Oh, I know, believe me, I felt pretty dumb after reading it. ..what I typed and meant were obviously pretty different, haha.
Well I don't know if I believe that, because whenever the media twists the truth, it is usually pro-Pats.
I could not really care less either way (only just enough to type this reply) - the point is that its been widely reported that the pats were a bit cheeky in this (smart) move and the Giants were silly for giving them the opportunity - but that if it is true that the Pats pulled a fast one then it would be kind of funny to see the Pats then having their own IR related misfortune (even though it looks like nothing). Apologies to the Pats fans but you know, you are a Jets board so chances are people are not always going to see things the Patriot way.
I was joking because you seem to be ok with accepting some of the media's innacurate depictions of what happens in Pats-land but not ok with it when it comes to the Jets. I read some of the same things you did that claimed the Giants weren't happy with the Pats but there was no quote, no evidence of any kind suggesting that. They just threw that idea out there to stir up drama as if the Pats did it because the Giants beat them in the SB. I realize this is not a Pats board but I didn't know objectivity went out the door just because this is a fan forum
Again *shrugs* the reports suggested that there was clearly some feeling that the Pats had pulled something of a fast one here and, assuming that to be the case (as I always like to asume the worst about them), there would be some amusement to be had from seeing them on the receiving end of some IR related misfortune. And everyone on a fan forum is (to some degree) biased in favour of one team over another and so will apply those filters to their posts and thinking when talking about footbal and the NFL generally, its just human nature.
Demps was obviously not NFL-ready after spending a year-plus training for the Olympics, so of course this was "an injury of convenience." That much is plain as day. But the notion that this is yet another example of the "New England Cheaters" gaining an unfair advantage is a laugh-fest. If another team wanted to waste a roster spot on a guy who needs that much time to develop, then they're idiots anyway. A handful of teams (including the Jets, as pointed out by other posters) do this kind of thing all the time.
I took Coughlin's comments at the time as more of an internal annoyance than being pissed off at Belichick. It was a foolish move to leave Ballard exposed if he was really part of their future plans. Coughlin knows that. And it was a waste for NY, since they could have used a roster spot back when teams were allowed to have 90+ guys. Then they could have PUP'ed him or put him on IR, and refilled the spot. Just bad management.
all you have to do is actually think about the dynamics at play and you can only come to the conclusion of how ridiculous a notion it is. when a player is put on waivers there is no information that would indicate whether a team would like to keep a player or not, so how would another team know they can take one player but not another? your "unwritten rule" would actually be some sort of collusion between teams to eliminate a players rights if teams were calling other teams and telling them not to take players they had waived, which would be the only way a team would know that it was okay to take a player but not another player. if you are going to champion these media reports, that means you should have actually thought about what they were saying and can defend their ridiculous premise, and I don't think the premise has any merit whatsoever. clearly the Giants disappointment with losing him was just that -- disappointment in losing a player they didn't think anyone would take, especially the Patriots who aren't hurting at the TE position. the conflict was the media doing what they do and trying to create a story where there isn't one because the team that took him was a team that didn't need him, so it must have been done just to get back at the Giants for beating them in the Super Bowl.
Agree on all counts. The Pats manipulate the rules like lawyers, as they should. I guess they learned something from a certain scandal, because they seem to have stopped blatantly breaking rules, and now just work the system. I find it hard to fault them for either of the incidents in question.
Working the system is pretty much all Belichick does. He almost relishes in it. It's kind of funny. Take the Wednesday injury report for example. Joke goes, if Abe Lincoln was a Patriot and had a game to play after the night at the Ford Theater, Belichick would have listed him as "questionable - head" on the injury report.
the same thing always happens in my fantasy draft, even though the guy drafting before me already has two RBs AND a backup, he still drafts the RB that I'm about to draft.
I hardly think I am championing anything (though I probably over-reacted a bit in a response to a Pats fan - I just cant help it). I was simply saying that if these reports were true it would be funny to see the Pats on the receiving end of some IR issues.
demps isnt injured. its a scam that he is on IR. hilarious that some here would be gullible enough to think otherwise.
Why don't you write a letter to the NFL accusing the Pats of that or do some kind of Occupy protest in the NFL headquarters, if you are so sure of that.
but they aren't on the receiving end of an IR issue. this would be them taking advantage of it, not the other way around. and the Ballard situation wasn't an IR issue, it was a simple waiver issue, so there is no correlation. the only aspect even comparable is that the Patriots did the complete opposite of what the Giants did. The Patriots didn't want to lose a player so they put him on IR so nobody could touch him. the Giants, on the other hand, didn't want to lose a player but put him on waivers where another team could claim him. what Ballard wanted or not became irrelevant. the original article is chalked full of as much sheer stupidity in its attempt to correlate the two situations as any article that would state the Patriots claiming Ballard was somehow underhanded.
