Ben says he may have been targeted by the Niners

The way I look at Ben's comments (and for that matter a lot of his comments) is he doesn't appreciate or understand the context of what he says. I don't think there is that big of a deal in what Ben said - but for a news agency hounds there is enough, even plenty, in what he said to make insinuations. So what would have been better for Ben to say and would have probably clarified exactly what he meant? I'll try this:

ESPN: "Ben do you think you have ever been targeted?"

Ben: "Yes I've been targeted, I certainly felt in the SF game that the Niners were being a little bit more creative and ambitious in going after my ankle. But that doesn't mean there was a bounty on it. Also, you got to remember that football works that way - teams exploit weaknesses. Just like if I know a db may have a hamstring problem I may go right after him with Wallace going on a deep route. I think there is a lot of targeting that goes on in many games, but how that is tied to a bounty system - I couldn't tell you."

I'm not saying the above response is perfect, but it has a lot more context that frames the issue from "Yes I know I have been targeted" to "Yes I know I have been targeted, but it most likely falls within the normal realm where teams exploit a weakness if they can."