So says a former teammate?
http://www.foxnews.com/sports/2018/...e-to-weed-and-women-former-teammate-says.html
http://www.foxnews.com/sports/2018/...e-to-weed-and-women-former-teammate-says.html
here's the problem BB and the Pats have, if they said they did it for disciplinary reasons,and did not tell the league that, so the league could tell everybody with a bet down, they are in trouble with the league. That's why BB said it was a coaches decision.So says a former teammate?
http://www.foxnews.com/sports/2018/...e-to-weed-and-women-former-teammate-says.html
So says a former teammate?
http://www.foxnews.com/sports/2018/...e-to-weed-and-women-former-teammate-says.html
So, according to that article, he didn't play? I thought that the game announcers said (implied?) that he played on special teams. I guess it doesn't really matter but I just wondered which was correct.So says a former teammate?
http://www.foxnews.com/sports/2018/...e-to-weed-and-women-former-teammate-says.html
He dressed and played in a play and was available for the game. That is not a violation with the league. Now if he was not dressed or was unavailable then that is a different story.here's the problem BB and the Pats have, if they said they did it for disciplinary reasons,and did not tell the league that, so the league could tell everybody with a bet down, they are in trouble with the league. That's why BB said it was a coaches decision.
So the reason he didn't play on defense was because their are others on D better suited to defend the Eagles, correct?He dressed and played in a play and was available for the game. That is not a violation with the league. Now if he was not dressed or was unavailable then that is a different story.
---He dressed and played in a play and was available for the game. That is not a violation with the league. Now if he was not dressed or was unavailable then that is a different story.
Doesn’t matter. He was available to play and just because he did not that is not a violation of league rules.So the reason he didn't play on defense was because their are others on D better suited to defend the Eagles, correct?
I love how you non Pats fans throw stones when there are none to throw. If this was your Eagles or Steelers or PSU you would b saying what a good person the coach was for taking a stand against a player breaking the rules and laud how the standards were being upheld despite the magnitude of the game and the fact that him not playing hurt their chances to win the Super Bowl. But with your obvious bias you take the angle that he is somehow skirting the rules. Please stop you Pats Haters embarass yourselves.---
So Billy the Cheater played him one down just to get by the rules? Interesting.
I think the "owes an explanation" due to the fact that you bench your #2 CB right before the game, and then proceed to get torched defensively most the game.