Wrongful Ron at it again....

[DarrylS]

Although as not quite as negative as usual, Borges continues to write about his hope that the Patriots fail this year as he does every year...only so he can say I told you so..

http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/articles/2006/03/26/planning_goes_only_so_far/

Planning goes only so far
By Ron Borges | March 26, 2006

Bill Belichick has a plan. Of this we are sure. The problem, thus far, is that other people have plans, too.
He planned to sign wide receiver Joe Jurevicius to replace David Givens for a price he knew was right. Jurevicius had other plans.
He planned to sign cornerback DeShea Townsend for a price he knew was right. The Pittsburgh Steelers had other plans.
He planned to re-sign Adam Vinatieri for a price he knew would be right after the market for kickers dried up with the help -- wittingly or unwittingly, depending on whom you believe -- of Vinatieri's agent, who just happens to work for Belichick's lawyer back in Cleveland. Vinatieri had other plans and pretty soon another agent.
None of this means Belichick's plan, with some adjustments, won't in the end net him a roster that will keep the Patriots competitive in the AFC. It means only that other people have plans, too, and you can't control them, which can lead to unexpected difficulties and the need for adjustments. And so he adjusts......

No plan works all the time, however. Neither do the majority of the players you import. You have hot streaks and cold streaks. Sometimes fate intervenes. Sometimes bad luck. Sometimes you might even make a mistake. That's how it is.
It is much too early to say whether the Patriots' plan will work this year. It did for three years. It didn't last season. Now all we can do is what Bill Parcells used to advocate: Wait, and then go by what we see.Continued...

 

[Water Boy]

He planned to sign wide receiver Joe Jurevicius to replace David Givens for a price he knew was right. Jurevicius had other plans

This is the first report I've heard about the Patriots having interest in Jurevicius. Coming from Borges, I question the validity. I think the Pats did have an interest in Jurevicius, but I think this is more of an assumption on Borges's part than first hand knowledge.

I really thought the Pats would have gone after Jurevicius agressively. Its strange how he signed with Cleveland so quickly for short money.

 

[SVN]

He planned to re-sign Adam Vinatieri for a price he knew would be right after the market for kickers dried up with the help -- wittingly or unwittingly, depending on whom you believe -- of Vinatieri's agent, who just happens to work for Belichick's lawyer back in Cleveland. Vinatieri had other plans and pretty soon another agent.

he has been after this agent conspiracy since the beginning.Was adam so dumb to keep his agent same as BB and did BB really pull the strings via the agent or lawyer. These accusations are baseless without proof but still ron continues to spice it up.
Right now everyone is believing what Bill polian said about not knowing adam was in the market until the agents changed. What makes him the gospel of truth? No one seems to check that fact.

 

[JDSal45]

Not to mention the Patriots never drafted a "tight end from Harvard" ahead of Tom Brady as the article incorrectly claims.

Its a minor error, but if Borges is this sloppy with basic facts, how do we know anything else in the article, or anything he ever says, on larger points is true?

We don't. Because the only thing we know for sure is he can't even get basic, easily checkable facts correct.

Which can only lead to the conclusion he gets crap he claims comes from "inside sources" ane everything else wrong a significant portion of the time too.

J D Sal

 

[alexhb]

What a tool.
He wraps up his Belioli are effing up by being too cheap to pay for good players routine by using a tone that feigns an impartial review.
Do we really think that Belioli banked on Jerovicious (sp?). It's remarkable in the midst of one of the greatest winning environments in professional sports history that it's being covered by a hating nebob of negativity. Eventually the Pats will have a losing season and he'll be there to say I saw it coming. :enranged:

 

[shmessy]

he has been after this agent conspiracy since the beginning.Was adam so dumb to keep his agent same as BB and did BB really pull the strings via the agent or lawyer. These accusations are baseless without proof but still ron continues to spice it up.
Right now everyone is believing what Bill polian said about not knowing adam was in the market until the agents changed. What makes him the gospel of truth? No one seems to check that fact.

What makes this all the more sickening is that the Globe has yet to fire him for HIS LACK OF DISCLOSURE about HIS agent funneling him the inside info of the Givens situation.

How can Borges get away with this? This is the third time this hypocrit has brought up the BB-Cornrich connection (AV's first agent works in the same firm as Cornrich) while he smugly uses HIS OWN agent's inside info on Givens without disclosure. All the while he is lionizing his own agent in his columns without the usual disclaimer or mention of this important personal connection.

.....and he is getting away with it.

 

[BelichickFan]

I really thought the Pats would have gone after Jurevicius agressively. Its strange how he signed with Cleveland so quickly for short money.

He's from Cleveland and took less to go there. Still, $2.5M a year is hardly a bargain, IMO, considering his age and career up until last season.

 

[patriotspride]

Why does anybody waste there time reading borges ?Does anybody really care what he has to say ?He lost all credibility a long time ago.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

Wait, why would a journalist disclose his source again? Why would his paper tell him to do so? Huh?

Just ping him on the factual inaccuracies, don't try to pull down one of the basic tenets of a free press, because this one goofball makes a mockery of fact-checking.

Of course, it is quite legitimate to say, "your invisible friends have been telling you stories again." What's iffy is to say, "you say you have sources, so name them."

From what I see here and in the article, he might (?) actually have a source. It could be a source who is not knowledgable. It could be that the source is knowledgable, but that the guy relies on the source for much less than he relies on his imagination for.

And like everybody here has said, he needs checks on his imagination before it goes out in front of the reading public.

Did anybody here ever write the editors about stuff like this? I'm new.

PFnV

 

[PATSNUTme]

This guy is a real ********. As usual, he takes his cheap shots,talking a crumb of information then blowing it up to a full loaf, then leaves himself that little wiggle room.

I won't give him the satifaction of citing specifics in his "story".:bricks:

 

[shmessy]

Wait, why would a journalist disclose his source again? Why would his paper tell him to do so? Huh?

Just ping him on the factual inaccuracies, don't try to pull down one of the basic tenets of a free press, because this one goofball makes a mockery of fact-checking.

Of course, it is quite legitimate to say, "your invisible friends have been telling you stories again." What's iffy is to say, "you say you have sources, so name them."

From what I see here and in the article, he might (?) actually have a source. It could be a source who is not knowledgable. It could be that the source is knowledgable, but that the guy relies on the source for much less than he relies on his imagination for.

And like everybody here has said, he needs checks on his imagination before it goes out in front of the reading public.

Did anybody here ever write the editors about stuff like this? I'm new.

PFnV

With all due respect, you are totally missing the situation.

It's not about disclosing an anonymous source. In the Givens stories he clearly attributed the info to the guy who is his agent. Source attribution is not the issue here.

The problem is he just names the guy as GIVEN'S agent in his very opinionated articles about that situation. He also painted a very pro-agent and anti-Pat FO picture in said articles.

To do all that (on several occasions now) without ever disclosing that that agent happens to also be HIS OWN agent is reprehensible and unethical.

You completely missed the point. I don't expect Ron Borges to write the truth, abstain from slander or abstain from using curse words in his articles for the Boston Globe. However, I do expect the management of the Globe to stop him from doing so. My anger is at the management of the Globe who are making a mockery of journalistic ethics by not doing their job.

 

[RoadGrader]

What makes this all the more sickening is that the Globe has yet to fire him for HIS LACK OF DISCLOSURE about HIS agent funneling him the inside info of the Givens situation.

How can Borges get away with this? This is the third time this hypocrit has brought up the BB-Cornrich connection (AV's first agent works in the same firm as Cornrich) while he smugly uses HIS OWN agent's inside info on Givens without disclosure. All the while he is lionizing his own agent in his columns without the usual disclaimer or mention of this important personal connection.

.....and he is getting away with it.

does anyone know how to get in touch with Kevin Weeks? I understand he's looking for work and hates reporters

 

[CrazyDave]

Although as not quite as negative as usual, Borges continues to write about his hope that the Patriots fail this year as he does every year...only so he can say I told you so..

http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/articles/2006/03/26/planning_goes_only_so_far/

Planning goes only so far
By Ron Borges | March 26, 2006
(snipped)

None of this means Belichick's plan, with some adjustments, won't in the end net him a roster that will keep the Patriots competitive in the AFC.

.

that's my favorite part. Gee, do ya think they'll be competitive in the AFC? LOL Boy, I was real worried about that. What a clown.

 

[dhamz]

I like further down when he says the Jags giving a deal to DT Henderson makes an impact on Seymour.

I thought last week Borges point was the cheap Pats organization better not tell us that Seymour is a DT so they can pay him less when we all know he is a DE?

 

[Bill's Girl]

This guy is a real ********. As usual, he takes his cheap shots,talking a crumb of information then blowing it up to a full loaf, then leaves himself that little wiggle room.

I won't give him the satifaction of citing specifics in his "story".:bricks:

I am still in the midst of my Borges boycott! I won't give the SOB the satisfaction of getting upset by his hatred of BB. In the end, Belichick's record will speak for itself and so will Wrong's body of work!

 

[NE_PATS_FAN_54]

This is the first report I've heard about the Patriots having interest in Jurevicius. Coming from Borges, I question the validity. I think the Pats did have an interest in Jurevicius, but I think this is more of an assumption on Borges's part than first hand knowledge.

I really thought the Pats would have gone after Jurevicius agressively. Its strange how he signed with Cleveland so quickly for short money.

no, ive heard from many places that they had interest in jurevcius. they misplayed the market for him, basically low-balling him with the first offer. then he went home to cleveland. i agree with borges on this article, i dont think "hes wanting the pats to fail" as everyone says.

 

[gomezcat]

The piece seems to confirm the view of those who believe that Borges dislikes the Pats FO and, as someone said earlier in the thread, he will be the first to say I told you so.
Did anyone see the poll next to the story, which asked "do you still trust in BB/Pioli?". 38% of people have answered no. Wow, the mind boggles at just how ungrateful and short-termist some "fans" are. It just shows how spoiled people are. How many SBs are enough, exactly? Did any of them watch the Pats in the late 80s or early 90s? (Yes, I know I did a "should BB be fired?" poll, but it was a joke, aimed at these people, albeit very misguided in hindsight).

http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/poll/03_22_06_vinatieri