So how long must he check random threads to make sure the news hasn't been posted in any of them before he decides it's alright to post it in it's own thread?

By that time, has someone else already posted the news? If so, then that guy gets the lashing for the non-repost repost. Poor guy.

Moral of the story...don't post Chiefs news in new threads.

What about the other 21 people off the street they signed.

You're a dipshit.

You didn't break any new news.

I pointed that out.

You got bent out of shape.

End of story.

NTTAWWT

It took me ten seconds or less to find the exact post that Waters was signed by the Pats after reading your post here that I've qouted using the search function.

And the moral of the story is, if you think you're breaking news, you are probably wrong.

I didn't say that it shouldn't be posted as it's own thread.

I said be aware that it's probably very likely that you are posting news that has already posted.

i'm surprised they didn't wait until after the 1st game

Is the rule, in the new CBA, still the same about non-guaranteed contracts after the first game?

Haha........you still don't get it..........you are all caught up in who "broke the news."

I really don't care who "broke the news." I a fan not a media outlet trying to take credit for breaking news.

I saw something on the ticker.......checked the thread titles.........and posted it.

You questioned whether or not it was worthy of its own thread. I'm not going to make a habit of explaining to you my rationale for opening threads. You can have all the credit for "breaking news."

Also, keep all your "dipshit" and name calling comments to yourself. It's probably a jerk reaction to being constantly made a fool of.

Run along an play now.:thumb:

Sounds like a good rule of thumb to me.

I've spent a lot of years doing a lot of things, some that shouldn't have.

I've reached a point in my life that I just want to relax at home in front of the TV with my laptop.

I didn't question whether it deserved it's own thread.

I simply pointed out that it was old news, even though it does probaby deserve it's own thread.

And I didn't break the news.

I just think people should be aware that the news had already been posted.

So I know that Belichick is a modern day Lombardi-esque genious and all, but is he playing with fire trying to mesh all these former great players together? It all has a feel of what Dan Snyder tried to do when he first went to Washington. You could probably extend this question towards the Eagles, as well.

This. Crazy isn't it.

I hadn't seen the news so it was news to me... so thanks for the news. I'm glad I didn't have to go through pages and pages of old news about his release seeking out some newer news that I wouldn't have even known was news to be looking for. This method was quite convenient... not to mention newsworthy.

Key differences:

1.) Belichick signs them for relative peanuts. Snyder throws bazillions at them. By picking them up when they're down, for cheap money, it motivates them to play better to show their former (or future) teams that they were wrong about them.

2.) Belichick coaches an organization that is well-run and wins. Both of those things inspire head-cases to behave more, at least for a while.

3.) Belichick usually doesn't sign them to play key roles. If they end up playing key roles, it's because they show they can.

4.) Waters doesn't fit the problem-child description anyway, more the "old veteran with something left in the tank". (At least, he's not a problem-child compared to Haynesworth.)

And that is probably buried in a 50+ post thread that most of the board probably hasn't seen.

Maybe we should be lambasting the idiot who "broke the news" and decided to "break" it in an old thread that most stopped caring about. Eh?

Bellichek banks on 2 things: 1)Great players who still have a little in the gas tank and 2) his own reputation that great players will give him the rest of that gas because he has done it 3x thus a way to get a ring:thumb: