As for Belidick, he's become a cartoon. It's like he's become every mean/evil coach in every goofy sports movie (Karate Kid, The Waterboy, Bad News Bears, Rocky V, etc. etc. etc.) You know the type: hardnosed jackass, rules by fear, cares more about winning than his players, uses any tactic (usually immoral if not illegal) to get ahead, feels persecuted when he loses, and all that. Only it's not a formulaic movie, it's real life.

Maybe that should be the Patriots' slogan for next season: "It's not a movie -- this jackass is real!"

I suppose thats why FA's give up millions of dollars to sign with the Patriots then.  

I suppose thats why Deion Branch was whole heartedly endorsing New England to Stallworth.

Unfortunately you seem to have simply made up most of those particular allegations and they seem to have no support in fact.  

As for the issue of concussions, unless the way the league is structured, with coaches able to cut players at virtually any time for any reason, players will push themselves into that danger zone like TJ did, fearing they could get cut.  Nobody forced him to play, he had the ability to chose whether to play or practice himself.  Nobody forced him to keep many of his concussions secret.  

The way the system is set up, coaches can only dress so many players on game day, and need to know whether their players can play.  Fundamentally, these are professional athletes, and grown men.  They can decide for themselves if they are capable of playing.  

As for TJ, I loved watching that man play, he was great, and so critical to the SB runs we had.  From that article you referenced, and from others, it sounds like he is in a very bad way right now, and I can only hope he gets the help he needs.  Unfortunately, it is hard to completely reconcile that story with another one that came out in the middle of the season, where TJ said he was hoping and waiting for BB's call to come and play again.

SO what?  The only people who actually care about this today are Jets fans.  So he took an offer that gave him complete and total control of the team - isnt that the gold standard of NFL coaching?  

"Belidick pushes a cameraman. Dick move. Would be classified as assault if it happened on a street corner."

Actually, go to law school before you decide to spout off on a topic you obviously have no knowledge about.  Do some research on assault and battery and them come back and rephrase this statement.  

"Belidick's immature refusal to even acknowledge Mangini in the pressers before the 1st Jets-Pats game last year. Dick move. Although, to be fair, I understand that this particular hissy fit has been resolved."

I see, so who is the media knows what the dynamics of the relationship between Mangini and Belichick are?  Unless either of them has spoken on it, the only thing the media has been able to do is make stuff up.  

"Belidick's snub of Manning and pouty postgame presser after the playoff loss to the Colts. Dick move. Part of being a HC in the NFL is to man up and talk to the fans (through reporters) even when you lose."

The horror, he doesnt like to lose.  Oh. My. God.  Clearly that makes him just a terrible person.  

"Belidick's strategy of mugging Colts receivers a couple of years ago in the playoffs. Many Pats' fans have tried to spin this as the Colts front office whining until the rules were changed the following year. This is crap. The rule was already in place, and the officials did a poor job of enforcing it. Some might argue that if you can get away with breaking the rules, you're smart. I wonder if those same people would think it's acceptable to encourage cut blocks and crackback blocks -- just as long as you can get away with them. In my book: Dick move."

Are you still running with this argument?  If the Refs dont flag it, its ok.  Besides, you should be happy they didnt bother to flag the Colts D backs in the AFCCG this year.  

As much as Peyton and Marvin "watch me run out of bounds rather then fight for yardage and forget how to catch in the playoffs" Harrison would like it to be flag football, its not.  If the Colts recievers cant take playing a physical game they should go and play soccer.  Or whine until the rules are 'clarified'.  

"Even in the best case scenario, where Belidick let TJ decide himself rather than forcing him to play, this is an abdication of the coach's responsibility. And a dick move."

SO letting a grown man in his mid thirties make a medical decision for himself is the move of a dick?  

And if you are going to attack someone for being rude, or impolite, or whatever, it helps if you spell their name without the 3rd grade name based insults.  

To wit:

My argument is that the handling of the Jets job was a dick move. Your response is "so what?" Ahhh... you've shown me the light.

My argument is that shoving a cameraman constitutes assault. You suggest I go to law school. As I have neither the time nor the money to do so, I decided to check legal websites instead. As it turns out, you're right. It's technically not assault, it's battery. From Expertlaw.com: "A battery is the willful or intentional touching of a person against that person's will by another person.... Please note that an offensive touching can constitute a battery even if it does not cause injury...." So you get points for that one. My bad. It's not assault; it's battery.

Then there's two instances of Belidick acting like a pouty jerk in press conferences. Your arguments are basically "we don't know what's going on in their minds and it's OK because he hates to lose." Of course this does not address the main point, which is that coaches (and players for that matter) have a responsibility to be accessible to the fans whose money pays the coaches' salaries, and to the journalists who promote them and are just trying to do their jobs. Professional sports leagues recognize this responsibility. That's why they fine players and coaches for blowing off these press conferences. Apparently Belidick doesn't recognize this responsibility. But it's OK, because he gets mad when he loses. What a great message for all the young fans. And doesn't this kind of prove my original point that he feels persecuted when he loses?

As far as the mugging the WRs thing goes, I guess we could go back and forth about this for another few years. Personally, I don't mind the fact that Marvin tries to avoid contact. It keeps him on the field. Given that he's generally regarded as one of the top 5 WRs of all time, it must be working. (And before you claim that this is unsupported, check it out. There's plenty of rankings at various different websites). Anyway, your defense of the illegalities is that it's OK if you get away with it. Somehow I don't think that's what the league had in mind, and I don't think that's the kind of example we want to set. Question: can this philosophy be applied to life as well, or is it specially created for football? If I break the law, is it OK as long as I get away with it? If not, then what makes football different? I realize it's a different degree of course, but it doesn't seem like a very principled stand. And that's pretty much what this whole post is about.

And then there's the TJ thing. You stated that it should be up to him whether he plays. I explained why the doctors and the coaches have the responsibility, using some of your own arguments about the pressures NFL players feel to play hurt. In fact, in your original post, you make the argument that they feel pressured to play, then in the next breath say "nobody forced him to play." I explained that it is because of these pressures that an athlete may make unsafe choices, and that therefore doctors, supported by coaches, should make the decisions. As far as I know, that's how it works on most pro sports teams. Players need to be medically cleared to play. Apparently this is not how it works in New England. And your response is to make the same argument again, basically: "he's a grown man and can make his own decisions." I understand that you think this. I explained why I disagree. Do you have anything to say about my point, or are you content to make the same argument again?

Lastly, it is on your final point that you are actually right. Calling Belichik "Belidick" is insulting and fairly immature to boot. As fitting as it may be, I don't want to get caught on a tangent in what are some serious issues. So I will henceforth refer to him as Belichick. As you say, it can only help my case. And I think my point has been made. Whatever I may call him (and we've seen how thin-skinned he is) it doesn't change the fact that he is a major league jackass.      

My point is that you cannot trust the news media when it comes to reporting on Belichick and any of his former coaches, like Mangini.  They dont tell the media anything worthwhile virtually ever.  So, most of the stories are based on non descript news conferences and conjecture by the sports writers.  This is also ignoring hack plagarist writers like Borges who have a long track record of bashing anything Belichick does.  

"You refute my now-supported arguments with pure opinion that is unsupported by fact."

Given the long standing, and well documented hostility that Belichick has towards the sports media in general, I have little if any faith in what they write about him that is not direct quotes from him or his players.  

If Mangini or Belichick said something about their relationship that backed your point, or if people close to them had said concrete things, I would admit your point.  However, I have seen nothing of the sort that I can regard as trustworthy, and the majority of the reporting on those incidents is mere speculation by reporters practicing the Patriots version of Kreminology.  

"My argument is that the handling of the Jets job was a dick move. Your response is "so what?" Ahhh... you've shown me the light."

My point is that I fail to see what was wrong with it.  

"My bad. It's not assault; it's battery."

That sort of legal conclusion is far from warranted by the evidence at hand.  There are quite a few cases where a harmful or offensive touching does not rise to the level of the intentional tort of battery, let alone criminal battery.  Take my word, as a law student who just took a final on intentional torts, that this almost certainly doesnt come anywhere near the levels required for a civil or criminal charge.  I might be able to find you some cases if you are really interested in the nuances of assualt and battery law.  

"Then there's two instances of Belidick acting like a pouty jerk in press conferences."

Eh, sorry, this simply is not an issue for me.  I frankly could care less how animated or happy looking he is after a game.  

"Of course this does not address the main point, which is that coaches (and players for that matter) have a responsibility to be accessible to the fans whose money pays the coaches' salaries, and to the journalists who promote them and are just trying to do their jobs. Professional sports leagues recognize this responsibility. That's why they fine players and coaches for blowing off these press conferences. Apparently Belidick doesn't recognize this responsibility. But it's OK, because he gets mad when he loses. What a great message for all the young fans. And doesn't this kind of prove my original point that he feels persecuted when he loses?"

He is responsible to one person, and one person only - Kraft, the man who signs his paychecks.  Nevermind that the New England fans love the man to death, so your point  about fans is moot IMO.  As for journalists, given the hack-tastic nature of the majority of Boston sports journalists, BB can say 'screw them' as much and as often as he likes.  

"Anyway, your defense of the illegalities is that it's OK if you get away with it."

Everyone did it.  It happened to the Pats in the SB that year. It was not a case of the Evil Evil Patriots abusing the poor innocent Colts, but a league wide practice that was not punished.  Its like going 65 in a 55 zone.  Sure, its illegal, but since everyone does it, the cops really dont pull people over for a mere 10 miles over.  See my point?  

"And then there's the TJ thing. You stated that it should be up to him whether he plays. I explained why the doctors and the coaches have the responsibility, using some of your own arguments about the pressures NFL players feel to play hurt."

Then lets lobby the NFLPU.  As the system stands, it is the responsibility of each player to make the decision as to whether they can play.  And  its the decision of the coach to field the most competitive team possible.  I cannot be upset with a coach who follows the system as it exists.  

"In fact, in your original post, you make the argument that they feel pressured to play, then in the next breath say "nobody forced him to play." I explained that it is because of these pressures that an athlete may make unsafe choices, and that therefore doctors, supported by coaches, should make the decisions."

IF it is something that everyone does, why single out Belichick for criticism?  

"Whatever I may call him (and we've seen how thin-skinned he is) it doesn't change the fact that he is a major league jackass."      

And tempering this are stories about how he is a wonderful father, how incredibly generous he is to his assistants (handing out 100$'s after games etc..), and how much so many players love playing in New England, and for him.  

For each story like TJ, we have a Deion Branch, who after being engaged in a bitter contract dispute, is still singing the praises of playing in NE.  

As for your points, I don't know if I have another absurdly long post in me, but a couple of things:

Yes, Belichick has a rough history with the media and many don't like him. I still don't think this excuses his behavior in press conferences and interviews. And I don't pretend to know what he's thinking, or what journalists are thinking. But I have seen with my own two eyes beahvior that is immature, unprofessional, and -- well -- jerky. In the pressers leading up to the 1st Jets-Pats game last year, he refused to even mention Mangini by name, much less say anything of value or import. Keep in mind the context: this was the 1st meeting of master and apprentice on the gridiron. It's a legitimate story. But Belichick gave the fans nothing, as is his habit.

He does have a responsibility to the fans. His responsibility is not only to the owner. Fans pay his salary (indirectly of course). The question of whether coaches and players are role models has been debated endlessly for years. Maybe we'll never agree on this point. I believe he is a role model. Whether he likes it or not, fans -- particularly kids -- look at the coach as an authority figure. His boorish behavior has an effect. Is it illegal behavior? Of course not. Is it unprofessional and jerky? Absolutely. I'm not saying he has to look animated or be happy. But he has to answer the legitimate questions of reporters; the fans very reasonably want answers to these questions.

As for the battery deal, I'm saying that what Belichick did fits the relevant definitions that I could find. I am not a law student and i don't know if he would ever be convicted of battery in a court. But it does fit the definition. More to the point, illegal or not, it is jerky behavior.

As for the "everyone does it argument": the easiest reply is that that doesn't make it right. (Incidentally, I did once get a ticket for going 42 mph in a 35 zone; I think the cop was making a quota). The reason the league put more emphasis on enforcing the rule is because the Patriots took the rule-breaking to a whole new level. The league could no longer ignore it. I'm not saying Belichick was the only one who encouraged his team to break the rules.

As for TJ: I have not heard any other NFL players accusing their coaches of forcing them to play with brain injuries. If others coaches have, then they deserve the same kind of scorn that I'm heaping on Belichick. It is my understanding that teams let doctors and not players make medical decisions. Doctors clear players to play. That's why they're there.

Lastly, I have no idea what Belichick is like in his personal life, and I've never made any claims about him as a husband or father. I'm sure he loves his family very much. My whole point in all of this is not that's he's evil incarnate, just that he's an unprofessional jerk who sets a bad example and values only winning.

And nothing you've said has changed my mind, although, again, I appreciate the debate.

Wow. I guess I did have another absurdly long post left.