• Please be aware we've switched the forums to their own URL. (again) You'll find the new website address to be www.steelernationforum.com Thanks
  • Please clear your private messages. Your inbox is close to being full.

Was Blount's meltdown contrived, knowing NE wanted him back?

Ghost of Frenchy Fuqua

Ghost of Frenchy Fuqua

Well-known member
Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2014
Messages
1,398
Reaction score
656
Points
113
Location
H-town
Apparently there's another "Patriots conspiracy":

By Charles Robinson
Yahoo Sports

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/the-ot...eunite-with-bill-belichick-233502306-nfl.html

PHOENIX – It's not the big conspiracy theory that everyone is talking about. There are no footballs, equipment managers or surveillance tape. But it's still a question that New England Patriots running back LeGarrette Blount can't answer with a straight face.

Did Blount engineer his release from the Pittsburgh Steelers earlier this season because he knew the Patriots wanted him back? Did someone tell him he had a job waiting for him? Is this Super Bowl a reward for a twisted scheme?

On Tuesday, Blount repeatedly reacted to those questions with little more than Cheshire grins and half-hearted denials. One exchange in particular:

View gallery
.
LeGarrette Blount kept in contact with his Pats teammates during his time as a Steeler. (USA TODAY Sports)

LeGarrette Blount kept in contact with his Pats teammates during his time as a Steeler. (USA TODAY Sports)

"Did you know you had a job with New England before you left Pittsburgh?"

Long pause. Big smile. No answer.

"Why would you leave if you didn't know in the back of your mind that they were waiting to call you?"

Big smile. Subtle laugh.

"I didn't know nothin'," Blount said.

One more laugh.

It wasn't exactly convincing. And this is why there are those within the NFL community who continue to maintain that Blount's self-induced meltdown and subsequent banishment from Pittsburgh was orchestrated toward a pre-determined end: Get out of Pittsburgh, slide back into New England. Correct a free-agent mistake that never should have been made in the first place.

It was no secret that Blount had an issue with his role in Pittsburgh almost immediately. After signing with the expectation that he'd share a sizeable part of the rushing load, Blount was arrested with running back Le'Veon Bell and booked on marijuana-related charges. That moment was particularly troubling in the Steelers organization because Bell was known as a good egg, whereas Blount had a checkered history during his football career.

Following that incident, Blount started off with only seven carries in his first two games. And things got worse after a 10-carry, 118-yard rushing effort against the Carolina Panthers on Sept. 21. Conventional thought was that Blount would carry a greater load after that game. Instead, he followed it up with four carries in a 27-24 loss to a bad Tampa Bay Buccaneers team. From that point on, his role in the Steelers offense was clear: He was a guy who would occasionally spell Bell, and would rarely have a larger role installed for him.
 
Ghost of Frenchy Fuqua said:
Apparently there's another "Patriots conspiracy":

By Charles Robinson
Yahoo Sports

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/the-ot...eunite-with-bill-belichick-233502306-nfl.html

PHOENIX – It's not the big conspiracy theory that everyone is talking about. There are no footballs, equipment managers or surveillance tape. But it's still a question that New England Patriots running back LeGarrette Blount can't answer with a straight face.

Did Blount engineer his release from the Pittsburgh Steelers earlier this season because he knew the Patriots wanted him back? Did someone tell him he had a job waiting for him? Is this Super Bowl a reward for a twisted scheme?

On Tuesday, Blount repeatedly reacted to those questions with little more than Cheshire grins and half-hearted denials. One exchange in particular:

View gallery
.
LeGarrette Blount kept in contact with his Pats teammates during his time as a Steeler. (USA TODAY Sports)

LeGarrette Blount kept in contact with his Pats teammates during his time as a Steeler. (USA TODAY Sports)

"Did you know you had a job with New England before you left Pittsburgh?"

Long pause. Big smile. No answer.

"Why would you leave if you didn't know in the back of your mind that they were waiting to call you?"

Big smile. Subtle laugh.

"I didn't know nothin'," Blount said.

One more laugh.

It wasn't exactly convincing. And this is why there are those within the NFL community who continue to maintain that Blount's self-induced meltdown and subsequent banishment from Pittsburgh was orchestrated toward a pre-determined end: Get out of Pittsburgh, slide back into New England. Correct a free-agent mistake that never should have been made in the first place.

It was no secret that Blount had an issue with his role in Pittsburgh almost immediately. After signing with the expectation that he'd share a sizeable part of the rushing load, Blount was arrested with running back Le'Veon Bell and booked on marijuana-related charges. That moment was particularly troubling in the Steelers organization because Bell was known as a good egg, whereas Blount had a checkered history during his football career.

Following that incident, Blount started off with only seven carries in his first two games. And things got worse after a 10-carry, 118-yard rushing effort against the Carolina Panthers on Sept. 21. Conventional thought was that Blount would carry a greater load after that game. Instead, he followed it up with four carries in a 27-24 loss to a bad Tampa Bay Buccaneers team. From that point on, his role in the Steelers offense was clear: He was a guy who would occasionally spell Bell, and would rarely have a larger role installed for him.
Click to expand...

Some of us watch too much TV
 
Fictitious or not if a player walks off the field and leaves their team. It should result in rest of the year suspension.

The NFL shouldn't be promoting bad behavior.................
 
I pretty much assumed that is what went down the second the Pats picked him up.
 
LeXX75 said:
Some of us watch too much TV
Click to expand...
I hate Belicheat as much as anybody but I don't think there was any conspiracy for Blunt to get himself thrown off the team so the Pats** could sign him. For one thing, he had to clear waivers before the Pats** could sign him so there was no assurance that someone else wouldn't pick him up.
 
I think it had more to do with the way he responded to the allegation. It's the smug smile that is all but an admission of guilt. That smile must be a pre-requisite for joining those cheating ********. Again, it's just way too coincidental. How many "coincidences" are the Pat*s going to get away with?
 
I thought from the moment he was released it was a mistake. It wasn't a punishment at all, and we all knew he'd be a Pat by the end of that week. If the Steelers really wanted to send a message, they should've just deactivated him.
 
If a deactivated player cost the team a roster spot is the only reason his release would make sense. They should've suspended him without pay for conduct detrimental to the team and let him spend the rest of he year fighting it.

Investigate the cheats for player tampering? Roger would not do that to his buddy Kraft, c'mon.
 
Ron Burgundy said:
I hate Belicheat as much as anybody but I don't think there was any conspiracy for Blunt to get himself thrown off the team so the Pats** could sign him. For one thing, he had to clear waivers before the Pats** could sign him so there was no assurance that someone else wouldn't pick him up.
Click to expand...

Well, given the early-season arrest and the media attention to his bad split with the rest of the locker room, I don't think the Pats had much to worry about in terms of some other team possibly picking him up.

I wonder if it could have had a double purpose - if we'd gone on to face the Pats in the playoffs, they would have had an insider that knew our playbook, all our signals, etc. I wouldn't put it past them to be forward-looking enough to try and get that kind of insurance policy against a possible playoff opponent.
 
Oh he knew all right, anybody could see that he was unhappy in da 'burgh and da 'burgh was not actually enamored with him...or at least his attitude. Just how much "conspiracy" can be directed at the Pats' is debatable and probably not provable anyway but it was IMO contrived by Blount....no doubt in my mind.
 
Ron Burgundy said:
For one thing, he had to clear waivers before the Pats** could sign him so there was no assurance that someone else wouldn't pick him up.
Click to expand...

True and that's what I thought initially. But thinking about it now, how many teams at that time, late November, were in the market for a RB? Vikings were one obviously, but given the choice between the two, they took Tate. Going from memory the Cards were another one that needed RB help and maybe the Colts? I'm not sure who else was seriously in the market.

In any event, it would be impossible to prove tampering, but I'm sure it's happened countless times over the years by numerous teams. But here's the thing about Blount, he's an *******. And the Steelers were tired of him in the locker room. And after his performance against the Jets, I'm sure they were tired of him on the field as well.
 
I will say this if Blount runs for 150+ yds & 3 TD's and is named the Super Bowl MVP I will vomit uncontrollably all over the floor of my friend's living room after the game!
 
I just don't care anymore - the **'s will never be punished for the current blemishes on the table - seeing this added is just another shot in the dark...

Thanks Roger for ruining this sport.
 
I don't buy the Pats conspiracy. There's no doubt Blount wanted off the Steelers. He wasn't getting any carries and he clearly hated something about either the locker room environment or the coaching staff (did anyone see the article on Steelers Depot where it seemed like he might have shoved Haley on purpose during a game?). He was probably being "frozen out" by teammates and/or coaches who thought he was corrupting Bell.

And he was also playing like ****. Take away the game vs. Carolina and he did absolutely nothing positive in a Steelers uniform.

But I really doubt the Pats were encouraging him to go mental and get tossed off the team so that they could sign him. Too much of a stretch for me given that he was subject to waivers and that RBs go down each and every Sunday --- you never know what team might have grabbed him. Plus it doesn't seem like the Pats even value RBs enough to go to the trouble and face what would be a huge penalty for tampering and create an ever bigger stain than Deflate-gate. The rewards don't justify the risks.

Now it certainly could have been in the back of Blount's mind (i.e. get me out of here so hopefully I can get back to the Pats...).
 
Last edited:
I could believe it. That's the thing about getting caught cheating twice. It's probably a consistent character trait. It's like if someone has two DUIs, they probably drive drunk a lot.
 
I can believe that Blount orchestrated his dismissal from the Steelers, and MAYBE he had a hint that the Patriots were interested in snapping him back up, but there's no way to implicate the Patriots for being complicit in his actions without any evidence beyond his responses.
 
It is not totally out of the question that it happened but as others have stated there is no evidence. I did not see the press conf but it does prove that others OUTSIDE of the Steelers fans that believe that the *Pats think that they can do anything they want to win. Why else would there be SO many questions about that subject at Media day ?
 
Does anyone know how much the Steelers and Patriots ended up paying him in 2014? Was his first year salary with Pitt guaranteed? Did he end up making more money in 2014 by being signed by the Pats than he would have had he stayed in Pittsburgh the whole year?
 
I believe we kept paying him after we cut him (as a veteran, wasn't his salary guaranteed when he was on the roster in Week 1?). The amount we paid him was reduced by what he ended up getting from the Patriots (which was league minimum). So Blount ended up making the same amount as we would have paid him, I believe.

I don't think you are allowed to deactivate a player as a form of punishment anymore. I think the NFL and NFLPA agreed to change that rule after the Bucs famously did it to Keyshawn Johnson. We could have suspended Blount for 1-2 games for "conduct detrimental to the team" but after we would have been out of ways to punish him.
 
Aren't we paying him anways, even after cutting him?
 
I'm sure the cut was done in hopes that someone would pick him up and reduce the hit he was taking against the salary this year. Which the **'s did minimally. In hindsight, I'm sure the F.O. would have rather eaten the minimum just to piss Blount off and make him sit at home and watch his stock fall.

There's little chance a team picks him up after sitting at home for 1/3 of a season after being suspended by his team without pay. While it is a "cut your nose of to spite your face" move by the Steelers at least it doesn't benefit the cheaters. Course they didn't have the benefit of hindsight. Cause our F.O. doesn't have the sophisticated cheating mechanisms in place that the **'s have employed for the last decade or so.

Damn we're so far behind.
 
BAS said:
I can believe that Blount orchestrated his dismissal from the Steelers, and MAYBE he had a hint that the Patriots were interested in snapping him back up, but there's no way to implicate the Patriots for being complicit in his actions without any evidence beyond his responses.
Click to expand...

No evidence but how hard would it be to make a phone call and tell him how to get released and picked back up? The only evidence would be from a cell phone call to a cell phone if neither of the two guilty parties tell there is no evidence unless someone in the phone company knows all the numbers that called blount.
 
Wingman said:
No evidence but how hard would it be to make a phone call and tell him how to get released and picked back up? The only evidence would be from a cell phone call to a cell phone if neither of the two guilty parties tell there is no evidence unless someone in the phone company knows all the numbers that called blount.
Click to expand...

Or even if Blunt called them and asks "will you pick me up if I get myself thrown off the team since I am not being used properly in black & gold?"
One phone calling another isn't proof of what they are talking about. Regardless, it is an issue with the rules of the privately owned NFL and not IMO a law enforcement issue.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top