In defense of Goodell

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from dapats1281. Show dapats1281's posts

    In defense of Goodell

    He's being made out as the bad guy of this era. And it looks like it'll continue to be this way, but I have no problem with him. He's being proactive, rather than waiting for someone to die on the field, he's changing the rules to prevent it from happening before it happens.

    If a player died on the field, before Goodell made any changes, then I'm sure people would agree that change would be necessary.

    People argue that he's completely changing football , and theyre right in some ways...But football isn't perfect...some parts of it need to be changed.

    Those who claim hard hits are part of the game should also realize that these recent discoveries of head trauma are also, unfortunately, part of the game. 20 years from now, players may be thanking him for saving their lives.

    Fact of the matter is, sometimes it takes overly harsh punishments to send a message. Do I think that Vilma's suspension was too harsh? Yes. But the residual effect of suspension can serve as a greater deter from bounties.


    It is easy to accept the status quo. Recent studies are beginning to reveal issues with the way the game is played. Knowing what you know now about potential future head injuries, would you let someone you cared about play the game? I think most people these days would say no...Goodell is trying to change that answer to yes while maintaining parts of the game that we love as best he can

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from seattlepat70. Show seattlepat70's posts

    Re: In defense of Goodell

    with all the criticism goodell gets for his anti-concussion stance, he may be right all along. people are now asking if seau's depression is connected to head injuries.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: In defense of Goodell



    On concussions, I think Goodell has been right all along to be so proactive.  If only hockey would follow his lead.  Too many concussions could marginalize both sports, much as boxing has been marginalized as a sport that "respectable" people don't watch.  I know some will defend boxing (and my point is not to argue its "morality"), but you can't deny that boxing's declining reputation has led directly to declining audiences and less ability to attract advertisers. Boxing has been able to survive on pay-per-view and as a casino sport--but I doubt football and hockey want to go that way . . . 

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsEng. Show PatsEng's posts

    Re: In defense of Goodell

    There's already talk of insurance companies no longer giving insurance to high school and pee-wee programs because of the concerns with concussions. The Pro level needs to be more pro-active so that kids don't look at players like Harrison (Steelers) and think that's the proper way to play the sport. They need to develop safer gear and better rules to limit concussions otherwise this sport will die a quick and painful death starting at the pee-wee level and eventually making it to the Pro's as programs across the country shut down because they can't get insurance.

    98.5 brought up a stat that shocked me. You are 3x more likely to get a concussion from playing pre-college football then the next dangerous sport (girls soccer). That needs to change, and changing kids views on dirty hits and head shots from the Pro level stand point can only help and not hurt the situation

    Short of that I have no issue with Goodell with the exception of his obvious NY bias
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from mia76. Show mia76's posts

    Re: In defense of Goodell

    I have no problem with the penalties handed down in this case nor with the penalties for hits during the season and nor with the penalty that NE got.
    Yes the game needs to clean up on head shots and I wouldn't mind some clean up on lower leg blocking. Part of the problem in an odd way is the increased quality of padding - these guys get so armored up that they feel invincable and throw their bodies into tackles with no regard. In rugby which is a very violent sport as well, the fact that no one has any padding tempers the way people hit. (Of course no blocking and strict rules against head/neck tackling and lower body shots helps as well.)
    On Saints penalties and the player penalties - in 2010 the whole Saints org. players and coaches knew that the league was sniffing around, and they lied and covered up and CONTINUED with the program. No wonder they are getting severe penalties.
    With NE - the league sent out a memo saying no filming, and BB ignored it.
    On the in season fines - my only problem is that some of them seem a bit inconsistent. The fact that they are leveed is good as it is the only way players will change.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from BassFishing. Show BassFishing's posts

    Re: In defense of Goodell

    In Response to Re: In defense of Goodell:
    I have no problem with the penalties handed down in this case nor with the penalties for hits during the season and nor with the penalty that NE got. Yes the game needs to clean up on head shots and I wouldn't mind some clean up on lower leg blocking. Part of the problem in an odd way is the increased quality of padding - these guys get so armored up that they feel invincable and throw their bodies into tackles with no regard. In rugby which is a very violent sport as well, the fact that no one has any padding tempers the way people hit. (Of course no blocking and strict rules against head/neck tackling and lower body shots helps as well.) On Saints penalties and the player penalties - in 2010 the whole Saints org. players and coaches knew that the league was sniffing around, and they lied and covered up and CONTINUED with the program. No wonder they are getting severe penalties. With NE - the league sent out a memo saying no filming, and BB ignored it. On the in season fines - my only problem is that some of them seem a bit inconsistent. The fact that they are leveed is good as it is the only way players will change.
    Posted by mia76


    You have no issue with the punishment NE got after being singled out for such a minor thing and an inter-divsion spat between two former friends/colleagues?

    Why is that?


     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from portfolio1. Show portfolio1's posts

    Re: In defense of Goodell

    Goodell was "right" about concussions: a group of retired players and/or their families had been pushing for OBJECTIVE medical study of the issue (the NFL had shill Drs talking smack for years). The evidence was pointing toward both a tainted position by the league and possibly even a coverup. Goodell was at least smart enough to read the hand writing on the wall and give up the league's longstanding BS position.

    Good for Goodell but I would not give him too much credit for how the league was forced to become more honest about it.
     
  8. This post has been removed.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from mia76. Show mia76's posts

    Re: In defense of Goodell

    In Response to Re: In defense of Goodell:
    In Response to Re: In defense of Goodell : You have no issue with the punishment NE got after being singled out for such a minor thing and an inter-divsion spat between two former friends/colleagues? Why is that?
    Posted by BassFishing

    Because it was against the rules and had been identified as such. And a follow up memo had been sent out at the start of the season. Hello. Basically BB was told not to do it, was reminded not to do it, and did it anyway. Try that with your boss and see if you still have a job. It didn't really matter what rule BB broke or what advantage was or was not gained, the commish had to come down hard to enforce the authority of the league office.
    Same situation with the Saints - if when they were first caught in 2010 they had fessed up and stopped, the penalties would have been a lot less severe. They lied and covered up and incredibly continued the program for another 2 years.
    You can't run a league with 32 teams doing whatever they want and ignoring the rules. You can't run a league with 1500 players doing whatever they want and ignoring the rules. You need a strong commish and you live with the penalties he hands down.
    Has Bountygate been over hyped - probably. Was Spygate over hyped - certainly. Have the penalties crippled either the Saints or Pats - no. But they have been felt as they should have been.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from mia76. Show mia76's posts

    Re: In defense of Goodell

    And if everybody loves the commissioner of a league, then you know the league is in trouble, cause you know everyone is walking all over him and problems will surface down the line.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from BassFishing. Show BassFishing's posts

    Re: In defense of Goodell

    In Response to Re: In defense of Goodell:
    In Response to Re: In defense of Goodell : Because it was against the rules and had been identified as such. And a follow up memo had been sent out at the start of the season. Hello. Basically BB was told not to do it, was reminded not to do it, and did it anyway. Try that with your boss and see if you still have a job. It didn't really matter what rule BB broke or what advantage was or was not gained, the commish had to come down hard to enforce the authority of the league office. Same situation with the Saints - if when they were first caught in 2010 they had fessed up and stopped, the penalties would have been a lot less severe. They lied and covered up and incredibly continued the program for another 2 years. You can't run a league with 32 teams doing whatever they want and ignoring the rules. You can't run a league with 1500 players doing whatever they want and ignoring the rules. You need a strong commish and you live with the penalties he hands down. Has Bountygate been over hyped - probably. Was Spygate over hyped - certainly. Have the penalties crippled either the Saints or Pats - no. But they have been felt as they should have been.
    Posted by mia76


    You have your facts mixed up. The Jets broke the rule in 2006, a year prior to NE returning fire and messing with the Jets in Week 1 of Sept 2007.
    The problem you and Goodell have is the idea that there is no rift between the JEts and Pats and Mangini and BB.

    That cannot be ignored. For DECADES In the NFL, there have been numerous inter-divsional petty confrontations that needed to be difused. This was really no different.

    Do you really think BB would intentionally break the rules, harm the team, the franchise, risk his job, etc with a kid on a yellow vest in broad daylight like that?

    Really?

    The whole reason they put Estrella way out in front like that in YELLOW was to make sure he was seen.  Jesus.

    Please get a clue.

    Goodell completely overreacted due to anti-BB and anti-NE sentiment stemming from a systematic, almost league wide jealousy of a dynasty and on the heels of the Moss and Welker acqusitions.

    Teams aren't supposed to continue on being dominant after they lose a myriad of key players, coordinators, etc, and be primed to go undefeated.

    BB also did not lie and never showed deceit, etc. What is your opinion of the 1997 and 1998 Broncos situation?
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from dapats1281. Show dapats1281's posts

    Re: In defense of Goodell

    In Response to Re: In defense of Goodell:
    In Response to Re: In defense of Goodell : You have your facts mixed up. The Jets broke the rule in 2006, a year prior to NE returning fire and messing with the Jets in Week 1 of Sept 2007. The problem you and Goodell have is the idea that there is no rift between the JEts and Pats and Mangini and BB. That cannot be ignored. For DECADES In the NFL, there have been numerous inter-divsional petty confrontations that needed to be difused. This was really no different. Do you really think BB would intentionally break the rules, harm the team, the franchise, risk his job, etc with a kid on a yellow vest in broad daylight like that? Really? The whole reason they put Estrella way out in front like that in YELLOW was to make sure he was seen.  Jesus. Please get a clue. Goodell completely overreacted due to anti-BB and anti-NE sentiment stemming from a systematic, almost league wide jealousy of a dynasty and on the heels of the Moss and Welker acqusitions. Teams aren't supposed to continue on being dominant after they lose a myriad of key players, coordinators, etc, and be primed to go undefeated. BB also did not lie and never showed deceit, etc. What is your opinion of the 1997 and 1998 Broncos situation?
    Posted by BassFishing


    Goodell told BB to stop and he didn't. I think the fact that BB was told  to stop and didnt is what made the penalty so severe.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from BassFishing. Show BassFishing's posts

    Re: In defense of Goodell

    False.

    Goodell sent a shotgun memo to all 32 teams. You're wrong.  Do not listen to Peter King, ESPN, and all the others who have an agenda to keep you from the truth.

    Also, BB wasn't hiding Matt Estrella. He was showcasing him to mess with Mangini.

    Lastly, the road team is technically supposed to give the road team's camerman a specified location.  It's in the rule. 

    You're welcome.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from GEAUX-TIGRES. Show GEAUX-TIGRES's posts

    Re: In defense of Goodell

    In Response to Re: In defense of Goodell:
    In Response to Re: In defense of Goodell : You have no issue with the punishment NE got after being singled out for such a minor thing and an inter-divsion spat between two former friends/colleagues? Why is that?
    Posted by BassFishing

    Wasn't that an eon ago? Time to move on. The pretentiously ignoranat gray area issue and snubbing of the commish was reason enough to hit BB and BK with a monetary hit. The memo was clear enough for my 6 yr old grandson to comprehend. Let's just roll with what is at issue at present which in itself is egregious and worthy of what was levied against the Halos. Honestly, not enough for me.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from mia76. Show mia76's posts

    Re: In defense of Goodell

    Bass - so BBs library of videos from every game over the last x years didn't exist? Yes he didn't lie and that's why he received a fine and wasn't suspended.
    I love the Pats and BB as much as the next guy, but that was one hell of a boneheaded move by BB and he got his wrist slapped for it, as he should have.
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from BassFishing. Show BassFishing's posts

    Re: In defense of Goodell

    In Response to Re: In defense of Goodell:
    In Response to Re: In defense of Goodell : Wasn't that an eon ago? Time to move on. The pretentiously ignoranat gray area issue and snubbing of the commish was reason enough to hit BB and BK with a monetary hit. The memo was clear enough for my 6 yr old grandson to comprehend. Let's just roll with what is at issue at present which in itself is egregious and worthy of what was levied against the Halos. Honestly, not enough for me.
    Posted by GEAUX-TIGRES


    Apparently, the memo did nothing but repeat the rule, which acutally somewhat confuses what it says in the Constitution and ByLaws.
    I think we'd have to see the rule sent in the memo. All we get is bits and pieces. I remember King putting a part of the rule in one of his columns and I chuckled because it's important to read the whole rule.

    If the memo was sent out in 2006, why ddin't the NFL reprimand the Jets in Foxborough?

    YOu seem to be ignoring this fact. It comes across like you agree with arbitrary punishment for where Goodell sees fit.

    His own NFL personnel didn't even know the rule. It took Mike Tannenboob to storm down from his perch and tell NFL officials to accost Matt Estrella.

    What does that tell you?

    It tells me there is no violation if the NFL personnel is standing right there for an entire half not doing a thign about it. 

    Again, the rule is about location and the tape being ejected from the machine. Both would have to occur for it to be a violation.

    How else can you explain every other fact that favors the defense of BB? I don't care if it's the fact the NFL never knew their own rule for 7 years, didn't address it over a 3 hour game, had no quality control process in place, the litany of former coaches who admitted they did exactly what BB did, etc.

    All of it points to the rule not really being clear.  It's how Goodell chose to read the rule, taking it over the Constituion and Bylaws. The thing is, it would take years to change the Bylaws, but a highlighting of a rule and sending out a memo might appear to be enough.

    Regardless, the intent was nowhere near what the perception is. If BB was trying to hide Estrella, you'd be correct.
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from BassFishing. Show BassFishing's posts

    Re: In defense of Goodell

    In Response to Re: In defense of Goodell:
    Bass - so BBs library of videos from every game over the last x years didn't exist? Yes he didn't lie and that's why he received a fine and wasn't suspended. I love the Pats and BB as much as the next guy, but that was one hell of a boneheaded move by BB and he got his wrist slapped for it, as he should have.
    Posted by mia76



    Here's the deal:  I dont't think Kraft or BB had any idea the jealousy and target they had on their backs as a franchise.
    No way on earth BB messes with Manboobs like that if he seriously would have known the reaction.

    For that, I agree, it does appear to be dumb. But, there have been numerous incidents between franchises like this for decades through the years, far worse or more petty than this. We just never saw it plastered on the front page of a newspaper or see relentless inconsistent reporting of it on the internet like this.

    And let's be honest:  The media hates BB.

    You can't ignore the facts on the table. It's a huge reason why Goodell did nothing with the Dolphins in 2006 and the Jets in 2006.   The media doesn't hate those coaches and those teams just weren't very good so no one cared.

    I have more of an issue with hyprocrites and phonies who are inconsistent than I do with BB playing a little game with a guy who pulled the rug out from him, after that same guy owes his entire career to BB.

    I get it, but it's also completely overblown. 

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

    Re: In defense of Goodell

    In Response to Re: In defense of Goodell:
    In Response to Re: In defense of Goodell : You have your facts mixed up. The Jets broke the rule in 2006, a year prior to NE returning fire and messing with the Jets in Week 1 of Sept 2007. The problem you and Goodell have is the idea that there is no rift between the JEts and Pats and Mangini and BB. That cannot be ignored. For DECADES In the NFL, there have been numerous inter-divsional petty confrontations that needed to be difused. This was really no different. Do you really think BB would intentionally break the rules, harm the team, the franchise, risk his job, etc with a kid on a yellow vest in broad daylight like that? Really? The whole reason they put Estrella way out in front like that in YELLOW was to make sure he was seen.  Jesus. Please get a clue. Goodell completely overreacted due to anti-BB and anti-NE sentiment stemming from a systematic, almost league wide jealousy of a dynasty and on the heels of the Moss and Welker acqusitions. Teams aren't supposed to continue on being dominant after they lose a myriad of key players, coordinators, etc, and be primed to go undefeated. BB also did not lie and never showed deceit, etc. What is your opinion of the 1997 and 1998 Broncos situation?
    Posted by BassFishing

    You efforts are amusing. 

    Belichick admitted to breaking the rule back to his first days in NE.  He was a constant offender.  There is absolutely no evidence that he acted only in response to the Jets but rather most likely as an institutional ongoing activity.  There is evidence that the Pats were caught in 06 by the Packers.  Further, if the Jets were taping in 06, the question must be asked, where was the technique learned?  Mangini's entire coaching career was with Belichick save for a single first year with Ravens.  The same goes for McDaniels whose entire pro career was with Belichick prior to the Broncos where former pats videographer was caught doing the same. 

    Rifts don't matter in the breaking of rules.  And yes, Belichick intentionally broke the rules.  His desire to find an edge, whatever that may be, is a part of his M.O.  He is understandably as arrogant as they come, and I'd even be willing to bet that he even understood that his action in 2007 could also serve as a test to see how serious the new commish was about rules after the memo went out.  If Belichick is to be considered the genius he so frequently labeled as, he can't be exonerated for his actions with a "he didn't know" take. 

    You have absolutely no idea exactly why Belichick did what he did the way he did it.  You are speculating based on what you hope to be true and who you think Belichick is.  It is my opinion that Goodell demonstrates no favoritism toward any team, and I believe that having Kraft as one of his biggest supporters demonstrates this. 
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from BassFishing. Show BassFishing's posts

    Re: In defense of Goodell

    No, he wasn't a constant offender.  Teams are supposed to provide the road team with a specified spot.

    Some home teams are actually offenders.

    You don't get "caught" in broad daylight over a 3 hour period. You're fraudulent, agenda driven responses here are exposed because you don't mention the Jets in Foxborough in 2006 or Miami using technology to compromise Brady's audibles.

    You're sources and concerns only are tied to the Pats.

    Why don't you take umbrage with BIll Cowher?  Hmm?  I don't need effort to easily state facts, know my homework and be consistent on a topic I know a lot about, dribbly.

    You're an unadulerated moron if you think BB was trying "to find an edge" in a road opeener in NY with the Pats blistering the JEts int he 1st half.

    A MORON. But, that we already knew. 

    I am not speculating at all. I go by primary sources named PArcells, Knox, Bud Grant, Shula, Jimmy Johnson,  and more recently Bill Cowher. I also go by what Goodell and his employees DID NOT do in 2006 within their own rules.

    All facts.  Why would all those coaches defend BB?  Acorrding to you and your insanely, unhealthy anti-BB and Pats obsession, BB probably paid them off to defend him.

    LMAO

    You're such a loser.

    Considering the Jets weren't docked a 1st rd pick or punished at all in 2006, it's quite possible BB didn't know who Goodel was choosing to enforce his rules.

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

    Re: In defense of Goodell

    In Response to Re: In defense of Goodell:
    No, he wasn't a constant offender.  Teams are supposed to provide the road team with a specified spot. Some home teams are actually offenders. You don't get "caught" in broad daylight over a 3 hour period. You're fraudulent, agenda driven responses here are exposed because you don't mention the Jets in Foxborough in 2006 or Miami using technology to compromise Brady's audibles. You're sources and concerns only are tied to the Pats. Why don't you take umbrage with BIll Cowher?  Hmm?  I don't need effort to easily state facts, know my homework and be consistent on a topic I know a lot about, dribbly. You're an unadulerated moron if you think BB was trying "to find an edge" in a road opeener in NY with the Pats blistering the JEts int he 1st half. A MORON. But, that we already knew.  I am not speculating at all. I go by primary sources named PArcells, Knox, Bud Grant, Shula, Jimmy Johnson,  and more recently Bill Cowher. I also go by what Goodell and his employees DID NOT do in 2006 within their own rules. All facts.  Why would all those coaches defend BB?  Acorrding to you and your insanely, unhealthy anti-BB and Pats obsession, BB probably paid them off to defend him. LMAO You're such a loser. Considering the Jets weren't docked a 1st rd pick or punished at all in 2006, it's quite possible BB didn't know who Goodel was choosing to enforce his rules.
    Posted by BassFishing

    Oh please.  Belichick admitted himself to taping since his early days in NE.  The only agenda I have with this is to point out your selective memory and bias on the subject.  Regarding the Jets taping in 2006, its immaterial because as I noted, the pats were also caught in 06 by the Packers.  Did the Pats notify the NFL?  Did the Packers notify the NFL? 

    Was Bill Cowher taping in 07?  How about Jimmy Johnson, who is always publicly trying to defend Belichick's actions?  Why would Parcells defend Belichick?  I figure its because Belichick probably learned the technique from Parcells. 

    You may call me whatever names you like, but I am not the one unwilling to open his eyes.  That is you my friend.
     
  21. This post has been removed.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from pezz4pats. Show pezz4pats's posts

    Re: In defense of Goodell

    In Response to Re: In defense of Goodell:
    Bass - so BBs library of videos from every game over the last x years didn't exist? Yes he didn't lie and that's why he received a fine and wasn't suspended. I love the Pats and BB as much as the next guy, but that was one hell of a boneheaded move by BB and he got his wrist slapped for it, as he should have.
    Posted by mia76


    I specifically remember in reading every article about SG that the library of videos existed for many if not all teams.
    There were several articles about coaches calling their brass and asking "What to do with their tapes"? 
    I don't have the time to research it at the moment to provide links but I'm sure it's true.
    The facts are that taping was an excepted practice for years until manboobs decided to rat on a practice that he himself participated in.
    Once when I was a kid, my brother and I were smoking in a field and somehow started a small fire.  While I was putting out the fire, my rat brother ran home and told my mom that I was smoking and started a fire.  I was severely and rightfully punished but my brother was not.  Same F'n thing.  I'm still mad at my bro for that. LOL
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from BassFishing. Show BassFishing's posts

    Re: In defense of Goodell

    No.  The Packers did not notify.  THe NFL did not think to notify Goodell with the Jets.

    You know why?  Because this was always handled internally unbeknownst to the public.

    What difference does it make when Bill Cowher was taping? He gives the public, and the uneducated public like you a primary source and a context around the topic. Only morons who missed college would shun access to that kind of information.  Josef Goebbels did that, too.  Congrats. 

    The issue is about why, 5 years later, people keep dropping the word Spygate into conversations when it was nothing more than a minor rules infraction, sold in such a way to the public it appeared worse than what it was? NE did nothing different than any other team other than take a spat public. For that, there should be some punishment, but not the one they got. That's ludicrous for Goodell to overrreact like that. He had no control of that situation. 

    If the NFL had notified Goodell of the 2006 incident and they upheld consistency with their rules, and he calls each team with a stern warning against any further, antics like a normal commissioner, Spygate doesn't even occur.

    I repeat: BB putting Estrella in a YELLOW VEST in broad daylight was a response to the Jets illegaly filming (suppsoedly) from a non-specified location the year earlier. Hence, why he was in a bright yellow vest, pushed way up front on the sideline.

    It's the ONLY tape where any video coordinator is seen doing that. FACT

    The NFL is not allowed to allow one team to film.  The rule says the road team must be given a spot to film from if the home team is also filming. Since it makes sense for all home teams to film, this would mean any visiting team bringing a video coordinator on the road.

    Some teams do that, some don't. NE likely did ever road game.  Again, that's legal.  What is technically not legal is the not adhering to the location. That's fair.  that portion should be followed and ofr that aspect, ANY TEAM, including NE, should have been reprimanded, even prior to 2007.
    |
    Goodell said himself it wasn't just NE. 

    Why do you think they're called video coordinators?  What are they coordinating if they are just shooting distant footage and not shooting anything and everything within the game? The NFL provides that footage already.    

    YOu can't sit here and lie. Any one of us could apply for any team's video coordinator role if there was an opening for one. They exist. My team will be filmed without question 8 times this year. Maybe more, if a team chooses to come into Foxborough and ask for a road spot. And we'll have no idea what they filmed.

    Happens every year, game in and game out. 

    They allow shooting anything and everything from the specified location as part of allowing NFL teams to procure scouting portfolios on their own, as long as the technology is not used in the game that day.

    You try to escape this, but you can't.  If the NFL was checking teams' tapes, then you might have a leg to stand on, but the only concern was THAT DAY and if the tapes were ejected or a team was caught using cell phones, texting, or really another technology based off what was captured THAT DAY.

    That's why the original claim was "NE uses this in the locker room at hafltime." They made that claim because they felt they needed that to stick on NE.  It was a ludicrous claim at the time and still is.  lol

    Halftime is 12 minutes and the morons at ESPN first claimed this is why NE was great at halftime adjustments.  They pushd the lies to the hilt within the first 48 hours.. THen in the next 24 hours when Goodell levied the punishment, they backed off from the preposterous imagery of the video coordinator rushing into an office at halftime and popping in a tape for BB and coches to see with signals translators hovered under a dimly lit lamp transcribing signals in time for second half action.

    You're a politically correct doofus for buying into it. The joke is on you.

    I know you're not this stupid, so you're intentional ignorance is more annoying to everyone here and it makes you look very dumb.

    Every year that goes by the more we learn what a farce it was and what a witch hunt it has become.



     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from sporter81. Show sporter81's posts

    Re: In defense of Goodell

    In Response to Re: In defense of Goodell:
    [QUOTE]No.  I repeat: BB putting Estrella in a YELLOW VEST in broad daylight was a response to the Jets illegaly filming (suppsoedly) from a non-specified location the year earlier. Hence, why he was in a bright yellow vest, pushed way up front on the sideline. It's the ONLY tape where any video coordinator is seen doing that. 

    That part of the story never gets mentioned in this whole media blown spygate b.s. .... Pretty Convenient huh?

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share