- Joined
- Sep 13, 2004
- Messages
- 55,496
- Reaction score
- 26,523
There is a word to sign an agreement ... there is no word that a position being promised.Of course there is "word". Anyone who claims otherwise is just trying to defend dishonesty.
Registered Members experience this forum ad and noise-free.
CLICK HERE to Register for a free account and login for a smoother ad-free experience. It's easy, and only takes a few moments.There is a word to sign an agreement ... there is no word that a position being promised.Of course there is "word". Anyone who claims otherwise is just trying to defend dishonesty.
There is a word to sign an agreement ... there is no word that a position being promised.
'word' is a concept being added to this discussion by fans.You're trying to justify a man going back on his word by claiming the word doesn't exist. And you're trying to minimize the dishonesty by tying ti to a position promised, when the coach already acknowledged that he went back on what he said.
You're better than that.
Not sure it’s anyone’s “fault” it just is but it may explain why Watson a million less fit but at a million more didn’t.And whose fault is that?
.
Towards the end of my second year of Business School, several classmates and I were invited to dinner with the CEO and a few senior managers of a major Motion Picture Studio as a "Thank you" for a project we'd done for them. I remember the evening well...a private room at the old Maison Robert.No, Thomas is not full of bull. Belichick has openly admitted the truth of Thomas' statement.
Bill Belichick on Demaryius Thomas: I was truthful with him, but things change
What the hell is wrong with you people? The guy being accused of breaking his word has acknowledged that he broke his word, citing a change in circumstances as the justification.
Argue "AB coming free changed everything". Argue "subsequent injuries/developments made it impossible to keep DT, no matter how much we wanted to". Argue whatever you want in defense of BB going back on his word. But don't argue that BB didn't do it, because he acknowledged that he did it.
'word' is a concept being added to this discussion by fans.
Belichick does not give his word (promise) that any players job is safe.
There is no dishonesty in cutting anyone if you already know you can be cut at any time.
This is implied when one plays for Belichick ... we all know this ... we have all seen this.
Even simpler, if DT were here (and no AB experiment), DT would be taking WR reps instead of Gunner.
I know a lot of folks think that DT isn't very good, but he is better than Gunner and likely better than Meyers.
To put it another way, if DT were available, we'd sign him in a heartbeat, perhaps even trade a 6th for him.
Prove it ...Nonsense.
Towards the end of my second year of Business School, several classmates and I were invited to dinner with the CEO and a few senior managers of a major Motion Picture Studio as a "Thank you" for a project we'd done for them. I remember the evening well...a private room at the old Maison Robert.
One of my classmates had her eyes set on a career in Hollywood and asked the CEO for the advice he'd give an aspiring junior manager in Tinseltown. His answer was brief: "A little while ago, someone came up to me and told me that I had 'lied' to him about a project he was pushing. My answer was simple. 'Well, you should have known who you were dealing with.'" Belichick was more or less saying the same thing.
Prove it ...
One player for Belichick who was ever promised a no cut position.
There has never been 1 ... ever.
'word' is not applicable to how Belichick has historically coached this team.
Can you link to where we know Belichick gave his 'word' or is that a fabrication by another?
Yeah, I'm not sure why the BB defenders can't just acknowledge that he went back on his word, when he's acknowledged it. It's not the end of the world, BB is certainly not the first coach in NFL history who's gone back on his word, and he certainly won't be the last. One can make a persuasive, albeit not exactly moral or principled, argument that a coach breaking his word in a situation like this is not just understandable, but desirable. And, in this case, Karma has bitten the Patriots right in the ass (Brown gone, WR a need position again), and the player got a nice bonus pay bump before getting tossed overboard, so why bother getting into semantics over it?
You are literally trying to craft a claim that's unassailable by making **** up when you have no idea what BB has told players behind closed doors, and I'm the one who's supposed to supply the proof?
Hey, remember when BB was going to trade Gronk to the Lions, and Gronk had to threaten retirement in order to get BB to agree that Gronk was going to remain a member of the Patriots? That doesn't count as guaranteeing a player a roster spot, I guess...
Yep. BB's word, to use one of his favorite expressions, "is what it is," just like that guy in Hollywood "should have known who you were dealing with." We could have a lengthy Jesuitical debate about the semantics of what exactly constitutes a "lie," but the underlying facts would still go unchallenged.Yeah, I'm not sure why the BB defenders can't just acknowledge that he went back on his word, when he's acknowledged it. It's not the end of the world, BB is certainly not the first coach in NFL history who's gone back on his word, and he certainly won't be the last. One can make a persuasive, albeit not exactly moral or principled, argument that a coach breaking his word in a situation like this is not just understandable, but desirable. And, in this case, Karma has bitten the Patriots right in the ass (Brown gone, WR a need position again), and the player got a nice bonus pay bump before getting tossed overboard, so why bother getting into semantics over it?
Up to date is fans creating drama where none exists ...Yeah, this whole "no-cut/no-trade" NFL contract subject is a new one to me. Can someone bring me up to date on this innovation?????
.
"what I said was not the same as what I had said previously."
It's right there in English. Stop being a homer. BB is admitting he went back on his word because things changed. I'm not making anything up or reading into anything. Your take on my interpretation is wrong.
Yeah.
Belichick lied/went back on his word. We can argue about justifications ("Things change", etc...), and the exact level of dishonesty in BB's original words to DT, but that's not going to change the underlying fact. And it's stupid for people to try claiming otherwise, when Belichick has admitted it.
A business agreement and a personal promise are not the same thing.
Fans are wrong to assume Belichick has given his word as a man to anyone
unless they either hear it or Belichick says he has done it ...
Then you have a problem with the English language.
.