Though to be honest, this paragraph didn't do him many favors: he'd fall asleep in meetings twice a week, he showed up fat, didn't really listen to coaches and didn't study the opposition that much? Wow. What a superstar!
That line was a vivid reminder why reading King on any sport other than football is perilous.
Also, I think that King took this quote the completely wrong way. The club official was trying to make a point (one I think that many people here have made) that this was likely not a practice confined just to the "cheating Patriots" but probably a league-wide practice in playing at the fringes of the rules. Before Mangini it was likely delt with by coaches asking guys to leave or temporarily confiscating cameras (ex. Packers game, Pats v. Jets last year). It seems that quotes from Parcells, Keyshawn and other coaches/players reinforced the idea that this was common practice. As usual it seems that King misses the point when it comes to his "moral outrage".
Yea. Or it could have simply meant "This isn't worth dwelling on, so it's best if it just goes away, because otherwise scribes like you are going to keep dwelling on it."
Probably because he's going for the small money/market angle. At least that's how I took it.
I couldn't agree more. The league isn't protecting the Patriots, it's making the story go away to protect everyone else in the league. In reality, the Pats are getting shafted. After the absurd posturing by media people, I've stopped reading TMQ on ESPN (as if being anti-semitic wasn't bad enough) and have a hard time listening to Cris Collinsworth now.
Sorry to stray from the topic, but that's delicious that he mentions Schottenheimer by name. It makes Tomlinson and the rest of the Chargers look even dumber.
Should be an interesting (hopefully) interview on Dale and Holley tomorrow.
Interesting. Looks like someone here's not telling the truth.
Well, one of these people has been pushing an anti-Belichick agenda for the last 35 or so days.
One of these people is playing the Pats in two days, so denying it makes sense for Phillips, especially if he thought he was off the record.
And since he's one of the most respected football writers in the country (at least within the league). This is the guy who text messages Trent Green after he gets the stuffing knocked out of him and gets a text back. There is no way he would risk his relationships with people around the league to make up a quote with no relevant news in it.
You joke, but that may not be far from the truth. Especially if he is joking to a reporter who's been zealously anti-Pats, King may have been perfectly willing to accept his quote as genuine sentiment.Maybe Phillips said it in jest. You should never joke with reporters
I've seen King and others use this theory a few times. They assume that since the investigation reached a quick resolution and the NFL has moved on, then there must be a lot more to the story. How is that even remotely logical? Applying that same standard in disproving conspiracies would lead one to wear a tinfoil hat, move into a bunker and wait for Elvis' return. Wouldn't the most reasonable inference be that the investigation had reached a satisfactory conclusion?
Jimmy Johnson said:
This sounds perfectly logical and I, for one, completely believe him. However, given the context of the original quote, and the context in which King used it (to bolster his contention that this was a bigger deal than the league is letting on) I think Wade Phillips has reason to be upset. He shouldn't be claiming that he didn't say it, because he did, but King isn't blameless in this. A reporter's job isn' t merely to report or quote whatever helps his story, his job is to report the full story and let the reader make up his/her mind. King isn't a reporter, necessarily, so he gets away with being more opinionated. However, if you are trying to act as a reporter, Peter, you have to report thoroughly like one. The omission of the last half of that quote was obviously intentional, because had you quoted it in its entirety, its inclusion in its original context would have been absurd.
It seems to me that what Phillips meant was that there is a "black marK" on the Pats' success, and in his opinion that's unfair because it didn't help them that much, and they would have won anyway. If that's the case, then leaving out the second part does change the point, and pretty drastically, I think. That may be meeting him more than halfway, though.
Warning Hijack:
