BB's Press Conference (A. Hernandez)

LRJets wrote:The national radio stations  (ESPN, Sirius, etc.) by and large gave BB the credit for finally showing a personality.  A critic here and there said he had no choice but to be explicit.  He did play  it close to the vest with some "Pat"ented answers, but he was proactive in saying it happened on his watch.
As I told Gup last week, BB  always took chances on the bad boys, (Moss, Ochocinco, Haynsworth etc.), but while it basically didn't work out football-wise, there were no impending homicide investigations. 
Until now.  And a first for the NFL.



He has taken chances, and given chances to players, I'm sure believing that despite past transgressions, the player would behave properly going forward in the right atmosphere and environment.  Sometimes the player does, sometimes he does not.

George1963 wrote:In defense of Pats coach Bill Belichick, he handled his press conference of Aaron Hernandez as well as possible and as predicted. How can you scrutinize and subsequently determine if an employee will commit murder be it on an athletic team or in the workplace?

You can't.
I'm responsible for bringing in players, I brought in this player, it was a mistake. Pretty much sums it up and it was more than I would have expected from him, but there's one thing that irritates me. This company line that they "can't" answer certain questions. Bob, Bill, yea you can. What you mean is you won't. Saying that the lawyers won't let you is a convienent little way of ducking questions you don't want to answer.  Like he did several times yesterday including about Dennard. He also sidestepped a question about whether he knew about the gun incident(s) in Florida and did it again when asked for a clarification. He also gave a non-answer about what the hell happened with John Drew.
IMO the statement was good, the Q&A was BB being BB.

I'm sure the Patriots are at least as thorough as any other NFL franchise.

Maybe more so. They just have lower standards than most

Not lower standards, just higher expectations... expectations that the player has enough brains in him that he will toe the line in a structured environment.

LRJets wrote:He has taken chances, and given chances to players, I'm sure believing that despite past transgressions, the player would behave properly going forward in the right atmosphere and environment. Sometimes the player does, sometimes he does not.


The Raiders and more recently, the Bengals have been known as thug teams.  These days about every team gets a taste of players doing things outside the law.  (32 arrests since Super Bowl Sunday).  But no team can even become close to getting blamed if a player commits the ultimate crime against humanity, murder.

Just looking at a young kid having the world as his oyster, fame, fortune, and a future would even think  of doing that is beyond any realm of logic.
Hernandez has got to be one of the stupidest people on this planet.  So when a Belichick or any coach gives a "bad boy" player a chance, the definition of bad boy could be a DUI, drugs, or even an isolated case of battery, but murder?  No one could know that or possibly have a player with a known history of that.
It boggles the mind.



It truly does.  So much so that it makes one question whether mental illness is involved.

guppy wrote:When someone says they have been advised not to comment on a matter that involves an ongoing criminal investigation, that is the absolute appropriate answer.  Its not "hiding" at all.  Making a comment on Hernandez's background and what BB knew about it could clearly jeapordize Hernandez's right to a fair trial,

How?

and could subject Belichick and/or the Pats to being sued.

Again, how?


  If your company lawyer advises you to not comment because a criminal matter is still evolving, you don't comment.  Period.

Then why did they comment at all. Question mark.


Opening yourself up to liability by talking about issues that may be evidence in criminal case makes absolutely no sense.

There is no liability or exposure in telling the truth.

 To think that is a "pat" answer or "hiding" is simply off the mark.

Gup, I don't want to make a big thing over this. BB did a good job. For him, a great job.
But I heard Brady talking about it this afternoon on ESPN and he said Stacey James told him there were certain things he couldn't say. Stacey James, Vice-President of Media Relations. PR guy.
They could talk about any aspect of this case they want to. They choose not to. Not saying that makes them bad people, just saying that's how it is.

LRJets wrote:It truly does. So much so that it makes one question whether mental illness is involved.

Hmmmm...have not heard of that angle yet as his defense, possibly because of no indictment yet.  I would imagine the prosecution will argue as the public knows, there are just too many steps showing premeditation and planning for the execution, not a spur-of-the -moment murder.
Aaron, you have a problem.

Of course.  I did not mean he is literally clinically mentally ill, as it would be part of his legal defense.  Just trying to express that his throwing away his life is so pointless, so senseless, that no right thinking person on this planet would do likewise.

George1963 wrote:

guppy wrote:When someone says they have been advised not to comment on a matter that involves an ongoing criminal investigation, that is the absolute appropriate answer.  Its not "hiding" at all.  Making a comment on Hernandez's background and what BB knew about it could clearly jeapordize Hernandez's right to a fair trial,

How?

and could subject Belichick and/or the Pats to being sued.

Again, how?


  If your company lawyer advises you to not comment because a criminal matter is still evolving, you don't comment.  Period.

Then why did they comment at all. Question mark.


Opening yourself up to liability by talking about issues that may be evidence in criminal case makes absolutely no sense.

There is no liability or exposure in telling the truth.

 To think that is a "pat" answer or "hiding" is simply off the mark.

Gup, I don't want to make a big thing over this. BB did a good job. For him, a great job.
But I heard Brady talking about it this afternoon on ESPN and he said Stacey James told him there were certain things he couldn't say. Stacey James, Vice-President of Media Relations. PR guy.
They could talk about any aspect of this case they want to. They choose not to. Not saying that makes them bad people, just saying that's how it is.


I think in matters such as this, the seriousness involved, etc., there is going to be a natural overemphasis on caution and tendency to carefully measure one's remarks.  There is no connection, obviously, between the Patriots organization and AH's 2013 criminal activity.  The Patriots have cut all ties to their former player, and, at some point, need to move on with, as Bill says, "the guys that are here".  If you're the Pats or BB, why create more headlines than necessary by getting into details about how much you were aware of Hernandez's life outside of the team facility, when his life outside the facility, his associates, his comings and goings, etc. is going to be central to an upcoming criminal trial?   BB knows one question leads to another, and another, and another.  And, if you're him, you just don't want to go there in a situation like this.