Patriots Rumor ESPN hitpiece on Patriots (Rift with Brady/Belichick/Kraft) - Merged

[PatsDeb]

Fitzy nails it for us.

 

[PatriotsNumero1Fan]

You'd bet on his 40yr old body v. Jimmy G's 26yr old body?

I am betting he can play a couple of more years. He's a lot different than these other QBs. Let's give jimmy a 16 game season and let's see if he can take them to the playoffs.

 

[Huckleberry1]

You'd bet on his 40yr old body v. Jimmy G's 26yr old body?

Remind us, which player went 14-1 with Lombardi and Super Bowl MVP to cap it off, and which couldn’t make through two games when called upon to play four?

Which was the 26 year old and which was 39?

 

[ForThoseAboutToRock]

I asked primetime earlier to show us the good journalism in this piece, so far he has begged off on that. You are welcome to show us the examples of good journalism in this piece?

Please provide a definition of "good journalism" and I will attempt to comply with it.

Please note in my post that I said it's perfectly fair to criticize this post. However, those pretending that Wickersham couldn't possibly have sources / connections in the Patriots or close to the key figures of this piece are ignoring Wickersham's previous articles. I think that's poor criticism that speaks more to hysteria than an actual analysis of the piece.

 

[Huckleberry1]

Please provide a definition of "good journalism" and I will attempt to comply with it.

Please note in my post that I said it's perfectly fair to criticize this post. However, those pretending that Wickersham couldn't possibly have sources / connections in the Patriots or close to the key figures of this piece are ignoring Wickersham's previous articles. I think that's poor criticism that speaks more to hysteria than an actual analysis of the piece.

Journalism that provides validation and context for its claims against journalism that doesn’t.

 

[TB_Helmet]

Are we going to pretend that Wickersham hasn't previously written / co-authored quite a few other pieces on the Patriots, specifically on Belichick and Brady?

I don't love this piece at all. I think it's fair to criticize it. But people are acting like this guy's someone they've never heard of who couldn't possibly have sources within the organization. There's a body of work that suggests otherwise - he has some access.

Didn't he write the piece full of anonymous sources accusing the Patriots of videotaping from the Gillette Stadium lighthouse or something like that? Is that the body of work you're referring to?

Yesterday when we learned this article was coming out, and that he wrote it, everyone was like "I bet it will be full of vague allegations and people who don't want their names to be used." And lo and behold, that's what happened! Sorry, Wickerson doesn't get ANY benefit of the doubt in this one.

 

[Vatahala]

There is an actual article at NY Daily News that suggests the Giants should wait to hire Belichick for next year.

 

[luuked]

You'd bet on his 40yr old body v. Jimmy G's 26yr old body?

Which of the two bodies missed more games due to injury in the last two years?

 

[ForThoseAboutToRock]

Journalism that provides validation and context for its claims against journalism that doesn’t.

Are you just asking that he cite his sources?

 

[PatsWSB47]

You'd bet on his 40yr old body v. Jimmy G's 26yr old body?

Of the two bodies, which one has missed games due to injury in the past couple of years?

 

[Huckleberry1]

Please provide a definition of "good journalism" and I will attempt to comply with it.

Please note in my post that I said it's perfectly fair to criticize this post. However, those pretending that Wickersham couldn't possibly have sources / connections in the Patriots or close to the key figures of this piece are ignoring Wickersham's previous articles. I think that's poor criticism that speaks more to hysteria than an actual analysis of the piece.

It’s valid criticism of poor journalism. And ESPN has a very long track record of publishing lies and make believecagainst Brady, Belichick, and the Patriots.

 

[TB_Helmet]

Please provide a definition of "good journalism" and I will attempt to comply with it.

Please note in my post that I said it's perfectly fair to criticize this post. However, those pretending that Wickersham couldn't possibly have sources / connections in the Patriots or close to the key figures of this piece are ignoring Wickersham's previous articles. I think that's poor criticism that speaks more to hysteria than an actual analysis of the piece.

Do you believe that the Patriot of the Week award is real and that Brady was mad that he hasn't earned it this year?

 

[Huckleberry1]

Are you just asking that he cite his sources?

I’m saying that it’s ok to cite unnamed sources as long as your entire story isn’t based upon them. This piece lacks real corroboration and it abuses the concept of context.

 

[condon84]

You'd bet on his 40yr old body v. Jimmy G's 26yr old body?

 

[BradyFTW!]

Didn't he write the piece full of anonymous sources accusing the Patriots of videotaping from the Gillette Stadium lighthouse or something like that? Is that the body of work you're referring to?

Yesterday when we learned this article was coming out, and that he wrote it, everyone was like "I bet it will be full of vague allegations and people who don't want their names to be used." And lo and behold, that's what happened! Sorry, Wickerson doesn't get ANY benefit of the doubt in this one.

Yeah, Wickersham has written something like 20,000 words that are all basically innuendo and scathing indictments of the Pats. In all that time, he's never had a single on-the-record source and he's never had any of his specific, unique claims corroborated by any other sources before or after the fact. There's a clear pattern here, dunno why everyone keeps collectively deciding the Pats are responsible for proving he's lying when he's never given any credible indication that he writes the truth.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

Posted a little after noon today. Actually took Myers a couple of hours longer than I thought to write and post it, but it's a long article:

"Bring Bill Back Home.

"Can Bill Belichick, yes Bill Belichick, be the next coach of the Giants?

"
"All good things come to an end, especially in the NFL.

"If this is the end for Belichick in New England, it will be good news for the Jets and could be great news for the Giants."

If Belichick & Pats split, Giants must do all they can to get him

 

[luuked]

Please provide a definition of "good journalism" and I will attempt to comply with it.

Please note in my post that I said it's perfectly fair to criticize this post. However, those pretending that Wickersham couldn't possibly have sources / connections in the Patriots or close to the key figures of this piece are ignoring Wickersham's previous articles. I think that's poor criticism that speaks more to hysteria than an actual analysis of the piece.

His amazing sources essentially got everything wrong when it comes to specific things. There is no PotW award, Brady didnt carelessly injure Hogan, Brady doesn't want to be called "sir", BB didnt meet with Goodell last week, TB12 was never locked for JG....

Great sources.. all that is left is innuendo

 

[jah]

Agree.

The denial is hardly unequivocal and reads as though it were written by a committee after much debate. Either that, or Kraft should fire his PR staff.

Why add "unsubstantiated" and "highly exaggerated" and not just stay "flat out inaccurate?" There is a big difference between "unsubstantiated ...[or]...highly exaggerated" and "flat out inaccurate."

Why not just end the statement there? Unfortunately, the rest of the statement consists of:

Truisms: "share a common goal" the "enormous challenge of competing in the postseason." Oh, barf!

Wishy washy language: "the opportunity to work together..." Why not just say "We look forward to...working together in the future." If you've ever written something like this, you know that throwing in words like "the opportunity to..." is designed to soften the statement.

Things that didn't have to be said: "It is unfortunate that...fallacies." But...OK...now that you've raised the subject, Mr. Kraft, which "fallacies" are you talking about? The "unsubstantiated" ones, which might be true, but which haven't been substantiated? The "highly exaggerated" ones, which might have an element of the truth that has been magnified or the "flat out inaccurate" ones which are really not true.

Sloppy, sloppy, sloppy.

Finally, saying, "As our actions have shown..." doth protest too much. Why end by looking to the past and not the future? Why not simply say, "We stand united today and will stand united in the future."

Please note: the above is a criticism of Kraft's statement, not an endorsement of the veracity of anything in the ESPN article.

State,emt"
“For the past 18 years, the three of us have enjoyed a very good and productive working relationship. In recent days, there have been multiple media reports that have speculated theories that are unsubstantiated, highly exaggerated or flat out inaccurate. The three of us share a common goal. We look forward to the enormous challenge of competing in the postseason and the opportunity to work together in the future, just as we have for the past 18 years. It is unfortunate that there is even a need for us to response to these fallacies. As our actions have shown, we stand united.”

It's crazy to me that the only "evidence" I ever saw of Deflategate or this being remotely true is how legitimately sketchy all Patriots reactions were. You'd think they would have figured this out by now.

 

[Actual Pats Fan]

Prepare yourself for some ********.

BSPN

 

[Soliel]

Not going to happen