In Response to Re: Goodell is really naive!
[QUOTE]In Response to Re: Goodell is really naive! : STEPPED INTO INTO A PROHIBITED AREA...I AM NOT GOING TO ENGAGE IN THE PERSONAL ATTACKS, BUT IN THIS ARGUMENT. I can not help it if you are unwilling to accept the video evidence of the pats player's infraction even though it is as obvious as the sun in the sky. RESPONSE: You "STEP INTO A PROHIBITED AREA" every time you post here. But, that never stopped you...you're still here. The question is, why? Judging from the content of your latest posts, the only thing that you're interested in accomplishing is to agitate...the very definition of a troll. Why should Russ, or anyone else, accept video, or any other kind of alleged "evidence" from the likes of you? TP - its fine if you don't want to accept it, but it doesn't change the truth. The point of the discussion isn't even that the pats engaged in an act that this board went apoplectic when initially connected to the jets, its that this thread wants to once again suggest that Goodell is biased against and has it in for the pats. I disagree. RESPONSE: If "Jets" Goodell isn't biased against BB and the Patriots, then why did he hit BB with that ridiculous, unprecedented $500,000 fine, hit Bob Kraft with an additional $250,000 fine, and dock the Pats a #1 draft choice...for video-taping signals in the wrong area? It appears to me that it was because he disregarded a rule that had been emphasized in a league wide memo, likely had been caught prior to that, then deceived Goodell about how we would address the media.RESPONSE: Even if what you're saying is true, are such violations worthy of fining BB a far and away unprecedented $500,000, fining Bob Kraft $250,000, and docking the team a first round draft pick? Clearly, this extensive penalty smacked of anti-Patriots' bias by an ex-Jets employee, and fueled the Goodell/media created spygate scandal.
Why did he work with the press to make a mountain out of a mole hill? Worked with the media, how?RESPONSE: Again, the grossly unprecedented, grossly inflated punishment against BB and the Patriots, as described above, provided the fuel to propel spygate.
Don't give me that BS about the Pats gaining a huge competitive advantage over the practice. Isn't any advantage through deceptive means enough?RESPONSE: Talk about a croc of a response...LOL!!!
Other coaches have since come forth and admitted to doing the same thing. Its certainly possible that others did it which imo was why the memo was put out. Yeah...BB disregarded a league memo. So, fine him $100,000, and be done with it. But...to go along with the NY media the way he did indicated that he was a willing, useful idiot for the press. Furthermore, don't you find it a bit too coincidental that Goodell chose to attack BB's credibility, and rehash "spygate", when he told the press that he felt BB "deceived him" about apologizing to the media for the alleged scandal...just hours before Belichick was named NFL Coach of the Year? I don't know when Goodell gave that interview to Peter King, do you? That the pats weren't punished for their tripping act same as the Jets were shows thatRESPONSE: After doing some research, it appears that Goodell may have made these anti-BB comments on January 7th...but Peter King of SI chose to break them during SB week. The media's agenda is to perpetuate that BB is a cheat, and to impose a "scarlet letter" on his legacy. Once again, the media is being used by the press for the "useful idiot" that he is.
RESPONSE: That is ridiculous...even you can't be this dense. Even if the Pats' player in question attempted to trip the Jets' player, it appeared to me that it happened well out of bounds...not near the playing field. Who is going to see that? Furthermore, the Jeys' player was not tripped, unlike the Dolphins' player was by the idiot Jets' coach. Finally, even if there was an attempt to trip, you would want Goodell to punish the Patriots for it...in the same fashion that the Jets were punished? If that happened, it would open the flood-gates to multiple post-game complaints on uncalled fouls. Plus, how far back do you want to go? One game? Three? A year? Five years? With such idiocy at hand, sooner or later the lawyers would get involved. It would only be a matter of time before punitive rulings by the Commissioner would be challenged in court. Well out of bounds? Did you know that Alosi didn't put his foot into the painted white area? The pats player did. The pats player actually turned his body and stepped into the painted area in order to get to the Jets gunner. Watch the video.RESPONSE: Even if you claim that it didn't occur well out of bounds, the Pats' player didn't trip the opposing player in question, did he? Watch the video.
As for the punishment, my point was that Pats fans were looking for punishment with regard to other teams taping and were upset that no other team was punished.RESPONSE: No other team in football history has been punished to the extent the Pats' were by "Jets" Goodell.
Now, you are changing your opinion because the shoe is on the other foot. That's hypocritical. I just want pats fans to be consistent.RESPONSE: You're just trolling. Furthermore, I noticed that you never addressed my point on retroactive punishment. Why?? LOL!!!
After all, you've been making asinine statements here, ever since you've began posting. When you're called on your foolish gibberish, you rarely if ever admit you're wrong, even in the face of overwhelming direct and circumstantial evidence. Of course, I disagree. I admit I am wrong frequently. RESPONSE: Agreed. Since you have admitted to being "wrong frequently", why should anybody here take your dogmatic opinions seriously? You frequently ask this question. It's up to each poster to decide whether or not they decide to take me seriously. If I've made a logical argument, as I have on this subject, then I think it makes sense to take me seriously, RESPONSE: You have once again failed to make a "logical argument". You have made a biased argument.
As for being wrong frequently, its my opinion that we all are wrong frequently.RESPONSE: Weak...LOL!!!
What difference does it make if a Pats' player committed or attempted to commit an infraction in the past? The bottom line is that the idiot Jets' coach actually tripped a player during a game...making his rule violation obvious for all too see, and creating a situation where the tripped player might have been seriously injured. As a result, that idiot coach deserved to be punished. Because the Jets' were caught, should we now go back and examine every past NFL game to see whether other teams or players committed, or attempted to commit, similar violations? as I recall pats fans here (including you) have been so upset over the fact that no other team was punished for committing the same spygate acts. Although we don't have evidence of other teams committing the same spygate infraction, RESPONSE: Again, thats' a lie. There was ample evidence, both before and after the Patriots were accused. "Jets" Goodell chose to take no action.
RESPONSE: That's a lie. Numerous NFL coaches have admitted to engaging in the same taping practice as the Pats...and that it was commonplace. Furthermore, complaints were made against the Jets and Eric Mangini for the same conduct...but the league office chose not to investigate. I think commonplace is an incorrect word. A couple of coaches said they did it, as I recall, and one was back in the 90's.RESPONSE: Again, thats' a lie. Incidently, did you happen to read Dick Vermeil's spygate comments today?
Isn't it interesting that you mention Mangini? If he was taping, where do you think he learned the technique?RESPONSE: Even you can be this dense. It was Mangini who complained...and he was doing the same thing. Do you really expect any current coaches to now come forward and say, "Yeah...I've been video-taping like that for years too"...in light of what happened to BB?
Further, how do you know the Jets weren't investigated?RESPONSE: Nothing was done. Don't you think that if they were investigated, that we would have heard about it...especially if the Jets had been investigated, and cleared???
It seems logical to me that in 06 there some teams complained about other teams taping (including the pats) so the league issued a memo reminding teams of the rules. It also wouldn't surprise me if accused teams were notified by the league after the infraction was reported. we do with respect to the tripping incident. RESPONSE: Again, the Pats' player, whether he attempted to or not, did not trip the player in question. The idiot Jets' coach did...which is why that guy got fired, and the Jets were fined $100,000. If there was no trip, nothing would have happened.
RESPONSE: Even if the Patriot player did attempt to trip the player in question, it was well out of bounds...and the alleged attempted trip was never consummated. Once again, you are showing your bias, and inability to objectively engage in this discussion. In the Jet situation, the Miami player was tripped and felled. what a crock of a response. that's like saying its ok to hold a receiver 20 yards downfield as long as the QB doesn't throw the ball to him. The attempt was made. Just because the gunner was athletic enough and aware enough to get out of the way has no bearing on the incident. Is it now that the shoe is on the other foot, you want different (selective) justice than you wanted for spygate? RESPONSE: Typical trollish, ridiculous response. Do you deny that the only reason that the Jets were penalized was because the Miami player actually got tripped?
RESPONSE: Another ridiculous point. What justice?? The Pats were sliced and diced in the media for months...BB was fined $500,000...Kraft $250,000... and they were additionally docked a #1 draft choice!!!! All that happened to the Jets was a $100,000 fine to the team. Compare and contrast the "spygate" punishment to that handed down to the Denver Broncos, for cheating on the salary cap. They were docked a 3rd round pick. No no, this is right on. you want other teams punished for taping as the pats were, but when it is demonstrated that the pats did something outside the rules that another team was punished for you claim the pats shouldn't be punished. Be consistent. ...I know nothing...but it has no bearing on this case. RESPONSE: Where have I said that, "I want other teams punished as the Pats were"?? My point is, and has always been, that the Pats were purposely and unfairly treated by Goodell and the media...that the ridiculous punishment handed down was grossly out of wack. I maintain that "Jets" Goodell is biased against BB and the Pats, and that the Jets loving NY media hates BB and the Pats.
RESPONSE: Here...you and I are in complete agreement. Posted by UD6 Finally troll...what say you about Peyton? Will he stay or will he go? Will he cause the Colts to take out a second mortgage on "The Luke", or will he force them to franchise him? If franchised, we both know that he's as good as gone...since several teams would happily fork over two #1 picks, and pay Peyton whatever he wants. As for matching any offer made, surely there'll be included in any Manning mega-deal a "poison pill" provision. I think, hope, Manning will stay. If he gets the highest contract, I don't expect it to be much higher than Brady's, although I could certainly be wrong. The parties are currently working on a deal. RESPONSE: Why has it taken this long? Do you really by that bag of minure that the Colts are Manning have put out, about not wanting to negotiate during the season? The Colts were long ago willing to make Peyton the leagues' highest paid player. Why has he balked? Clearly, he either wants to test the free agent waters...or hold up Irsay for the highest possible price. Both options would be detrimental to your lovables. buy the bag of manure? Manning said he didn't want to negotiate during the season and the team accepted his wishes. Do you have some information to the contrary or are you just trying to create controversy out of nothing? RESPONSE: It doesn't cause you concern that this negotiation process has taken so long? Why would Manning risk injury by playing without an extension during last season...when the Colts were quite prepared to practically give him a blank check? I think that Manning wants both money, and a much greater say in how the team operates. If he doesn't get these things...he's gone.
The colts had difficulty, as did the pats initially, trying to figure out to handle the contract amidst the cancellation of the CBA.RESPONSE: What difficulties did the Pats have that you're referring to? They were able to put together an extension for Brady. Why couldn't Indy do the same with Peyton?
Obviously, they came to whatever conclusion they needed to to attempt to get a deal done during the season.RESPONSE: Obviously, there is no "they". Peyton and his agent made that decision...not Indy management.
I will say this, one theory I do have (without any basis for it) is that the union may have gotten to manning. Who is better than the #1 player in the league as union tool to make at least one team antsy.RESPONSE: How would this serve the union? The Colts were quite prepared to pay Peyton whatever he wanted. Do you really think that Peyton, at age 35, is considering the Players' Union in his decision?
I don't think there is any expectation that he will be paid less than the highest in the league unless he accepts something less. I know that the colts have asked him to consider taking less (or to structure it creatively) so that the colts can go after other players. It will be interesting to see how Manning responds. RESPONSE: It already is interesting how Peyton has responded, thus far.
RESPONSE: He'll respond as he did last time. He'll give no home town discount. Why? Because I thing he sees that the Colts are getting old, and are clearly declining. He'll either want top dollar, or out of Hooterville. You have as much an opportunity to be right as the alternative. Old? at .4 years older than the pats? Not so sure. Declining? why, because they put more people on injured reserve than maybe any other team?RESPONSE: You are once again demonstrating how stats can be twisted to make a point. Do you deny that the key Indy players are all over 30 years old? Other than Tom Brady and Matt Light, what key Pats' players fall into this category?
Manning will get top dollar even if he does give a discount.RESPONSE: Another asinine comment...LOL!!! How can you get top dollar when you give a discount?
The question is will he need to be the highest paid? The request puts Manning in a spot.RESPONSE: What "question" is that? The Colts have already assured Manning of that. The proper question is, "How much higher"? How is Peyton "on the spot"? He'll be more reasonable if management cedes him power. Otherwise, he's gone.
If he takes the "biggest money", he will be labeled (even locally, i think) as greedy even if he deserve the money.RESPONSE: That perception already exists from his last contract.
If he gives in to the team's request, I think he becomes kind of a silent GM.RESPONSE: There you go. It's all about power.
RESPONSE: This is what Manning really wants...power. He wants a say in personnel decisions. He wants an equal say in team decisions. As I pointed out to you many times last season, I believe that Bill Polian and Jim Caldwell really ticked Manning off by not going for the perfect, 16-0, season. What a feather it would have been in Peyton's cap to have accomplished that...and then go on to win the SB. Had Indy done that, Peyton would have upstaged Tom Brady...the franchise could have legitimately argued that it, not the Patriots, was the "Team of the Decade"...and the 2009 Indianapolis Colts would have gone down as one of, if not the greatest team in NFL history. The Colts and Manning would have been honored and toasted for years to come. You still don't think that Polian and Caldwell's decision to tank it really got under Peyton's skin? I would imagine that every player wants power. Do you think Brady would like to have some say in his receivers or line?RESPONSE: Brady already does have some influence. Why do you think that the Pats forked over a very high 4th round pick to get Brady favorite, Deion Branch?
Equal power is a bit strong, but you are a pats fan with a chip on your shoulder, so I get it.RESPONSE: A chip...LOL!! Even you admitted above that Manning strives to be a "silent GM".
I think you are right about him being pissed off. I think the entire roster feels that way. But I also think that anger was lost when they didn't win the superbowl.RESPONSE: Of course, we'll never know...but the added motivation of a perfect season and football immortality might have been enough added incentive to push the Colts over the top. Throwing away that perfect season seemed to effect they mojo.
I don't think Manning cares about upstaging Brady. I think that is a fan thing.RESPONSE: You sir, are being naive. Brady cares...and, you better believe that Peyton cares.
I doubt he will let the team "use his money" to sign players he doesn't think benefit the team. RESPONSE: He's gone, unless management gives him a strong say in personnel decisions...and in decisions like whether or not he plays, or sits out games.
RESPONSE: The 35 year old Peyton wants too much, in money and power. The Colts will likely trade him, and rebuild. LOL - I am curious how much of what you write you really believe.RESPONSE: The idea sounds radical. But, I can't see Polian ceding Manning the power he wants. Furthermore, if the 35 year old Peyton asks for the moon to stay, I believe that it would be in the best interests of the franchise to cut ties with him now, and start rebuilding, by getting the king's randsom in draft choices that such a trade would command. The Colts could also use the money that would have been paid to Peyton to add some quality free agents. Don't you agree?
Finally, my point re: the tripping incident isn't to stick it to pats fans but to point out that the NFL and Goodell are not out to get the pats and belichick. RESPONSE: Well, such an opinion from you is expected...as you are, by your own admission, so often wrong.
RESPONSE: I can't see how anybody objective person could reach such a conclusion. But, as we both known, you're not objective. Goodell knows that to open up a tripping issue against the Patriots would be construed as bias. It would energize Bob Kraft to do everything in his power to oust him. Furthermore, for the reasons discussed above, it would be an awful precedent for the league. Of course you couldn't. You are a blind pats fan. It goes with the territory.RESPONSE: On the contrary, I consider myself very capable of objectivity. Some of my objective opinions have grated many of my fellow Patriots' fans, to the point where several actually accused me of being you...LOL!!!
Finally, my point wasn't that I believe the league should punish the pats for the tripping incident, its that pats fans need to be consistent about how they think punishment should be administered.RESPONSE: It is the league, not the Pats, that needs consistency. Where and when has any team been punished to the degree the Pats were...and over such a relatively menial thing as video-taping in the wrong area. Even if Goodell felt slighted because BB disregarded his memo, he and the media used this incident to try to drive perhaps the greatest coach in NFL history from the game, and to tarnish his legacy. Furthermore, the franchise itself was descended upon, in an effort to close the gap between it and the rest of the league's franchises. Docking the team a first round pick was a devastating blow.
Posted by UD6[/QUOTE]