Re: Guppys take

by George1963 Mon Jun 01, 2015 1:08 pm

Show me where I said "Brady is innocent", and that I used Jerry Rice, Ray Rice and Chris Mortenson as the basis for that conclusion. I'll wait.

Show me where I said you did. You're a bright guy, but not nearly bright enough to use my words against me.

It was never questioned that Goodell has the authority under the CBA to keep Brady's appeal to himself. Legally, he can. Nobody ever said it wasn't in the CBA. But that went over your head. The point was not whether it was in the CBA or not. The point was, he could have chosen to let it go to an independent person. He did not. Although he could have heard the appeals in Bountygate, Ray Rice, and Adrian Peterson, he did not. He choose to let all those three go to independent arbitrators/judges.

As is his right under the CBA.
How many did he hear himself?
As is his right.

We're talking about what constitutes a fair process here, not whether the process was collectively bargained for or not.

Two different things, but basicly it doesn't have to be fair to your standard. It was to Bob Kraft under the deal he rammed down the players throats in 2011.

Are you kidding me? What kind of fair appeal process is one where the appeal judge is deciding the appropriateness of basically his own actions?

One that was agreed to by all parties.
I hope Brady takes this to court after he loses the appeal. He has NO chance of winning in court. Zero. The CBA that his owner negotiated and his union rep on his behalf signed is clear as day.
He might wind up suspended the last four weeks of the season instead of the first four. Hell, maybe the playoffs.

I understand why he's still fighting it though. He knows better than anyone else what happens if a veteran QB misses time and a backup who makes a fraction of his salary performs well in his absence.

He's hearing an "appeal" of a punishment ruling that adopted whole hog the flawed Wells Report that concluded only that Brady was "probably" "generally aware" of "probable" activities of equipment guys, and a resulting punishment issued by his first lieutenant Troy Vincent - a punishment that he himself ultimately approved.

Weird use of quotes there but, yea.

So now, why is he treating Brady differently? Why is he making a different decision regarding Brady's appeal?

He's not. He's doing what he has done in the vast majority of cases.

by George1963 Mon Jun 01, 2015 1:20 pm

guppy wrote:
George1963 wrote:Its like people constantly saying they changed the rule on hitting the QB low just for Tom Brady. Um, no idiots, they actually changed the rule after Carson Palmer's knee was rolled up on by Kemo Von Whats-His-Name from the Steelers, and its called the Carson Palmer Rule. But, I'll bet the number of people who erroneously think its the Brady Rule actually outnumber the people who know correctly that its the Carson Palmer Rule.

If they made lunging at a QBs illegal after Von Oelhoffen blew up Palmers knee they didn't do it in time to help Brady.
Palmer got hurt in Jan 2006.
Brady got hurt on a near identical legal play in Sept 2008
They put in the new rule in March 2009.

"Carson Palmer Rule"

here's the rule instituted by the NFL in 2006, after Palmer's injury: "A rushing defender is prohibited from forcibly hitting in the knee area or below a passer who has one or both feet on the ground, even if the initial contact is above the knee. It is not a foul if the defender is blocked (or fouled) into the passer and has no opportunity to avoid him..."

People are just generally stupid.

That's pretty clear.

Ya, it is.

Pretty fucking self important too.

Brady rule: Steps taken to protect QBs' knees

By [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Globe Staff / March 24, 2009

DANA POINT, Calif. - Tom Brady hasn't even thrown a pass in his comeback, and he's already affected change for the 2009 NFL season.

In part because of the season-ending left knee injury that Brady suffered in the Patriots' 2008 season opener against the Chiefs, the league's Competition Committee adopted a clarification of the current rule on hits to a quarterback in the knee area or below. The clarification specifically prohibits a defender on the ground who hasn't been blocked or fouled directly into the quarterback from lunging or diving at the quarterback's lower legs.
Brady tore his left ACL and left MCL in the first quarter of the Patriots' 17-10 win over the Chiefs Sept. 7. As Brady stepped into a 28-yard completion to Randy Moss, Chiefs safety Bernard Pollard made a desperation dive into Brady's left knee after he had been blocked to the ground just short of Brady by running back Sammy Morris.
Pollard was not flagged or fined for the hit. Under the revised rule, a play like his would be penalized, according to Titans coach Jeff Fisher and Falcons president Rich McKay, co-chairmen of the committee.
Although the Brady addendum was announced here at the owners' meetings yesterday, McKay said the point of emphasis on low hits on quarterbacks was actually passed a few weeks ago when the committee met in Naples, Fla.
The fifth provision of Rule 12, Section 2, Article 12 (roughing the passer) says that: "A rushing defender is prohibited from forcibly hitting in the knee area or below a passer who has one or both feet on the ground, even if the initial contact is above the knee. It is not a foul if the defender is blocked (or fouled) into the passer and has no opportunity to avoid him."
Brady tore his left ACL and left MCL in the first quarter of the Patriots' 17-10 win over the Chiefs Sept. 7. As Brady stepped into a 28-yard completion to Randy Moss, Chiefs safety Bernard Pollard made a desperation dive into Brady's left knee after he had been blocked to the ground just short of Brady by running back Sammy Morris Pollard was not flagged or fined for the hit. Under the revised rule, a play like his would be penalized,
according to Titans coach Jeff Fisher and Falcons president Rich McKay, co-chairmen of the committee.
"I think all the quarterbacks in this league are critical to what the game is about," said Patriots owner Robert Kraft. "It's like if Peyton Manning were gone for a season, I think the whole NFL suffers, the same way the NFL suffered with Tommy out. So whatever we can do to protect quarterbacks and to minimize the opportunity of them being taken out with a year-ending injury I would support.

by George1963 Mon Jun 01, 2015 2:15 pm

Oh ya, and add to the above list of Jerry Rice, Ray Rice, and Chris Mortenson, the other ESPN article by that dope Kelly Nagy who worked on her "article" "for three weeks" before ESPN published it, that concluded that the Patriots "tried to introduce an illegal kicking ball into the AFCCG". This was a new allegation in addition to Mortenson saying 11 out of 12 scrimage balls were "2 psi under spec". That article was debunked by Adam Schefter within 24 hours. Um, Ms. Nagy, you may have worked on it for three weeks, but, you dumb broad, No such thing occurred.

I'll assume you're talking about Kelly Naqi, and her story was 100% accurate. Just it was a rare occasion in Gillette where it wasn't the Patriots who where fucking with the rules.

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

Says on page two of the Wells report that it happened, but it wasn't deliberate on the Patriots part.
Naqi never said it was. Just said it happened. 100% accurate.

Based on the evidence, the investigation has further concluded that that there was no deliberate attempt by the Patriots to introduce to the playing field a non-approved kicking ball during the AFC Championship Game. Although Patriots personnel provided a kicking ball to game officials that did not have the distinctive inspection mark of the referee, we find that the Patriots personnel involved believed the ball to be authentic and appropriate. - See more at: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by George1963 Mon Jun 01, 2015 4:02 pm

the golden boy ain't as shiny as YOU think he is. In fact, the problem that exists, is the difference between what you think and what everyone else thinks.

Not so. Actually, there is no "problem".

None exits.

Actually Gup, it does exit. Your boy is tarnished and trying to lawyer his way out of it isn't helping. It's making it worse.
He started lying about it within hours. YOU told me that!
If he had said on the day of that painful news conference "Other people take care of the balls. I told them how I like them. I certainly never told them to break any rules.", it might have been a $25k fine.
I might have even believed it.
He didn't. He lied.
I'll ask you the same thing I'd ask him, You're caught. Why can't you just take it?

by **Admin** Mon Jun 01, 2015 8:30 pm

guppy wrote:
Admin wrote:

I'm glad to see you could take a few minutes away from your humping of the blowup Brady doll to reply to us here. Have a nice day Gup. And- just to let you know.... the golden boy ain't as shiny as YOU think he is. In fact, the problem that exists, is the difference between what you think and what everyone else thinks.

I'm glad to take note of the kind of things that "bring a tear of joy" to your eyes Admin.

You know what kind of things bring a tear of joy to mine?

- The fact that Bill Cowher basically poo-pooed the significance of spygate, and said all teams tried to steal signals. He also said taping sideline coaches out in the open was not the reason his Steelers lost to the Pats, and the only thing he thought the Pats were guilty of is possibly "arrogance".

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

Another one?

- The fact that Ben Roethlesberger says Tom Brady is the NFL's best QB.

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

Ya, I like that one.

Another example?

- Last time the Patriots and Steelers met and the Pats put up over a fifty burger on them, 55-31, with Brady going 23-33 for 432 yards and 4 TDs.

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

This last one kind of speaks for itself, don't ya think? No commentary really necessary.

So, all in all, I'd say the kind of things that bring a tear of joy to my eye are much more real, substantial and meaningful than the stupid hate-fueled rant by George that brought a "tear of joy" to your eye.

Have a nice day.

It ain't about the Steelers or the Patriots... nor Ben vs Brady.... it's about you and your high horse. Period...... nothing really needs said... but that won't stop you.... no sir.

by **Admin** Mon Jun 01, 2015 8:33 pm

guppy wrote:
Admin wrote:
the golden boy ain't as shiny as YOU think he is. In fact, the problem that exists, is the difference between what you think and what everyone else thinks.

Not so. Actually, there is no "problem".

None exits.

First, the Golden Boy is in fact shiny, and that undeniable truth is based on my first hand observations over a 15 year period. He's been nothing but a stand up guy, intense competitor, hard worker, relentless preparer both on the field and in film study, class act, leader by example, always respectful to his opponents, and multi-time champion.

He was never considered "The Chosen One" (like a Peyton Manning), and was never given anything in this league because of who he was. He started out low as 4th on the depth chart, and by sheer will, determination and drive, worked his way up. On his own, he earned everything he's gotten. Not saying that over 15 years, there haven't been a few bumps in the road - there have. No one is perfect and there are bumps in the road for everyone. (See Ben Roethesberger's history for example). Even last generation's "Golden Boy" Paul Hornung was involved in an unfortunate situation (gambling) that got him suspended. I can easily recall a couple of "Bradyisms" where in my opinion he fucked up.

But when I look overall at a career over 15 years, the fuck ups are about 2%, and the shiny golden boy moments are about 98%.

So. Why do I say no "problem" exists?

Because my opinion is not valid or persuasive to you, and truthfully I understand, whether valid or not, that its not relevant to you. You're going to believe what ever you want to believe.

and...

Same goes for your opinion, and what you perceive to be "what everyone else thinks". It works the same way for me. I don't recognize those as valid or persuasive. But that doesn't really matter because, whether they are valid or not, the fact remains, they are not relevant to me.

If something is not relevant, it has no effect. What some guy claims "everyone else thinks" has zero effect on me. It is of no concern. Only something to be casually and nonchalantly brushed aside. Like a piece of dust off my shoulder.

Now, with all of the above being true, what is the end result here?

The end result for me, that is. Not for you, not for hater George, and not for anyone else.

The bottom line, end result for me is that I get to enjoy the most recent accomplishment of my team, which was in the end, they were The Last Team Standing. It was a great, fantastic, glorious accomplishment, fairly earned, and worthy of going down in local sports history as a great memory that will be recounted and re-watched with pleasure and pride (great DVD) for years to come.

No "problem" exists.

Truly.

Sorry.... I stopped reading at "not so".

by George1963 Mon Jun 01, 2015 10:02 pm

Sorry.... I stopped reading at "not so".

It's like when middle school girls freak if you say something about their favorite boy band.
It doesn't matter if you're right, if a little girl says "Nuh UH" you wind up going round and round.
Leave it alone.
There's no reasoning with them. I've tried to do that for a while and slipped recently.
Done.

by guppy Tue Jun 02, 2015 12:17 pm

Admin wrote:

It ain't about the Steelers or the Patriots... nor Ben vs Brady.... it's about you and your high horse. Period...... nothing really needs said... but that won't stop you.... no sir.

Me and MY high horse!! No sir, its the other way around. I am only responding to the unfair attacks of others on THEIR high horses. If there were no unfair attacks, I would be sticking strictly to actual football, not getting involved at all in all this phony drama stuff. Its the unfair attacks that are the cause. Nothing initiated by me.

You proclaim that I have a problem with what "everyone else thinks". I say to you, you do not speak for what "everyone else thinks". Frankly, there is a very large group of fans outside of NE who think this thing has been blown way out of proportion. I know this because I've read it on blogs on newspapers in Green Bay, Seattle, Baltimore, Dallas, to name a few.

You know what?

They are right.

by guppy Tue Jun 02, 2015 12:24 pm

George1963 wrote:
There's no reasoning with them.

Funny. That's exactly what I say about a different group of "them"

- the millions of sheep out there. There is no reasoning with the herd mentality.

by guppy Tue Jun 02, 2015 1:31 pm

George1963 wrote:

Just it was a rare occasion in Gillette where it wasn't the Patriots who where fucking with the rules.

You suck. Don't ever come to Gillette again. We'll be better off. You'll be better off. The world will be better off.

Says on page two of the Wells report that it happened,

No it didn't. Naqi's accusation was something different.

but it wasn't deliberate on the Patriots part.
Naqi never said it was. Just said it happened. 100% accurate.

LMAO.   You could not be more embarrassing if you tried.

The whole world -- except you -- saw the Clear-As-Day implication of what Naqi was accusing McNally of -- "more cheating". When she said McNally "attempted to introduce" an unapproved K ball into the game, she is clearly assigning deliberate dishonest INTENT to McNally. Get it? Everyone else did. In other words, according to her, he "tried to get away with something." Dishonest INTENT bro. Deliberateness. THAT was what she was saying. She had no fucking business taking that leap of logic. She totally fucked up.

You think she came out with a "story" that she said she had been working on for 3 weeks, only to report that McNally was handed a K ball by an NFL employee, that he, in turn, handed to a game official, but there was no intent on his part, he was just merely an innocent functionary? Just making a hand-off? LOL. That's a "story"?   You're joking? Its only a "story" if she is the one to break the blockbuster news that there was "new", heretofore unreported, attempt by a Patriots employee at doing something against the rules. THAT was her story.

And of course the clear implication (to the rest of the world anyway) of her ACCUSATORY article is the obvious reason that it immediately created a media and talk radio firestorm. Which was false and clarified, thankfully, and quite abruptly and stunningly, by fellow ESPNer Adam Schefter. I don't think we've heard from her since. We certainly haven't seen any Patriots articles from her. LOL.

"100% accurate" Hahahaha. You are pathetic.

You just try TOO HARD to rebut EVERY point that might be in the Pats favor.

You're like a kid. You just try too damn hard. And you try so damn hard only because you want so damn hard for all the the anti Patriot shit you say to be true. You're actually dying for it all to be true.

So there is no length you won't go to.

by guppy Tue Jun 02, 2015 2:14 pm

George1963 wrote:
Show me where I said "Brady is innocent", and that I used Jerry Rice, Ray Rice and Chris Mortenson as the basis for that conclusion. I'll wait.

Show me where I said you did. You're a bright guy, but not nearly bright enough to use my words against me.

Right here. Your words buddy. You posted these words in quotes for the purpose of paraphrasing what you claim I was saying. Copied from your own post. You were assigning these (paraphrased) statements to me (in addition to others). Don't talk to me about brightness bright guy.

Guppy is far from the only otherwise reasonable person I know who flat loses his mind when it comes to this stuff.
I swear, "Jerry Rice used stick um so Brady is innocent!!", "Goodell effed up with Ray Rice so Brady is innocent!!", "Mortenson posted something that wasn't true so Brady is innocent!!"

Jeezus. I really think you need a new hobby, other than Patriot hating. Get off your high horse, leave the TMZ drama behind, and find SOMETHING ELSE to direct your attention towards.

When the hell are we ever going to get some Colts talk around here? They're the AFC favorites this year, right?

And with Brady out four games, its like the Pats are giving the rest of the AFC a 4 game head start. No way by Game 16 the Pats will get the number one seed this year. Hell, they may not even make the playoffs, what with no secondary, and highly improved Dolphins, Bills and Jets.

Lets rev up that Colts talk. Come on, the "Suck for Luck" campaign has got to pay off at some point. They're getting oh so close.

by George1963 Thu Jun 04, 2015 6:39 am

When she said McNally "attempted to introduce" an unapproved K ball into the game, she is clearly assigning deliberate dishonest INTENT to McNally. Get it?

No.

Everyone else did.

No. They didn't.

In other words, according to her, he "tried to get away with something."

I'm looking at the article right now and I can't find where she says that.

Dishonest INTENT bro. Deliberateness. THAT was what she was saying.

Nice that you have the ability to read minds, but SHE NEVER SAID THAT!

And of course the clear implication (to the rest of the world anyway) of her ACCUSATORY article is the obvious reason that it immediately created a media and talk radio firestorm. Which was false and clarified, thankfully, and quite abruptly and stunningly, by fellow ESPNer Adam Schefter. I don't think we've heard from her since. We certainly haven't seen any Patriots articles from her.

Oh. Well then I guess that means that Brady shouldn't be suspended and Kraft should be getting his public apology any day now.

by George1963 Thu Jun 04, 2015 6:41 am

Copied from your own post. You were assigning these (paraphrased) statements to me.

I was ?
Does your mind reading ability ever get tiresome? I mean do you hear what everyones thinking all the time, or can you turn it on and off?

by George1963 Thu Jun 04, 2015 6:59 am

And of course the clear implication (to the rest of the world anyway) of her ACCUSATORY article is the obvious reason that it immediately created a media and talk radio firestorm. Which was false and clarified, thankfully, and quite abruptly and stunningly, by fellow ESPNer Adam Schefter.

Not quite.

First line of Naqis article.

A locker room attendant for the [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] tried to introduce an unapproved special teams football into last month's AFC Championship Game,

First line of Schefters article

The unapproved kicking ball that sources told "Outside the Lines" a Gillette Stadium officials' locker room attendant tried to introduce into the AFC Championship Game was handed to the man by an NFL employee,

Explain to me how the second contradicts the first.

Also from the Naqi article

Sources said they are not sure at what point during the first half McNally tried to introduce the impermissible football to Yette. They didn't know his motivation for doing so, either.

Is this where your psychic powers told you "she is clearly assigning deliberate dishonest INTENT to McNally." ?

by guppy Thu Jun 04, 2015 5:53 pm

George1963 wrote:And of course the clear implication (to the rest of the world anyway) of her ACCUSATORY article is the obvious reason that it immediately created a media and talk radio firestorm. Which was false and clarified, thankfully, and quite abruptly and stunningly, by fellow ESPNer Adam Schefter.

Not quite.

Yes quite.

First line of Naqis article.

A locker room attendant for the [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] tried to introduce an unapproved special teams football into last month's AFC Championship Game,

First line of Schefters article

The unapproved kicking ball that sources told "Outside the Lines" a Gillette Stadium officials' locker room attendant tried to introduce into the AFC Championship Game was handed to the man by an NFL employee,

Explain to me how the second contradicts the first.

Also from the Naqi article

Sources said they are not sure at what point during the first half McNally tried to introduce the impermissible football to Yette. They didn't know his motivation for doing so, either.

Is this where your psychic powers told you "she is clearly assigning deliberate dishonest INTENT to McNally." ?

What do the words "McNally tried to introduce" mean to you? Just those words.

If McNally, a Patriots employee, is not "trying" to do something (involving something that was "unapproved"), then why is it even a story? Its only a story if he (according to her) "tried" to do something - something not kosher that's for sure. The implication could not be more clear.

The sources didn't know his "motivation"? Well, that assumes he had a motivation in the first place, doesn't it? Maybe there was no motivation at all. How bout that? But, hey, let's just write a story that assumes he had a "motivation" of one kind or another, and since what he did involved something that was "unapproved", said "motivation" can't be on he up and up, can it? People will get the picture.

People got the picture alright. That's why she came on radio that day and was questioned by the hosts. I listened to it. She sounded like a complete rookie journalist who was in a rush to get her name out there and would stretch the facts to create a "story". She came off sounding foolish.

As we know it turns out they were short on footballs because some league guy was stashing them away for himself, working a little side business. He got fired. Hey, but that doesn't stop you from using the episode (actually, it was a non-episode, wasn't it?) as an opportunity to level some low class sarcastic remark, like, "It was one of the few times at Gillette that they weren't fucking with the rules." All I can say is, good thing I'm a non violent person by nature, otherwise I would have jumped through your computer monitor into your place, faked like I was giving you a left jab, and then with lightening quickness, given you a powerful roundhouse right hook. Boom, over in one punch.

by George1963 Tue Jun 09, 2015 5:00 pm

What do the words "McNally tried to introduce" mean to you? Just those words.

A straight reporting of a fact. What do they mean in your world?

The sources didn't know his "motivation"? Well, that assumes he had a motivation in the first place, doesn't it? Maybe there was no motivation at all. How bout that? But, hey, let's just write a story that assumes he had a "motivation" of one kind or another, and since what he did involved something that was "unapproved", said "motivation" can't be on he up and up, can it? People will get the picture.

What?

People got the picture alright. That's why she came on radio that day and was questioned by the hosts. I listened to it. She sounded like a complete rookie journalist who was in a rush to get her name out there and would stretch the facts to create a "story". She came off sounding foolish.

Yea. Was that the Midday with MFB thing on Boston radio? Where the hosts apologized for all the shit she was taking for just reporting what she was told?
Which turned out to be true?

The one where she said

Added Naqi: “All I can do is report the facts, and people can interpret them however they want. I don’t want to go down any road of insinuation or innuendo or putting my own spin on it. I literally just report the facts, and people can interpret them or continue to report, if they’re other journalists.

That one?

All I can say is, good thing I'm a non violent person by nature, otherwise I would have jumped through your computer monitor into your place, faked like I was giving you a left jab, and then with lightening quickness, given you a powerful roundhouse right hook. Boom, over in one punch.

Ahhh it's good that we can still joke with each other.

by guppy Tue Jun 09, 2015 5:28 pm

George1963 wrote:What do the words "McNally tried to introduce" mean to you? Just those words.

A straight reporting of a fact. What do they mean in your world?

Definitely not that. When somebody "tries" something, they, well, TRY something. And when the "something" that they are alleged to have "TRIED" involves something else that is "unapproved", well, any middle schooler can put 2 and 2 together.

Ahhh it's good that we can still joke with each other.

Just showing off the fact that my strategy at combating opponents involves more than just brute force or sheer power, but instead use of brains, cunning, guile, craftiness, artfulness, imagination, and intelligence.

You know, the same qualities Tom Brady uses to defeat opponents that admittedly possess more pure athleticism than his 37 year old ass.

by George1963 Wed Jun 10, 2015 11:42 am

What do the words "McNally tried to introduce" mean to you? Just those words.

A straight reporting of a fact. What do they mean in your world?

Definitely not that. When somebody "tries" something, they, well, TRY something. And when the "something" that they are alleged to have "TRIED" involves something else that is "unapproved", well, any middle schooler can put 2 and 2 together.

A middle schooler with a guilty conscience maybe.
Anywho, regarding how ' everyone' knew what a Rhode Island born and raised Boston College grad obvious life long Patriots hater with an agenda was slipping in between the lines of her STRAIGHT REPORTING OF FACT story, this is what I posted about it at the time.

You know what's weird? This thing first came out tuesday. I saw it. I didn't say anything about it because I didn't know what the hell it meant. I'm sure you heard about it too. Why didn't you comment?

Same post;

And FWIW, ESPN says they deleted comments for profanity and the idea that ESPN would go out of their way to try to defame the Patriots, or any NFL franchise is ridiculous.
They're a freakin house organ. If anything they'd be trying to cover it up.

Ahhh it's good that we can still joke with each other.

Just showing off the fact that my strategy at combating opponents involves more than just brute force or sheer power, but instead use of brains, cunning, guile, craftiness, artfulness, imagination, and intelligence.

You know, the same qualities Tom Brady uses to defeat opponents that admittedly possess more pure athleticism than his 37 year old ass.

So when you throw this hypothetical haymaker at my chin, it will be followed by running away, whining for help, and sissy kicks in the general direction of my crotchal region.
Just like TB12.

by guppy Wed Jun 10, 2015 12:40 pm

George1963 wrote:

Ahh! So when you throw this hypothetical haymaker at my chin, it will be followed by running away, whining for help, and sissy kicks in the general direction of my crotchal region.
Just like TB12.

LOL. Touche!

That "sissy kick in the crotch direction" was "more probably than not" one of TB12's few fuck ups over 15 years, and I've acknowledged that. (We both know the incident I'm talking about. He did apologize directly to Ed Reed for it, so at least there is that.) One lousy temporary insanity isolated incident. Not bad for 15 years. The other one, as I've said, was blowing Obama off this year. Has nothing to do with Obama or politics, but it was not a good look imo, and I was one of the few Pats fans against it just on the fact alone that it was a team activity, and I say you show up for team activities, no matter what. Who does he think he is, Randy Moss?

Remember, I did eventually turn on D. Bledsoe (who I loved) at one point when it seemed like he couldn't convert a third down to save his life. So, no player, not even TB12 at this point, is above my honest and righteous judgment. But for now, I'll still ride with him. He's done pretty well taking me this far (those 4 shiny things with silver footballs on the top look pretty good), so truthfully I don't really have a lot to complain about.

by George1963 Wed Jun 10, 2015 1:35 pm

That "sissy kick in the crotch direction" was "more probably than not" one of TB12's few fuck ups over 15 years, and I've acknowledged that. (We both know the incident I'm talking about. He did apologize directly to Ed Reed for it, so at least there is that.) One lousy temporary insanity isolated incident. Not bad for 15 years. The other one, as I've said, was blowing Obama off this year.

I had no problem with that. I had a problem with him lying about it. If you don't want to meet the man, say so. Don't make up some BS story.
Didn't a Bruin blow off Bush? Maybe it was Obama, in any case he said why. I can respect that.

Saying you had to go to your parents 50th. When their anniversary was a month before, and it was their 46th, and you were in Foxboro all day.......lack of character. Or balls. Or something.

BTW Tara Reid.

The girl is cute as hell, but wouldn't you consider spending more than 15 minutes with her to be a FU?

by guppy Wed Jun 10, 2015 2:54 pm

George1963 wrote:That "sissy kick in the crotch direction" was "more probably than not" one of TB12's few fuck ups over 15 years, and I've acknowledged that. (We both know the incident I'm talking about. He did apologize directly to Ed Reed for it, so at least there is that.) One lousy temporary insanity isolated incident. Not bad for 15 years. The other one, as I've said, was blowing Obama off this year.

I had no problem with that. But I did.

I had a problem with him lying about it. If you don't want to meet the man, say so. Easy for you or I to say from our comfortable chairs. Much easier said than done. If he said, "I have no interest in meeting that fraud", can you imagine the media firestorm, not to mention the threats on his life and on those of his wife and kids?

Don't make up some BS story. Once he made the decision not to go, he really had little choice.....unless he didn't care about the IRS suddenly opening a special investigation of his taxes.

Didn't a Bruin blow off Bush? Maybe it was Obama, in any case he said why. I can respect that. The goalie, Tim Thomas. He did it to protest the government being "out of control", or something very general and vague like that. Only one adjective for that I can think of....weird. But then again, he did go to the University of Vermont, the home of hippie, earthy, crunchy granola folk.

Saying you had to go to your parents 50th. When their anniversary was a month before, and it was their 46th, and you were in Foxboro all day.......lack of character. Or balls. Or something.

See, here is exactly the kind of thing that gets my boxers in a bunch. He himself never said it was his parents' 50th (that I am aware without spending one second researching it). As I recall, that was speculation from a media story. Then that story took off and took on a life of its own. Then another story came out that it was their 46th in order to rebut the story that it was their 50th. I'm pretty sure he never said "50th". He said only an otherwise undefined "family commitment" and something about "not good timing". No matter. Whatever it was, was a flimsy, half assed excuse. If you point me to a direct quote where the words "50th" came out of his mouth, I'll stand corrected. But for the moment, I'm saying he himself never said that.

I've said it before, "A lie gets half way around the world before the truth gets its boots strapped on."
I've certainly seen that on more than one occasion ever since Bob Kravitz sent out his little tweet that started the nation down a road that nobody ever cared a lick about before. Ever. (a really precise psi measurement). And wouldn't care a lick about now either.......if only it involved any one of 31 other teams.

BTW Tara Reid.

The girl is cute as hell, but wouldn't you consider spending more than 15 minutes with her to be a FU?

Attractive face when she was young (with makeup). Legs are too skinny for my taste.

I'm trying to recall. Did she win an Oscar for that classic, "Sharknado 2"?

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

BTW, I'm trying to calculate Ted Wells' hourly rate if his firm was paid $45 Million by the NFL for 2 investigations, Bullygate and Deflategate. He must have really put in a lot of night and weekend hours. Not a bad gig if you can get the work. You don't actually have to "win" your case. You could be right. You could be wrong. It doesn't matter. You still get paid, no questions asked, no matter what. Quite a lot of $$$$ for one person's opinion. Great country we live in.

by George1963 Wed Jun 10, 2015 3:32 pm

Whatever it was, was a flimsy, half assed excuse. If you point me to a direct quote where the words "50th" came out of his mouth, I'll stand corrected. But for the moment, I'm saying he himself never said that.

I don't know that he did. But that was the story, it came from somewhere, and he never denied it. Still a douche move. Not to own up to it I mean. If you don't want to go, don't.
I'd go BTW. If you don't respect the man you have to respect the office.
And I'm talking about the office at the top of Gillette Stadium. I can't imagine Kraft was pleased with the whole deal.

BTW Tara Reid.

The girl is cute as hell, but wouldn't you consider spending more than 15 minutes with her to be a FU?

Attractive face when she was young (with makeup). Legs are too skinny for my taste.

She's adorable, but again, 15 minutes, give her a fake phone number, and run. Batshit crazy.

I'm trying to recall. Did she win an Oscar for that classic, "Sharknado 2"?

Not even nominated and that's a travesty.

by guppy Wed Jun 10, 2015 6:41 pm

George1963 wrote:Whatever it was, was a flimsy, half assed excuse. If you point me to a direct quote where the words "50th" came out of his mouth, I'll stand corrected. But for the moment, I'm saying he himself never said that.

I don't know that he did. But that was the story, it came from somewhere, and he never denied it. Still a douche move. Not to own up to it I mean. If you don't want to go, don't.
I'd go BTW. If you don't respect the man you have to respect the office.
And I'm talking about the office at the top of Gillette Stadium. I can't imagine Kraft was pleased with the whole deal.

I basically agree with all of that. But I don't think its incumbent on him to come out and deny an erroneous story. That would only raise more questions, and he purposely wanted to lay low, leave it vague and non-specific, like it was a private family matter, and that's it, no further explanation needed. That way, there would be less questions and less attention to it. Again, I'm in the small minority of Pats fans who feel as I do about it. You're an employee. You get a generous paycheck from your employer. You should respect both offices, the one on Pennsylvania Ave., and the one at the top of Gillette Stadium.

My only point about the "50th" was that it originated from media speculation, probably because someone said it on a blog. Brady never said it. Once a story gets out there in this new world of instant social media, and reporters trying to beat each other out for a scoop, it somehow becomes "fact". My point is about how wrong information causes irreparable damage because its treated as truth when its not. Like I've said many times, there are literally countless thousands, if not millions, of people that believe it to be a "fact" that the Patriots secretly from some hidden location with a guy covered in camo, taped the Rams pre SB practice. Why do they? Because it was a media story. Once it was out there, it literally made no difference that the very same media outlet who put the story out, shortly thereafter totally retracted it, and issued a Front Page apology. It still blows my mind how the retraction and apology part are totally and blatantly ignored by so many. But I do know why they ignore it. Because the retraction and apology don't fit their desired narrative. They don't want to believe it because it reverses their prior belief, and they don't want to reverse themselves. So they just conveniently suspend their belief system when it comes to that particular reality. But I can't worry about it. It is what it is.

She's adorable, but again, 15 minutes, give her a fake phone number, and run. Batshit crazy.

Well maybe you should give TB12 some credit at least, because I don't think he actually gave her more than 15 minutes, relatively speaking. He was young back then, and his celebrity status fairly new, so cut him some slack.

Tell me you, in your younger days, never made a "mistake" with the opposite sex solely because their outward charms caused you think with the wrong head.

by George1963 Wed Jun 10, 2015 8:34 pm

Tell me you, in your younger days, never made a "mistake" with the opposite sex solely because their outward charms caused you think with the wrong head.

I got married when I was 19 to a 24 year old med student who was a solid 9.

I hit the relationship lottery before I had a chance to make any mistakes.

by Sponsored content