Quality of information content in BB's press conferences

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from neinmd. Show neinmd's posts

    Quality of information content in BB's press conferences

    Bill has been much maligned about stonewalling journalists. I was watching the one where he refused to be drawn into a discussion of Gronk and Amendola's absence. All the chatter was about the "they were inactive" line he used. But he only reacts that way to questions that ask him to predict the unknowable or something in that vein.


    On the other hand, in the same conference, someone asked a question relevant to Kyle Arrington's role. BB's answer was surprisingly detailed, thorough and nuanced. You can learn a lot about why Arrington was given an extension. It made me think that journalists who claim BB's pressers are uninformative are lazy, not football smart, or looking for a one-liner.

    The Q & A is appended below:

    Q: What are the differences between playing slot corner and playing on the outside?

    BB: I think when you play inside, you’re really playing to a degree, a linebacker or a safety position. Even in man-to-man coverage, it’s different because the receiver has more options and the [slot] corner, if there is help, is closer to help than the [outside] corner is, if there’s some kind of inside help. If there’s no help, then the inside corner has more space to defend, across the ball or back outside as well as vertically compared to a corner who is more isolated in the area he has to defend. Once you get into combination of zone coverages, then that player’s responsibility is either that of a safety or linebacker depending on the coverage and what exactly you’re playing. That brings in a whole different awareness and conceptually playing as a linebacker or a safety as opposed to playing as a corner, if that makes any sense. All positions are difficult but I think it’s a difficult position to play because of the amount of things that happen and how fast they happen: tight ends and backs coming in or outside receivers coming into your zone or things like that. Whereas, as a corner you’re defending more space but there are less moving parts out there. There’s less guys that can get into your area. It’s usually just one or maybe two guys, whereas when you’re inside in the slot, there could be four guys easily that could get in there and once they get into tight splits and things like that, trying to sort all that out, I’d just say it’s a different game. It’s not playing safety but it’s not playing corner. It’s a little bit of a hybrid spot. There’s certainly a lot of awareness, a lot of things that those players have to see that are unique. It’s not a linebacker, it’s not a corner, it’s a nickel position.

     
  2. This post has been removed.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from mthurl. Show mthurl's posts

    Re: Quality of information content in BB's press conferences


    He'll answer football questions related to the history of the game, past players and different schemes/trend, etc. He will not answer specific questions regarding his football team for the most part. If he is asked about a player's performance/development he will say, "I think he has made improvement - sure - but just like everybody else there's things he needs to work on...things we all need to work on". It gets old. It gets annoying.

    Personally I don't think it's worth listening to - whenever he's on, or they say his interview is coming up, I change the channel. For the first time in years I listened to his interview with Salk and Holey, only because I was stuck in traffic...honestly it was entertaining because it was just so uncomfortable to listen to. Will McDonough used to do his interviews when Bill first got here - Bill hadn't won anything yet and McDonough thought of himself as the best thing since sliced bread. The interviews were brutal - they were losing every week and McDonough would just grill the daylights out of him...it was some of the most uncomfortable radio I had ever ever heard. McDonough said in a interview years later that he was trying to get an answer out of Belichick once (and he just wouldn't let up), that Belichick finally just nodded yes...he wouldn't say yes...it was on the radio for Christ's sake!

     
  4. This post has been removed.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from neinmd. Show neinmd's posts

    Re: Quality of information content in BB's press conferences

    In response to mthurl's comment:


    He'll answer football questions related to the history of the game, past players and different schemes/trend, etc. He will not answer specific questions regarding his football team for the most part. If he is asked about a player's performance/development he will say, "I think he has made improvement - sure - but just like everybody else there's things he needs to work on...things we all need to work on". It gets old. It gets annoying.

    Personally I don't think it's worth listening to - whenever he's on, or they say his interview is coming up, I change the channel. For the first time in years I listened to his interview with Salk and Holey, only because I was stuck in traffic...honestly it was entertaining because it was just so uncomfortable to listen to. Will McDonough used to do his interviews when Bill first got here - Bill hadn't won anything yet and McDonough thought of himself as the best thing since sliced bread. The interviews were brutal - they were losing every week and McDonough would just grill the daylights out of him...it was some of the most uncomfortable radio I had ever ever heard. McDonough said in a interview years later that he was trying to get an answer out of Belichick once (and he just wouldn't let up), that Belichick finally just nodded yes...he wouldn't say yes...it was on the radio for Christ's sake!




    I respectfully disagree because the part of the interview I appended relates to how he sees the role of the nickel in his schemes. He describes the role as he sees it in considerable detail. If you are interested in understanding his conceptual framework of the game, he actually shares an awful lot of information. I agree that he is not Mr. Excitement but that's not who he is. Career journalists who don't bother learning the game's complexity won't get much out of him.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from digger0862. Show digger0862's posts

    Re: Quality of information content in BB's press conferences

    When reporters ask the right questions Belichick is responsive and informative. Perhaps more than any other coach when asked the right questions.

    I think you hit it on the head with your use of the word "lazy". They are more interested in headlines than content because that's what draws the most readers apparently.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from neinmd. Show neinmd's posts

    Re: Quality of information content in BB's press conferences

    In response to digger0862's comment:

    When reporters ask the right questions Belichick is responsive and informative. Perhaps more than any other coach when asked the right questions.

    I think you hit it on the head with your use of the word "lazy". They are more interested in headlines than content because that's what draws the most readers apparently.




    I agree, digger. Obviously, I haven't listened to all 32 coaches' press conferences in detail but I cannot think of one who would describe how he sees the role of a particular position, and what he values in a player in that role, in such exquisite detail while keeping his answer short and to the point. This is the kind of stuff that makes me like the guy.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from mthurl. Show mthurl's posts

    Re: Quality of information content in BB's press conferences

    In response to neinmd's comment:

     

    In response to mthurl's comment:

     


    He'll answer football questions related to the history of the game, past players and different schemes/trend, etc. He will not answer specific questions regarding his football team for the most part. If he is asked about a player's performance/development he will say, "I think he has made improvement - sure - but just like everybody else there's things he needs to work on...things we all need to work on". It gets old. It gets annoying.

    Personally I don't think it's worth listening to - whenever he's on, or they say his interview is coming up, I change the channel. For the first time in years I listened to his interview with Salk and Holey, only because I was stuck in traffic...honestly it was entertaining because it was just so uncomfortable to listen to. Will McDonough used to do his interviews when Bill first got here - Bill hadn't won anything yet and McDonough thought of himself as the best thing since sliced bread. The interviews were brutal - they were losing every week and McDonough would just grill the daylights out of him...it was some of the most uncomfortable radio I had ever ever heard. McDonough said in a interview years later that he was trying to get an answer out of Belichick once (and he just wouldn't let up), that Belichick finally just nodded yes...he wouldn't say yes...it was on the radio for Christ's sake!

     




    I respectfully disagree because the part of the interview I appended relates to how he sees the role of the nickel in his schemes. He describes the role as he sees it in considerable detail. If you are interested in understanding his conceptual framework of the game, he actually shares an awful lot of information. I agree that he is not Mr. Excitement but that's not who he is. Career journalists who don't bother learning the game's complexity won't get much out of him.

     

     



    I disagree, I think he is describing the slot cover corner position in general terms...not giving anything at all in terms of the players or defensive play of this team. He can educate anyone on football play - he has done this many many times in the past - he loves doing it and it is interesting, but I find that it sheds no light what so ever on his current team. In fact I'd go so far to suggest he does this on purpose to further distance himself from any real questions or situations regarding his team. If anyone asked him why Arrington didn't play much in the second half, he wouldn't answer it. If anyone asked him what happened in the coverage Arrington had on that third down conversion in the first half, he would say he didn't remember the play you were refering to. And if you followed it up with a description of the play, he would say there were alot of plays...some good, some not good...just like every other play.

     

    I guess we just disagree. 

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from neinmd. Show neinmd's posts

    Re: Quality of information content in BB's press conferences

    In response to mthurl's comment:

     

    In response to neinmd's comment:

     

    In response to mthurl's comment:

     


    He'll answer football questions related to the history of the game, past players and different schemes/trend, etc. He will not answer specific questions regarding his football team for the most part. If he is asked about a player's performance/development he will say, "I think he has made improvement - sure - but just like everybody else there's things he needs to work on...things we all need to work on". It gets old. It gets annoying.

    Personally I don't think it's worth listening to - whenever he's on, or they say his interview is coming up, I change the channel. For the first time in years I listened to his interview with Salk and Holey, only because I was stuck in traffic...honestly it was entertaining because it was just so uncomfortable to listen to. Will McDonough used to do his interviews when Bill first got here - Bill hadn't won anything yet and McDonough thought of himself as the best thing since sliced bread. The interviews were brutal - they were losing every week and McDonough would just grill the daylights out of him...it was some of the most uncomfortable radio I had ever ever heard. McDonough said in a interview years later that he was trying to get an answer out of Belichick once (and he just wouldn't let up), that Belichick finally just nodded yes...he wouldn't say yes...it was on the radio for Christ's sake!

     




    I respectfully disagree because the part of the interview I appended relates to how he sees the role of the nickel in his schemes. He describes the role as he sees it in considerable detail. If you are interested in understanding his conceptual framework of the game, he actually shares an awful lot of information. I agree that he is not Mr. Excitement but that's not who he is. Career journalists who don't bother learning the game's complexity won't get much out of him.

     

     



    I disagree, I think he is describing the slot cover corner position in general terms...not giving anything at all in terms of the players or defensive play of this team. He can educate anyone on football play - he has done this many many times in the past - he loves doing it and it is interesting, but I find that it sheds no light what so ever on his current team. In fact I'd go so far to suggest he does this on purpose to further distance himself from any real questions or situations regarding his team. If anyone asked him why Arrington didn't play much in the second half, he wouldn't answer it. If anyone asked him what happened in the coverage Arrington had on that third down conversion in the first half, he would say he didn't remember the play you were refering to. And if you followed it up with a description of the play, he would say there were alot of plays...some good, some not good...just like every other play.

     

    I guess we just disagree. 

     




    It's OK if we end up disagreeing because that means one of us isn't redundant. However, I did want to make one further point that he was describing what kind of a player he likes to have play the slot role. I don't think he would go into an analysis of why Arrington played a particular set of plays a certain way or what he thought of his performance. That's not something he needs to share with anyone other than the defensive coaches and Arrington himself. But he does tell us what he values in Arrington for that role.

     

     
  10. This post has been removed.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsEng. Show PatsEng's posts

    Re: Quality of information content in BB's press conferences

    In response to mthurl's comment:

     

    I disagree, I think he is describing the slot cover corner position in general terms...not giving anything at all in terms of the players or defensive play of this team. He can educate anyone on football play - he has done this many many times in the past - he loves doing it and it is interesting, but I find that it sheds no light what so ever on his current team. In fact I'd go so far to suggest he does this on purpose to further distance himself from any real questions or situations regarding his team. If anyone asked him why Arrington didn't play much in the second half, he wouldn't answer it. If anyone asked him what happened in the coverage Arrington had on that third down conversion in the first half, he would say he didn't remember the play you were refering to. And if you followed it up with a description of the play, he would say there were alot of plays...some good, some not good...just like every other play.

     

    I guess we just disagree. 



    +1,

    When you ask a general position question he'll answer (ie look at the FB question asked during camp). It doesn't always refer to a specific player as in Arrington (notice he didn't mention Arrington specifically only the original OP assumed it) and Arrington has been used outside not just in the nickel role too. It's funny, if you ask him what he feels about the slot position he'll give you a very detailed explaination like above however, if you ask what Arrington's role is on the Pats you'll get "it varies from game to game. Sometimes he is best used playing inside and others he'll be asked to move outside. We'll move him to where we feel is best for the team". You won't get a word on what they feel his actual skill set is or how they plan to use him. It's all about his ego. He'll never answer a question that he feels can be quoted and used against him later. He'll be happy to show you how smart he is and get praised for his football knowledge but any thing that can make him seem inferior (ie Why did you sign Amendola, was Gronk not ready to come back, why did you draft player x so early) he refuses to answer and takes it personally.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from Getzo. Show Getzo's posts

    Re: Quality of information content in BB's press conferences

    Thanks for posting that NEINMD, I actually was wondering how that position defined itself.  

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Quality of information content in BB's press conferences

     

     Good thread neinmd.  I've said it for years that Belichick's press conferences often contain some of the best information on football strategy and history you can find anywhere.  I try to read the transcripts all the time because sometimes there's a gold mine of football knowledge in them.  (Not all of them, but many of them.)  Belichick won't reveal anything at all that might affect the next game (and that's what frustrates some), but if you want to ask him about cover two or the history of the 3-4, he'll open right up and provide lots of fascinating information. I actually wish he'd write a book on football history and strategy.  It would be a great read I'm sure.  

     

     

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Quality of information content in BB's press conferences

    The question about Gronk wasn't asking him to predict anything.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from mthurl. Show mthurl's posts

    Re: Quality of information content in BB's press conferences

    In response to neinmd's comment:

     

    In response to mthurl's comment:

     

    In response to neinmd's comment:

     

    In response to mthurl's comment:

     


    He'll answer football questions related to the history of the game, past players and different schemes/trend, etc. He will not answer specific questions regarding his football team for the most part. If he is asked about a player's performance/development he will say, "I think he has made improvement - sure - but just like everybody else there's things he needs to work on...things we all need to work on". It gets old. It gets annoying.

    Personally I don't think it's worth listening to - whenever he's on, or they say his interview is coming up, I change the channel. For the first time in years I listened to his interview with Salk and Holey, only because I was stuck in traffic...honestly it was entertaining because it was just so uncomfortable to listen to. Will McDonough used to do his interviews when Bill first got here - Bill hadn't won anything yet and McDonough thought of himself as the best thing since sliced bread. The interviews were brutal - they were losing every week and McDonough would just grill the daylights out of him...it was some of the most uncomfortable radio I had ever ever heard. McDonough said in a interview years later that he was trying to get an answer out of Belichick once (and he just wouldn't let up), that Belichick finally just nodded yes...he wouldn't say yes...it was on the radio for Christ's sake!

     




    I respectfully disagree because the part of the interview I appended relates to how he sees the role of the nickel in his schemes. He describes the role as he sees it in considerable detail. If you are interested in understanding his conceptual framework of the game, he actually shares an awful lot of information. I agree that he is not Mr. Excitement but that's not who he is. Career journalists who don't bother learning the game's complexity won't get much out of him.

     

     



    I disagree, I think he is describing the slot cover corner position in general terms...not giving anything at all in terms of the players or defensive play of this team. He can educate anyone on football play - he has done this many many times in the past - he loves doing it and it is interesting, but I find that it sheds no light what so ever on his current team. In fact I'd go so far to suggest he does this on purpose to further distance himself from any real questions or situations regarding his team. If anyone asked him why Arrington didn't play much in the second half, he wouldn't answer it. If anyone asked him what happened in the coverage Arrington had on that third down conversion in the first half, he would say he didn't remember the play you were refering to. And if you followed it up with a description of the play, he would say there were alot of plays...some good, some not good...just like every other play.

     

    I guess we just disagree. 

     




    It's OK if we end up disagreeing because that means one of us isn't redundant. However, I did want to make one further point that he was describing what kind of a player he likes to have play the slot role. I don't think he would go into an analysis of why Arrington played a particular set of plays a certain way or what he thought of his performance. That's not something he needs to share with anyone other than the defensive coaches and Arrington himself. But he does tell us what he values in Arrington for that role.

     

     



    Hey there's no other coach I'd rather have, he wins...plain and simple. He's the best. And speaking of Arrington, doesn't he physically look like he was born to play the roll Bill describes? I mean he's a big guy, he looks like a safety to me and I've seen him make some tackles I wish our safeties could make. I just don't like him on the outside - and that's where he got burnt Sunday - I've seen it so many times...once his hips get going in one direction he can't turn and stick with a guy. I think the slot/safety/hybrid type is perfect for him. Makes me wonder why we wasted time and money on Adrian Wilson. 

    I can't believe the guy is only 5'10", he looks much bigger than that to me.

     

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from neinmd. Show neinmd's posts

    Re: Quality of information content in BB's press conferences

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    The question about Gronk wasn't asking him to predict anything.




    Here is the exact transcript of the relevant Q & A:

    Q: How close was Rob Gronkowski to playing yesterday?

    BB: I don’t know. He was inactive.

    Q: Did he have a shot to play?

    BB: He was inactive.

    Q: Going into the day, was there a chance he’d play?

    BB: He was inactive for the game.   Bill asks back at one point whether the questioner is looking for a percentage number. This is the kind of qualitative emotive questioning that deserves no answer. These questions are looking for a qualitative estimate or a probability prediction. The only possible beneficiary from any judgmental answer would be the opposition, and Belichick's opinion would, in any event, be a medical judgment for which he is unqualified. His answer was a factual answer to a hypothetical question.
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from neinmd. Show neinmd's posts

    Re: Quality of information content in BB's press conferences

    Hey there's no other coach I'd rather have, he wins...plain and simple. He's the best. And speaking of Arrington, doesn't he physically look like he was born to play the roll Bill describes? I mean he's a big guy, he looks like a safety to me and I've seen him make some tackles I wish our safeties could make. I just don't like him on the outside - and that's where he got burnt Sunday - I've seen it so many times...once his hips get going in one direction he can't turn and stick with a guy. I think the slot/safety/hybrid type is perfect for him. Makes me wonder why we wasted time and money on Adrian Wilson. 

    I can't believe the guy is only 5'10", he looks much bigger than that to me.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Exactly. I completely agree. After I read this, I could understand why Bill likes Arrington. He is a hybrid player who can play corner, small LB or safety. He can't play any of these roles as well as a specialist player but his advantage is that he can seamlessly shift from one role to another, as the situation demands. And he, in Bill's opinion, has a quick mind that can analyze a complex and fluid situation and decide which role is appropriate at a given moment. Perfect, I can understand this now. You can disagree with Bill's definition of the role or his assessment of the player in that role but you can't complain that he hasn't told you what he is thinking. For inquiring journalists, this guy is a gold mine, but to get the gold requires a bit of digging and homework, not to strain the analogy too much. Anyway, I thought this little interview vignette was very revealing.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Quality of information content in BB's press conferences

    In response to neinmd's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    The question about Gronk wasn't asking him to predict anything.

     




    Here is the exact transcript of the relevant Q & A:

     

    Q: How close was Rob Gronkowski to playing yesterday?

    BB: I don’t know. He was inactive.

    Q: Did he have a shot to play?

    BB: He was inactive.

    Q: Going into the day, was there a chance he’d play?

    BB: He was inactive for the game.   Bill asks back at one point whether the questioner is looking for a percentage number. This is the kind of qualitative emotive questioning that deserves no answer. These questions are looking for a qualitative estimate or a probability prediction. The only possible beneficiary from any judgmental answer would be the opposition, and Belichick's opinion would, in any event, be a medical judgment for which he is unqualified. His answer was a factual answer to a hypothetical question.
    [/QUOTE]


    You claimed they asked for a prediction. No such request was made.

    This is REAL f'n simple. Instead of being the typical d*ckhead that he is, it could have gone down this easily.

     

    Q - How close was Gronk to playing yesterday?

     

    BB - Not close at all. He clearly isn't ready yet to play NFL football.

    or

    BB - It was a close call but we felt it was in Rob's and the teams best interests to hold him back until we are 100% sure.

     

    Simple. Makes everybody happy. No top secret info is revealed. But we can't have that, because BB has to be an anal ornery d*ickhead or he isn't happy.

    Make all the excuses you like, but only a hopeless homer is going to claim it's cool to be like that for no good reason.

    I really don't care if BB wants to be a d*ckhead to the press. But I'm going to call it what it is, and there is no way that behavior sells the brand beyond the homeland.

     

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from ATJ. Show ATJ's posts

    Re: Quality of information content in BB's press conferences

    One of the better discussions I've seen in here of late.  I think in large measure it depends on what you're looking for from BB.  The guy is one of the best football minds in the game and if a fan or journalist wishes to learn a great deal about BB's philosophy or approach to players and coaching then there is much there to be learned.  If, on the other hand, you want to know whether Joe Schmucatelli is going to play in Sunday's game then you're S.O.L. 

    And each of the two possible alternative responses that you've posted, Babe, reveals something that BB simply believes he doesn't need to reveal and may indeed be helpful to anyone game planning for a game or two down the road.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Quality of information content in BB's press conferences

    In response to ATJ's comment:

    One of the better discussions I've seen in here of late.  I think in large measure it depends on what you're looking for from BB.  The guy is one of the best football minds in the game and if a fan or journalist wishes to learn a great deal about BB's philosophy or approach to players and coaching then there is much there to be learned.  If, on the other hand, you want to know whether Joe Schmucatelli is going to play in Sunday's game then you're S.O.L. 

    And each of the two possible alternative responses that you've posted, Babe, reveals something that BB simply believes he doesn't need to reveal and may indeed be helpful to anyone game planning for a game or two down the road.




    I didn't say either of those answers had to be true. LMAO

    But BB clearly has some sort of psychological issue with press conferences. He deliberately tries to alienate and crap on these people. I suspect he feels he is justified in that and has intimated that he doesn't respect their profession in the past.

    The reasons for this are unknown.

    He likes to say; Do your job! That's a part of his job. He should practice what he preaches, because; he purely sucks at it. This isn't hard. This isn't rocket science. Throw them a couple of meaningless cookies and they can go back and say they did their job. Simple.

    I've had a best friend since 6th grade. Ornery as hell, but he would give you the shirt off his back (the problem there is that you asked for a pair of pants but he determined what you really need is a shirt; but that's another story). He used to own a restaurant. And he treated his help like crap. Talked down to them all the time. I told him one day; hey, if this tactic of yours is getting you more out of life, if it is enriching your life, keep it up. But in my travels if you crap on people every time without cause; if that's your one and only MO, then you get far less. For some reason from that day he was a changed man. And he seems a hell of a lot happier for it.

    I would say the same to BB. If this crusty, crap on the press style you use is enriching your life, keep it up (and keep in mind that many others pay a consequence for your actions in this). But as I said, in my travels the constant crapping doesn't bring more; it always brings less.

    Not to say that the occasional jabroni doesn't need to be crapped on. Wink

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsEng. Show PatsEng's posts

    Re: Quality of information content in BB's press conferences

    In response to neinmd's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    The question about Gronk wasn't asking him to predict anything.

     




    Here is the exact transcript of the relevant Q & A:

     

    Q: How close was Rob Gronkowski to playing yesterday?

    BB: I don’t know. He was inactive.

    Q: Did he have a shot to play?

    BB: He was inactive.

    Q: Going into the day, was there a chance he’d play?

    BB: He was inactive for the game.   Bill asks back at one point whether the questioner is looking for a percentage number. This is the kind of qualitative emotive questioning that deserves no answer. These questions are looking for a qualitative estimate or a probability prediction. The only possible beneficiary from any judgmental answer would be the opposition, and Belichick's opinion would, in any event, be a medical judgment for which he is unqualified. His answer was a factual answer to a hypothetical question.
    [/QUOTE]

    How about the fans? Wouldn't the fans like to know what's going on with the team? Sometimes it feels like BB feels the only time the fans should care about the team is when they play on sunday for the 3hrs they are on the field.

    Honestly, tell me how the opposition benefits from it at all. The other teams have far more info on players around the league than the fans do. Most fans around here estimateed that Gronk would be back somtime after week 2 but before week 5. We are now heading into week 4, so if the fans knew this was about the time table other teams would also know. Also, 1st game back he's not going to come out of the gate as the Gronk of oldd. There will be rust and he won't be playing nearly the same amount of snaps as he usually does when healthy so it's not like they even have to game plan a ton around Gronk right now. The team in the following week might need to game plan more but they have the benefit of knowing Gronk is playing so really you are being like this to what extent? Atl knows there is a chance Gronk will be back but also know he won't be getting 80%+ of the snaps and won't be lighting the world on fire out of the gate. They know he's been practicing and reports are that he might be close. Is Atl in a blackhole where they get zero media reports of inside info? I'll guarantee they know more than even the reporters are giving.

    Really, all this does is give the fans a quick laugh at how silly it is and then leaves us wanting more info and speculating in the end. These pressers give away nothing that other teams don't already know they are honestly for the fans.

    BTW BB isn't a medical doctor but I'm guessing he has some on staff and they do tell him infomation I hope. Not to mention he has been around the game enough that in practice he can tell when a player is close to being ready. They aren't asking exactly what % he is. They aren't looking for he's 76.459355012% they simply asked was he almost ready to go this week. Since it's after the game it's zero benefit to the team they just played and since he's had 2 full weeks of practice (standard coming back from injury) the next team most likely figures he could play in the RZ and has practiced for it. So what state secret is given away by saying

    "He's been practing and looking good but we don't want to rush him back until he's 100%. We'll have another look at him this week and make a decision then but he should be back within the next couple of weeks". That statement says nothing that everyone didn't already know but gives info to the fans to let them know yes he is indeed close to returning. We all know it's fits the time line otherwise they would have just PuPed him so what could Atl possibly gain from that statement?

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Quality of information content in BB's press conferences

     

     There are times when I think BB  could be more gracious, but maybe he finds it easier to aviod grey areas and just follow a black and white rule about never saying anything about injuries or player performance.  That sets a clear standard for everyone else on the team too, which helps ensure players or other coaches don't say things they shouldn't say.  

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from wozzy. Show wozzy's posts

    Re: Quality of information content in BB's press conferences

    Not to get all political but if the press was this exacting on our politicians maybe we wouldn't be in such a mess.

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from neinmd. Show neinmd's posts

    Re: Quality of information content in BB's press conferences

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to ATJ's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    One of the better discussions I've seen in here of late.  I think in large measure it depends on what you're looking for from BB.  The guy is one of the best football minds in the game and if a fan or journalist wishes to learn a great deal about BB's philosophy or approach to players and coaching then there is much there to be learned.  If, on the other hand, you want to know whether Joe Schmucatelli is going to play in Sunday's game then you're S.O.L. 

    And each of the two possible alternative responses that you've posted, Babe, reveals something that BB simply believes he doesn't need to reveal and may indeed be helpful to anyone game planning for a game or two down the road.

     




    I didn't say either of those answers had to be true. LMAO

     

    But BB clearly has some sort of psychological issue with press conferences. He deliberately tries to alienate and crap on these people. I suspect he feels he is justified in that and has intimated that he doesn't respect their profession in the past.

    The reasons for this are unknown.

    He likes to say; Do your job! That's a part of his job. He should practice what he preaches, because; he purely sucks at it. This isn't hard. This isn't rocket science. Throw them a couple of meaningless cookies and they can go back and say they did their job. Simple.

    I've had a best friend since 6th grade. Ornery as hell, but he would give you the shirt off his back (the problem there is that you asked for a pair of pants but he determined what you really need is a shirt; but that's another story). He used to own a restaurant. And he treated his help like crap. Talked down to them all the time. I told him one day; hey, if this tactic of yours is getting you more out of life, if it is enriching your life, keep it up. But in my travels if you crap on people every time without cause; if that's your one and only MO, then you get far less. For some reason from that day he was a changed man. And he seems a hell of a lot happier for it.

    I would say the same to BB. If this crusty, crap on the press style you use is enriching your life, keep it up (and keep in mind that many others pay a consequence for your actions in this). But as I said, in my travels the constant crapping doesn't bring more; it always brings less.

    Not to say that the occasional jabroni doesn't need to be crapped on. Wink

    [/QUOTE]


    Yes, perhaps he could have said, "he has not yet been cleared to play by the medical staff," instead of saying, "he was inactive." Nine extra words might have been more soothing to the feelings of the journalist but that's not BB's style. I am not defending his style, I am simply saying that the question, as asked, was not one he would spend a lot of time answering. I don't blame him for that.

    And, frankly, Babe, you could take your own advice. Perhaps you too would be as happy as your friend.

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsEng. Show PatsEng's posts

    Re: Quality of information content in BB's press conferences

    In response to wozzy's comment:

    Not to get all political but if the press was this exacting on our politicians maybe we wouldn't be in such a mess.



    Not sure what you mean Wozzy. I find most political reporters ask much harder questions than what BB gets. I mean, how close was Gronk to playing is about the same as asking how close do you think a resolution on a bill will be solved. It's not like BB gets ask extremely specific questions, for the most part it's the same general non specific questions asked to every coach around the league: ie How did you think of player x's performance, how is players x's injury coming along, do you have a time table for player x's return, how will you handle team y's offense, how do you account for player x whent hey are on the field. The questions are so generic I think politicians would love to get those types of questions because they could have their speech writers draw up answers weeks ahead of time.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share