• 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?

Yeah, phone calls don't mean anything. There's no law or rule preventing him from talking to players, staff or coaches at other teams. Blount talks to one of his buddies on the Pats, who says the Pats feel like they made a mistake letting him go, and if there was some way they could get him back they would. At that point, discussions wouldn't have to be between Blount and the Pats GM, the conversation could be handled by the players that Blount talks to (or someone hands the phone to the GM), and there doesn't even need to be a record that anyone important called Blount that would raise suspicions of tampering.

Ultimately, it doesn't matter. There's really no way of proving anything, but it's still probably safe to say that something not strictly legal happened in the whole situation.
 
If not for deflate gate, I wonder if this story would have any legs. Cutting Blount hurt the team. I felt Tomlin could have suspended Blount for a game as he did with Holmes. If that did not work, then okay, cut him. When Blount was cut, we had no plan B until the playoffs came. As a result the offensive game plan was limited, and the play action passing all but gone. Tomlin in my opinion is to blame for not picking anyone up up and getting him familiar with our play book.

Blount was the best player in the AFC title game. If he somehow wins the Super Bowl bowl MVP the Steelers will have opened themselves up to jokes to members of the less than informed media.
 
Coach said:
If not for deflate gate, I wonder if this story would have any legs. Cutting Blount hurt the team. I felt Tomlin could have suspended Blount for a game as he did with Holmes. If that did not work, then okay, cut him. When Blount was cut, we had no plan B until the playoffs came. As a result the offensive game plan was limited, and the play action passing all but gone. Tomlin in my opinion is to blame for not picking anyone up up and getting him familiar with our play book.

Blount was the best player in the AFC title game. If he somehow wins the Super Bowl bowl MVP the Steelers will have opened themselves up to jokes to members of the less than informed media.
Click to expand...

I don't think Blount would have done **** against the Ravens D. Our O-line got their ***** handed to them in that game. And come to think of it, Blount had all of 1 yard rushing (on 3 carries) when the Pats played the Ravens in the divisional round.

Tomlin decided there was no one available on the street than was better than Josh Harris (who had at least been with the team since the preseason). If you know of a better option that was available "on the street" please enlighten us.
 
Coach said:
Blount was the best player in the AFC title game. If he somehow wins the Super Bowl bowl MVP the Steelers will have opened themselves up to jokes to members of the less than informed media.
Click to expand...

Colts were horrible against the run though. I bet whoever was toting the rock that day was going to have a big day.
 
Steel G said:
Colts were horrible against the run though. I bet whoever was toting the rock that day was going to have a big day.
Click to expand...

Jonas Gray ran for 200+ against them when the Colts and Pats played in the regular season...
 
JupiterBnG said:
Yeah, phone calls don't mean anything. There's no law or rule preventing him from talking to players, staff or coaches at other teams. Blount talks to one of his buddies on the Pats, who says the Pats feel like they made a mistake letting him go, and if there was some way they could get him back they would. At that point, discussions wouldn't have to be between Blount and the Pats GM, the conversation could be handled by the players that Blount talks to (or someone hands the phone to the GM), and there doesn't even need to be a record that anyone important called Blount that would raise suspicions of tampering.

Ultimately, it doesn't matter. There's really no way of proving anything, but it's still probably safe to say that something not strictly legal happened in the whole situation.
Click to expand...

there are regulations regarding tampering but it is one of those things that will likely never be proven as the only folks that would conceivably benefit from it are the ones that know and they are not talking.
 
Cutting Blount is an easy decision to second guess because Bell got hurt and having virtually nothing behind him might have cost us a playoff victory. But perhaps getting rid of the "cancer" played a big part in the team coming together down the stretch and going from 7-5 to 11-5? Would we have even smelled the playoffs if Tomlin didn't take a tough stance which might have brought the locker room together?
 
Here is Dulac's opinion:

Comment From Franko
Given the Patriots capacity to cheat, Blount’s character, and his refusal to answer whether the he was contacted by the Patriots before his release, how likely is it that there was some behind-the-scenes scheming going on between Blount and the Patriots prior to that Tennessee game?

Gerry Dulac: Absolutely none. First of all, Blount had 5 carries the week before that game in Tennessee, including several at the goalline against the Jets. You might remember that one of those was a dreadful run on second down from the 3 in which he lost 5 yards. The week prior to that, he had 10 carries against the Ravens, same as Le'Veon Bell. To suggest that he was upset with his workload to orchestrate a move to New England BEFORE the game in Tennessee doesn't make sense. Plus, LeGarrette Blount liked it here, right up until the time he didn't get into the game against the Titans. To suggest premeditation is off base.
 
Well dulac only considers 1/2 of the issue, the half that is blount. He does nothing to consider the patriots side of the issue who may have orchestrated the entire thing. Volumes can be written about what dulac does not consider when rendering what passes for journalism these days. He has been found in past years to take subjects that were discussed on this board and then use them in his article with no credit to the originator of the thoughts. I do not remember specifics at this time and the ops maybe gone now but I do recall seeing the posts on here prior to the info showing up in the paper that shall not be named on more than one occasion.
 
Wingman said:
Well dulac only considers 1/2 of the issue, the half that is blount. He does nothing to consider the patriots side of the issue who may have orchestrated the entire thing. Volumes can be written about what dulac does not consider when rendering what passes for journalism these days. He has been found in past years to take subjects that were discussed on this board and then use them in his article with no credit to the originator of the thoughts. I do not remember specifics at this time and the ops maybe gone now but I do recall seeing the posts on here prior to the info showing up in the paper that shall not be named on more than one occasion.
Click to expand...

I could give two ***** about Dulac, but attacking the person making the case - rather than the case itself - doesn't make it appear like you've got a strong case to make yourself.

I know how much fun it is to paint the Patriots as the evil-doers behind all that is unholy, but believing they were somehow behind Blount's meltdown which forced the Steelers to cut him is pretty absurd.

How did the Pats know Tomlin would cut him instead of just a suspension? Given how thin we were at running back, it was certainly no slam dunk decision to get rid of Blount and leave us with Harris and Archer as the only backups. Why would Blount risk missing a couple paychecks in the case that Tomlin just wanted to suspend him?

How did they know Blount would clear waivers?
 
Wingman said:
there are regulations regarding tampering but it is one of those things that will likely never be proven as the only folks that would conceivably benefit from it are the ones that know and they are not talking.
Click to expand...

Yes, there are rules against tampering, but I was saying that there are no rules saying that a player from Team A can never call a player or staff member at Team B. The only way to prove tampering would be to have recordings of the damning phone calls, otherwise, it's just two guys having a chat about anything at all. Even if someone could prove that someone from the Pats was in contact with Blount, it doesn't even come close to the burden of proof needed to lodge a complaint of tampering. Much as I hate the Pats, and as much as I think this situation stinks of some kind of tampering, I have to admit that in this case, that's it - I think it stinks - and this is really nothing more than the media finding ways to pile on the Pats' cheating story and keep it going.
 
JupiterBnG said:
Yeah, phone calls don't mean anything. There's no law or rule preventing him from talking to players, staff or coaches at other teams. Blount talks to one of his buddies on the Pats, who says the Pats feel like they made a mistake letting him go, and if there was some way they could get him back they would. At that point, discussions wouldn't have to be between Blount and the Pats GM, the conversation could be handled by the players that Blount talks to (or someone hands the phone to the GM), and there doesn't even need to be a record that anyone important called Blount that would raise suspicions of tampering.

Ultimately, it doesn't matter. There's really no way of proving anything, but it's still probably safe to say that something not strictly legal happened in the whole situation.
Click to expand...

It's not what you know, it's what you can prove, Denzel Washington in "Training Day."

 
POP said:
It's not what you know, it's what you can prove, Denzel Washington in "Training Day."

Click to expand...


Interesting, so in your definition cheating that you can get away with is ok? Proven or not it is still cheating. Not an attack on Dulac just his methods as I used to read that paper a lot, now never. My point still is that he considered nothing other than Blount based on the previous post, and that there were other things to consider.
 
Coach said:
If not for deflate gate, I wonder if this story would have any legs. Cutting Blount hurt the team. I felt Tomlin could have suspended Blount for a game as he did with Holmes. If that did not work, then okay, cut him. When Blount was cut, we had no plan B until the playoffs came. As a result the offensive game plan was limited, and the play action passing all but gone. Tomlin in my opinion is to blame for not picking anyone up up and getting him familiar with our play book.

Blount was the best player in the AFC title game. If he somehow wins the Super Bowl bowl MVP the Steelers will have opened themselves up to jokes to members of the less than informed media.
Click to expand...

This assumes Tomlin makes these decisions; all evidence is he does not. Rooneys made the call to cut Blount, not Tomlin.
 
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...

In theory I think you're right. But he has such an established reputation as a screw-up that I can see almost every team passing on him.
 
I don't want to start another thread.

BUT

I wanted to say this.

This game depends on BLOUNT.
Seahawks have good Dbacks.. Brady will NEED the run to take pressure off.

Everyone knows what lynch can do. As much as I dislike the man,, I think blount is capable of putting up some nice numbers and the pats need him more than anyone is talking about. IMO.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top