Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 5 of 16 FirstFirst ... 3456715 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 240
  1. #61
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    50,631
    Quote Originally Posted by Green_Monster View Post
    Maybe you reached on a passed ball because that was an ugly swing

    So “speculated theories that are unsubstantiated, highly exaggerated or flat out inaccurate”, “the opportunity to work together in future” and “it is unfortunate that there is a need for us to respond to these fallacies” are worth nothing. Right...

    For those who don’t understand, it means the article is complete ********.
    ...and yet again...what would you expect them to have said?

    Everyone in the history of forever releases the same mad-libbed public response. You're being incredibly naive to use the statement to defend your team. I'm not even saying the article's accurate. But c'mon...what'd you expect them to say? They're going to say it's unsubstantiated, that they want to work together in the future, and that they shouldn't need to defend these lies. Everyone says that ****. Everyone. Whether true, or not, they all say this.

    Your best argument against this is some of the reporter's shady past. Your worst argument is based on a canned response that the team made in the middle of the NFL Playoffs/
    Last edited by 1908_Cubs; 01-05-2018 at 12:58 PM.
    We're From Philadelphia


    We. Fight.

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Milwaukee, WI for some reason.
    Posts
    18,394
    Quote Originally Posted by Green_Monster View Post
    Maybe you reached on a passed ball because that was an ugly swing

    So “speculated theories that are unsubstantiated, highly exaggerated or flat out inaccurate”, “the opportunity to work together in future” and “it is unfortunate that there is a need for us to respond to these fallacies” are worth nothing. Right...

    For those who don’t understand, it means the article is complete ********.
    I understand that you want it to mean that, but what it actually means isn't much of anything.

    There's no other statement for them to release. They released the expected statement because that's what any franchise, in that position, does.

    Also as an aside, simply quoting a statement doesn't add any validity or authenticity to the statement itself. It's a lot like saying "Look at these words. No one would use these words if they didn't mean these words. Just look at them!" Which is, ya know....

    Dumb.


  3. #63
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    4,788
    Quote Originally Posted by QB_Eagles View Post
    Also I find it funny how the article is presented as a Patriots "hit piece".

    If anything it's a Belichick puff piece. The major claims are:

    - Belichick wanted to keep Garoppolo over Brady. Which should by now be obvious that it would have been the correct choice to people who have seen the late season perfomances of both QBs.
    - Guerrero is a fraud and huckster who has enabled Brady with the sham idea of excelling into his mid 40s.
    - Brady is insecure and interested in marketing his humbug "TB12 method" besides football.

    Again, if the piece wants to tell a narrative it's the Belichick would have been right in dumping Brady for Garoppolo.
    I don't get the part of late season performance, especially December. Maybe the Dolphins game in good conditions, he sucked and deserved criticism. All QB and passing numbers decline late in the year in bad weather. If Wentz were healthy he'd struggle that night against the raiders and probably the last week if he played vs. the cowboys too, not ideal conditions to toss the ball around.

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    14,892
    Quote Originally Posted by Green_Monster View Post
    This part made me literally laugh out loud. Has Tom Brady earned long-term security after his MVP season? Hmm.

    Mostly fluff. Pretty much all of the disagreements were well known. ESPN trying to get clicks on an article right before the playoffs. Shocker.
    Nope he hasn't in BB's eyes. BB always trades away players a year before they decline. Why would Brady be an exception to that rule? Because of fandom? GTFO. BB cares about winning.

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    11,652
    Quote Originally Posted by 1908_Cubs View Post
    And...if it wasn't ********....what were they going to say? "Yup. This is correct. We all quit whenever we lose. In fact, I hate all of you"? You can't be that naive.

    There's reason to believe that perhaps, some of the article is off. That some of it's speculation that they won't be together. And questions about who the sources are since "staffers" and "players" can run the gambit of many types of people in the "know". But the team's statement is nothing (and exactly what any team in the history of forever does in said situation as not to look fractured) and that the previous 17 years none of this came out, also, means next to nothing. It's like saying Bill Cosby didn't do anything because for 25 years he seemed like a really good dude, and that's "proof". It's not.

    I get that you're a Patriots fan and don't want to admit that the article is very possible, but don't be naive. It's very possible that the article is off the mark. It's also very possible it's spot on. I can't imagine a journalist with as much to lose in terms of his entire career would just, based on an axe to grind, just make up a fabricated article or so many "sources". There's probably some truth to the article, even if it's not the right take on the situation.
    They certainly wouldn’t talk about working together in the future. But hey, I already gave the writer props. He knew exactly how to drag people like you in. It worked, ESPN is pushing the article hard. Right before the playoffs, it’s very well done. I can admit that.

    The article already has false statements proven wrong. They didn’t even care to fact check. That doesn’t matter much though because they know people will eat the headline up. The content is fluff and stuff we already knew, but having it posted on ESPN with a juicy headline gets people’s attention. I can’t believe some people still fall for it.

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    11,652
    Quote Originally Posted by turnaround3 View Post
    I understand that you want it to mean that, but what it actually means isn't much of anything.

    There's no other statement for them to release. They released the expected statement because that's what any franchise, in that position, does.

    Also as an aside, simply quoting a statement doesn't add any validity or authenticity to the statement itself. It's a lot like saying "Look at these words. No one would use these words if they didn't mean these words. Just look at them!" Which is, ya know....

    Dumb.
    They dragged you in. Congrats I guess.

    Just be here next year when the trio is still together and this writer goes back to being a nobody. All you have to do is look at his past and the stories he’s made up. How you can fall for this AGAIN is just amazing.

    Create made up story > people care for a week > everyone forgets > repeat

    This guy makes a living off of people like you. As if people with knowledge of the end of an historic run go to this guy over a real reporter. Come on.

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    4,788
    Wickensham or whatever is getting a lot of press and hit for his piece, so he did his job.

  8. #68
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    50,631
    Quote Originally Posted by Green_Monster View Post
    They certainly wouldn’t talk about working together in the future. But hey, I already gave the writer props. He knew exactly how to drag people like you in. It worked, ESPN is pushing the article hard. Right before the playoffs, it’s very well done. I can admit that.

    The article already has false statements proven wrong. They didn’t even care to fact check. That doesn’t matter much though because they know people will eat the headline up. The content is fluff and stuff we already knew, but having it posted on ESPN with a juicy headline gets people’s attention. I can’t believe some people still fall for it.
    He didn't "drag me in". I read the article. I didn't tell you anywhere my personal opinion on it other than "there's probably some truth to it". What truth? I didn't say and I didn't give my opinion on purpose.

    What false statements which are proven wrong? And by "proven wrong" I mean more than "Listen guys, Tom, Rob and Bill (EDIT: realized I got too excited typed Bob instead of Bill) all said it was in that statement! They're best friends!" Which statements are proven 100% false using non-biased evidence? And how can it be "stuff we already knew" and also be "false"? It can't be both.

    I'm still not getting into where I sit in the article. If you're going to make grandiose statements about falsehoods and what not, I'd like to see the facts and the evidence that proves the article as a work of pure fiction.
    Last edited by 1908_Cubs; 01-05-2018 at 01:10 PM.
    We're From Philadelphia


    We. Fight.

  9. #69
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    12,792
    Quote Originally Posted by mgjohnson7851 View Post
    Lol Brady is a petty *****.
    not as petty as lebron though


    Just trying to make PSD Great Again one post at a time.

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    10,337
    I hope it's not true. Then there will be true parity in the NFL . I don't like that. You need that evil empire image in sports. I'm not a big deflatagate guy nor do I think they cheat but a lot of people do and it's good for ratings.

  11. #71
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    11,652
    Quote Originally Posted by Heediot View Post
    Wickensham or whatever is getting a lot of press and hit for his piece, so he did his job.
    Yeah, like I said, have to give him props.

    No one even cares about the several false stories he’s made up in the past. They see this new one and they’re thrown right back into the cycle. Kind of sad but interesting to see take place from the outside.

  12. #72
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    14,892
    Quote Originally Posted by QB_Eagles View Post
    Since you're so smart, tell me who would provide the following information, or alternatively why the author would make it up:
    Lol Brady is a petty *****.

  13. #73
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    14,892
    Quote Originally Posted by green_monster View Post
    yeah... Except the patriots just released a joint statement trashing this report and saying they’ll all be together in the future. Nice try though.

    You’re 0 for 2. One more strike and you’re out.
    what?!? A team is publicly doing damage control? No way!

  14. #74
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    Posts
    42,938
    Quote Originally Posted by Green_Monster View Post
    Maybe you reached on a passed ball because that was an ugly swing

    So “speculated theories that are unsubstantiated, highly exaggerated or flat out inaccurate”, “the opportunity to work together in future” and “it is unfortunate that there is a need for us to respond to these fallacies” are worth nothing. Right...

    For those who don’t understand, it means the article is complete ********.
    No it doesn’t. You are the least biased person in the statement of which side is more believable.

    Any team that this article could be about is saying the exact same thing. The reason you believe this on is the team in question is your favorite team.

    PROCESSING

  15. #75
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    11,652
    Quote Originally Posted by 1908_Cubs View Post
    He didn't "drag me in". I read the article. I didn't tell you anywhere my personal opinion on it other than "there's probably some truth to it". What truth? I didn't say and I didn't give my opinion on purpose.

    What false statements which are proven wrong? And by "proven wrong" I mean more than "Listen guys, Tom, Rob and Bob all said it was in that statement! They're best friends!" Which statements are proven 100% false using non-biased evidence? And how can it be "stuff we already knew" and also be "false"? It can't be both.

    I'm still not getting into where I sit in the article. If you're going to make grandiose statements about falsehoods and what not, I'd like to see the facts and the evidence that proves the article as a work of pure fiction.
    We already knew about the Garopollo situation and Guerrero. All of the extra doomsday stuff is fluff and false allegations.

    NFL's Joe Lockhart says Roger Goodell did not meet with Belichick in the past week, as was written in ESPN Mag. Lockhart says there was a meeting maybe this past offseason. "That happened last year, not within the past week."
    - Ben Volin

    Haven’t searched for more but a friend sent me the link to this one. If something as simple as that couldn’t have been fact checked... yeah. The guy is a hack.

Page 5 of 16 FirstFirst ... 3456715 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •