Ed Hillel said:
The episode is entitled "Caitlyn Jenner," so I think this is a little side issue.
I'm pretty sure Donald Trump could be a member of MENSA if he so desired.jacklamabe65 said:Chris Simms makes Donald Trump look like a member of MENSA.
Deflated balls, or the wife who kinda looks like a dude?Marciano490 said:
I hope it's not the obvious joke, then.
Was the NFL spokesperson referred to in the subject line, identified?E5 Yaz said:
Point, Schefter
Myt1 said:I agree that we should fault people for other people doing their jobs poorly and acting unreasonably.
His media strategy hasn't backfired. You're confusing tactics with strategy and missing the forest of Lombardi trophies for the trees of ink spilled by the chattering class
amarshal2 said:If there's one thing I think it's right to be critical of BB for...
amarshal2 said:He's done a great job keeping the team focused no doubt. But to the extent that his persona magnified deglategate I'm not sure it's credible to argue it was entirely inconsequential. That's why BB worries about distractions to begin with.
This is not me saying there's a better overall coach out there. There isn't. But his media strategy has backfired.
Myt1 said:I agree that we should fault people for other people doing their jobs poorly and acting unreasonably.
JGray38 said:The site ate my post. Anyway, his media strategy is to keep his players focused. He takes all the heat and downplays the media's significance. It seems to be working.
I think you're drawing a conclusion that is not supported.amarshal2 said:
Belichick has done nothing to push back or change the narrative. He's played into it. It's contributed to having no support within the game, historical penalties for technical infractions and phantom scandals, and distractions for his team -- they've been accused of cheating in 3 of the last 4 competitive games they've played.
The notion that we can't blame somebody for not accounting for the tendencies of the media in their media relations strategy is obviously misguided. Are you arguing that the media not liking Belichick was unforeseeable? Do you disagree that there are significant differences in how people treat someone they like vs. someone they dislike? If Belichick did anything to try and play the game and be likable, he would have had completely different reactions from the media and the NFL community going back to Spygate. But instead they think he's an arrogant ass and they're glad he's getting his.
I'm not Bill Belichick, but I think he would tell you the vast majority of the externalities you identified don't matter (or more accurately, only matter if you let them) in any material way, and it's not worth spending time on things that don't matter.amarshal2 said:
Perhaps you missed what I wrote, but I am most certainly not missing the forest for the trees.
Emphasis added.
His overall success cannot be separated from his media strategy but that does not mean that he's not worse off because of it.
What I am saying is really not all that controversial. Ask anybody you know who doesn't like Belichick why they don't like him and they use words like "arrogant" and "smug" and "dickhead." It's clearly the same thing within the game. People HATE Belichick and they HATE the Patriots. There's no support from anybody right now because they wanted the Patriots to get their "comeuppance".
Next, ask the people who don't like Belichick to point to evidence of his arrogance or smug attitude. To a person they will stumble over their words and ultimately come back to cheating allegations and how he handles himself in press conferences. They will not be able to give you one quote that actually demonstrates their opinion of Belichick the person because it's all projected onto him by the media and by their beliefs.
Belichick has done nothing to push back or change the narrative. He's played into it. It's contributed to having no support within the game, historical penalties for technical infractions and phantom scandals, and distractions for his team -- they've been accused of cheating in 3 of the last 4 competitive games they've played.
The notion that we can't blame somebody for not accounting for the tendencies of the media in their media relations strategy is obviously misguided. Are you arguing that the media not liking Belichick was unforeseeable? Do you disagree that there are significant differences in how people treat someone they like vs. someone they dislike? If Belichick did anything to try and play the game and be likable, he would have had completely different reactions from the media and the NFL community going back to Spygate. But instead they think he's an arrogant ass and they're glad he's getting his.
Your argument boils down to "you can't blame the victim" but we're not talking about assault or rape. We're talking about media strategy. Of course he could have affected the narrative.
I saw the original. I said up above that he's either "unable or unwilling" to play the media game. I think most people would argue that he's unable. I actually think he is able but is unwilling. We've seen him be nice and human with the media and he comes across quite well in my opinion. In the aftermath of the Super Bowl he was downright pleasant. I wasn't sure if it was the Super Bowl glow or if he was realizing his approach to the media was creating a monster in the aftermath of the AFCCG. Unfortunately it seems like it was more the former than the latter.
I would have McNally walking the sidelines with a 1987 VHS recorder in a Patriots jacket with "MCNALLY" in big letters on the back. Don't have a battery pack in the recorder in case anyone checks.E5 Yaz said:Put them in charge of headsets
I suppose it doesn't really matter if the Pats have come up with alternate responsibilities that still justify their employment...Van Everyman said:@RapSheet: Jastremski is prohibited from handling footballs & McNally is barred from being a locker room attendant for officials or handling equipment
No. Pretty sure I didn't miss it.amarshal2 said:
Perhaps you missed what I wrote, but I am most certainly not missing the forest for the trees.
Emphasis added.
His overall success cannot be separated from his media strategy but that does not mean that he's not worse off because of it.
I just watched it. The main subject is extreme political correctness and "micro aggressions". DFG/Goodell/Brady/Belichick is a metaphor that is threaded throughout the story, along with Jenner (who is at the heart of the PC issue).soxhop411 said:anyone watch the SP episode?
Pavlov and his dogs would like to have a word with you...dcmissle said:Ok so three nightmare scenarios predicted over the last 8 days alone have not transpired.
No investigation of stolen play sheet allegations.
No crucifixion over head sets in Pitts game -- to the contrary, cleared in less than 24 hours.
No discipline or further proving of these two guys.
So collectively some of us have to get a grip.
I am a little late on this but I think you are on the right track just a little off.Salva135 said:I think a lot of this has to do with expectations. Peyton was supposed to be the Chosen One of this generation, and Brady's rise threw a gigantic monkey wrench into every football writers' and followers' expectations. Belichick was not particularly successful in Cleveland, at least record-wise. When these cheating stories come out, it raises the eyebrows of those who wonder why the collective meteoric rises occurred.
This is all true but also incomplete. Manning is from a Southern football family. Brady's from a Bay Area upper middle class family. Brady is married to a super model. Peyton is married to Mrs. Manning. Brady looks like and dresses like a Givenchy model. Manning wears flannel and denim and probably the same socks two days in a row.drleather2001 said:We've covered that before. And it's been said that the most amazing thing about the Peyton/Brady "rivalry" and public perception is that the silver-spoon, pure-bred, #1 overall draft pick, sure thing Manning has somehow convinced the world that he's the "aw shucks" everyman while the backup, 6th Round, 3rd String Brady is somehow the one that deserves to be taken down a peg is just fucking insane.
I mean, it's also a perfect example of the sad reality of how perception in America works, which is the opposite of how most Americans like to think it works.
Marciano490 said:This is all true but also incomplete. Manning is from a Southern football family. Brady's from a Bay Area upper middle class family. Brady is married to a super model. Peyton is married to Mrs. Manning. Brady looks like and dresses like a Givenchy model. Manning wears flannel and denim and probably the same socks two days in a row.
drleather2001 said:
Right. Peyton is a fucking phony. But because he pretends to be "one of the guys", he can do no wrong. And no sports writer will ever call him out on it, for some reason.
I mean...he choreographs "impromptu" celebrations, and shits all over the little guy.
djbayko said:I suppose it doesn't really matter if the Pats have come up with alternate responsibilities that still justify their employment...
But I can't help but think that none of the above NFL stipulations should matter whatsoever if the NFL follows its new fangled process for handling game balls. Hell, even if they just followed their old process, the ability of these 2 guys to affect game ball pressure (post-ref inspection) would effectively be neutered.
Marciano490 said:This is all true but also incomplete. Manning is from a Southern football family. Brady's from a Bay Area upper middle class family. Brady is married to a super model. Peyton is married to Mrs. Manning. Brady looks like and dresses like a Givenchy model. Manning wears flannel and denim and probably the same socks two days in a row.
Jimbodandy said:
I agree with both of you. Manning may have been born into his job, but he carefully cultivated his everyman image. And there's some of the southern/northern thing.
Well, Brady did cry on TV talking about the draft, so that seems certain.DrewDawg said:
Gary Myers, who just wrote a book on Brady and Manning said on the radio this morning that Brady was much quicker to open up and that Manning was like dealing with a corporation. Which is the opposite of the public image pushed by the media.
C'mon ... "Lyin' Eyes" oozes authenticity.drleather2001 said:He's basically the fucking Eagles (70's rock band) of football.
Absurdly successful, very talented, but ultimately inauthentic and uninspiring.
Working often under the advice of pollster Frank Luntz, Goodell was AWOL for Q and A’s after his ruling on the Patriots for Spygate in 2007, issued vague platitudes in his press conference on Rice, and declined comment for this story.
amarshal2 said:
snip.
Next, ask the people who don't like Belichick to point to evidence of his arrogance or smug attitude. To a person they will stumble over their words and ultimately come back to cheating allegations and how he handles himself in press conferences. They will not be able to give you one quote that actually demonstrates their opinion of Belichick the person because it's all projected onto him by the media and by their beliefs.
snip
I completely agree and it's infuriating. To add to it, Brady was the good soldier who bought into the idea of a TEAM while Manning (I am completely convinced he had a decent sized say in personnel, much more than Brady) always sought to better the things that would make his life easier and make him look better to the detriment of the overall team.drleather2001 said:We've covered that before. And it's been said that the most amazing thing about the Peyton/Brady "rivalry" and public perception is that the silver-spoon, pure-bred, #1 overall draft pick, sure thing Manning has somehow convinced the world that he's the "aw shucks" everyman while the backup, 6th Round, 3rd String Brady is somehow the one that deserves to be taken down a peg is just fucking insane.
I mean, it's also a perfect example of the sad reality of how perception in America works, which is the opposite of how most Americans like to think it works.
tbb345 said:I completely agree and it's infuriating. To add to it, Brady was the good soldier who bought into the idea of a TEAM while Manning (I am completely convinced he had a decent sized say in personnel, much more than Brady) always sought to better the things that would make his life easier and make him look better to the detriment of the overall team.
It's completely insane and I don't fucking get it
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/early-lead/wp/2015/09/17/there-might-be-more-to-come-from-espn-on-the-patriots-spygate-and-deflategate/riboflav said:Obviously not pleased with the short shelf life of Van Natta's hatchet job last week, ESPN announced on air there will be (possibly several) follow ups by Van Natta in the coming weeks. ESPN seems to be implying there is more fire to report.
Can't wait.
How many facts were in his story that was full of anonymous sources and former coaches not willing to go on the record?
"I am not aware of one single fact in our story that wasn’t correct.”
How many facts were in the story at all? Wasn't it mostly accusations along the lines of "we always thought they did xyz..."?CantKeepmedown said:https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/early-lead/wp/2015/09/17/there-might-be-more-to-come-from-espn-on-the-patriots-spygate-and-deflategate/
This quote from Van Natta is hilarious
How many facts were in his story that was full of anonymous sources and former coaches not willing to go on the record?
His quote says nothing. If he doesn't count innuendo and opinions as facts he is still correct.CantKeepmedown said:https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/early-lead/wp/2015/09/17/there-might-be-more-to-come-from-espn-on-the-patriots-spygate-and-deflategate/
This quote from Van Natta is hilarious
How many facts were in his story that was full of anonymous sources and former coaches not willing to go on the record?
What "on-the-records, [and] documents" did he rely on? I did not see a single one.
“Every piece of information has to be bullet-proof,” Van Natta said. “On these kinds of stories, when you rely on a mix of on-the-record, documents and a vast majority of anonymous sources, you’ve got to get it right. I am not aware of one single fact in our story that wasn’t correct"
Where has this code of silence been for the past few months? Someone forgot to tell Tomlin? also saying something anonymous is not taking part in a "code of silence".
“There is a code of silence in the NFL,” Van Natta said. “You can’t do a story like this without using anonymous sources.”
They pulled from Arlen Specter's interview notes for the Matt Walsh stuff.Silverdude2167 said:What "on-the-records, [and] documents" did he rely on? I did not see a single one.
That article does say there will be dirt on other teams as well.
So nothing of substance in relation to all his new accusations.Hoya81 said:They pulled from Arlen Specter's interview notes for the Matt Walsh stuff.
Sure you can but the missing piece is that after the anonymous source provides you with information, you then have to investigate the claim and find actual evidence that proves the information as truthful. If you want an example, look to the original "gate" story and note how dogged the reporters were in uncovering the truth of that story. Van Natta is lazy.you can't do a story like this without using anonymous sources.
tims4wins said:So this former official reported him to the NFL, and the NFL either A) found nothing or B) ignored it. Further evidence that either nothing was happening or no one ever cared.