- Joined
- Feb 19, 2007
- Messages
- 17,509
- Reaction score
- 17,111
I emailed a few of things I had just hoping to get some sort of response from him, to see if he could defend himself against some of the things said about his Broncos, the Elway getting paid under the table and the Quote from Shanahan about sometimes deciphering the other teams signals by the end of the first quarter.
And he responded....I thought it was interesting that he responded even if his response was as off base as his TV comments. He kind of ignored the questions I was asking and just took a dig at the Pats and Belichick. So I responded back saying you ignored the questions I was asking and tried again for a response and he just Thanked me for the email, and ignored the question.
So far all is fine by me as I really didn't expect a response at all...But than in talking with FGSSAND I find out that he used the same stock response for both of us. Again would not be a big problem as I understand this to be customary except that the body of the response was far from customary.
Here is his Stock response
First off, I will add the entire email strings from both my question and FGS' and you will see his response does not answer any of the questions posed.
Second, a stock response is usually something simple like thanks for emailing me because of the fact that a lot of people email here I can not respond to all but I do apreciate your feed back and will in time read all my emails.
here is my email string
My initial email
FGS sent this
Anyone else get the same response????
And he responded....I thought it was interesting that he responded even if his response was as off base as his TV comments. He kind of ignored the questions I was asking and just took a dig at the Pats and Belichick. So I responded back saying you ignored the questions I was asking and tried again for a response and he just Thanked me for the email, and ignored the question.
So far all is fine by me as I really didn't expect a response at all...But than in talking with FGSSAND I find out that he used the same stock response for both of us. Again would not be a big problem as I understand this to be customary except that the body of the response was far from customary.
Here is his Stock response
Your coach received not one but two memos from the league that all 32
teams received to stop taping signals...he ignored it...he lied about it...Your organization said it only taped divisional opponents and in the 8 tapes that Matt Walsh turned over 3 were non-divisional opponents...So I'm supposed to take the organization at it's word that they never used the tapes during games to gain an unfair competitive advantage...Please!
First off, I will add the entire email strings from both my question and FGS' and you will see his response does not answer any of the questions posed.
Second, a stock response is usually something simple like thanks for emailing me because of the fact that a lot of people email here I can not respond to all but I do apreciate your feed back and will in time read all my emails.
here is my email string
My initial email
his responseMr. Schlereth,
>
>
>
> I was just wondering if you are aware that your beloved Broncos were
> paying players under the table...as far as I know you could have been
> one of them. As I read it Elway and TD had 29 million deferred so it
> would not affect the cap. You ever hear the adage people in glass
> houses shouldn't throw stones?
>
>
>
> Not to mention the player's careers and health that you and your
> line-mates put at risk with the shady chop blocking your team employs.
> But hey go on pushing your agenda and splitting hairs over something
> that was over in September.
>
>
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Disgruntled pats fan
I sent back asking him to actually adress what I asked and I elaborated a little more.Your coach received not one but two memos from the league that all 32
teams received to stop taping signals...he ignored it...he lied about it...Your organization said it only taped divisional opponents and in the 8 tapes that Matt Walsh turned over 3 were non-divisional opponents...So I'm supposed to take the organization at it's word that they never used the tapes during games to gain an unfair competitive advantage...Please!
and his response to thatMark,
>
> I appreciated hearing back from you as football is one of my big
> passions and any debate on the subject, even if it includes ugly
> truths, is fun.
>
>
>
> I think you need to come off your high horse and recognize the issues
> are league wide. Don't believe me well here is a quote from your
> former head coach. "Our guy keeps a pair of binoculars on their
> signal-callers every game," says Broncos coach Mike Shanahan. "With
> any luck, we have their defensive signals figured out by halftime.
> Sometimes, by the end of the first quarter."
> http://cgi.cnnsi.com/inside_game/mag...ife_of_reilly/
> <http://cgi.cnnsi.com/inside_game/magazine/life_of_reilly/news/2002/01
> /0
> 9/life_of_reilly/>
> My issue isn't with whether my team cheated or not. Unfortunately the
> sport you chose to make a career in is tainted and most teams engage
> in dubious activities including the team you played for and the team I
> follow so much. I don't mind you bashing Belichick, he is getting what
> he deserves for breaking the rules. But don't you think it is
> important not to omit the fact that just about all the great dynasties
> have been tainted in one way or the other. My Pats and Camera-gate,
> Your Broncos and paying players under the table, The 49ers owner was
> removed from ownership, the Steelers and steroids, the 72 dolphins
> tampered to get their head coach Don Shula who like you decides to
> ignore the fact that his team was shady as well and call the pot black.
>
>
>
> Now let me ask you this one important question, what is the difference
> whether the cheating was in game or not? We were caught cheating and
> we paid a pretty steep penalty for it. In theory whether it was in
> game or not it was used to gain an unfair advantage, aren't we just
> splitting hairs when we say in game or not. You act like Belichick was
> in front of the Supreme Court when he lied; he was/is trying to cover
> his ass not trying to provide you with full details. Why be so vindictive about it?
>
>
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Disgruntled Pats Fan
Thanks for the note!
FGS sent this
and his response to FGS> Mark,
>
> Please do not allow facts to get in the way of your quest for attention
> there at ESPN.
>
> _http://fansforaccuratemedia.com/_ (http://fansforaccuratemedia.com/)
>
>
> 1) Your Bronco's massaged the cap to free up 30MM
>
> 2) Your Broncos stole signals with the best of them......stealing signals
> is
> LEGAL, so why would you state otherwise??
>
> 3) The tape stayed in the camera, there is no way it was used in a game
> and
> that is the only way your "cheating" label would apply.
>
> 4) Read the original rule and the memo.....print them out and show them on
> ESPN - I guarantee that people will then see the ambiguity and how they
> could
> easily be misconstrued.
>
> Please, take some time and do it right - your relentless ESPN ordered
> Patriot bashing for rating reasons is quite transparent.
>
> A once loyal fan of yours.....
>
> Frank
Your coach received not one but two memos from the league that all 32
teams received to stop taping signals...he ignored it...he lied about
it...Your organization said it only taped divisional opponents and in
the 8 tapes that Matt Walsh turned over 3 were non-divisional
opponents...So I'm supposed to take the organization at it's word that
they never used the tapes during games to gain an unfair competitive
advantage...Please!
Anyone else get the same response????
Last edited: