3-4-olb-hes-had-anonymous-players-dont-buy-per-herald.html#post1679458

What I said is quite specific.

Your link doesn't work.

All posts addressed to me had nothing specific in them.

 

[VJCPatriot]

If you're going by what Belichick said explicitly, then how on earth can you justify the aforementioned quote? Using Occam's razor, we can reasonably interpret what Belichick was saying. But the ambiguity didn't exactly prevent you from jumping to the opposite conclusion, now did it?

Only if you're inclined to jumping to conclusions and ignoring context entirely. Which seems to be what you are inclined to do in this case.

Occam's razor is good for shaving fine points and sophism but that's about it.

Let's examine context.

Q: How has Derrick Burgess been coming along?

BB: Derrick has done a good job for us all year.

Interviewer asks question about how Burgess has been coming along. Since Burgess has only been with the team 1 year - reasonable conclusion, reporter is asking about this year.

BB starts off his response with description of Derricks performance THIS YEAR. Reasonable conclusion - he is talking about Derrick in the context of this year. Subsequent details would reasonably be concluded to be pertaining to his initial assessment of how Derrick is doing this year. Context - Derrick Burgess performance for the Patriots in 2009.

Now if you're Borges' publicist I can see how you want to suddenly ignore all context of the interview and compare Burgess to every player that BB has ever coached including LT, Richard Seymour, Bruschi, Vrabel, McGinnest, etc. But outside of that there's really no reason to JUMP to the conclusion that you have arrived at. Thanks for playing, but I just don't buy it.

 

[Deus Irae]

Your link doesn't work.

All posts addressed to me had nothing specific in them.

The link works fine when I click on it and it links to post #28, which is a response to you:

I prefer not to make silly snap judgments like "Borges took those comments in the worst possible frame he could find" if I can find the actual text instead.

If you think that post has nothing specific in it, I don't know what to tell you. It's about something I pulled from your own post, for crying out loud.

 

[JackBauer]

The quote can be sensibly read either way, even considering the entirety of the quote.

I suppose if you're reading it from a contrarian perspective, sure.

 

[JackBauer]

Only if you're inclined to jumping to conclusions and ignoring context entirely. Which seems to be what you are inclined to do in this case.

Occam's razor is good for shaving fine points and sophism but that's about it.

Let's examine context.



Interviewer asks question about how Burgess has been coming along. Since Burgess has only been with the team 1 year - reasonable conclusion, reporter is asking about this year.

BB starts off his response with description of Derricks performance THIS YEAR. Reasonable conclusion - he is talking about Derrick in the context of this year. Subsequent details would reasonably be concluded to be pertaining to his initial assessment of how Derrick is doing this year. Context - Derrick Burgess performance for the Patriots in 2009.

Now if you're Borges' publicist I can see how you want to suddenly ignore all context of the interview and compare Burgess to every player that BB has ever coached including LT, Richard Seymour, Bruschi, Vrabel, McGinnest, etc. But outside of that there's really no reason to JUMP to the conclusion that you have arrived at. Thanks for playing, but I just don't buy it.

What?

Did you really just type all that and end up making the very same point I was attempting to make in the post you quoted?

 

[JackBauer]

Dude, there's no assumption on my part, read what he says!!!

If you don't agree with him, then fine. I certainly don't. But to assume he's saying something else when his qoute is right there in front of us is lunacy.

There absolutely is, especially if you consider the first sentence in his answer.

 

[Deus Irae]

I suppose if you're reading it from a contrarian perspective, sure.

One needn't be contrarian to come up with that interpretation. As a matter of fact, taking your point of view rather than the point of view of the author, is the contrarian position, by definition.

 

[emoney_33]

The story itself, I don't care about. The annonymous reactions are interesting and suggest there's some guys who aren't buying what Belichick is selling and probably need to move out.

This makes no sense to me :

"Another defensive lineman bore a look of incredulity before saying, “That explains Chad Jackson.”"

Yes, we blew the pick. BAD. But Jackson was shown the door very quickly for a 2nd round pick (especially one who spent a good chunk of time hurt) so Belichick's defending of a guy he brought in (Burgess) is the exact opposite of how things went for Jackson.

Yeah, I thought that was just me, but what the hell does that mean?

BB used to say good things about CJ before he was cut? I dunno

 

[Jimke]

Burgess is probably willing to re-sign for a reasonable amount.

 

[upstater1]

The link works fine when I click on it and it links to post #28, which is a response to you:



If you think that post has nothing specific in it, I don't know what to tell you. It's about something I pulled from your own post, for crying out loud.

The link takes me to a Pats1 post that lead off the thread.

As for the rest, your post is ludicrous. A silly snap judgment is my saying Borges framed it in the worst light he could? No, given the alternatives--which everyone in this thread is discussing--its obvious that Borges picked the alternative that would be least flattering to Belichick.

That much Condon and all others on this thread agree on. You're the only one who doesn't believe that Borges picked the worst frame.