Joe Philbin, Ryan Tannehill say they didn’t know Patriots could win AFC East

[MaineDolFan]

EK - a reporter publishing something doesn't make it "a story."  I published many articles in my career.  Many of those were not stories.  They were the product of my editor screaming at me saying "we have to have something, get me something"...so I gave him something.

If you perceive it to be a story, it doesn't mean it is for the rest of the world.

Secondly, your other point plays directly into my hands: 

who had flat embarrassed their past few opponents- "just another team. It's one thing to think these things or not know them, but it's pretty foolish looking to announce them, IMO.

New England HAD been crushing other teams.  They beat Miami by a touchdown.  One score.  Over a team they should have, for all intent and purposes, walked all over.

The difference in the game could be considered to be a boneheaded blunder by the punter, not the "rookie QB."  So, I would say Tannehill's level headed approach to this game worked out pretty well.  This game could have gone either way, Miami was in position to win the game...and certainly didn't get crushed like New England's last 3-4 opponents. 

Vince Wilfork, who I happen to like a lot (personally, from my days covering the team up here and professionally as a demon on the field) takes the exact same approach.  It doesn't matter who you line up in front of the man, he has a job to do.  So what's the difference?

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

Agree with Maine here.  The each of the New England papers publish something on the NEP every single day during football season (I assume the Miami papers do the same with the Dolphins) some days it is pure filler.  For example I remember a story on what gifts Wes Welker and his girlfriend exchanged for Xmas and how he spent the holiday either last year  or the year before -- that was a non story, yet it filled up a third of a page.

It is pretty easy for the reports to write something substantive for the Monday paper (who won and why) and Sunday's preview.  Leading up to this week I saw an article about how your coach grew up in Western Mass and this would his first game coaching against the team he rooted for as kid.  That too was a non-story.       

[Brian Fein]

What is the alternative?  Would you prefer Tannehill to go to the media and say "We're shaking in our cleats, the Patriots are unbeatable, we're considering not showing up on Sunday at all because we have no chance."

Then you'd roast him for that comment.

Notice - Tannehill didn't say they were a BAD team.  He didn't say they weren't good.  He did say they are not doing anything special to prepare for them.

I don't know if Tannehill kicked your dog or stole your girlfriend, but you clearly have a strong distaste for him.  I get it.  But not sure how you could consider his comment to be "boneheaded," when in fact it is the ONLY way football players look at their opponents.  Every game is winnable, and EVERY opponent is "just another team."  ANy other viewpoint is defeatist and a loser's attitude.

[Pappy13]

I can't tell from the responses this is getting whether or not people realize that this was well BEFORE the game was played. The story wasn't posted here until after the game, but the story broke on Thursday BEFORE the game. Philbin and Tannehill were informed on Wednesday BEFORE the game in a conference call with the New England media. Apparently the New England media was SHOCKED that Philbin and Tannehill didn't know that New England was playing for the AFC East on Sunday. In my humble opinion what is important to the New England media and what was important to the head coach and the QB of the Dolphins who were in the midst of trying to prepare for the game are 2 VERY different things.

Had Philbin and Tannehill not known on Sunday when they were playing the Patriots what the game meant to the Patriots, this *MIGHT* be a story. On Wednesday, 4 days BEFORE the game was to be played it's nothing. It's a non story.

[Brian Fein]

^^ to me, its a non-story regardless of when it was reported, and even more so since it was reported by the OPPONENT'S media squad.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

I can't tell from the responses this is getting whether or not people realize that this was well BEFORE the game was played.

I knew that.

Apparently the New England media was SHOCKED that Philbin and Tannehill didn't know that New England was playing for the AFC East on Sunday.

Not the entire New England media.  One crappy rabble raising tabloid, who does a very good job covering the redsox but I consider inferior to at least 5 other sources for Pats news -- Globe, Projo, ESPN Boston, CSN, Springfield Republican all do a better job covering the Pats. 

[EKnight]

I would have preferred he not say anything at all, same stance I took with Dansby telling everyone he was the best LB in football and publicly questioning the decision to cut chad Johnson. My stance on this stuff is consistent and is not an RT thing- shut up and play. -EK

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

I would have preferred he not say anything at all, same stance I took with Dansby telling everyone he was the best LB in football and publicly questioning the decision to cut chad Johnson. My stance on this stuff is consistent and is not an RT thing- shut up and play. -EK

I am a big fan of the Bill Belichick school of say nothing.  I consider the PC's leading up to week 17 of 2008 when the media tried 100 ways to get BB to say he was rooting for the Jets so they could have their headline to be pure gold comedy at its fineist.  (the media never suceed to get the quote they wanted).

However, you need to realize that there is a difference between calling out another player or coach on your team and simply answering the question being asked.  There is nothing wrong with Philbin saying he hasn't been paying attention to the Patriots playoff situation and has been focusing on his own team.  If fact that is exactly what the BB school of say nothing says you are suppose to say, even if in fact you know the playoff situation of another team. 

[Brian Fein]

Is there any rule that states that players must be available to the media?  If I was a coach, I'd say "all media communications goes through me" and not allow the media to approach the players during the season.

[Pappy13]

I would have preferred he not say anything at all, same stance I took with Dansby telling everyone he was the best LB in football and publicly questioning the decision to cut chad Johnson. My stance on this stuff is consistent and is not an RT thing- shut up and play. -EK

So they ask you for your opinion and you stare at them blankly? Yeah, I'm sure you would have praised him for that. He was being honest and pretty much everyone here has agreed that there were more important things for Tannehill to be worrying about then what NE's playoff possibilities were. Be honest EK, when it comes to Tannehill, your mind is made up about him and it's not going to change, no matter what he does.

[EKnight]

Who asked him what other teams were in the division when he was drafted? What reporter said to him, "did you know if you lose they clinch?" When was he asked, "is New England just another team?" He took OTHER questions (so far as I know) and responded. When a player is asked about a team that just laid wood to its previous 2 opponents to the tune of 108 points, "they're just another team" shows either an arrogance that RT hasn't earned yet, or an inability to comprehend the situation, IMO. He could have easily said the usual gracious Pre-game stuff many players do, but he didn't. Be honest- if Marshall or Johnson makes this same statement, how many of you guys are supportive and how many of you say STFU? -EK

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

Is there any rule that states that players must be available to the media?  If I was a coach, I'd say "all media communications goes through me" and not allow the media to approach the players during the season.

Yes, there is a rule.  I remember Randy Moss getting fined for not being avalable for the media often enough. 

If there wasn't such a rule, don't you think the coach up in NE would have already instituted a policy for his team?

[MaineDolFan]

Mountain?  Molehill.  Molehill?  Mountain.

If any other player had said the exact same thing we would not be having this conversation (unless there is a board member with a hair across about said player) because each team IS "just another team."

You're making it sound like Tannehill made one blanket statement about the Patriots (and was very dismissive about them in general), so let's get the facts, shall we?  His last statement, all the way down, sure as heck didn't sound like he was dismissive of the Patriots at all.

On what he sees from Aqib Talib:

"He's a good player. He is a tall long corner and he's able to make a play on the ball if he's close. I think you saw a great interception returned for a touchdown against the Colts. It shows what he can do with the ball in his hands. (He's) definitely a guy we'll have to look out for."

(On what he sees on film as to why the Patriots have been able to force so many turnovers this year)
"They're opportunistic. They're in the right place at the right time. They're able to take the ball off people who aren't taking care of it when they're running the football, carrying it loosely. They're opportunistic in that aspect. They're going to get their hands in there and strip the ball and they fight for the ball once it's on the ground. Definitely a focus of ours this week is taking care of the ball."

(On recording his first game-winning drive before Tom Brady was able to and if there's any satisfaction in that)
"Not really. Tom is such a great player and has been such a great player for a long time. Hopefully, we can continue to build on that and I can continue to build on what happened last week. There's a lot of work that needs to be done in that aspect."

(On if the players are aware that the Patriots can clinch the division this week)
"I had no clue until you just said that. I don't think it's anything that we're talking about in the locker room thus far. We're just obviously focused on a good Patriots team that is going to come in and play hard and play well. So we know that we're going to have to play well and hopefully come away with a victory."

(On the division going through the Patriots and if it's a point of emphasis to beat them to make case in the AFC East)
"Yeah, for sure. If you want to be the best team in the division, you've got to knock off the team that's on top and right now they have the best record in the division. They've been playing well. Obviously, we want to win every game. Division games are amped up just that much more and when you're playing the leader in the division, it makes it a little bit more fun."

[Pappy13]

Be honest- if Marshall or Johnson makes this same statement, how many of you guys are supportive and how many of you say STFU? -EK

He wasn't making statements, he was responding to media questions, but there's no point in discussing this with you, you're not a reasonable person when it comes to Tannehill.

[MikeO]

Funny thing is IF Tannehill did break down the Pats playoff scenarios and went in detail about that when he was asked, a on (edit) people on this board who don't like Tannehill (edit) would have started this thread and taken the opposite stance saying "What the hell is Tannehill so worried about the Pats for, he should be spending more time worrying about the Dolphins and breaking down tape on their defense."

No matter how Tannehill answered that question he would have been attacked for it ( ).

( )