National Media Back on Pat's Jocks

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

    Re: National Media Back on Pat's Jocks

    ^^^ Tissue?
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from BBReigns. Show BBReigns's posts

    Re: National Media Back on Pat's Jocks

    Laughable. 

    This is the difference between an honest fan and a dumb.ignorant one. You clearly represent the latter and do it because it mirrors what you want to see.

    All the facts, primary sources, etc, side with NE on this, not you or the jealous fans or media.

    Any NFL team could have been scapegoated by not following new rules adjustments that were to include the sideline within the framework of that rule itself.

    Miami could have been punished for literally buying CBS audio to match it up to gamefilm in 2006.  BUt, no, that kind of technology used for advanced scouting was deemed "just football" by the league in 2006.

    Why? Because no one cared about a bad Miami team that beat the juggernaut Pats. That's why.

    One team should have punished for location violations, for sure we know of, because it was corroborated, was the Jets in 2006.

    The simple fact you and other troll dorks act like the positioning is some dramatic and egregious violatin is what is hilarious because it proves:

    1. You never played sports before if you think position of a legal scouting procedure amounts to anything definitive.

    2.  You think it has credence enough to be as over-dramatized as much as it has.

    If NE fell off the map, this whole topic wouldn't have garnered anything of attention.

    It's because people know how good Kraft/BB/Brady are and that it simply isn't going away. It's why you exist here as a troll.

    JEALOUSY

    Do you ever see people call the Broncos cheaters? I don't either.

    What did people do in 2001 or 2004, when it was found they cooked their books?

    You can't even successfully Google that without finding it buried away.

    The bottome line is, NE is so well run, Spygate will always be the the smear job it was always intended to be.

    As long as the tapes never left the cameras, this is nothing more than a speeding ticket equivalent as confirmed by Goodell in February 2008 when he said they gained no advantage.

    That's all I needed to hear when the investigation was finally put out of its misery.

    The facts all prove there was no advantage:

    NE is 45-14 since the witch hunt.

    Truth hurts and it hurts bad.


     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from Indylove. Show Indylove's posts

    Re: National Media Back on Pat's Jocks

    Laughable. 

    This is the difference between an honest fan and a dumb.ignorant one. You clearly represent the latter and do it because it mirrors what you want to see.
    Surprising, possibly only to you, this is the way most see you. 

    All the facts, primary sources, etc, side with NE on this, not you or the jealous fans or media.
    And those facts, primary sources, etc are?  I'd call Belichick a primary source and his apology for his mistake, his misinterpretation claim tell me all I need to know.  Do you have a source closer to the situation than Belichick?

    Any NFL team could have been scapegoated by not following new rules adjustments that were to include the sideline within the framework of that rule itself.
    Any??  News to me. 

    Miami could have been punished for literally buying CBS audio to match it up to gamefilm in 2006.  BUt, no, that kind of technology used for advanced scouting was deemed "just football" by the league in 2006.
    Yep - and the pats could have been punished literally for breaking the taping rules the first time they did it, but they weren't. 

    Why? Because no one cared about a bad Miami team that beat the juggernaut Pats. That's why.
    I'd say the NFL handled the issue "in house" just as they did the first time the pats were notified for operating outside of the rules. 

    One team should have punished for location violations, for sure we know of, because it was corroborated, was the Jets in 2006.
    Again, see above. 

    The simple fact you and other troll dorks act like the positioning is some dramatic and egregious violatin is what is hilarious because it proves:
    I didn't say that.  What I said was that the violation allowed for the discussion to take place.  If the violation had not occurred there'd be no reason for discussion, right?  

    1. You never played sports before if you think position of a legal scouting procedure amounts to anything definitive.
    As someone who like to throw the word "facts" out alot, what facts do you have to support this claim?  The fact is, I've played sports all my life, and doing so doesn't diminish the violation.

    2.  You think it has credence enough to be as over-dramatized as much as it has.
    I think it was overdramatized, because 1) it could be and 2) because the pats were a successful franchise.  Not much different than Favre today.  

    If NE fell off the map, this whole topic wouldn't have garnered anything of attention.
    That is possible, but it doesn't mean that the pats or belichick would not have been punished in the same way.  Neither you or I know that. 

    It's because people know how good Kraft/BB/Brady are and that it simply isn't going away. It's why you exist here as a troll.

    JEALOUSY

    Do you ever see people call the Broncos cheaters? I don't either.
    People do it on this site all the time.  So yes. 

    What did people do in 2001 or 2004, when it was found they cooked their books?
    I am sure there was plenty of consternation, but I'll also say that the internet was not as big of a presence then as it is now, and cable TV wasn't either. 

    You can't even successfully Google that without finding it buried away.

    The bottome line is, NE is so well run, Spygate will always be the the smear job it was always intended to be.
    The bottom line is that this is what pats fans will think. 

    As long as the tapes never left the cameras, this is nothing more than a speeding ticket equivalent as confirmed by Goodell in February 2008 when he said they gained no advantage.
    1.  That's your opinion, not the NFL's.  2.  You don't know whether or not the tapes left the camera.  3.  I asked for this Goodell comment earlier but its never been supplied. 

    That's all I needed to hear when the investigation was finally put out of its misery.

    The facts all prove there was no advantage:

    NE is 45-14 since the witch hunt.
    As I said earlier, there is no way of knowing whether or not the taping contributed to the pats success, but the fact that they did in violation of the rules since Belichick came to the pats opens the question for debate. 

    The pats have won many games since spygate, but the board's definition of success is sb victories.  They've had none since then, yet had their defensive stars and better offensive weapons.  Just sayin.


    Truth hurts and it hurts bad.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from BBReigns. Show BBReigns's posts

    Re: National Media Back on Pat's Jocks

    In Response to Re: National Media Back on Pat's Jocks:
    [QUOTE]Laughable.  This is the difference between an honest fan and a dumb.ignorant one. You clearly represent the latter and do it because it mirrors what you want to see. Surprising, possibly only to you, this is the way most see you.  All the facts, primary sources, etc, side with NE on this, not you or the jealous fans or media. And those facts, primary sources, etc are?  I'd call Belichick a primary source and his apology for his mistake, his misinterpretation claim tell me all I need to know.  Do you have a source closer to the situation than Belichick? Any NFL team could have been scapegoated by not following new rules adjustments that were to include the sideline within the framework of that rule itself. Any??  News to me.  Miami could have been punished for literally buying CBS audio to match it up to gamefilm in 2006.  BUt, no, that kind of technology used for advanced scouting was deemed "just football" by the league in 2006. Yep - and the pats could have been punished literally for breaking the taping rules the first time they did it, but they weren't.  Why? Because no one cared about a bad Miami team that beat the juggernaut Pats. That's why. I'd say the NFL handled the issue "in house" just as they did the first time the pats were notified for operating outside of the rules.  One team should have punished for location violations, for sure we know of, because it was corroborated, was the Jets in 2006. Again, see above.  The simple fact you and other troll dorks act like the positioning is some dramatic and egregious violatin is what is hilarious because it proves: I didn't say that.  What I said was that the violation allowed for the discussion to take place.  If the violation had not occurred there'd be no reason for discussion, right?   1. You never played sports before if you think position of a legal scouting procedure amounts to anything definitive. As someone who like to throw the word "facts" out alot, what facts do you have to support this claim?  The fact is, I've played sports all my life, and doing so doesn't diminish the violation. 2.  You think it has credence enough to be as over-dramatized as much as it has. I think it was overdramatized, because 1) it could be and 2) because the pats were a successful franchise.  Not much different than Favre today.   If NE fell off the map, this whole topic wouldn't have garnered anything of attention. That is possible, but it doesn't mean that the pats or belichick would not have been punished in the same way.  Neither you or I know that.  It's because people know how good Kraft/BB/Brady are and that it simply isn't going away. It's why you exist here as a troll. JEALOUSY Do you ever see people call the Broncos cheaters? I don't either. People do it on this site all the time.  So yes.  What did people do in 2001 or 2004, when it was found they cooked their books? I am sure there was plenty of consternation, but I'll also say that the internet was not as big of a presence then as it is now, and cable TV wasn't either.  You can't even successfully Google that without finding it buried away. The bottome line is, NE is so well run, Spygate will always be the the smear job it was always intended to be. The bottom line is that this is what pats fans will think.  As long as the tapes never left the cameras, this is nothing more than a speeding ticket equivalent as confirmed by Goodell in February 2008 when he said they gained no advantage. 1.  That's your opinion, not the NFL's.  2.  You don't know whether or not the tapes left the camera.  3.  I asked for this Goodell comment earlier but its never been supplied.  That's all I needed to hear when the investigation was finally put out of its misery. The facts all prove there was no advantage: NE is 45-14 since the witch hunt. As I said earlier, there is no way of knowing whether or not the taping contributed to the pats success, but the fact that they did in violation of the rules since Belichick came to the pats opens the question for debate.  The pats have won many games since spygate, but the board's definition of success is sb victories.  They've had none since then, yet had their defensive stars and better offensive weapons.  Just sayin. Truth hurts and it hurts bad.
    Posted by Indylove[/QUOTE]


    If Asanate Samuel catches an INT or the most miraculous catch ever doesn't occur, you know as well as I do, you aren't using such a stupid premise.

    NE went 18-0 until divine intervention occurred.  Please stop. You sound worse than you normally do.

    Saying NE has not won a SB since then, is ludicrous logic, because that would mean 28 other teams haven't either. So, that means, by your logic, they cheated.

    When every team is allowed to film (that's the action), there is no advantage.

    Unless you can prove how location provides this advantage, there is nothing to claim with regards to an advantage.

    State what the adavtnage is. You cannot do this because there isn't one.

    As for primary sources, I would rely on every team's video interns, former coaches who aren't NFL employees and yes, Belichick himself who stated the tapers never left the camera.

    This isn't an opinion. This is a fact and it was corroborated by Matt Walsh himself under a written oath during the interview process.

    Until you can articulate how, what only one team supposedly did illegally, provoded this advantage, you lost this debate before it started.

    A punishment for not following a rule, one that is beyond convoluted, to the exact T, does not equate an advantage.

    Your assertion that location of legal filming provides an advantage reflects the fact you think it has an effect on competitive play.

    It may or it may not for ANY team, not just NE.

    Get it, Corky?

    It only fits how you want it framed. Facts are your worst enemy.

    Also, anothe lie that you speak as a truth, because you listeend to ESPN is the myth that NE was told not to film from the sidleines.

    This is a lie. They sent out the rule in a memo to all 32 teams, not just NE.

    Another fact is, that rule does not jive with the wording the Constitution and Bylaws Belichick (and I am sure most older coaches) has always followed.


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

    Re: National Media Back on Pat's Jocks

    If Asanate Samuel catches an INT or the most miraculous catch ever doesn't occur, you know as well as I do, you aren't using such a stupid premise.
    If "ifs and buts" were candy and nuts, we'd all have a merry christmas. 
    NE went 18-0 until divine intervention occurred.  Please stop. You sound worse than you normally do.
    Russ - you can put a little saying on your posts so that it shows up with every post you write - You should put - "only God can stop Bill Belichick"
    Saying NE has not won a SB since then, is ludicrous logic, because that would mean 28 other teams haven't either. So, that means, by your logic, they cheated.
    But they'd won 3 in the previous 5 years, and super bowls are what everyone hangs their hat on around here.  And everyone says Brady won with no talent .  That's debateable but can't be said in 2007 - yet you still had that great D.  And no, that they haven't won since it doesn't mean that they cheated.  Being caught cheating after being warned and being punished for it means they cheated. 
    When every team is allowed to film (that's the action), there is no advantage.
    Not when they film outside of the rules, but don't let that technicality get in the way of your blind faith. 
    Unless you can prove how location provides this advantage, there is nothing to claim with regards to an advantage.
    I don't need to, although I have plenty of times.  The point is the NFL made clear to teams that this was not to go on.  They put out a memo to reiterate their stance and Belichick disregarded it.  When punished the commish said that the pats intentionally violated rules designed to promote fair play.  To me that means the NFL believes Belichick subverted these rules in order to gain an unfair advantage.  I don't care whether or not you want to believe it.  Its there.
    State what the adavtnage is. You cannot do this because there isn't one.
    See above. 
    As for primary sources, I would rely on every team's video interns, former coaches who aren't NFL employees and yes, Belichick himself who stated the tapers never left the camera.
    You'd rely on the people who were caught.  Good idea.  You have one very basic requirement in order to be a defense attorney.  
    This isn't an opinion. This is a fact and it was corroborated by Matt Walsh himself under a written oath during the interview process.
    huh? 
    Until you can articulate how, what only one team supposedly did illegally, provoded this advantage, you lost this debate before it started.
    I did?  So Belichick didn't get caught for breaking a rule he was told not to break, and the commissioner didn't say he subverted rules designed to promote fair play? 

    I have no idea whether or not the pats gained an advantage.  I don't really care, either.  My point was that in breaking the rules the opened up themselves to the arguement that they may have.  In school, I could cheat on a test by stealing someone elses answers.  Whether or not it helped my grade depends on whether or not the person I stole the answers from got the answers correct.  Regardless, I still cheated.   
    A punishment for not following a rule, one that is beyond convoluted, to the exact T, does not equate an advantage.

    Your assertion that location of legal filming provides an advantage reflects the fact you think it has an effect on competitive play.

    It may or it may not for ANY team, not just NE.

    Get it, Corky?

    It only fits how you want it framed. Facts are your worst enemy.

    Also, anothe lie that you speak as a truth, because you listeend to ESPN is the myth that NE was told not to film from the sidleines.

    This is a lie. They sent out the rule in a memo to all 32 teams, not just NE.
    Your points here are irrelevant and wrong.  1) I never said the memo was NE specific.  2) It wouldn't matter even if it was.  Was the memo sent to NE?  If so, they would be expected to comply.  
    Another fact is, that rule does not jive with the wording the Constitution and Bylaws Belichick (and I am sure most older coaches) has always followed
    Belichick is considered one of the smartest coaches in the NFL.  If the NFL sends a memo that does not jive with the rules, and he knows that, I would expect him to seek clarification.  He didn't.  He's culpable. 
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from BBReigns. Show BBReigns's posts

    Re: National Media Back on Pat's Jocks

    No, you need to show intent or deceit to cheat.

    An intern in broad daylight is neither intent or deceit.

    Pretty damn simple.

    http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3394809

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

    Re: National Media Back on Pat's Jocks

    russ,

    I've argued this forever.  I really don't care about it.  I'll return to my original point which succinctly states my feelings:

    Whether or not the rule breaking had any effect on the team's success is up for discussion, and both sides of the debate have their arguement.  Pats fans understandably don't like this, but at a minimum pats fans have to realize that the pats invited the questions, criticism, and media attention all by themselves. 
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from Evil2010. Show Evil2010's posts

    Re: National Media Back on Pat's Jocks

     I'm getting a mental picture of you being 100 years old whining about spygate on your death bed. Perhaps you can put something on your headstone about it so you can keep whining even after death.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from BBReigns. Show BBReigns's posts

    Re: National Media Back on Pat's Jocks

    Dear Hayseed,

    No. The jealous Jets made the federal case out of it and someone stole the tape to shape the story into something more sinister than it clearly was.

    You said NE brought this on themselves, and that's false.

    It is legal to film.

    Period.

    Look at the pattern of excuses before Spygate as to why NE was good. 

    Spygate is the king of these excuses  That's why it works for you. People were just waiting for an opening to try to smear the organization, so they wouldn't look dumb doing it.

    "Spygate" was that opportunity. 

    Congrats to the jealous teams, fans, and media.  You won on the witch hunt campaign. You succeeded. You slandered and try to disparage what dozens, if not hundreds of people worked hard to achieve.

    It doesn't change the idea that all facts show your premise or premises are flat out debunked time and again.

    If Goodell only wants to enforce rules for one team, he's going to get himself into more trouble than he realizes.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from Indylove. Show Indylove's posts

    Re: National Media Back on Pat's Jocks

    In Response to Re: National Media Back on Pat's Jocks:
    [QUOTE]No, you need to show intent or deceit to cheat. An intern in broad daylight is neither intent or deceit. Pretty damn simple. http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3394809
    Posted by BBReigns[/QUOTE]

    Your cited article is an opinion, and there are other opinions. 

    Here is the law:

    "This episode represents a calculated and deliberate attempt to avoid long-standing rules designed to encourage fair play and promote honest competition on the playing field," Goodell said in a letter to the Patriots.

    As simple as it gets. 
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from Indylove. Show Indylove's posts

    Re: National Media Back on Pat's Jocks

    In Response to Re: National Media Back on Pat's Jocks:
    [QUOTE]Dear Hayseed, No. The jealous Jets made the federal case out of it and someone stole the tape to shape the story into something more sinister than it clearly was. You said NE brought this on themselves, and that's false. It is legal to film. Period. Look at the pattern of excuses before Spygate as to why NE was good.  Spygate is the king of these excuses  That's why it works for you. People were just waiting for an opening to try to smear the organization, so they wouldn't look dumb doing it. "Spygate" was that opportunity.  Congrats to the jealous teams, fans, and media.  You won on the witch hunt campaign. You succeeded. You slandered and try to disparage what dozens, if not hundreds of people worked hard to achieve. It doesn't change the idea that all facts show your premise or premises are flat out debunked time and again. If Goodell only wants to enforce rules for one team, he's going to get himself into more trouble than he realizes.
    Posted by BBReigns[/QUOTE]

    Why would the Kraft and Belichick accept punishment if what they did was within the rules?

    Again, I never said the pats weren't good (or good enough to win the superbowls without the infractions).  I simply said that the infractions allow the questions to be raised.  

    Pretty simple (I know you like this phrase).
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from BBReigns. Show BBReigns's posts

    Re: National Media Back on Pat's Jocks

    What did he say in February 2008, 6 months after that knee jerk statement?

    "No competitive advantage".

    As simple as it gets, right Hayseedlove?
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from BBReigns. Show BBReigns's posts

    Re: National Media Back on Pat's Jocks

    In Response to Re: National Media Back on Pat's Jocks:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: National Media Back on Pat's Jocks : Why would the Kraft and Belichick accept punishment if what they did was within the rules? Again, I never said the pats weren't good (or good enough to win the superbowls without the infractions).  I simply said that the infractions allow the questions to be raised.   Pretty simple (I know you like this phrase).
    Posted by Indylove[/QUOTE]

    Because there was a violation and they would not put themselves above the NFL.

    A rules violations does not mean there was deceit used to gain an advantage, Einstein.


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

    Re: National Media Back on Pat's Jocks

    In Response to Re: National Media Back on Pat's Jocks:
    [QUOTE]What did he say in February 2008, 6 months after that knee jerk statement? "No competitive advantage". As simple as it gets, right Hayseedlove?
    Posted by BBReigns[/QUOTE]
    Source please. 

    "still hayseed enough to say look who's in the big town".  Mellencamp
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from jonbam. Show jonbam's posts

    Re: National Media Back on Pat's Jocks

    Indy, I usually think that you are fairly clear thinking and logical, and I don't ever remember agreeing with Rusty but you know what they say "There's a first time for everything."

    Spygate was a minor rules infraction (i.e., the action was legal but the location was not) that the ex-Jets NFL commissioner tried to use to level the NFL playing field by taking away the Pats first round draft.  He even said that second level NFL teams (which included the Jets at that time) would only have had a second round pick lost for the same infraction.  Why would their penalty have been less for the same infraction?
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from Indylove. Show Indylove's posts

    Re: National Media Back on Pat's Jocks

    In Response to Re: National Media Back on Pat's Jocks:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: National Media Back on Pat's Jocks : Because there was a violation and they would not put themselves above the NFL. A rules violations does not mean there was deceit used to gain an advantage, Einstein.
    Posted by BBReigns[/QUOTE]

    What was Belichick's reason for taping?  Why didn't Belichick heed the memo?  If Belichick did not understand the memo, why didn't he ask the league for clarification? 

    The fact is that the league wanted the practice stopped which, I assume, was the reason for the memo.  the Jets (if they were a taper, too) apparently heeded the warning.  Sure they may have had it in for Billy and turned him in, but if Billy had also heeded the memo, pats fans wouldn't have to answer these questions, right?
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from Indylove. Show Indylove's posts

    Re: National Media Back on Pat's Jocks

    jonbam - I've never heard that. 
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from BBReigns. Show BBReigns's posts

    Re: National Media Back on Pat's Jocks

    In Response to Re: National Media Back on Pat's Jocks:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: National Media Back on Pat's Jocks : Source please.  "still hayseed enough to say look who's in the big town".  Mellencamp
    Posted by Indylove[/QUOTE]

    You are so belligerent it's beyond incredible. I dug this up for you before. 

    "I think it probably had a limited effect, if any effect, on the outcome on any game."

     - Roger Goodell, February 2008

    Super Bowl  

     

    Posted over 3 years ago

    Transcript from Goodell's news conference

    National Football League

    Opening Statement

    "Good morning. Welcome to Arizona and Super Bowl XLII. I hope that all of you are enjoying the hospitality of this wonderful community. Before I take your questions - and I assume you have some questions - I'd like to make a few comments. First, thank you to all of you for your extraordinary interest and coverage of the NFL this season. We appreciate it. If numbers are any indication, by the number of credentials we have issued this week, it certainly is one of the games that has the most interest in our history. So, thank you for being here and thank you for your coverage over the season.

    "Also, let me thank the two teams - the New England Patriots and New York Giants. I congratulate them on a tremendous season. They have played terrific football and they have gotten here in two different ways, but nonetheless, both with records. They certainly deserve the honor of playing in the Super Bowl. We wish them both luck and congratulate them on their success to date. So, thank you to them.

    "Thirdly, as you look back at the 2007 season, you'd say by any measure that this has been an extraordinary season. The competition on the field, the ratings, the record attendance are all barometers that the NFL is extremely healthy and that the interest in the NFL continues to grow. We're excited about that. Let me assure you that none of us take that for granted. We are working to see what we can continue to do to grow the game. We believe the NFL can grow and be even more popular than it is today. That's what we spend our time focusing on: 'What are those opportunities? What are those risks? What are those challenges that the NFL can face?' We will address those as aggressively and as proactively as we can so we can keep our fans focused on football. That's what we think is our job."

    Roger, as you know, Sen. (Arlen) Specter is calling you before the Senate Judiciary Committee to talk about what he described as "the inexplicable destruction of the spygate tapes." Can you give us any information on that, and do you think it will taint New England's accomplishments and potential accomplishment?

    "Let me address that in reverse order, Dave. I don't think it taints their accomplishments. The action that we took was decisive and it was unprecedented. It sent a loud message to not only the Patriots, but every NFL team that you should follow the rules and you better follow the rules. I think what they did this season was certainly done within the rules on a level playing field. I think their record is extraordinary. As we all know, it's never been done before at 18-0. I think they should be congratulated on that. As it relates to Senator Specter, of course I am more than willing to meet with the senator. I think there are very good explanations for the reason why I destroyed the tapes or had them destroyed by our staff. They were totally consistent with what the team told me. There was no purpose for them. I believe it was helpful in making sure our instructions were followed closely, by not only the Patriots, but also by every other team. I think it was the appropriate thing to do. Our discipline sent a loud message, and I think the team should be congratulated on their success."

    The New York Giants played the Miami Dolphins last October in the first regular season game outside of North America in London. It was a great success, we think. You announced recently that you are returning to the U.K. in 2008. The fans, by this stage now, are so excited. They want to know who is going to play. Who are the two teams? Are you in a position today that you could shed some light on that and is there anything else you can tell us about the event?

    "Let me first say to our fans in the U.K. that we felt the same way. The reception that we got by our business partners and by our fans in the U.K. was extraordinary. We could not be happier with the experience we had in London, and we're grateful with everything they did. So grateful, that we are going to come back. So, we are coming back. The New Orleans Saints are going to host the San Diego Chargers on Oct. 26. It will be at Wembley Stadium. We have great expectations for the game and for the event. We think it will be both great for the U.K. fans, but also, I think it will be terrific for the people of New Orleans, Louisiana and also for the people of San Diego and Southern California. This is a great opportunity to go on an international platform and promote the great things happening in their city. I think that will be a tremendous opportunity."

    There are still a lot of unanswered questions that you have never said, like why did they (New England Patriots) do it, how long were they doing it, what advantage did they get, what did they do with the information, and did it help them win any games. Did you find out the answer to those questions?

    "First off, the answers to why they did it have to be answered by the New England Patriots. That is not something that I was really concerned with. As far as it relates to what we found, it was totally consistent with what the team told us. Many of you saw it because it was leaked, one of the tapes. It was very clearly a coach making signals and it shows the down and distance. I believe there were six tapes and in fact, in one of the tapes, one of the coaches was waving at the camera, indicating that they understood that they were being taped. I think as far as the actual effectiveness of taping signals, as you all know, taking signals from opposing football teams or in other sports is done and it is done quite widely and teams prepare for that. There isn't a team that doesn't go into a game prepared for that because of the complex nature of the way they handle either their wristbands, different coaches sending signals in live or not. They all protect against that. I think it probably had a limited effect, if any effect, on the outcome on any game. But that doesn't change my perspective of if you are violating the rules, you should be punished for that. You should be disciplined, and I think we did that very aggressively."



    http://www.nfl.com/superbowl/story?id=09000d5d8066dfee&template=with-video&confirm=true

    Thanks for playing today.
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from Evil2010. Show Evil2010's posts

    Re: National Media Back on Pat's Jocks

    Trying to get Indylove to move on from spygate is harder than getting a bone back from a pitbull.

    The thing is Indy and BBreigns is that prior to this teams just used to politely ask the other team to stop. It was only the Jets' need to beat the Pats off of the field to make up for the fact that they can't beat them on the field ( at least more than once a season ) that blew the whole thing up. They were hoping to ruin BB's career and remove their greatest threat to finishing first in the division. The whole thing had the stink of a desperate team trying anything to be successful coupled with a commissioner that was desperate to end a dynasty.


     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from Evil2010. Show Evil2010's posts

    Re: National Media Back on Pat's Jocks

    In Response to Re: National Media Back on Pat's Jocks:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: National Media Back on Pat's Jocks : You haven't heard of a lot of things because: 1. You don't do any homework. 2. Choose to be ignorant so your perception won't be changed as a jealous Colts fan. 3. You are very dumb.
    Posted by BBReigns[/QUOTE]

    Just 3 things or did your fingers get tired
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from Evil2010. Show Evil2010's posts

    Re: National Media Back on Pat's Jocks

    That's standard troll practice. The Pats are in trouble now so he should be happy. The fact that the Titans bid for Moss shows that BB's evil mind control powers are no longer reliable and his evil scheme to steal the Vikings draft pick and keep Moss have fallen through. Since we can no longer rely on Bill to read the opposing coaches thoughts than we're going to have to play the old fashion way and we're just not good enough for that.
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from BBReigns. Show BBReigns's posts

    Re: National Media Back on Pat's Jocks

    But, wait. Tenn still gets to play Indy 2x this season with Moss.  So, BB's evil tactics appear to be working well.

    lol

    Underoos = DONE
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from jonbam. Show jonbam's posts

    Re: National Media Back on Pat's Jocks

    In Response to Re: National Media Back on Pat's Jocks:
    [QUOTE]jonbam - I've never heard that. 
    Posted by Indylove[/QUOTE]

    It believe it was actually losing the second and third selections instead of the first for the non-playoff teams.  Godell was very magnanimous.  He said that if the 2007 Patriots - you know, their 18-1 team - did not make the playoffs they would also just lose their 2nd and 3rd picks.  Fair guy.
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from Indylove. Show Indylove's posts

    Re: National Media Back on Pat's Jocks

    Rusty - thank you for disproving your own claim.  Nowhere in the transcript you provided does Goodell say that the taping had no effect on the outcome of games. 

    Here's what I read from your post:  Goodell:  I think it probably had a limited effect, if any effect, on the outcome on any game.

    You may want to read into that which is your preogative, but if whatever conclusion you come to by doing so differs from what he said (which it does), then you are wrong. 

    You are a unique one.  I've never known someone to congratulate himself after effectively disproving his own claim. 
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from Indylove. Show Indylove's posts

    Re: National Media Back on Pat's Jocks

    In Response to Re: National Media Back on Pat's Jocks:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: National Media Back on Pat's Jocks : You haven't heard of a lot of things because: 1. You don't do any homework. 2. Choose to be ignorant so your perception won't be changed as a jealous Colts fan. 3. You are very dumb.
    Posted by BBReigns[/QUOTE]

    This would potentially bother me if it was written by anyone that demonstrated they had an ounce of credibility.  That you made a claim, blatantly disproved it, yet claimed the opposite demonstrates that you have none. 
     

Share