Shakenbake Posted September 13, 2007 Share Posted September 13, 2007 LINK Sorry let's try this again Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pope Flick Posted September 13, 2007 Share Posted September 13, 2007 That is what I'm doing. I'm sticking around, to argue against your pointless pieces of stupidity. I'm not saying what they did is fine, and I'm certainly not saying what they did worse than what Vick did. You said that, and I think you're off your rocker because of it. If it's a Panther-roid point, bring it on, because that is a good debate, but i think we'll be on the same side of the fence there. The vick statement was way off target. That's all. I have respect for you and your opinions, as you usually voice them in a very articulate way, but that was and probably will remain, one of the worst statements I've ever read on here. No - I didn't. I said it was worse for the league than what Vick did. It's in the Donaghey area of putting a league's results into question, which is far worse for the NFL than what some redneck hick did with his disgusting dog-fighting operation. Why don't you eat YOUR words and link where I said "it's worse than what VIck did" without pulling it out of the "for the NFL' context in which I have always made that statement. Go ahead, Ms. Thang, I'm waiting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capt. Waffle Posted September 13, 2007 Share Posted September 13, 2007 LINK Sorry let's try this again Sorry, sounds like an article written by two Pats homers full of "wishful thinking", as I will not forget this anytime soon and will go as far as to say, that it won't go away until the Pat's once again become mediocre. As long as the success continues this will follow them like a shadow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shakenbake Posted September 13, 2007 Share Posted September 13, 2007 I disagree, if they continue to be successful you will find something else to complain about, lol, cause this will be a non issue if they keep winning. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vet Posted September 13, 2007 Share Posted September 13, 2007 ...Of course, I could be wrong... True. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capt. Waffle Posted September 13, 2007 Share Posted September 13, 2007 I disagree, if they continue to be successful you will find something else to complain about, lol, cause this will be a non issue if they keep winning. I have no problem agreeing to disagree Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LosGatosEnFuegos Posted September 13, 2007 Share Posted September 13, 2007 Could some more people miss the F*CKING POINT here? The next person to invoke the "everyone tries to steal signals" defense is officially a douchebag...i wonder if that will be censored... Here's the point. Signaling in defensive plays is an antiquated method. I have no problem with a team looking at the signals and trying to match them up with plays. The signals are right out in the open. I don't blame you for looking. VIDEOTAPING the signals, however, is not allowed by the league. It is a matter of technology. I will use Napster as my analogy. Let's imagine it's 1984. You just bought Thriller, and you're totally amped about it. I come over to your house to discuss the L.A. Raiders' recent superbowl victory, and you tell me that you got this sweet a$ new album and you're going to make me a copy. You use the next hour to make a copy for me while we talk about Marcus Allen. A couple weeks later your buddy comes over to your place to discuss Jesse Jackson's presidential campaign. You tell him you have Thriller. He's heard it and wants a copy. You spend the next hour making a copy of it while you watch the premier of Night Court. In the course of a couple weeks, you've "stolen" two albums. It was time consuming and you only did it because it was convenient (i.e. we were at your house, we talked about the album, etc.) Cut ahead to 2001. I just bought Lateralus by Tool and I'm wicked stoked about it. I get home and rip it onto my computer in a matter of minutes. I log on to Napster. Over the course of the next few days, hundreds of people, from the privacy of their homes, having never met me, decide that they want to have Lateralus, but they don't care to pay for it. They download it from me. I have essentially "stolen" hundreds of copies of this album in a couple days. Record companies cry foul because they cannot keep up with this new technology. Their ability to track who is stealing from them cannot keep up with the new technology used to steal from them. They, therefore, approach Napster and have them shut down. The issue here is that the Patriots were using a technologically advanced piece of equipment, a piece of equipment expressly disallowed by the league by-laws for this purpose, to videotape defensive signal callers, a method with its roots coming from a time long before video cameras were insignificant enough for this be a concern. This is the other point here. I'm not whole-heartedly against everything that can be considered "cheating." This is how innovation comes about. Someone finds a new method to get an advantage and exploits it. Later, when what they have been doing comes to light, the league either bans it or says that's it's cool. At this point, everyone will start using it and you must find a new way to get a foot up on the competition. That's a very fun cycle. It keeps the game fresh. What the Patriots have been found doing, however, has already been labeled as wrong by the league. It was known that videotaping signal callers is not allowed. So you knew the rule. You broke the rule. You are a cheater. Period. End of discussion. You are not allowed to rationalize this. You may try to argue, "hey, every other team does this." Fine. The league will take measures to look into that and stop it from occurring, but it doesn't make you doing it OK. You were wrong to do it. You are not allowed to rationalize this. Stop it. STOP IT. You may wish to say "hey, those guys are on steroids!" Fine. That is a problem that needs to be addressed. But it is merely a red herring in this case. The issue isn't Roidhead McMerriman. The issue is you. The issue is that you cheated. The issue is that you knew what you were doing was cheating. The issue is that you did it anyway. You are not allowed to wiggle out of this. You are not allowed to rationalize this. You are not allowed to videotape signal calls. Period. End of discussion. Stop it. STOP IT. You are not allowed to rationalize this because you cannot rationalize this. It is reprehensible, and every attempt you make to rationalize it drastically lowers your credibility, as a player, as a coach, as an owner, as a reporter, as a commentator, as a fan, and as a person. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LosGatosEnFuegos Posted September 13, 2007 Share Posted September 13, 2007 On more thought. You may believe "we would have beat the Jets without cheating." Fine. The Jets were overachieving last year IMO. And you very well may have beat them fair and square. But you're the ones that gave us reason to believe that maybe you didn't. We don't know how much the cheating affected the outcome. And because we don't know, and cannot truly ever know, we refuse to allow you to claim that it had no bearing on it at all. You are not allowed to claim that any more than we are allowed to claim that we would have won 17-0 if you hadn't been cheating. All we can say is, we'll never know how the game would have ended otherwise. This is how it did end.* Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Finger Posted September 13, 2007 Share Posted September 13, 2007 On more thought. You may believe "we would have beat the Jets without cheating." Fine. The Jets were overachieving last year IMO. And you very well may have beat them fair and square. But you're the ones that gave us reason to believe that maybe you didn't. We don't know how much the cheating affected the outcome. And because we don't know, and cannot truly ever know, we refuse to allow you to claim that it had no bearing on it at all. You are not allowed to claim that any more than we are allowed to claim that we would have won 17-0 if you hadn't been cheating. All we can say is, we'll never know how the game would have ended otherwise. This is how it did end.* The camera was taken in the 1st qtr, the incident had nothing to do with the thrashing your team took. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chinatown dragons Posted September 13, 2007 Share Posted September 13, 2007 Being a Pats homer, it sure is embarrassing....if anything, have lost respect for the coaches..the staff, but not Brady. he still has to go out there and execute. The tough thing is trying to explain to your 6 year old son that his local team cheated....and HOPE that he doesn't think it's okay to do......well, least we got Sox/Yanks series this weekend and Big Papi is back! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jo Posted September 13, 2007 Share Posted September 13, 2007 Being a Pats homer, it sure is embarrassing....if anything, have lost respect for the coaches..the staff, but not Brady. he still has to go out there and execute. I'm no Pats fan, but I agree with this. Brady still has go out there and run the offense. And even if you think Brady knew the exact D the opposing team was running from the onset, often times the defense audibles and then Brady has to adjust the play, his reads, etc. Thus, I don't think it tarnishes anything he's done. The only way I'll change my mind is if he plays like a dog from here on out, which just won't happen. Now the organization on the other hand... If I'm Goodell, however, I'm sending a message with this. Between the whole Vick thing and public being skeptical about sports in general due to the NBA ref scandal, I think he has to come down hard. I'd take away a 1st round pick, suspend Belichick for a game without pay, and fine the Pats somewhere between $500k and $1 million. It's harsh, but Goodell's been harsh with individual player punishments, so I don't see why he should deviate here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LosGatosEnFuegos Posted September 13, 2007 Share Posted September 13, 2007 The camera was taken in the 1st qtr, the incident had nothing to do with the thrashing your team took. I will accept that. And I would like it to be noted that they are not my team. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big John Posted September 13, 2007 Share Posted September 13, 2007 I will accept that. And I would like it to be noted that they are not my team. Giants fan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LooGie Posted September 13, 2007 Share Posted September 13, 2007 No - I didn't. I said it was worse for the league than what Vick did. It's in the Donaghey area of putting a league's results into question, which is far worse for the NFL than what some redneck hick did with his disgusting dog-fighting operation. Why don't you eat YOUR words and link where I said "it's worse than what VIck did" without pulling it out of the "for the NFL' context in which I have always made that statement. Go ahead, Ms. Thang, I'm waiting. Listen man, adding "for the NFL" to an asinine statement, doesn't make it true. In fact, when comparing murdering animals for money, and videotaping signals, it merely makes it laughable. I'm sorry, but just because Vick didn't run the dog ring on the 50 yard line every sunday, doesn't make it LESS terrible, or negative to the NFL. Goodell will agree with me, as you wont see Belechik and Co suspended indefinitely. And they certainly wont be pending legal charges. No why? Because it's not illegal. I bet this is worse than what Ray "Double Homicide" Lewis did, huh? (allegedly) Get a clue, and let it go. You're wrong. There is no two ways about it. You actually, could not be more wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted September 13, 2007 Share Posted September 13, 2007 (edited) I'm sorry, but just because Vick didn't run the dog ring on the 50 yard line every sunday, doesn't make it LESS terrible, or negative to the NFL. Goodell will agree with me, as you wont see Belechik and Co suspended indefinitely That may be true on a moral basis, but cheating strikes at the integrity of the game. What do you think that MLB thought was worse: The Black Sox throwing the 1919 World Series or Ty Cobb going into the stands to pummel a heckler? The last time I checked, Cobb was still in the HOF. Shoeless Joe & Co. are not. If the Pats were just stealing signals with a video camera, a couple of suspensions and the loss of a draft pick will take care of it. However, if the rumors about the "unauthorized frequencies" being used to send signals to a transmitter in a defensive player's helmet are true (and I don't think that they are), you're talking about a scandal that will rock the league BIG TIME. In this scenario, multiple people would be banished from the league Pete Rose-style. Edited September 13, 2007 by Bill Swerski Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pope Flick Posted September 13, 2007 Share Posted September 13, 2007 Listen man, adding "for the NFL" to an asinine statement, doesn't make it true. In fact, when comparing murdering animals for money, and videotaping signals, it merely makes it laughable. I'm sorry, but just because Vick didn't run the dog ring on the 50 yard line every sunday, doesn't make it LESS terrible, or negative to the NFL. Goodell will agree with me, as you wont see Belechik and Co suspended indefinitely. And they certainly wont be pending legal charges. No why? Because it's not illegal. I bet this is worse than what Ray "Double Homicide" Lewis did, huh? (allegedly) Get a clue, and let it go. You're wrong. There is no two ways about it. You actually, could not be more wrong. Grow up and realize you're trying to talk about something different than I am: anything that can seriously place the results of sporting events into question cuts right to the heart of the sport's existence. Baseball knew it in 1919, the NBA knows it in the wake of the Donaghey scandal over the summer and Goodell knows it right now. So, punk I'm still waiting for you to make me eat my words, but again you bring up straw man arguments (I never mentioned the Panthers in this thread, and probably have the same opinion of Ray Ray that you do, and OF COURSE it isn't illegal) in order to feel right. On an everyday basis, what Vick did was far worse than what Belicheat did, on a purely human level. But all of my statements haven't been about that, they've been about what was worse for the league. And this is worse than the Vick BS because that was clearly a single person bringing shame on the NFL with his horrific deeds. But the NFL would much rather have another off field embarassment than a on field coaching staff organizing a way to break rules in order to get an advantage their opponents don't have - especially when said coaching staff has 3 SB Trophies in the last 6 years. Your statement about my 'eating your words I promise you' was what I originally thought it was - a joke. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperCharger Posted September 13, 2007 Share Posted September 13, 2007 (edited) I'm personally not outraged by this. I assumed every team did something like this, it's in their best interest to try to find out what the other team is thinking, doing etc. A man with a camera was video taping the opponents sideline? Sorry, I don't see the issue, it's a public place, it's not like they had ninja's infiltrate their HQ and wire tap their phones and switch out their roids with estrogen. I've always equated Football to War, spying is a big part of war and I always thought stealing signs and spying formations was a part of football. Just my opinion. I'm for one am not outraged and I don't believe any punishment is warrented. Fight Intelligence with Counter-Intelligence. Have multiple signal callers, send fake signals and switch up your signals often. Make it hard to spy. EDIT : Spelling and grammar mistakes. Edited September 13, 2007 by SuperCharger Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Finger Posted September 13, 2007 Share Posted September 13, 2007 The New York Post reports former Giants LB Carl Banks said he is not surprised or appalled by New England Patriots HC Bill Belichick's spygate fiasco because espionage, legal or otherwise, is a rampant league-wide phenomenon. "Its something that every team does in one way, shape or form," Banks said. "Every team has a TV show, every team has a highlight show with a camera crew on the sideline. You think theyre just shooting highlights for their team? With the advent of all these access shows - Inside the Panthers, Inside the Lions - theyre not all shooting highlights, Im telling you now. What the league has to do now is monitor the number of people on the sidelines who operate cameras. I bet a few people disappear this weekend!" But not the opposing team scouts in the press box. "When youre sitting in the press box and see all those scouts from other teams," Banks began, "theyre not all watching the game. Theyre watching the sideline, for calls, for signals .??.??. they do all of that stuff. Its however you can get an advantage to help you prepare for the next week." Banks pooh-poohed the notion that the Patriots could have gained a competitive advantage over the Jets by stealing their defensive signals. "I cant debate the legality of it; but any fan who is appalled and thinks the outcome of the game was impacted based on this videotape has been misled," Banks said. "Theres not enough time to process and corroborate the information. The biggest spies during the course of a game are the players on the field." Then what would be the purpose of a cloak-and-dagger video scam? "Library," Banks said. "Its a library of calls and signals." Belichick was Banks defensive coordinator with the Giants. Banks also worked in the Jets front office when Belichick was defensive coordinator under HC Bill Parcells. "I learned just about everything I know about strategy, preparation and competitive edge from him," Banks said. Already posted this quote on another thread but thought with all the piling on, I could do a little of my own. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McBoog Posted September 13, 2007 Share Posted September 13, 2007 Merriman was on steroids, take all games away from SD that he played in prior to being caught too. I'm definitely not saying what the Pats are being accused of as right, if true it's cheating but if they've been doing this for years and always know the defensive scheme then shouldn't they have been scoring at will? Again, not condoning anything they're being accused of but just saying. Plus how does it look for the home team if the visitors are bringing in a camera guy to do this in your own back yard? You didn't pay any attention to anything but the fact he peed hot. He was clean his first season, peed hot AFTER the season and before camp, once! Then he has peed clean ever since (including two days after the first hot test). Not at any point was he ever on the field juiced. He was wrong and both he and the team were punished by his suspension. How does the act of a single individual compare to top-to-bottom, systemic, institutionalized cheating by the players and coaching staff??? It is too bad 'cause they were thought of as a "class" organization and I used to "brag" that the Chargers were being built off of that same blueprint. GO I HOPE NOT NOW! I don't think AJ OR Spanos would allow it. Like it or not, everything they have done over the last few years is now tarnished in the eyes of the majority. TB and BellICheat could be excluded from the Hall, not by imposed sanction, but by the "court of public opinion". Anyone outside of Boston thinking about voting for them will ALWAYS have the "Yeah, but they were caught cheating" thingy to overcome. It might happen, but postumous placement is sort of like kissing your sister! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McBoog Posted September 13, 2007 Share Posted September 13, 2007 As a diehard Patriot fan , let me try to explain.... I got nothing. I'll just go hang my head in shame now. I'm as disgusted as everyone else is with my team. My 5 year old son is named Brady and I'm not sure I want him following this team when/if he decides to get into football. I am sooo sorry. Genuinely! It would suck to be a Pats fan that sees the reality of this and what the truth means. Maybe it is easier for them to kid themselves and make excuses. You on the other hand are a stand-up guy and that takes snarklies! This was one of my favorite teams of my childhood, and though a Charger fan now, even I am feeling a little Hang in there brah. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
forever in debt to mo lewis Posted September 13, 2007 Share Posted September 13, 2007 so you condone him having a child out of wedlock? dont see how that makes me retarded....maybe brady, leinart & travis henry should do a trojan commercial together lol...well...its 2007, not 67....considering the divorce rate these days...i dont think having a child out of wedlock is that horrible...especially if you can afford to provide for it....while i know there are alot of rumors about leinart not taking much of a hands on approach...im sure tom will do his thing...travis henry is a whole different situation... last time i checked...i dont think tom forced himself upon his babys mother...and i would even speculate it was somewhat of a desperation move by her to try and keep him Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted September 13, 2007 Share Posted September 13, 2007 lol...well...its 2007, not 67....considering the divorce rate these days...i dont think having a child out of wedlock is that horrible... This isn't a shot at Brady, but I don't think it's the best situation for the child, even if mom and dad are millionaires. And "considering the divorce rate these days" doesn't exactly justify the situation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
forever in debt to mo lewis Posted September 13, 2007 Share Posted September 13, 2007 This isn't a shot at Brady, but I don't think it's the best situation for the child, even if mom and dad are millionaires. And "considering the divorce rate these days" doesn't exactly justify the situation. thats fine..you are entitled...but to lump him in with travis henry is absurd i do remember when they first announced this news that she was pregnant...there was quite a thread on here....and we discussed the possibility of this being a desperation move by a woman in her early 30's who just had her tv show cancelled(you know "whoops i forgot to take my pills") Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted September 13, 2007 Share Posted September 13, 2007 last time i checked...i dont think you said it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted September 13, 2007 Share Posted September 13, 2007 thats fine..you are entitled...but to lump him in with travis henry is absurd Oh, I'm not. It's irresponsible behavior by Mr. Brady and Ms. Moynihan for sure, but certainly not on the level of Henry, Shawn Kemp, Larry Bird, etc. i do remember when they first announced this news that she was pregnant...there was quite a thread on here....and we discussed the possibility of this being a desperation move by a woman in her early 30's who just had her tv show cancelled(you know "whoops i forgot to take my pills") That's a possibility, but there's really no way to prove that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.