National Media Back on Pat's Jocks

  1. 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]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
    Posted by BBReigns[/QUOTE]

    I'll wait until they play the games. 
     
  2. 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]If the home team is technically supposed to provide a filming spot, why would that mean Goodell wanted the "procedure stopped"?
    What are you suggesting here? 

    IndyHayseed is so off on this topic, he can't see straight. Everything that has been spoon fed to him, with ESPN leading the way(and yet you use an ESPN Opinion as part of your support - can't make this stuff up), is void of fact, context and reality. Just as 90% of the NFL non-Pats fanbase wants it to be.  Too bad, most of it is flat out false information.
    Posted by BBReigns[/QUOTE]
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from Indylove. Show Indylove's posts

    Re: National Media Back on Pat's Jocks

    Oh and Rusty - apparently you can't prove that the Jets were caught in 06 because you decided to delete that post.  Why do that? 

    Oh and why not answer me as to why Belichick was taping on the sidelines?  And why didn't belichick heed the memo?  If belichick didn't understand the memo, why didn't he ask for clarification from the league?

     
  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]Oh and Rusty - apparently you can't prove that the Jets were caught in 06 because you decided to delete that post.  Why do that?  Oh and why not answer me as to why Belichick was taping on the sidelines?  And why didn't belichick heed the memo?  If belichick didn't understand the memo, why didn't he ask for clarification from the league?
    Posted by Indylove[/QUOTE]

    Delete what post?

    NY was asked to shut down. FACT

    I could post fact after fact after fact here and it won't matter with you. You are flat out retarded.

    Here is it is:

    http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3151217

    EVen if you read thisk, this proves that the location and why it's specified, is there to protect against the tape being pulled out or it digitially being viewed in the game that day.

    The tape was not taken out.

    The Jets tape, used from the sidelines, in an inappropriate spot. Hence, why they were shut down, not because NE decided against it.  That's false. NE can't control the road team's filming, unless it is deemded inappropriate by the NFL.

    The bottom line as to why NY was involved in Spygate is, NE started heckling Manboobs in January 2006, playing to the fact NE was at home and asked NFL to shut them down.

    Technically, the NFL can't do that UNLESS they are in an incorrect spot. 

    This is a fact, because the rule states the home team must provide a spot, so it's considered fair.  Otherwise, the NFL wouldn't have shut Manboobs's camera down.  Team personnel cannot execute that request, the NFL officials on gameday handle that, just like they handle the communications.

    So,when Sept 2007 rolled around and NE never bothered to ask, Manboobs and Tannenbaum saw it as their chance to attack and smear, knowing Goodell would have to act, especially if the Jets used the media.

    Read up, kid.  You are barking up trees, you'll never climb.
     
  5. 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 : I am suggesting youare flat out wrong by saying "he wanted the procedure stopped".
    If he wanted it stopped, STUPID, filming would not be legal.
    1.  filming is an important part of NFL team preparation.  Filming other teams' signals from the sidelines is what the NFL does not want.  That was pretty clearly spelled out in the memo. 

    My word are you a piece of work.  The most stupidest person here by a mile.
    2.  I am typically not a person to call out others for grammar or spelling flaws.  This board is conversational in tone, so mistakes (and I make them frequently) should not be taken seriously.  Unless, of course, in the midst of being called stupid the writer uses a double superlative as Rusty has here.  duhhhh.
    Posted by BBReigns[/QUOTE]
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from BBReigns. Show BBReigns's posts

    Re: National Media Back on Pat's Jocks

    I edited it apparently a tad too late, but I caught the error on my part.

    But, alas, that's get back to the focus...

    It won't work.  You have been flat out decimated in this debate. 

    All the facts are here and run from them. You scanning for grammatical errors that I'll go back and change later after  proofreading will not work.

    It's time for you take the beating and admit defeat here, little one.
     
  7. 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 : Delete what post? NY was asked to shut down. FACT I could post fact after fact after fact here and it won't matter with you. You are flat out retarded. Here is it is: http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3151217
    Posted by BBReigns[/QUOTE]
    uh you deleted your post claiming that the jets were caught taping in 06.  You were inferring that they were caught doing the same thing the pats did. 

    Even your story does not suggest what the jets did was similar to what the pats did.  why are you trying to spin this thing?  If you find me information about other teams being caught taping coaches signals from the sidelines like the pats did twice after the NFL memo was sent out then I'll say the pats were treated unfairly.
     
  8. 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]I edited it apparently a tad too late, but I caught the error on my part. But, alas, that's get back to the focus... It won't work.  You have been flat out decimated in this debate.  All the facts are here and run from them. You scanning for grammatical errors that I'll go back and change later after  proofreading will not work. It's time for you take the beating and admit defeat here, little one.
    Posted by BBReigns[/QUOTE]

    I understand that in your mind I have been decimated, but I think all of the posts suggest something different. 

    You've demonstrated that your mind has a unique ability to see things differently than the rational rest of us.  Admittedly, I don't have the capacity to alter your problem, but I hope you find someone who does.
     
  9. 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]Yea I am so not going to engage in yet another stupid conversation about "taping" and whether it is or is not cheating. I will say this though, eat sh*t indy love. I dont know who you are but you can eat a big fat steaming pile of sh*t. And you know why so I wont even go into that either. So enjoy yet another POINTLESS debate about spygate while you take down that nice big pile of human sh*t. Have a nice day.
    Posted by MVPkilla4life[/QUOTE]
    Tas - its underdogg(g)(gg) - just to be clear here.  This was Rusty starting this.  Again, I really don't care. 

    The only thing I said when I engaged Rusty was that the pats invited the questions and criticism when they were caught regardless of whether or not they were able to gleen any advantage from the act. 

    The truth is we will never know whether they did or not.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from Sam-Adams. Show Sam-Adams'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 : uh you deleted your post claiming that the jets were caught taping in 06.  You were inferring that they were caught doing the same thing the pats did.  Even your story does not suggest what the jets did was similar to what the pats did.  why are you trying to spin this thing?  If you find me information about other teams being caught taping coaches signals from the sidelines like the pats did twice after the NFL memo was sent out then I'll say the pats were treated unfairly.
    Posted by Indylove[/QUOTE

    My thinking is more in line with Killa's but I'll ask you one thing. How many games did they win because of it?
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from Pancakespwn. Show Pancakespwn's posts

    Re: National Media Back on Pat's Jocks

    Their are still alot of haters on the Pats in the media still. ESPN=TMZ and right now as fans we should just be worried with the games on Sunday and what Mike Reiss and Ian Rapp is putting up on their blogs.

    ESPN/NFL network said we were giving up on our season. 
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from qball369. Show qball369'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 : Tas - its underdogg(g)(gg) - just to be clear here.  This was Rusty starting this.  Again, I really don't care.  The only thing I said when I engaged Rusty was that the pats invited the questions and criticism when they were caught regardless of whether or not they were able to gleen any advantage from the act.  The truth is we will never know whether they did or not.
    Posted by Indylove[/QUOTE]

    I have read this whole thread with interest - nothing really new here - Indy, you correctly say that there are 2 diametrically opposing views on this issue - no one moves the other on this issue

    But - since you have volunteered to make the prosecution case on the Spygate issue, I'd ask you to explain the NFL's rational for its punishment of Belichick/Patriots( heavy fine plus taking 1st round pick) in this case when in the case of the Broncos, Steelers, 49ers - 3 teams who knowingly violated the salary cap to keep star players - were only fined, and not nearly so much as Belichick personally- and no affect on draft status

    Please explain to us simple New England football fans the merits of competitive advantage between violating the salary cap to keep great players who directly affect the outcome of games  vs taping defensive signals from the wrong place on the field

    Also - I am interested to hear your views on the potential conflict of interest relating to Goodell's past position with the Jets  - also, how Mangini, who has inexplicably been excluded from this conversation so far, was able to escape censure for his participation in this practice while in New England - clearly the reason this issue was brought forward in the first place - and instead was rewarded for his treachery by weakening his former teams draft status without having to account for his own former rule breaking
     
  13. 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 : [QUOTE][/QUOTE My thinking is more in line with Killa's but I'll ask you one thing. How many games did they win because of it?
    Posted by Sam-Adams[/QUOTE]
    Who knows.  Maybe none.  Maybe 1.  Maybe 20.  Maybe 3 Superbowls. 

    The point I made is there is no way to know this, but the pats opened themselves up to this question by doing it.
     
  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]In Response to Re: National Media Back on Pat's Jocks : I have read this whole thread with interest - nothing really new here - Indy, you correctly say that there are 2 diametrically opposing views on this issue - no one moves the other on this issue But - since you have volunteered to make the prosecution case on the Spygate issue, I'd ask you to explain the NFL's rational for its punishment of Belichick/Patriots( heavy fine plus taking 1st round pick) in this case when in the case of the Broncos, Steelers, 49ers - 3 teams who knowingly violated the salary cap to keep star players - were only fined, and not nearly so much as Belichick personally- and no affect on draft status Please explain to us simple New England football fans the merits of competitive advantage between violating the salary cap to keep great players who directly affect the outcome of games  vs taping defensive signals from the wrong place on the field Also - I am interested to hear your views on the potential conflict of interest relating to Goodell's past position with the Jets  - also, how Mangini, who has inexplicably been excluded from this conversation so far, was able to escape censure for his participation in this practice while in New England - clearly the reason this issue was brought forward in the first place - and instead was rewarded for his treachery by weakening his former teams draft status without having to account for his own former rule breaking
    Posted by qball369[/QUOTE]

    Obviously, asking me to explain the NFL's rationale is pointless when I have no idea what the reasons for it were, but I'll give you my 2 cents.

    There was a new commissioner on board who in fact had been in place less than a week when the memo went out to the league.  I'd say Goodell felt disrespected by a coach who he might have warned once for doing such a thing (vs Green Bay in 06) after the memo came out, then laid down the law when Billy got caught with his hand in the cookie jar a second time.

    Goodell likely had no authority or may not have even been with the league office at the time of salary cap transgressions.   

    What we know is significantly less than Goodell or the pats or any of the teams for that matter know about this topic.  To attempt to explain reasons for actions with such limited information is pure speculation. 

    I get that pats fans want to believe there's some kind of conspiracy involved.  I generally think this has to do with some kind of little brother syndrome you feel about New York.  I'll leave it at this; Bob Kraft is said to be very very close with Roger Goodell whom he fully endorses. He is probably one of the 3 most powerful owners in the league.  If he felt the discipline was inapporpriate or excessive, I am sure that was expressed.  I'd almost be willing to bet Goodell wanted to suspend Belichick for multiple games but may have been talked down. 

    Again I have no idea, but you asked my opinion.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from qball369. Show qball369'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 : Obviously, asking me to explain the NFL's rationale is pointless when I have no idea what the reasons for it were, but I'll give you my 2 cents. There was a new commissioner on board who in fact had been in place less than a week when the memo went out to the league.  I'd say Goodell felt disrespected by a coach who he might have warned once for doing such a thing (vs Green Bay in 06) after the memo came out, then laid down the law when Billy got caught with his hand in the cookie jar a second time. Goodell likely had no authority or may not have even been with the league office at the time of salary cap transgressions.    What we know is significantly less than Goodell or the pats or any of the teams for that matter know about this topic.  To attempt to explain reasons for actions with such limited information is pure speculation.  I get that pats fans want to believe there's some kind of conspiracy involved.  I generally think this has to do with some kind of little brother syndrome you feel about New York.  I'll leave it at this; Bob Kraft is said to be very very close with Roger Goodell whom he fully endorses. He is probably one of the 3 most powerful owners in the league.  If he felt the discipline was inapporpriate or excessive, I am sure that was expressed.  I'd almost be willing to bet Goodell wanted to suspend Belichick for multiple games but may have been talked down.  Again I have no idea, but you asked my opinion.
    Posted by Indylove[/QUOTE]

    I read a post the other day where Prairie Mike asked you if you rinse after you spin?

    Obviously, any discussion on a blog is primarily opinion based, with facts sometimes sprinkled in. Isn't opinion some form of speculation?

    I suggested no conspiracy against the Patriots - I am also a proud, transplanted New England native now living in the South who feels no inferiorty to New York whatsoever 

    Of course Goodell was not the commissioner when the salary cap violations took place - what difference does that make - precendent exists in most parts of society - Goodell had ample precedent to lean on when adjudicating his punishment of the Patriots - he chose to significantly escalate the bar on a violation which, in my humble opinion, offers much less potential for competitive advantage then the salary cap violations involving key players of several different teams

    I did ask your opinion Indy - but I didn't get it on the main points - care to try again?

    Lastly - there is no doubt the Kraft is in the upper echelon of owner/management - as is Polian - but are you really suggesting he is the reason that Belichick wasn't suspended? When that action would have been wholly unprecedented? I would suggest that Kraft either does not have the influence you suggest or he chose not to wield it in this case  - as Goodell's actions against Belichick were so far outside the bounds of past league action that they defy rational explantion considering the violation

    The leagues action was similar to imposing a life sentence for jaywalking when contrasting this punishment of Belichick to past punishments of owners/coaches

    Indy - do you care to truly address this - or you would prefer to continue to stir the pot by spouting the NFL company line on a Patriots blog?
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from Paul_K. Show Paul_K's posts

    Re: National Media Back on Pat's Jocks

    We've just gone through a solid month when my numbers said that the Pats were excellent, and where all sorts of national media types were picking the opponent consistently.  The Patriots were just ripe for the picking, oops, oops, oops, oops. 

    This media string of underestimation started preseason when Fox Sports gave Cincinnati the third spot in their NFL power rankings.  New England was way down there at maybe 14.  Before the Baltimore game, the Baltimore media was saying that there were only three great teams in the NFL:  Baltimore, the Jets and Pittsburgh.  Just last week, Shutdown Corner's playoff predictions didn't include the Patriots in the playoffs, not even as a second wild card.

    These guys count losses in retrospect.  One loss.  Only now do they start to get it.
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from Indylove. Show Indylove's posts

    Re: National Media Back on Pat's Jocks


    I read a post the other day where Prairie Mike asked you if you rinse after you spin?

    Obviously, any discussion on a blog is primarily opinion based, with facts sometimes sprinkled in. Isn't opinion some form of speculation?
    ok

    I suggested no conspiracy against the Patriots - I am also a proud, transplanted New England native now living in the South who feels no inferiorty to New York whatsoever 
    congrats.  Based on many comments on this board that makes you unique.

    Of course Goodell was not the commissioner when the salary cap violations took place - what difference does that make - precendent exists in most parts of society - Goodell had ample precedent to lean on when adjudicating his punishment of the Patriots - he chose to significantly escalate the bar on a violation which, in my humble opinion, offers much less potential for competitive advantage then the salary cap violations involving key players of several different teams

    I did ask your opinion Indy - but I didn't get it on the main points - care to try again?
    Sure - first accept my apology for getting a little wrapped up with less time in my last response.  The fact is I have no idea why Goodell raised the bar on Belichick.  Is there precedent for blatant disregard for a Commissioner by a coach?  Maybe the memo was Goodell's first official "edict" in office.  Maybe he gave Belichick a warning the first time and decided, when Belichick dissed him a second, that he was going to show Belichick who was boss.  Who knows?   

    Lastly - there is no doubt the Kraft is in the upper echelon of owner/management - as is Polian - but are you really suggesting he is the reason that Belichick wasn't suspended? When that action would have been wholly unprecedented? I would suggest that Kraft either does not have the influence you suggest or he chose not to wield it in this case  - as Goodell's actions against Belichick were so far outside the bounds of past league action that they defy rational explantion considering the violation
    I am sure you won't mind if I disagree with you about Kraft's influence.  Whether or not suspending Belichick was a consideration is as much speculation as Kraft lobbying for less.  Who knows?  You just asked what I thought.   

    The leagues action was similar to imposing a life sentence for jaywalking when contrasting this punishment of Belichick to past punishments of owners/coaches
    As are some of Goodell's other punishments.  Clearly he means business about conduct of his players and team management.

    Indy - do you care to truly address this - or you would prefer to continue to stir the pot by spouting the NFL company line on a Patriots blog?
    I think I have answered this.  If my line is the same as the NFL company line does that make me less credible?
     
  18. 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]We've just gone through a solid month when my numbers said that the Pats were excellent, and where all sorts of national media types were picking the opponent consistently.  The Patriots were just ripe for the picking, oops, oops, oops, oops.  This media string of underestimation started preseason when Fox Sports gave Cincinnati the third spot in their NFL power rankings.  New England was way down there at maybe 14.  Before the Baltimore game, the Baltimore media was saying that there were only three great teams in the NFL:  Baltimore, the Jets and Pittsburgh.  Just last week, Shutdown Corner's playoff predictions didn't include the Patriots in the playoffs, not even as a second wild card. These guys count losses in retrospect.  One loss.  Only now do they start to get it.
    Posted by Paul_K[/QUOTE]

    Paul, I'd actually change this and say the pats have outperformed reasonable expectations given some of the offseason issues and the way the pats finished last year.  Same thing happened to the colts in 09.
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from BubbaInHawaii. Show BubbaInHawaii's posts

    Re: National Media Back on Pat's Jocks

    I think we see this subject 3-4 times each season. Why don't we just cut and paste the previous stuff and just repost it - it'd save us so much time Laughing

    Fact: The Patriots violated a league rule
    Fact: The Patriots were punished by the NFL for said rule violation.
    Fact: It's history

    Whether one interprets the violation as "cheating" depends on one's definition of cheating.

    There is no way for either side to "prove" or disprove a competitive advantage.

    Which is why we continue to have this thread 3-4 times each season and once or twice during off-season just for shytz and giggles.
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from Evil2010. Show Evil2010's posts

    Re: National Media Back on Pat's Jocks

     Tell me Indy does all this endless rehashing of spygate make up for the fact that after all these years with Manning behind center your guys have only 1 ring to show for it?

     All this endless whining is just a thinly disguised excuse for the fact that the Patriots have been the more successful franchise over the last 10 years.
     
  21. 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] Tell me Indy does all this endless rehashing of spygate make up for the fact that after all these years with Manning behind center your guys have only 1 ring to show for it?  All this endless whining is just a thinly disguised excuse for the fact that the Patriots have been the more successful franchise over the last 10 years.
    Posted by Evil2010[/QUOTE]

    Like I keep saying, the truth hurts people like Underhayseed.

    You ask him a simple question, too; ask him to provide facts, some proof NE had a definitive advantage, and he can't do it.

    He just continues to babble.

    A rules violation does not equate to cheating. It's pretty simple. You can break a rule and show no intent in trying to gain an advantage over the competition.

    How weak is that hayseeds like him hang here to pretend his team lost or wasn't as good due a legal, league approved procedure?



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

    Re: National Media Back on Pat's Jocks

    Evil - I'd be happy to be done with it, but pats fans keep perpetuating it with more questions for me, like you have here. 

    Trust me, my concern for the pats excellence has been gone for quite some time.  The colts have dominated the pats for the last 5 years with the pats getting only one win in that time.  Superbowls are hard to come by.  If they weren't, the pats would have far more than their 3 given the loads of talent, the best org and HC and their great QB, right?  Either that or maybe the taping really did help.  
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from BBReigns. Show BBReigns's posts

    Re: National Media Back on Pat's Jocks

    "Dominated"?

    Please explain.

    You barely won under sketchy cicumstances last year, beat Matt Cassel and lost in 2007.

    All at home.

    Explain how that is "domination".

    This is  the difference between Boston fans and rube fans like yourself.  I'd feel blessed to have dodged bullets and you call it "domination".

    Unreal.

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

    Re: National Media Back on Pat's Jocks

    Hate to break it to you rusty, but -

    The colts have won 5 of the last 6 going back to 2005. 

    05 - @ Foxborough - w
    06 - @ Foxborough - w
           @ Indy - w (playoff)
    07 - @ Indy - l
    08 - @ Indy - w
    09 - @ Indy - w

    Cassel led team had an 11-5 record.  Better than Brady's 09 record of 10-6.
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from BBReigns. Show BBReigns's posts

    Re: National Media Back on Pat's Jocks

    2008 really isn't a win.  Cassel on the road? You  won 18-15.

    And then last year, NE DOMINATED Indy for 57 minutes until the flags came out.

    Please stop.

    We actually watch the games. You don't.

    Any objective person watching Indy barely squeak by against Matt Cassel or even last year while BB  rebuilds wouldn't call that "domination".

    I'll give you the wins in 2005 against Earthwind Moreland and Co. Another stellar win.

    lol
     

Share