Goodell is really naive!

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from EnochRoot. Show EnochRoot's posts

    Re: Goodell is really naive!

    In Response to Re: Goodell is really naive!:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Goodell is really naive! : You know what, you are right.  He did play.  I got my information from the patriots website but missed the blurb at the end.  Here it is. http://www.patriots.com/team/index.cfm?ac=playerbio&bio=33170 It actually doesn't change my point as the play in question was a special teams play and he only played special teams in the game.  It in fact reinforces my point, but I apologize for the mistake.
    Posted by UD6[/QUOTE]

    No, it makes you once again someone who simply says things to help make his "point".

    How can I say this - there is nothing on the Patriots website indicating he didn't play in the game though that is what you said. You just spit out a fact like it was on the site. It wasn't. You then lied about it. 

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from bostatewarrior. Show bostatewarrior's posts

    Re: Goodell is really naive!

    In Response to Re: Goodell is really naive!:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Goodell is really naive! : go ahead and finish what you wish to say.  No need to be coy.
    Posted by UD6[/QUOTE]


    I did finish what I had to say.  I just stated facts.  Each of us can draw our own conclusions.

    Yours may differ from everyone elses.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from UD6. Show UD6's posts

    Re: Goodell is really naive!

    In Response to Re: Goodell is really naive!:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Goodell is really naive! : No, it makes you once again someone who simply says things to help make his "point". How can I say this - there is nothing on the Patriots website indicating he didn't play in the game though that is what you said. You just spit out a fact like it was on the site. It wasn't. You then lied about it. 
    Posted by EnochRoot[/QUOTE]
    Wrong Root,

    I actually looked it up and missed the note at the end of a sentence.  If it doesn't say he played (which it does and I missed) then he didn't play.  It was a mistake.  It really makes no difference whether or not you believe me.  You found a mistake, called me on it, I looked it up again, found my mistake and apologized for it. 

    But enough of the diversion.  Ultimately, this specific item makes no difference to the fact that the pats also set a wall.  The player in question was where he should not be, steppped into an area where no player not on the field is allowed in order to trip the gunner. 

    Divert if you must, but it doesn't change the point of the comment.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from EnochRoot. Show EnochRoot's posts

    Re: Goodell is really naive!

    In Response to Re: Goodell is really naive!:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Goodell is really naive! : Wrong Root, I actually looked it up and missed the note at the end of a sentence.  If it doesn't say he played (which it does and I missed) then he didn't play.  It was a mistake.  It really makes no difference whether or not you believe me.  You found a mistake, called me on it, I looked it up again, found my mistake and apologized for it.  But enough of the diversion.  Ultimately, this specific item makes no difference to the fact that the pats also set a wall.  The player in question was where he should not be, steppped into an area where no player not on the field is allowed in order to trip the gunner.  Divert if you must, but it doesn't change the point of the comment.
    Posted by UD6[/QUOTE]

    Sure, UD, the fact that you made up, well, carp to prove your point has nothing to do with any other so-called points you have made. Because they are valid unto themselves. Because you made them. And you are definitely trustworthy.


    At the very least show some of Homer's integrity - "But Marge, you have to believe me. I thought you'd never find out."



     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from UD6. Show UD6's posts

    Re: Goodell is really naive!

    Root, feel free to look up my other facts, as you have the last, then determine whether or not my opinion has basis. 

    Either that or you can stand on the nugget you've found and spend the rest of the time convincing yourself that my opinion is baseless. 
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from UD6. Show UD6's posts

    Re: Goodell is really naive!

    In Response to Re: Goodell is really naive!:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Goodell is really naive! : I did finish what I had to say.  I just stated facts.  Each of us can draw our own conclusions. Yours may differ from everyone elses.
    Posted by bostatewarrior[/QUOTE]
    come on bo - you know there is more you wish to say.  Otherwise, why simply state your facts?  Why respond to AGC's comment? 

    Tell us what you think the fact say.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from bostatewarrior. Show bostatewarrior's posts

    Re: Goodell is really naive!

    This is a time when I only want to state the facts.  I believe they stand on their own. 

    What people make of the facts will tell me something about them.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from EnochRoot. Show EnochRoot's posts

    Re: Goodell is really naive!

    In Response to Re: Goodell is really naive!:
    [QUOTE]Root, feel free to look up my other facts, as you have the last, then determine whether or not my opinion has basis.  Either that or you can stand on the nugget you've found and spend the rest of the time convincing yourself that my opinion is baseless. 
    Posted by UD6[/QUOTE]

    No need. Just another example of your modus operandi. You are known for this as much as you protest otherwise.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from UD6. Show UD6's posts

    Re: Goodell is really naive!

    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. 
    the facts show that the new commissioner made this one of his first emphasis points of his new regime via the memo.  Belichick disregarded the memo, and the pats were reported to have been caught vs. GB, and not punished, then Belichick did it again vs. the Jets, then Belichick didn't follow the commissioners instructions about how to apologize as the commissioner AND Kraft agreed he would. 

    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. 
    Maybe Belichick demonstrated grossly unprecedented disregard for the commissioner of the league.  Ever think of that?  Goodell did nothing to fuel the media.  They can manage that all by themselves. 

    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!!!
    Why is it a croc?  

    RESPONSE: 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.
    Welcome to the world of the media.  When the media is not given what they want, they can bite.  One of my former heroes was an early example of this - Bob Knight.  The media hated him and he paid dearly for it.  At the end of the day, an individual's own actions determine his legacy, not what someone writes about him.  Belichick has plenty of defenders in the media and the profession.

    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.
    If a man tries to rob a bank but doesn't succeed, does that mean he shouldn't be punished?  If a kid cheats on a test off another's paper, but still gets an F (without getting caught because he copied the wrong answers) does that mean he didn't cheat?  What was the player's intent?  Was it any different than Alosi's?  Should he and the organization be punished less because the gunner was aware enough to "jump" the trip?

    RESPONSE: No other team in football history has been punished to the extent the Pats' were by "Jets" Goodell. 
    That's not a response to my point.  Again, pats fans wanted other teams to be punished for taping.  Thus, why wouldn't they expect punishment for trying to trip a player same as the Jets coach? 

    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!!!
    Your not staying on topic.  What retroactive punishment?

    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.
    Obviously, I disagree, and you've yet to effectively refute my points. 

    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.
    Excuse me?  You want retroactive punishment for Spygate but not for the tripping.  Could you be anymore obviously biased?  And which teams were caught and punished for taping prior to the memo?  Doesn't make it right if they did it, but as far as I know, they weren't punished.  Which teams were caught taping after the memo besides the pats?  Which teams were caught twice after the memo? 

    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?
    Please name all of the coaches that admitted taping so as to support your position that taping was commonplace.  Yes I saw Vermeil's comments. 

    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? 
    Funny that you did not answer my question.  Where do you think Mangini learned about taping opposing coaches signals? 

    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??? 
    Were the Jets caught before or after the memo?  Did you know that the pats were caught after the memo (vs GB) and not punished?  We didn't hear about that until they were caught a second time.  How many times were the Jets caught?  
     
    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.
    So intent is meaningless?

    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?
    You didn't answer my question. 

    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. 
    You expect the jets to be punished for taping, so yes.  The pats were not mistreated by the Goodell.  Maybe they were mistreated by the media, but Belichick has control over that. 

    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. 
    I am not concerned by the length of time of the negotiation.  I think you make a valid point about risking injury, but cannot say why Manning would allow such a thing.  It certainly provides you and anyone else with enough to question Manning's loyalty to the colts.  I have a couple of thoughts on it, but they are only "left field" thoughts.  There's really no way to know why he's done what he's done without him telling us.  I imagine that if Manning takes "max money", he will be left out of all say in the future of the team.  If he helps the team by taking less, then he will want some say.  Further, and I'd appreciate your thoughts on this, I know why I would want Manning to take less, but why would Manning want to do so?  Brady is the perfect example.  After 3 superbowls, Brady took a discount with the thought being the team will use the money to maintain excellence.  I'll tell you, that I think they did that, but the pats and pats fans after 3 sbs in 4 years view success differently from most.  Since the discount the team went to only one SB and lost.  What did the discount produce?  On the other hand, Manning took max money and went to 2 superbowls and won 1.  Given these outcomes (although I don't agree with them), its hard to argue for taking a discount. 

    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? 
    The pats demonstrated that they wanted to wait to do a deal with Brady because of the CBA.  Brady complained - See Michael Silver - growing disconnect article.  Brady pressured.  Brady got the deal done, but it was not immediate.  I don't know why Indy couldn't, wouldn't do the same for Manning at the same time.  I don't know why it took them to mid season.  Its a valid question. 

    RESPONSE: Obviously, there is no "they". Peyton and his agent made that decision...not Indy management.
    I think so, too.  Ultimately, I think Manning will be a colt, but when the colts didn't come to the table initially (like the pats), and then we heard nothing after the brady deal, I think Manning and Condon said lets wait.  Waiting only gives Manning more leverage.  It worked out for him.  I also think the NFLPA may have a bit of their hands in this as well. 

    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?  
    Manning is the most powerful player in the league.  Holding, as a negotiating chip, the most powerful player in the league as an uncontracted free agent is worthwhile.  The NFLPA cannot break the owners as a whole, but they can try to break them piece by piece, team by team.  Manning is a useful piece to break the colts.  Yes, I think Manning cares about the Union. 

    RESPONSE: It already is interesting how Peyton has responded, thus far.
    agreed. 

    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? 
    I think the colts number one issue is their Oline, and maybe d end.  They have young players at wideout.  They have young players at tight end.  They have young players at LB.  They have young players at DB.  They have young players at RB.  Oline is a problem - although it is not completely age driven.  D end could become a problem.  Clearly Hughes was not what the colts expected.  Maybe he can get it together next year. 
    As for the pats:  Faulk 34; Neal 34; Warren 32; Branch 31; Koppen 30; Banta Cain 30; Welker and Wilfork will be 30 next year.

    RESPONSE: Another asinine comment...LOL!!! How can you get top dollar when you give a discount? 
    I mean he will be paid well.  Maybe it 17 mill a year; 18 mill.  Less than Brady but still top dollar (top dollar is a range)

    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. 
    After stating he would be highest paid, they asked him if he'd be willing to take less in order to go out and get players.  You know this. 

    RESPONSE: That perception already exists from his last contract.
    Disagree.  Manning had more success after his last contract than his first contract as the #1 pick. 


    RESPONSE: There you go. It's all about power. 
    If he takes less money, then yes he will gain some power. 

    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?
    Ok, so does it seem you are being critical of Manning for possibly seeking the same?

    RESPONSE: A chip...LOL!! Even you admitted above that Manning strives to be a "silent GM".
    I'd call that putting words in my mouth.  I said he'd be like a silent GM.  Really my comment is no different than how you have described Brady.  Although admittedly, you've used the much gentler, "influence", to describe Brady.  It's all the same. 

    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. 
    If giving up the perfect season affected their mojo, then why didn't they lose to the Ravens who creamed the pats?  Why didn't they lose to the Jets?  I think you are grasping. 

    RESPONSE: You sir, are being naive. Brady cares...and, you better believe that Peyton cares.
    Since this is about contracts, we'll see.  

     
    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. 
    You mean, influence, like Brady, don't you?

    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?
    Radical indeed.  Pure patsfan fantasy.  As for money to sign Qualtiy FA's, that's never really been the colts MO.  In the last decade name for me "quality" vet FA's that the colts have signed who provided a significant contribution.  I can name 2 quickly.  I can name one that failed. 

    RESPONSE: Well, such an opinion from you is expected...as you are, by your own admission, so often wrong.
    I am not surprised you see it that way. 

    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!!!
    Don't we all consider ourselves very capable of objectivity?  And frankly, I think I am being objective here. 

    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. 
    You have every right to believe that the taping incident was insignificant.  But if insignificant, then why the league memo.  Goodell must not have thought it insignificant.  Then the pats get caught not once but twice (GB, Jets) after the memo was distributed.  What would you have Goodell do after being given the middle finger over something he thought was important enough to distribute a league wide memo on it?   To make matters worse, he provides specific instructions about how the apology should be handled, gets buy in from Kraft, and then Belichick snubs Goodell AGAIN?  I wonder why Belichick wasn't suspended. 
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from BBReigns. Show BBReigns's posts

    Re: Goodell is really naive!

    In Response to Re: Goodell is really naive!:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Goodell is really naive! : He still doesn't understand the media. This guy talks too much! I don't ever remember Roselle or Tagliabue talking so much. I thought it was interesting to hear Bob Kraft's take on the labor situation. "We can end this thing in a week if we get the lawyers out of the way." I took that as a subtle jab at the commish.
    Posted by ipats[/QUOTE]

    I did too. I loved it.  I hope to see more of that from Kraft.  A little tired of the dictator pretending he has all the answers.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from CablesWyndBairn. Show CablesWyndBairn's posts

    Re: Goodell is really naive!

    Anybody who works in a business where attorneys routinely get involved in negotiations on both ends knows that, aside from a larger legal bill and overly-wordsmithed language, the result is usually marginally better product than when two motivated parties sit down and talk about things rationally.  I agree with Kraft.  The NFL is a cash cow for the owners and the players.  Don't let the lawyers bollox the whole thing.  
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from TexasPat3. Show TexasPat3's posts

    Re: Goodell is really naive!

    In Response to Re: Goodell is really naive!:
    [QUOTE]RESPONSE: the facts show that the new commissioner made this one of his first emphasis points of his new regime via the memo.  Belichick disregarded the memo, and the pats were reported to have been caught vs. GB, and not punished, then Belichick did it again vs. the Jets, then Belichick didn't follow the commissioners instructions about how to apologize as the commissioner AND Kraft agreed he would.

    RESPONSE: BB read a statement, which seemed to suffice. In any event, this was all much ado about nothing. A one game suspension of BB, or a $50,000 fine, would have been more than adequate punishment. His grossly unprecedented $750,000 in fines, and docking the Pats a #1 pick, was done to placate the media...and out of bias. Why say now that he wanted BB to grovel before the press? This is a clear showing of malice against BB and the Pats by "Jets".  

     Maybe Belichick demonstrated grossly unprecedented disregard for the commissioner of the league.  Ever think of that?

    RESPONSE: If it was personal against BB, why  also fine the team an additional $250,000, and dock them a #1 pick? Ever think of that?

    Goodell did nothing to fuel the media.  They can manage that all by themselves.

    RESPONSE: The grossly overstated punishment allowed the media to argue that the taping violation was a serious matter. Thus, Goodell's over-blown punishment was what fueled the alleged scandal.

    Isn't any advantage through deceptive means enough?

    RESPONSE: No...not to justify the ridiculous punishment accessed by "Jets" Goodell. Cheating on the salary cap, as the Broncos did...and the tripping violation were far more serious offenses. Yet, the punishments meted out were far less onerous.

    Welcome to the world of the media.  When the media is not given what they want, they can bite.  One of my former heroes was an early example of this - Bob Knight.  The media hated him and he paid dearly for it.  At the end of the day, an individual's own actions determine his legacy, not what someone writes about him.  Belichick has plenty of defenders in the media and the profession.
     
    RESPONSE: The NY media wanted the Patriots destroyed, and BB forced to  resign. Goodell worked with them to give them what they wanted. Notice how Goodell lavished Michael Vick with praise for having a fine season, and staying out of trouble, after his punishment. But, when BB rebounds with coach oof the year...Goodell still brings up spygate. Clearly, he has an agenda.   

    RESPONSE: ...the Pats' player didn't trip the opposing player in question, did he? Watch the video. If a man tries to rob a bank but doesn't succeed, does that mean he shouldn't be punished?  If a kid cheats on a test off another's paper, but still gets an F (without getting caught because he copied the wrong answers) does that mean he didn't cheat?  What was the player's intent?  Was it any different than Alosi's?  Should he and the organization be punished less because the gunner was aware enough to "jump" the trip?
     
    RESPONSE: Oh come now, Dog(gggg). Even if your bogus argument had any basis, how far do you want to go back to see whether other players did similar things? Ever hear of the old NBA adage, "No harm, no foul"? This situation is similar in nature. If the league wants to prevent this sort of thing from ever happening, than let Goodell do another of his famous memos to let everybody know that there will be a point of emphasis on "walling" the sideline on kick returns. 

    RESPONSE: Again, pats fans wanted other teams to be punished for taping.

    RESPONSE: If Goodell is going to use a tank to kill a mosquito, like he did with the Pats, surely even you can understand the anger and frustrations of most Pats' fans.

     Thus, why wouldn't they expect punishment for trying to trip a player same as the Jets coach?  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: I am not "changing my opinion". My opinion has been that the punishment meted out was extremely excessive...and done out of bias. There's a huge difference in the punishments meted out in "spygate" and "tripgate". Plus, again, how far back do you want to go to check, and/or punish, all other possible violations?

    RESPONSE: You're just trolling. Furthermore, I noticed that you never addressed my point on retroactive punishment. Why?? LOL!!! Your not staying on topic.

    RESPONSE: What a croc!! This serves as additional proof that you're nothing more than a troll...and why no one here should take you seriously.

     What retroactive punishment? If I've made a logical argument, as I have on this subject, then I think it makes sense to take me seriously,
     
    RESPONSE: Oh come now, Dog(gggg). You know exactly what I mean. Former coaches have admitted to illegal taping, and worse. Surely, there were other incidents of illegal "walling", and or possible attempts to trip. We just need to go back and find them.  How far back do you want to go? 

    ...you've yet to effectively refute my points.  As for being wrong frequently, its my opinion that we all are wrong frequently.
     
    RESPONSE: Obviously, you still have reading comprehension issues. As you have correctly pointed out, you are frequently wrong about most things.  

    RESPONSE: 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. Excuse me?  You want retroactive punishment for Spygate but not for the tripping.

    RESPONSE: Again...the punishment meted out to the Patriots was grossly out of proportion to the alleged violation. Do you agree or disagree? The fine for "tripgate" was just $100,000...a pittance by comparison. Violations of illegal taping were reported after the Pats were punished...and were never properly investigated.

    Could you be anymore obviously biased?

    RESPONSE: Could anyone be more biased than the NY media, "Jets" Goodell, or you? No.

    And which teams were caught and punished for taping prior to the memo?

    RESPONSE: The rule was never previously enforced.

    Doesn't make it right if they did it, but as far as I know, they weren't punished.

    RESPONSE: Goodell and the media , as I have stated numerous times previously, used tthis mole hill of a violation, and created a mountain.  The purpose of this was to destroy BB and the Pats.

    Which teams were caught taping after the memo besides the pats?

    RESPONSE: There was evidence against the Jets, and, I believe, the Packers.

     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: This is a monumental waste of time. As I recall, you have  previously acknowledged, in one of your more lucid moments, that spygate was a bunch of BS. 

    ...I know nothing...but it has no bearing on this case.
     
    RESPONSE: LOL!!! Is that why you are wrong most of the time? How does that have no bearing on our discussion?

    The pats were not mistreated by the Goodell.

    RESPONSE: So...$750,000 in fines, and the docking of a #1 pick, seems fair to you?? LOL!!! 

    Maybe they were mistreated by the media, but Belichick has control over that.

    RESPONSE: What control? The media concocted lie after lie to try to drive him from the league!!

    I am not concerned by the length of time of the negotiation.  I think you make a valid point about risking injury, but cannot say why Manning would allow such a thing.  It certainly provides you and anyone else with enough to question Manning's loyalty to the colts.  I have a couple of thoughts on it, but they are only "left field" thoughts.  There's really no way to know why he's done what he's done without him telling us.  I imagine that if Manning takes "max money", he will be left out of all say in the future of the team.  If he helps the team by taking less, then he will want some say.  Further, and I'd appreciate your thoughts on this, I know why I would want Manning to take less, but why would Manning want to do so?  Brady is the perfect example.  After 3 superbowls, Brady took a discount with the thought being the team will use the money to maintain excellence.  I'll tell you, that I think they did that, but the pats and pats fans after 3 sbs in 4 years view success differently from most.  Since the discount the team went to only one SB and lost.  What did the discount produce?  On the other hand, Manning took max money and went to 2 superbowls and won 1.  Given these outcomes (although I don't agree with them), its hard to argue for taking a discount. 

    RESPONSE: They be no home town discount. Either they give Peyton what he wants, or he's gone.

    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?  The pats demonstrated that they wanted to wait to do a deal with Brady because of the CBA.  Brady complained - See Michael Silver - growing disconnect article.  Brady pressured.  Brady got the deal done, but it was not immediate.  I don't know why Indy couldn't, wouldn't do the same for Manning at the same time.  I don't know why it took them to mid season.  Its a valid question.

    RESPONSE Indeed it is a valid question. 

    RESPONSE: Obviously, there is no "they". Peyton and his agent made that decision...not Indy management. I think so, too.  Ultimately, I think Manning will be a colt, but when the colts didn't come to the table initially (like the pats), and then we heard nothing after the brady deal, I think Manning and Condon said lets wait.  Waiting only gives Manning more leverage.  It worked out for him.  I also think the NFLPA may have a bit of their hands in this as well.

    RESPONSE: All joking aside, the Colts should trade Manning now...and rebuild. He wants to much in power and money.

    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?   Manning is the most powerful player in the league.  Holding, as a negotiating chip, the most powerful player in the league as an uncontracted free agent is worthwhile.  The NFLPA cannot break the owners as a whole, but they can try to break them piece by piece, team by team.  Manning is a useful piece to break the colts.  Yes, I think Manning cares about the Union.

    RESPONSE: Where's your evidence to show that Manning cares about the players' union?

    RESPONSE: It already is interesting how Peyton has responded, thus far. agreed.  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?  I think the colts number one issue is their Oline, and maybe d end.  They have young players at wideout.  They have young players at tight end.  They have young players at LB.  They have young players at DB.  They have young players at RB.  Oline is a problem - although it is not completely age driven.  D end could become a problem.  Clearly Hughes was not what the colts expected.  Maybe he can get it together next year.

    RESPONSE: Indy has huge issues on both the OL and DL. Hughes has been a major disappointment...as has RB Donald Brown.  Once Freeney wears himself out, the Colts "D" is in big trouble.

    As for the pats:  Faulk 34; (has been replaced and upgraded by Danny Woodhead) Neal 34; (he was all but washed up this year...and has been adequately replaced by Dan Connelly)  Warren 32; (as I've stated on many occasions...the Pats can't count on him...of course, they did alright in 2010 without him...and have 3 of the top 33 picks in the draft to replace him) Branch 31;(can always find WRS) Koppen 30;(still can play...has at least 2 good years left) Banta Cain 30; (he's nothing special...the Pats need an upgrade at OLB) Welker and Wilfork will be 30 next year.(both players are still in their primes...although Welker appears to be fading some, Julian Edelman is a capable replacement). RESPONSE: Another asinine comment...LOL!!! How can you get top dollar when you give a discount?  I mean he will be paid well.  Maybe it 17 mill a year; 18 mill.  Less than Brady but still top dollar (top dollar is a range)
     
    RESPONSE: You're dreaming.

    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.  After stating he would be highest paid, they asked him if he'd be willing to take less in order to go out and get players.  You know this.

    RESPONSE: No way this happens...unless they cede him power. Polian will never do that. 

     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? Ok, so does it seem you are being critical of Manning for possibly seeking the same?
     
    RESPONSE: Who is being critical? 

    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.  If giving up the perfect season affected their mojo, then why didn't they lose to the Ravens who creamed the pats?  Why didn't they lose to the Jets?  I think you are grasping.

    RESPONSE: My opinion. The Ravens beat a wounded, very flawed Pats team. The Jets shouldn't have even made the play-offs in 2009.

    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.  You mean, influence, like Brady, don't you?
     
    RESPONSE: Brady has some influence, but is far from being a silent GM. That what Peyton wants...and, likely, won't get.

    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? Radical indeed.  Pure patsfan fantasy.  As for money to sign Qualtiy FA's, that's never really been the colts MO.  In the last decade name for me "quality" vet FA's that the colts have signed who provided a significant contribution.  I can name 2 quickly.  I can name one that failed.

    RESPONSE: Sorry...but the Colts are better off ditching Peyton now, while he's worth plenty...than 2 years from now, when he'll be worth far less. If he's unhappy, and wants too much money and power, it's the thing to do.

    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.  You have every right to believe that the taping incident was insignificant.  But if insignificant, then why the league memo.  Goodell must not have thought it insignificant.  Then the pats get caught not once but twice (GB, Jets) (so you say)...after the memo was distributed.  What would you have Goodell do after being given the middle finger over something he thought was important enough to distribute a league wide memo on it?   To make matters worse, he provides specific instructions about how the apology should be handled, gets buy in from Kraft, and then Belichick snubs Goodell AGAIN?  I wonder why Belichick wasn't suspended.

    RESPONSE: Goodell is nothing but a biased hack, who likely has political aspirations in NY. The penalty accessed on BB and the Pats was grossly unprecedented, was done to gain favor with the NY media, and to help the Jets. Bob Kraft should do everything in his power to oust him. 
    Posted by UD6[/QUOTE]
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from UD6. Show UD6's posts

    Re: Goodell is really naive!

    RESPONSE: BB read a statement, which seemed to suffice. In any event, this was all much ado about nothing. A one game suspension of BB, or a $50,000 fine, would have been more than adequate punishment. His grossly unprecedented $750,000 in fines, and docking the Pats a #1 pick, was done to placate the media...and out of bias. Why say now that he wanted BB to grovel before the press? This is a clear showing of malice against BB and the Pats by "Jets".  
    Placate the media?  The penalty was handed down 4 days after the transgression.  Below you said the penalty fueled the media.  Here you say the act fueled the media.  Which is it?  If there is malice, it was brought on by Belichick who thought he'd engage Goodell in a game of chicken.  What Belichick didn't know was that Goodell was up for the game.   


    Maybe Belichick demonstrated grossly unprecedented disregard for the commissioner of the league.  Ever think of that?
    RESPONSE: If it was personal against BB, why  also fine the team an additional $250,000, and dock them a #1 pick? Ever think of that?
    Because Goodell got assurance from Kraft that BB would own up to the transgression in a presser.  He didn't.  If the penalty was so egregious, how come Kraft and Goodell have such a good relationship?  I am willing to bet the penalty would have been less if Belichick didn't give the finger to Goodell for a third time over the matter.

    RESPONSE: The grossly overstated punishment allowed the media to argue that the taping violation was a serious matter. Thus, Goodell's over-blown punishment was what fueled the alleged scandal.
    Goodell thought it was a serious matter.  If not, why send out a league wide memo?  

    RESPONSE: No...not to justify the ridiculous punishment accessed by "Jets" Goodell. Cheating on the salary cap, as the Broncos did...and the tripping violation were far more serious offenses. Yet, the punishments meted out were far less onerous.
    The punishment, imo, was two-fold.  1.  Not taking Goodell's memo about taping seriously and doing and getting caught twice after it, and 2.  Disregarding the commissioner altogether regarding his authority both with the memo and the apology instructions. 

    RESPONSE: The NY media wanted the Patriots destroyed, and BB forced to  resign. Goodell worked with them to give them what they wanted. Notice how Goodell lavished Michael Vick with praise for having a fine season, and staying out of trouble, after his punishment. But, when BB rebounds with coach oof the year...Goodell still brings up spygate. Clearly, he has an agenda.   
    Saw it before with Knight.  The media can be hell.  Goodell worked with them, specifically, how?  If Peter King asks Goodell a question about spygate, you don't want Goodell to answer it.  Goodell reached out to many, including Dungy, to get Vick help.  Do you think Belichick would accept help from Dungy or anyone for that matter?  Vick has been very contrite about his past transgressions.  How about Belichick?  I haven't seen it.

    RESPONSE: Oh come now, Dog(gggg). Even if your bogus argument had any basis, how far do you want to go back to see whether other players did similar things? Ever hear of the old NBA adage, "No harm, no foul"? This situation is similar in nature. If the league wants to prevent this sort of thing from ever happening, than let Goodell do another of his famous memos to let everybody know that there will be a point of emphasis on "walling" the sideline on kick returns. 
    I don't want go back.  I don't want the pats to be punished for doing the same thing the Jets were caught doing.  I also don't want pats fans to want the NFL to go back and punish teams that may have been caught taping once after the memo and punishing those teams.  The pats weren't punished after being caught the first time.  I am saying, get off the high horse about other teams taping and expecting punishment for them unless you want the same regarding the tripping incident.

    RESPONSE: If Goodell is going to use a tank to kill a mosquito, like he did with the Pats, surely even you can understand the anger and frustrations of most Pats' fans.
    I understand the anger and frustration.  If this had happened to the colts I'd be p.o.'d, too.  I'd also be p.o.'d at the coach, as I ultimately did with Knight when he acted like he was above his transgressions.  Belichick acts the same way.  

    RESPONSE: I am not "changing my opinion". My opinion has been that the punishment meted out was extremely excessive...and done out of bias. There's a huge difference in the punishments meted out in "spygate" and "tripgate". Plus, again, how far back do you want to go to check, and/or punish, all other possible violations?
    I am happy to say no punishment for teams not caught taping and no punishment for the pats not caught trying to trip players.  We just say they got away with it.  

    RESPONSE: Oh come now, Dog(gggg). You know exactly what I mean. Former coaches have admitted to illegal taping, and worse. Surely, there were other incidents of illegal "walling", and or possible attempts to trip. We just need to go back and find them.  How far back do you want to go? 
    Who specifically admitted to taping.  I know Jimmy Johnson did.  Who else?  And if you want to go back and look at tripping, go back to Goodell's beginning as commish since he is the disciplinarian. 

    RESPONSE: Obviously, you still have reading comprehension issues. As you have correctly pointed out, you are frequently wrong about most things.  
    And yet you've haven't proven me wrong about anything with regard to this.  Go figure.  Being wrong frequently, doesn't mean that I am never right.  In fact, I am right frequently.  

     
    RESPONSE: Again, thats' a lie. There was ample evidence, both before and after the Patriots were accused. "Jets" Goodell chose to take no action.
    What evidence? 

    RESPONSE: Again...the punishment meted out to the Patriots was grossly out of proportion to the alleged violation. Do you agree or disagree? The fine for "tripgate" was just $100,000...a pittance by comparison. Violations of illegal taping were reported after the Pats were punished...and were never properly investigated.
    Not when you consider a three time disregard for the commissioner's orders over the same matter.  What violations after spygate?  Please provide some more information.  Supposing there were violations (proof please), shouldn't these violators be given the same leniency the pats were given if first offenses?  Remember, the pats were caught vs. GB and received no punishment after the memo.   

    RESPONSE: Could anyone be more biased than the NY media, "Jets" Goodell, or you? No.

    RESPONSE: The rule was never previously enforced.
    Are we to assume then that it wasn't an infraction? 

    RESPONSE: Goodell and the media , as I have stated numerous times previously, used tthis mole hill of a violation, and created a mountain.  The purpose of this was to destroy BB and the Pats.
    Wrong.  The pats and BB did this to themselves.  All they needed to do was follow the rules and accept the commissioners requirements.  None of that was done. 

    RESPONSE: There was evidence against the Jets, and, I believe, the Packers.
    Can you provide some further information on this.  If you find it, can you tell us if this was a "first offense" after the memo.  

    RESPONSE: This is a monumental waste of time. As I recall, you have  previously acknowledged, in one of your more lucid moments, that spygate was a bunch of BS. 
    Why because you tried to say taping was commonplace and I dispute that?  I don't recall ever saying spygate was BS, because I don't believe that.

    RESPONSE: So...$750,000 in fines, and the docking of a #1 pick, seems fair to you?? LOL!!! 
    Fair?  the commissioner as one of his first acts in office puts out a memo about FAIR play.  Belichick disregards it (middle finger #1) and gets caught vs. the packers.  No penalty.  Belichick disregards the memo again (middle finger #2) and gets caught vs. the Jets.  Goodell tells BB and Kraft how he wants the apology handled.  Kraft agrees.  BB issues a statement (middle finger #3), and when all is said and done when belichick responds to the transgression, the genius calls it a misinterpretation (middle finger #4).  I call that a complete and utter disregard for authority.  I am not surprised by the penalty. 

    RESPONSE: What control? The media concocted lie after lie to try to drive him from the league!!
    What lies did the media concoct?  Belichick has control through the way in which he engages the media. 

    RESPONSE: They be no home town discount. Either they give Peyton what he wants, or he's gone.
    Honestly, I'd be surprised if he took a discount, too.  Especially given the evidence that doing so doesn't necessarily result in success.  

    RESPONSE: All joking aside, the Colts should trade Manning now...and rebuild. He wants to much in power and money.
    I think that is ridiculous.  Manning's got at least 4 probowl quality years left, and I don't see him getting much more money and influence than Brady received. 

    RESPONSE: Where's your evidence to show that Manning cares about the players' union?
    http://leeinks.weei.com/sports/2011/02/07/report-peyton-manning-drew-brees-attend-negotiating-session
    http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=jc-peytonmanningunion080510


    RESPONSE: Indy has huge issues on both the OL and DL. Hughes has been a major disappointment...as has RB Donald Brown.  Once Freeney wears himself out, the Colts "D" is in big trouble.
    Interior D line looks good.  Mathis is 29.  Freeney is 30.  I think we are still ok with them. 

    As for the pats:  Faulk 34; (has been replaced and upgraded by Danny Woodhead) Neal 34; (he was all but washed up this year...and has been adequately replaced by Dan Connelly)  Warren 32; (as I've stated on many occasions...the Pats can't count on him...of course, they did alright in 2010 without him...and have 3 of the top 33 picks in the draft to replace him) Branch 31;(can always find WRS) Koppen 30;(still can play...has at least 2 good years left) Banta Cain 30; (he's nothing special...the Pats need an upgrade at OLB) Welker and Wilfork will be 30 next year.(both players are still in their primes...although Welker appears to be fading some, Julian Edelman is a capable replacement). 
    If healthy 29 and 30 yr olds still can play for the pats, then I assume they can play for the colts, too. 

    RESPONSE: Another asinine comment...LOL!!! How can you get top dollar when you give a discount?  I mean he will be paid well.  Maybe it 17 mill a year; 18 mill.  Less than Brady but still top dollar (top dollar is a range)
    RESPONSE: You're dreaming.
    Possibly.  It doesn't hurt to dream once in a while.  

    After stating he would be highest paid, they asked him if he'd be willing to take less in order to go out and get players.  You know this.
    RESPONSE: No way this happens...unless they cede him power. Polian will never do that. 
    The expectation,as I see it, is that Manning would have influence like Brady does.  

    Ok, so does it seem you are being critical of Manning for possibly seeking the same?
    RESPONSE: Who is being critical? 
    Maybe it's just your tone. 

    RESPONSE: My opinion. The Ravens beat a wounded, very flawed Pats team. The Jets shouldn't have even made the play-offs in 2009.
    Yet the colts were not a dominant team in 09.  Although they were undefeated through 14 games, they had to come back to win something like 9 of those games.  They did not blow out teams like the pats did this year.  If the mojo was gone, the raven's would have eaten the colts for lunch.  Didn't happen.  Jets?  Didn't happen. 

    RESPONSE: Brady has some influence, but is far from being a silent GM. That what Peyton wants...and, likely, won't get.
    Do you know what Manning wants or are you speculating?   I used the words silent GM, simply to infer that Manning would want influence, similar to Brady, for taking a discount.  You seem to be suggesting it is something significantly more than that. 

    RESPONSE: Sorry...but the Colts are better off ditching Peyton now, while he's worth plenty...than 2 years from now, when he'll be worth far less. If he's unhappy, and wants too much money and power, it's the thing to do.
    Who said he's unhappy?  We don't know how much money or power he wants? 

    RESPONSE: Goodell is nothing but a biased hack, who likely has political aspirations in NY. The penalty accessed on BB and the Pats was grossly unprecedented, was done to gain favor with the NY media, and to help the Jets. Bob Kraft should do everything in his power to oust him. 
    Really?  His dream job was to be commissioner of the NFL.  Why get into politics if you've got your dream job?  Goodell has the full support of bob kraft. 
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from JayShizzle45. Show JayShizzle45's posts

    Re: Goodell is really naive!

    Go-to-Hell is the Anti- Christ!
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from TexasPat3. Show TexasPat3's posts

    Re: Goodell is really naive!

    In Response to Re: Goodell is really naive!:
    [QUOTE]RESPONSE: BB read a statement, which seemed to suffice. In any event, this was all much ado about nothing. A one game suspension of BB, or a $50,000 fine, would have been more than adequate punishment. His grossly unprecedented $750,000 in fines, and docking the Pats a #1 pick, was done to placate the media...and out of bias. Why say now that he wanted BB to grovel before the press? This is a clear showing of malice against BB and the Pats by "Jets".   Placate the media?  The penalty was handed down 4 days after the transgression.  Below you said the penalty fueled the media.  Here you say the act fueled the media.  Which is it?

    It's both! I know that you have difficulties handling more than one concept at  a time. But, if you take off your troll cap for a moment, even you should be able to figure it out. He placated the media by being harsh. He also fueled their destruct and destroy mission by allowing them to argue that, since the penalty was so harsh, BB must have done something serious.

    If there is malice, it was brought on by Belichick who thought he'd engage Goodell in a game of chicken.  What Belichick didn't know was that Goodell was up for the game.    Maybe Belichick demonstrated grossly unprecedented disregard for the commissioner of the league.  Ever think of that?
     
    RESPONSE: Even if that were true, why not just punish BB? But, in addition to a handing him down a $500,000 fine, he also saw fit to fining the team $250,000, plus stripping them of a #1 pick. Ever think of that? This smacks of malice and vindictiveness on "Jets" Goodell's part. 

    RESPONSE: If it was personal against BB, why  also fine the team an additional $250,000, and dock them a #1 pick? Ever think of that? Because Goodell got assurance from Kraft that BB would own up to the transgression in a presser.  He didn't.

    RESPONSE: What a croc!! Even assuming that Goodell handed down the penalties after the alleged apology was to take place (do you have any proof?), again...why punish Kraft? Did you ever hear Goodell say that he got assurances from Kraft that BB would grovel?? Where's your proof? This is yet another example of you saying anything to try to keep your BS arguments afloat.  

     If the penalty was so egregious, how come Kraft and Goodell have such a good relationship?

    RESONSE: Who says that they do, now?  

    I am willing to bet the penalty would have been less if Belichick didn't give the finger to Goodell for a third time over the matter.
     
    RESPONSE: Do you have any proof? Or are you still dwelling in troll fantasy land? 

    RESPONSE: The grossly overstated punishment allowed the media to argue that the taping violation was a serious matter. Thus, Goodell's over-blown punishment was what fueled the alleged scandal. Goodell thought it was a serious matter.  If not, why send out a league wide memo?   RESPONSE: No...not to justify the ridiculous punishment accessed by "Jets" Goodell. Cheating on the salary cap, as the Broncos did...and the tripping violation were far more serious offenses. Yet, the punishments meted out were far less onerous. The punishment, imo, was two-fold.  1.  Not taking Goodell's memo about taping seriously and doing and getting caught twice after it,
     
    RESPONSE: Where's you proof that BB "did it twice"? Do you have a cite?

    and 2.  Disregarding the commissioner altogether regarding his authority both with the memo and the apology instructions.

    RESPONSE: And that's worthy of fining the team $250,000, and stripping them of a #1 pick...in addition to fining BB an unprecedented $500,000?

    RESPONSE: The NY media wanted the Patriots destroyed, and BB forced to  resign. Goodell worked with them to give them what they wanted. Notice how Goodell lavished Michael Vick with praise for having a fine season, and staying out of trouble, after his punishment. But, when BB rebounds with coach oof the year...Goodell still brings up spygate. Clearly, he has an agenda.    Saw it before with Knight.  The media can be hell.  Goodell worked with them, specifically, how?

    RESPONSE: For the 36th time, he fueled their fire with the grossly harsh punishment...allowing them to wildly speculate  as to the seriously of this relatively minor violation.

    If Peter King asks Goodell a question about spygate, you don't want Goodell to answer it.

    RESPONSE: Goodell is still trying to trash the NFL's Coach of the Year, three years after the fact. What if Goodell was asked about Michael Vick. Would it be right to answer...yeah, but, he still murdered helpless animals, and gave an unsuspecting girlfriend a STD? That would be accurate, but would it be the right thing to do?  Is it in the best interests of the league?  

    Goodell reached out to many, including Dungy, to get Vick help.  Do you think Belichick would accept help from Dungy or anyone for that matter?

    RESPONSE: Help for what? For video-taping in the wrong place? For alleged defiance of the God-like Goodell?? Did BB kill any dogs? Did BB fiend out on drugs and get involved with a satanic cult, like Dungy's son did? Maybe Dungy should have gone for help. 

    Vick has been very contrite about his past transgressions.  How about Belichick?  I haven't seen it.
     
    RESPONSE: Contrite over a relatively minor violation of the rules, for which he was dragged through the mud, fined an unprecedented amount, and docked a #1 pick? I don't think so.

    RESPONSE: Oh come now, Dog(gggg). Even if your bogus argument had any basis, how far do you want to go back to see whether other players did similar things? Ever hear of the old NBA adage, "No harm, no foul"? This situation is similar in nature. If the league wants to prevent this sort of thing from ever happening, than let Goodell do another of his famous memos to let everybody know that there will be a point of emphasis on "walling" the sideline on kick returns.  I don't want go back.  I don't want the pats to be punished for doing the same thing the Jets were caught doing.  I also don't want pats fans to want the NFL to go back and punish teams that may have been caught taping once after the memo and punishing those teams.  The pats weren't punished after being caught the first time.

    RESPONSE: Where's your proof? Do you have a cite? You keep saying that the "Pats' were caught twice". Show me a cite.

    I am saying, get off the high horse about other teams taping and expecting punishment for them unless you want the same regarding the tripping incident.

    RESPONSE: Rex Ryan wasn't fined $500,000, and the Jets weren't fined $250,000, and docked a #1 pick, for tripgate, were they? No...they were fined just 100k. Had BB been fined just $100k, we wouldn't be having this discussion. 

    RESPONSE: If Goodell is going to use a tank to kill a mosquito, like he did with the Pats, surely even you can understand the anger and frustrations of most Pats' fans. I understand the anger and frustration.  If this had happened to the colts I'd be p.o.'d, too.  I'd also be p.o.'d at the coach, as I ultimately did with Knight when he acted like he was above his transgressions.  Belichick acts the same way.

    RESPONSE: That's another lie. Aside from the bogus spygate scandal, what else has he done like Knight?  

    RESPONSE: I am not "changing my opinion". My opinion has been that the punishment meted out was extremely excessive...and done out of bias. There's a huge difference in the punishments meted out in "spygate" and "tripgate". Plus, again, how far back do you want to go to check, and/or punish, all other possible violations? I am happy to say no punishment for teams not caught taping and no punishment for the pats not caught trying to trip players.  We just say they got away with it.

    RESPONSE: Yeah...$750,000 in fines, and a #1 draft pick later...while the Jets were just fined $100K.

     RESPONSE: Oh come now, Dog(gggg). You know exactly what I mean. Former coaches have admitted to illegal taping, and worse. Surely, there were other incidents of illegal "walling", and or possible attempts to trip. We just need to go back and find them.  How far back do you want to go?  Who specifically admitted to taping.  I know Jimmy Johnson did.  Who else?  And if you want to go back and look at tripping, go back to Goodell's beginning as commish since he is the disciplinarian.

    RESPONSE: Did you read what Dick Vermeil said recently? Have you heard the comments from Mike Ditka, Bill Parcells, and Bill Cowher? Spygate was an over-blown, media created croc.

     RESPONSE: Obviously, you still have reading comprehension issues. As you have correctly pointed out, you are frequently wrong about most things.   And yet you've haven't proven me wrong about anything with regard to this.  Go figure.  Being wrong frequently, doesn't mean that I am never right.  In fact, I am right frequently.

    RESPONSE: First you admit to being wrong frequently...but now you claim that you are frequently right...LOL!!! The truth of the matter is that, by your own admission, you frequently lie, misdirect, and misquote to make your bogus points...just as you are now. By this latest statement, you've demonstrated once again why you have zero credibility here. 
        After your latest juvenile comment, any further discussion seems to be a monumental waste of my time.

    RESPONSE: All joking aside, the Colts should trade Manning now...and rebuild. He wants too much in power and money. I think that is ridiculous.  Manning's got at least 4 probowl quality years left, and I don't see him getting much more money and influence than Brady received.

    RESPONSE: The Colts may not have a choice in the matter.

    RESPONSE: Where's your evidence to show that Manning cares about the players' union? http://leeinks.weei.com/sports/2011/02/07/report-peyton-manning-drew-brees-attend-negotiating-session http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=jc-peytonmanningunion080510

    RESPONSE: Indy has huge issues on both the OL and DL. Hughes has been a major disappointment...as has RB Donald Brown.  Once Freeney wears himself out, the Colts "D" is in big trouble. Interior D line looks good.  Mathis is 29.  Freeney is 30.  I think we are still ok with them.  As for the pats:  Faulk 34; (has been replaced and upgraded by Danny Woodhead) Neal 34; (he was all but washed up this year...and has been adequately replaced by Dan Connelly)  Warren 32; (as I've stated on many occasions...the Pats can't count on him...of course, they did alright in 2010 without him...and have 3 of the top 33 picks in the draft to replace him)  Branch 31; (can always find WRS)  Koppen 30; (still can play...has at least 2 good years left) Banta Cain 30; (he's nothing special...the Pats need an upgrade at OLB)  Welker and Wilfork will be 30 next year. (both players are still in their primes...although Welker appears to be fading some, Julian Edelman is a capable replacement).  If healthy 29 and 30 yr olds still can play for the pats, then I assume they can play for the colts, too.

    RESPONSE: The Pats are in the process of replacing their 30 year olds with young players. What are the Colts doing?

    RESPONSE: Another asinine comment...LOL!!! How can you get top dollar when you give a discount?  I mean he will be paid well.  Maybe it 17 mill a year; 18 mill.  Less than Brady but still top dollar (top dollar is a range) RESPONSE: You're dreaming. Possibly.  It doesn't hurt to dream once in a while.   After stating he would be highest paid, they asked him if he'd be willing to take less in order to go out and get players.  You know this. RESPONSE: No way this happens...unless they cede him power. Polian will never do that.  The expectation,as I see it, is that Manning would have influence like Brady does.   Ok, so does it seem you are being critical of Manning for possibly seeking the same? RESPONSE: Who is being critical?  Maybe it's just your tone.

    RESPONSE: Yet another ridiculous remark. You can tell I'm being critical by my tone??? Do my typed words sing out? Have we talked about this over the phone...LOL!!! 

    RESPONSE: My opinion. The Ravens beat a wounded, very flawed Pats team. The Jets shouldn't have even made the play-offs in 2009. Yet the colts were not a dominant team in 09.

    RESPONSE: The idiotic statements just keep on coming!! The 2009 Colts, who finished 16-3 (giving up two wins due to sitting out their starters) and went to the SB, were not a dominant team?? LOL!!!  

    Although they were undefeated through 14 games, they had to come back to win something like 9 of those games.  They did not blow out teams like the pats did this year.

    RESPONSE: Whatever you say...LOL!! 

     RESPONSE: Sorry...but the Colts are better off ditching Peyton now, while he's worth plenty...than 2 years from now, when he'll be worth far less. If he's unhappy, and wants too much money and power, it's the thing to do. Who said he's unhappy?  We don't know how much money or power he wants?

    RESPONSE: If he's so happy in Indy, and the Colts are willing to pay him whatever hhe wants, how come he hasn't been signed?  
    Posted by UD6[/QUOTE]
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share