Cheaters?

  1. This post has been removed.

     
  2. This post has been removed.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from Artist-Frmrly-Knwn-As-NickC1188. Show Artist-Frmrly-Knwn-As-NickC1188's posts

    Re: Cheaters?

    In Response to Re: Cheaters?:
    I still have a hard time referring to stealing signals as "cheating." That's all the Pats were doing--and they weren't even using the tapes during the games (Matt Walsh confirmed this). They were using them for scouting purposes later on (most likely to scout their own offensive tendencies to see if they were giving away any secrets with their formations). Stealing signals continues to go on in every football game played in America to this very day. Spygate: the most overblown bunch of nonsense, ever, starting with Goodell's ridiculous over-punishment and continuing with the media hysteria because they smelled Belichick's blood in the water, and most of them hate Belichick and were looking to exact a little revenge against him. A big bunch of nothing; that's what it was. Anyone who's followed football for more than 5 minutes knows that this kind of thing has been going on since the days of leather helmets.
    Posted by hardright


    Even though you're right, people will never listen.

    Even ESPN said this was the case: http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3394809

    Whatever.
     
  4. This post has been removed.

     
  5. This post has been removed.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from hardright. Show hardright's posts

    Re: Cheaters?

    In Response to Re: Cheaters?:
    Because it is legal. The act is legal. How stupid are you? The NFL allows any 32 teams to tape their games, including today. Give it up, dummy.  Holy mackerel are you dumb.
    Posted by russgriswold


    This again, goes to the inconsistencies between the now-famous memo and the actual rule or rules in place.

    The rulebook in one spot actually says teams MUST videotape their games and then exchange the tapes with opponents. It actually says that in one section, and it also says that the "legal" filming must include filming the scoreboard (for time, down and distance) so that opponents scouting the game film know the situation when each play was run.

    However, the memo addressed (and embellished) a particular portion of the rules which said "no recording devices....except polaroid-type cameras" were allowed to be used during the game, and that filming signals was not allowed (I can't remember if the actual rulebook addresses signals at all). Then it goes on to state the language about filming only being allowed in the "enclosed shooting locations" inside the stadium.

    So....if only "polaroid-type cameras" are supposed to be allowed during the game, then why does another section of the rulebook state that filming MUST take place so that teams can share the film with other teams, and that filming is allowed from enclosed locations inside the stadium? The language about filming being prohibited "in areas accessible to team personnel" is also contradictory, since it stands to reason that team personnel would include the guys filming the game tapes to be later exchanged with opponents.

    The entire thing is very contradictory, and for all of the media hand-wringing about how Belichick was "lying" regarding his interpretation of the rule (that the taping was OK as long as they were not being used during the game), he had a very solid legal foot to stand on, because the rulebook contradicts itself in certain places, and the memo contradicts the rulebook to boot.

    In the end, this still comes down to nothing more than a sophisticated (and, before the memo from the NFL, common) way to decipher opponent's signals--as opposed to the binoculars and notepad method that still goes on to this day, every single Sunday.

    Spygate: one big ball of NOTHING.
     
  7. This post has been removed.

     
  8. This post has been removed.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from hardright. Show hardright's posts

    Re: Cheaters?

    In Response to Re: Cheaters?:
    In Response to Re: Cheaters? : You're wrong. He was not asked twice to stop at all. All 32  teams had a memo sent out by Ray Anderson, reminding them of the rule. You lie constantly to try to convincer yourself this is some kind of a sinister thing because it absolves Egghead Manning's failures as he trhew INT after INT and choked so many times into a 9-9 career playoff record. It's legal to film games and I can guarantee every single NFL team, at some time or another, filmed NE. Guarantee.  I know this because it's legal.
    Posted by russgriswold


    The few times the Patriots were "caught" before the NY Jets game in September 2007 (once in Green Bay in 2006 and I think against Detroit, also in 2006), the other teams asked them to stop, and the Pats did....the NFL never asked them to stop. They merely sent out a memo to all 32 teams, because they knew that New England was not the only team doing this (Jimmy Johnson said he knew "for a fact" that other teams were doing it, too).

    Again, the entire notion that the Pats were using this practice for some massive competitive advantage, or any competitive advantage at all for that matter, is completely voided by the fact that they were filming a mediocre Green Bay team in 2006 in a game in which they destroyed the Packers by something like 35 points, and a bad Detroit team later in the year.

    Why on earth would they film those bad or mediocre teams? They didn't need to film them to beat them, and they certainly wouldn't be filming Detroit because they were thinking, "hey, we may see this team in the Super Bowl next year, so we'd better get their signals now, here in November 2006, even though the signals would probably be completely different by then."

    It's ludicrous.

    They were doing it for scouting purposes---most likely scouting their own offense to see how teams reacted and what defenses they called whenever the Pats lined up in certain offensive formations.

    It was simply, as the Scouts, Inc. article says, a mechanism for streamlining the scouting process, and nothing more.

    I know idiot trolls like underdogg will never get this, but then again, he probably believes that having Polian on the Competition Committee doesn't give his team an unfair competitive advantage---and he probably believes that the Colts never pumped in crowd noise at the RCA Dome, either.
     
  10. This post has been removed.

     
  11. This post has been removed.

     
  12. This post has been removed.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from N464Mex-N460A. Show N464Mex-N460A's posts

    Re: Cheaters?

    No one cares about your team here underfroggggg go away


    In Response to Re: Cheaters?:
    I think Wayne will be back and Mathis, too.  They are not in the same situation as Mankins.  That said, having them unhappy is not a good thing.  Wayne is an excellent receiver.  One of the best.  That doesn't mean he is perfect.  He is doing right now what Harrison did for him.  He's the decoy allowing opening for other receivers.  Look out for 5 wide this year.  Don't know if this will happen, but - Wayne, Gonzalez, Clark, Collie, and Garcon all healthy (I hope-apparently a small set back for gonzo).  Manning's got to be smiling thinking of the options.
    Posted by underdoggggg

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from jjaycee. Show jjaycee's posts

    Re: Cheaters?

    In Response to Re: Cheaters?:
    yep if the pats were involved they'd be calling it ota gate- 
    Posted by sirpinochle
    why are you quoting a draft dodger, liar, disbarred lawyer, and  adulterer???
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from oklahomapatriot. Show oklahomapatriot's posts

    Re: Cheaters?

    In Response to Re: Cheaters?:
    You have filled up this page with nothing more than convaluted junk, and still failed to answer the direct question and to state how it is an advantage. You have proven to do what I wanted. It's not an advantage. WHen confronted on this topic: 1. You have not done your homework. I have a pretty good idea of what I think on the subject.  I am comfortable with my opinion.   2. Don't have facts. The facts are that the pats were punished for breaking rules that the commission considered a calculated effort to undermine the rules.   3. Fail to clearly state how it is a definitive advantage over another team doing the same act within the rules. Who said "another team" was doing it.  We are aware that there may have been another "team or two" doing it along with the Pats.  Because of these few teams not following the rules, the commish felt the need to send a memo to the teams.  Do you know of any other team doing what the pats did after the memo was sent?  No.  The pats were warned and chose not to listen.   You even just said "caught" and "caught again". Caught doing what?  There is not calculation here.   It's a portion of a rule they didn't follow, for whatever reason, and were fined. You have to come to the reality that the Pats were notified to stop taping on the sidelines and chose not to do that.  There was absolute calculation in it.  They chose to continue taping signals in order to gain an advantage (as the commish said, and not for "whatever reason" LOL) were caught and punished.   And yes, we DO trust that, because Matt Walsh, the villain in this thing, UNDER OATH, said he they never took the tapes out of the camcorder. No - you trust because you are a blind belichick fan.  If the tapes were never taken out of the camcorder then how many cameras did they have?  The league recovered 6 tapes (right?) and the team was doing this for 6 years.  Besides was Walsh with these tapes 24 hrs a day?  Was he entrusted with ensuring the tapes did not leave the recorder? Not based on the way Belichick described him. This was stated by BB in Sept 2007 and corroborated every every video coordinator who ever worked for them. FACT. What purpose would it serve any of these people to say otherwise? So, even when facts point to this being the greatest witch hunt ever, you still pretend these facts somehow point to someting sinister and deceptive. The facts don't point to your opinion.  If they did the general public would not agree with the punishment.  You are a loser.  That's what is obvious. Your team is a loser more often than not when it counts, so you need someone to blame. Ouch.  I win . You are so stupid, you're a miracle. Ouch.  I win.  "Camera maginicification"? Are you for real here? No answer?  "Camera maginification"? Now NE has magical cameras? Incoherent questions. So, your answer to why NE had an advantage and hence "cheated" is because a guy on the field has a better camera angle from the SAME angle, as compared to him being, say 20 feet back but just in the stands from the NFL specified location? My opinion is that NE used the information to learn (illicitly) as much as they could about the opposition for their benefit.  The commissioner in his statement confirmed that.  I believe the NFL specified location is well above the field with about a 50 yard view of the field where the game tapes are recorded.  So, distance, in your opinion, is how they cheated?  lol I don't know the answer to this.  I am asking.  Do you have the answer?  I guess not. Every team is allowed to film.  Hence, why any team has been taping one another for decades, NOT just NE. Yes they film the game on the field, and they use that tape to evaluate their team and the other team for future reference.  Specifically filming a coaches signals from the sidelines is different.  WHy did Pitt allow NE to tape them in the 2001 AFC title game in the stands in Pittsburgh? Did they allow it from the endzone?  It came out from all of this that occassionally a team will ask another team if they may film the game from the endzone (different perspective of the field).  Because it's legal, you idiot!!   Ouch.  I win.   You find it normal that NFL personnel sat there next to Walsh for 3 hours every game NE decided to film an opponent and didn't know their own rules, do ya? What NFL officials, other than the game refs are on the field? Do ya?   I'd say that's pretty impropable for a multi billion dollar entity to not know their own rules for such a long period  of time, wouldn't you, Underoos? I'd say that Belichick was trying to subvert the rules (as stated by the commish).  the commish put out a memo specifically about it.  Why do you think Belichick consciously disregarded it? Note how the tapes on the road are from the field and not from a specified spot.  This means BB never asked where his cameraman should be or teams never provided him a spot.  Either way, he was wrong not to follow the exact rule, but the act is absolutely not cheating. Actually if he never asked for permission, it means he was intentionally trying to subvert the rules.  You say that Belichick is the best, smartest coach in the league, but he wouldn't ask where the cameraman should be?  Really?  Doesn't pass the smell test for me.  How's that for a fact?  pretty poor.   All the tapes Goodell showed us showed with Walsh in the stands in Foxborough and on the field on the road after the SB title in February 2002. Interesting, isn't it? Not really.  Goodell wasn't going to show the worst tapes.  He was trying to protect his boss (Kraft) as best he could.  You see today how close they are.  Goodell knows where his bread is buttered.  Your arrogance in that you think only NE has decided to film a particular game or games is hilarious and shows how stupid and naive you are. FACT: The Indianapolis Colts have filmed the NE Patriots within the last 25 years. Its possible.  Its unknown.  Its pure speculation in an effort to take the spotlight off of Belichick.  My opinion is that there were a few teams doing it (including the pats).  they were all turned into the league.  The league issued a memo specifying the intent of the rule.  The other teams took it seriously.  Belichick used it as toilet paper.   
    Posted by underdoggggg


    what a waste of message board space. the admin should limit posts to 500 words minimum
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share