INSIGHTFUL QUESTION

LRJets wrote:I can't take credit for this question as I heard one of the hosts on Mad Dog Radio pose it.


If  anyone on the Pats committed the mortal sin Welker was alleged to have done, would BB  have reacted the same as he did the next a.m.?


Gup...now do Rags, Morm,  Fern, and Frank  proud by your response.


(Factor out the bias BB has against Welker)  Thank you.


Belichick:  "Ya, I saw the play.  It is what it is."

LRJets wrote:
As a foot note, I never realized existing hostility between Welker and BB.


The hostility goes back further than the failed contract negotiations that ended with Welker leaving the Pats and signing in Denver for only $1M more per year than the Pats were offering.

Of course we never know the full story behind the hostility simply because Belichick says so little.  Maybe BB feels that he is the one who "made" Welker.  He took him from obscurity (otherwise known as the Miami Dolphins), brought him to NE and paired him with Tom Brady, and made him a household name recognized by millions of people that never had heard of him previously.  Maybe BB feels Welker owes him something for that.  Again, its just speculation on my part.  That's number one.  Number two, don't you remember before the playoff game against the Jets, Welker turned some interview into his own stand up comedy routine that drew headlines when he made all the foot reference jokes that was clearly aimed at Rex Ryan.  BB was so pissed off about that, and felt that Welker went completely off the reservation when Pats players are not supposed to do talking about an opponent before a game, except to praise that opponent, that he made Welker sit out the entire first quarter of a PLAYOFF game.  Rex Ryan was asked about it, and he said he felt like BB, as a fellow coach, was sticking up for him and more or less defending him and was pleased about it.  That had to humiliate Welker.  Then more recently, Welker was asked about something, I forget, but his response with a big smile was, "Its nice to stick it in Bill's face every once and awhile."  He said that as a Patriot.  How do you think that sat with Bill?  So there has been a whole bunch of things.  And these are only the things that we know about.

I think the above are some examples of why George characterized Wes Welker as "a mouthy punk".  But of course, that was when Welker wore a Pats uniform.  I'm not sure if George still thinks Welker is a "mouthy punk" now that he is one of Peyton Manning's favorite targets.

  Maybe when BB called this play "the worst", what he meant was, it was one of the "worst" cases of interference by an offensive player taking out a defensive player who was covering a different receiver, that was not called. 

Maybe his meaning was that it was one of the "worst" "no calls" he's ever seen. 

Before you start laughing, it is possible.  Can you say with absolute certainty that's not what BB was saying?


Yes.

 

George1963 wrote:

  Maybe when BB called this play "the worst", what he meant was, it was one of the "worst" cases of interference by an offensive player taking out a defensive player who was covering a different receiver, that was not called. 

Maybe his meaning was that it was one of the "worst" "no calls" he's ever seen. 

Before you start laughing, it is possible.  Can you say with absolute certainty that's not what BB was saying?


Yes.



Alright.  Well, at least you have to give me some props for creativity.

I would have thought on this one you'd be backing the coach, not the player, seeing as how you think "the receiver" is a "mouthy punk" (or at least you thought that at one time).

Only a "punk"-type player would intentionally try to take out another player, so I couldn't see you taking his side.
 

LRJets wrote:For old times sake  



[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

LRJets wrote:For old times sake  




[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Dmounts wrote:NFL confirms Wes Welker’s hit on Aqib Talib was legal
NFL head of officiating Dean Blandino has confirmed that Welker’s hit — which knocked Talib out of the AFC Championship Game — was legal.
“Under the current rules, this is a legal play,


A frustrated Seahawks cornerback Thurmond has a different opinion.  Says he's "getting ready" for Welker. 

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

guppy wrote:

George1963 wrote:

  Maybe when BB called this play "the worst", what he meant was, it was one of the "worst" cases of interference by an offensive player taking out a defensive player who was covering a different receiver, that was not called. 

Maybe his meaning was that it was one of the "worst" "no calls" he's ever seen. 

Before you start laughing, it is possible.  Can you say with absolute certainty that's not what BB was saying?


Yes.



Alright.  Well, at least you have to give me some props for creativity.

I would have thought on this one you'd be backing the coach, not the player, seeing as how you think "the receiver" is a "mouthy punk" (or at least you thought that at one time).

He still is , and I've said so here.

Only a "punk"-type player would intentionally try to take out another player, so I couldn't see you taking his side.

He didn't intentionally try to take out a player. Not as BB meant it. And I can say with  absolute certainty that he meant he was trying to take him out of the game, not the play. Which is BS and Belichick knows that better than anybody.

I've been trying to figure out why he'd say something so idiotic and hypocritical and coming up empty, but this guy has as good an explanation as any;


Less than 24 hours after having seen his defense and his game plan systematically destroyed by the Denver Broncos in the AFC Championship Game, Belichick avoided explaining much about what had gone wrong by opening his remarks with a false accusation that Wes Welker made “a deliberate play to take out Aqib (Talib).”
It was a brilliantly deceitful statement that changed the narrative from “Why can’t you rebuild your defense?” to whether or not his former player purposely tried to injure an ex-teammate. Belichick understood it didn’t matter that what he said was not only asinine but also a lie, nor did it matter that it made him appear petty and classless, because after a loss what’s new about that?
What it did was put the media focus on something that didn’t happen rather than all the things that did, one of which being that Welker went on to the Super Bowl while Belichick’s handpicked and overpaid replacement for him, Danny Amendola, dropped the only pass thrown to him Sunday and then disappeared like too many of his teammates.

George1963 wrote:

He didn't intentionally try to take out a player. Not as BB meant it. And I can say with  absolute certainty that he meant he was trying to take him out of the game, not the play. Which is BS and Belichick knows that better than anybody.

I've been trying to figure out why he'd say something so idiotic and hypocritical and coming up empty, but this guy has as good an explanation as any;


Less than 24 hours after having seen his defense and his game plan systematically destroyed by the Denver Broncos in the AFC Championship Game, Belichick avoided explaining much about what had gone wrong by opening his remarks with a false accusation that Wes Welker made “a deliberate play to take out Aqib (Talib).”
It was a brilliantly deceitful statement that changed the narrative from “Why can’t you rebuild your defense?” to whether or not his former player purposely tried to injure an ex-teammate. Belichick understood it didn’t matter that what he said was not only asinine but also a lie, nor did it matter that it made him appear petty and classless, because after a loss what’s new about that?
What it did was put the media focus on something that didn’t happen rather than all the things that did, one of which being that Welker went on to the Super Bowl while Belichick’s handpicked and overpaid replacement for him, Danny Amendola, dropped the only pass thrown to him Sunday and then disappeared like too many of his teammates.


I did read Ron Borges' column.  You know he's been a Belichick critic since the first day Belichick got here, right?  Drew Bledsoe was his binky and source of information for most of his columns.  When Belichick chose Brady over Bledsoe, it infuriated Borges, who since that time has never missed an opportunity to slam the coach.  Its known thing around here. 


I agree with you what he did was idiotic.  The NFL said the hit was "legal" because Demaryius Thomas touched the ball "simultaneously" with Welker's hit on Talib.  So BB is the loser here, no doubt about it.  Even a poll on ESPN Boston in which the majority of responses came from Pats fans, found that the majority of people responding did not feel the same way about the play as he did.  Same with most of the Boston media, not just Borges.  So what BB did here is a real head scratcher.  For whatever reason, he took a shot, and it only came back to blow up in his face.   

So, as I see it this year, BB is 1-1, or .500, with the league as far as reviewing plays after he made a post game remark about a particular call or no call.   The league supported his statement after the Jets game on the pushing the lineman penalty on a FG try.  BB said the Jets did the same thing earlier in the game.   After review post game, the league said he was right, and the penalty should have been called on the Jets, just like it was called on the Pats.  But now, with this rebuke by the league on the Welker play, he loses. 

That makes him 1-1.  .500.  And its his own fault because there was no reason to do it, other than, I guess, his disdain for the player.  And the reason for his disdain for this player?  Who the f#@k knows? 

.500 is not very good.  Not very good at all.

LRJets wrote:Welker by far is no choir boy,but it's mostly by his mouth.


Didn't he say something obviously publicly about something "Jets"?   Ryan, feet, something regarding the circus which I know no longer exists due to the firings, hiring of Idzik,and Ryan finally getting  a bit humble.

I don't know that he said such things as you reference.  But the things that he did say surely got Bill's boxers in a bunch.  Talking shit is not "The Patriot Way", but Wes no doubt felt stifled and that he couldn't "be himself", so he bolted for greener pastures. 

Bottom line is, Wes is in the Superbowl, and Bill is not.    


[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

LRJets wrote:For old times sake  


[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]


For new times sake.    

Since the "S" word appears above, below is a Pittsburgh sports radio interview with Bill Cowher prior to Championship Sunday.  I invite you to read and listen.    

I hope I'm not being too "Ragsian".


[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

LRJets wrote:You're really not too Ragsian.  Rags even had his moments of overly fair.  He always admired the Jets for the merger.  That neverslipped by him even during his
most combative moments.
He did have his anti-Goodell,NFL  issues.  Any fan can.
I hope he's ok.  He enjoyed the  banter, the back-and-forth, and most of all football.



But did you listen to Cowher?  After listening to him on Pittsburgh sports radio talk about Belichick and the real irrelevance in terms of gaining any tactical advantage by pointing a camera on an opposing sideline coach during a game (he called it "arrogance", nothing more) it made me think "WWTAMS"? 
(What Would Task And Mummy Say?)   
 
Cowher was basically telling the Steeler fanbase the same thing I've been saying all along -- that while BB was guilty of, at the most, arrogance for ignoring a rule and a league memo reminder about that rule (and he paid dearly for that arrogance), the practice of recording what some sideline coach was doing right out in plain view of tens of thousands of people anyway, provided no appreciable advantage that had anything to do with any outcomes of Pats-Steelers contests.  In the end, said Cowher, winning or losing comes down to execution by players, not video recordings of some sideline coach waving his hands or holding fingers in the air that took place in the past during some previous game between the two teams. 

 that while BB was guilty of, at the most, arrogance for ignoring a rule and a league memo reminder about that rule (and he paid dearly for that arrogance), the practice of recording what some sideline coach was doing right out in plain view of tens of thousands of people anyway, provided no appreciable advantage that had anything to do with any outcomes of Pats-Steelers contests.  In the end, said Cowher, winning or losing comes down to execution by players, not video recordings of some sideline coach waving his hands or holding fingers in the air that took place in the past during some previous game between the two teams. wrote:
A memo is either a directive, an imparting of information, a reminder, ......anything for the betterment of an entity.  Ignoring a rule set in a memo is for the most part insubordination of your duties.   I guess Patriot fans will ALWAYS have a different interpretation of realism regarding Spygate.   Down to its most basic form, BB and the Partriots were fined  $750K for  as you  would call  arrogance.  Were it not wrong, there wouldn't be a fine that was paid dearly.  Rags always used the"two wrongs make a right defense" when he'd say that Jimmy Johnson did the same thing.  Jimmy Johnson.  Ha!   Another bastion of  NFL society.

George1963 wrote:

By the way, if you're keeping track last weeks AFCCG puts the Pats at 2-6 since 2007 in playoff games against teams they'd already played that season.
They were 7-2* in such games from 2001-06.


Um, you ever think that different talent level on the roster might have something to do with that?  The Pats defense barely forced Denver to punt.  I'm pretty sure the defenses from 2001-06 with McGuinist, Vrabel, Bruschi, et al, might have been able to mange that.