So he should allow distraction because he is good at overcoming it?
Are you saying that SpyGate wasn't already a distraction?
The reason he is good at overcoming is that he avoids it.
And again you're taking away from his abilities as a master motivator. It would be incredibly easy to still prepare his team for games in spite of what he said in front of the media to the world. See Freddy Mitchell.
There was nothing to gain for the 2007 team by making it a bigger issue than it already was.
It became a bigger issue than it already was by leaving it alone until he took an interview because it had blown up so much. If you want to deny that, then ask yourself two questions: 1) Why are we still talking about it 5 years later? And 2) Why did he agree to the interview in which that was the primary topic?
Actually it was exactly the opposite. It was turning focus inward rather than enabling the distraction.
Please explain the ensuing media circus regarding the Patriots running up the score, something that, like SpyGate, is still being talked about 5 years later.
I'm not sure how you thing focussing on something that would do nothing to help win games is that same as focussing 100% on winning games. The idea that the team played better as a slap in the face to Spygate is silly.
Actually, I'm asking you to explain how confronting SpyGate head-on right off the bat would have been any worse than the actual response, which was running up the score on even hapless teams. Both would have been distractions in the media. One actually was.
And where did I say that the team only played better as a response to a slap in the face. Please quote that.
His actual response was essentially to dismiss it.
It lessened the distraction by focussing the team on getting to the SB at 18-0. I don't know how you can take 1 loss in 19 games and call that proof the team responded poorly to how it was handled. It seems you are trying to manuipulate reality to fit your conclusion.
Again, how would the distraction have been any different or stronger had he come out and said from the get-go that it was a simple rules infraction and not cheating instead of ignoring it? That's the part of your argument that doesn't make any sense. As for the team performing poorly because of the media circus, I can't say for sure that the circus was 100% to fault, and neither can you. But it certainly couldn't have helped. Anybody with two eyes could see that the team was considerably wound more tight in that than they had been at any point during the 2007 season.
Since you cannot understand why he would focus on the games in front of him instead of a media circus over the past, then that comment is not surprising because it is clear you have no understanding of how he operates.
I understand why he did it. He's BB and that's the way he always does things. However, if there were ever an exception, that was it. There was already a fiasco in which people were running with their own stories. It was already a distraction. He was already going to operate a scorched earth policy in games. He had team leadership in place to help him minimize the distraction. With that in mind, I see no viable reason for why it would have hurt to come in front of the media and put that bad boy to bed. And since you haven't been able to answer the question and have misrepresented my posts numerous times, I'm guessing you can't either.
By the way, that circus wasn't in the past at the time. It was thoroughly in the present.
The response was to move on. Somehow you seem to think obsessing over the past is what is best for the current team, and that makes absolutely no sense to me.
Please quote where I said this.