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]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
    Posted by BBReigns[/QUOTE]
    Obama's looking for an excuse machine like you today.  Might want to give him a call.  Qualifying losses.   Not admiting that Cassell had a better record than Brady.  Making excuses for personnel changes (colts have had as much turnover as the pats).  I'd stay in today, if I were you.  The real world might be a humbling experience for you.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from BBReigns. Show BBReigns's posts

    Re: National Media Back on Pat's Jocks

    Indy has not had the personnel turnover NE has had.  Who is the most important loss with Indy?  Cato June? lol


     
  3. 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]Indy has not had the personnel turnover NE has had.  Who is the most important loss with Indy?  Cato June? lol
    Posted by BBReigns[/QUOTE]
    Indy currently has 10 players on the roster that were there in 05.  The pats have 13.  One of those is Branch, so I suppose he can be removed.  Still, that is 12 vs. 10. 


    Here's a list of important players the colts lost since 2000 due to cap/salary issues (as I recall)

    Edgerrin James
    Ken Dilger
    Steve McKinney
    Mike Peterson
    Marcus Washington
    Marcus Pollard
    David Macklin
    Nick Harper
    Larry Tripplet
    Cato June
    Brandon Stokely
    Jake Scott
    Raheem Brock
    Dominic Rhodes (although he did come back)
    Jason David

    I could be wrong about a couple of these. 

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

    Re: National Media Back on Pat's Jocks

    Dude, those players are good players, but many were old and done by the time they were cut. Like Edgeerrin James.

    That's like Dallas saying Emmit Smith went to Arizona, woe is us.  Not going to work in this discussion.

    Peterson is a good one.  Forget about that.

    But, I mean Marcus Pollard? Shall I bring out Dan Graham?

    There is a difference between fgood pllayers moving on and All Pros being tossed aside due them using their success under BB and parlaying into a huge contract.

    This is a large list from NE.

    Not so much with Indy.


     
  5. 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 : Obama's looking for an excuse machine like you today.  Might want to give him a call.  Qualifying losses.   Not admiting that Cassell had a better record than Brady.  Making excuses for personnel changes (colts have had as much turnover as the pats).  I'd stay in today, if I were you.  The real world might be a humbling experience for you.
    Posted by Indylove[/QUOTE]

    Obama whining now? Here's a clue on that maybe if the party you obviously support hadn't competely trashed the country the previous 8 years things would be better. Thinking he can fix things in a few years is like putting a new coach in Buffalo then complaining 2 years later that he hasn't got them to the super bowl. of course this doesn't really matter because both the left and right are equally delusional and full of crap and the tea party is retarded.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from Indylove. Show Indylove's posts

    Re: National Media Back on Pat's Jocks

    After leaving the Colts Egde had an 1100+ and 1200+ rushing season and caught 62 balls during those 2 seasons.  That's not done.

    Marcus Pollard was important to the colts who ran a lot of 2 TE sets, but I'll drop him and Triplett eventhough they played important roles for the team. 

    The fact still remains that there are more players on the pats from 05 than on the colts, so you are dead wrong about the pats having more turnover.  Now feel free to admit that the colts thus have done a better job than the pats over that time.  They've been to 2 SB's, won 1, and beaten the pats 5 of the last 6 times. 
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from BubbaInHawaii. Show BubbaInHawaii's posts

    Re: National Media Back on Pat's Jocks

    In Response to Re: National Media Back on Pat's Jocks:
    [QUOTE]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. Posted by BBReigns[/QUOTE]

    Just to play devil's advocate here: You're definition of cheat incorporates two aspects: 1) Intent and 2) Gaining an advantage

    Here's the problem: Noone knows for sure what BB's intent was, therefore you can't prove or disprove that he knew why he was videotaping from an unauthorized area. However, odds are - many teams were doing it too - they all knew they were "doing it".

    Here's the other problem: There is no way anyone can prove that the Patriots won a game because of the videotaping, just like there is no way anyone can prove they DIDN'T win a game because of the videotaping.

    So, here's an analogy.

    Cardplayer 1 has an ace up his sleave while playing poker. All 5 players bid the pot of money up to $100,000. Cardplayer1 ends up with 3 aces; including the ace he had up his sleeve.  Players 2, 3, and 4 show their hands but fall short on their cards. Player 1 reveals his 3 aces....reaches out for the pot in the middle - except Player 5 says - hold on there buddy - I got 4 Kings.

    Player 5 wins the $100,000

    Even though CardPlayer1 lost the $100,000 - he still cheated.

    In a similar veign, it's hard to imagine that BB didn't know what he was doing. As to competitive advantage/disadvantage - noone really knows - which, again, is why we have these posts again.






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

    Re: National Media Back on Pat's Jocks

    Why would a position of a camera within legal filming equate to the advantage?

    If the intern is simply in a more distant spot off the sideline , zooming on a lens is there, so who cares?  That rule was put in place, Bubba, because teams seriously thought, NE was taking what they had into the locker room.

    That's why the locations are specified. 

    This is honest to god, why that rule has the locations and it just doesn't say "no taping by a team".

    This is how paranoid and jealous teams are of NE's success.  Some idiot and scummy loser decided to come up with a claim, BB's halftime adjustements are so good because of this.  lol

    Yes, whiskyour intern into the locker room and huddle around a VCR!  Our adjustments are golden!

    Good one!

    This is also why when that story broke, that Monday morning, the media said "they take it into the locker room" and why it was "we CAUGHT them red handed".

    Red handed with what?

    This is also why NY waited for Castrella to start walking into the locker room before accosting him and getting the tape.  They felt if they waited it would show intent, not simply upholding the sideline rule.

    I ask again, why didnt the NFL punish the Jets in 2006 or ANY OTHER TEAM FOR YEARS BEFORE?

    Keep this in mind.

    So, the media went from:

    1. NE takes this into the locker room.
    2. Wait, that is total BS, we are sorry about that ludicrous claim.
    3. But, still NE "cheated" even though other teams were doing the same thing.

    All BB did was not have his camera guy, technically, in the correct spot under a new stipulation in a rule.  Ok.  So, it's not the right spot and the rule should be followed exactly.

    If there was intent to cheat, the tapes never would have been edited and one of their interns would have said "yes, we took the tapes out".

    No intent.

    Very clear.

    How does one stand in broad daylight for 3 hours every road game and show "intent"?



     
  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]In Response to Re: National Media Back on Pat's Jocks : Obama whining now? Here's a clue on that maybe if the party you obviously support hadn't competely trashed the country the previous 8 years things would be better. Thinking he can fix things in a few years is like putting a new coach in Buffalo then complaining 2 years later that he hasn't got them to the super bowl. of course this doesn't really matter because both the left and right are equally delusional and full of crap and the tea party is retarded.
    Posted by Evil2010[/QUOTE]

    Evil - not interested in a political fight here, but I'll tell you this - even his own party pundits are giving him sh&t today. 

    by the way - the "last 8 years" has been one of the primary talking points of the party since Obama ran.  That message got him and others elected, but it clearly stopped playing well this time around.  Time for new material.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from Indylove. Show Indylove's posts

    Re: National Media Back on Pat's Jocks

    Why would a position of a camera within legal filming equate to the advantage?
    When doing so is not allowed and the intent of the action is to gain information to help win games. 
    If the intern is simply in a more distant spot off the sideline , zooming on a lens is there, so who cares?  That rule was put in place, Bubba, because teams seriously thought, NE was taking what they had into the locker room.
    Do we know that the information was never used during a game?  If this could be done from another location without violation, then why wasn't it?  Why put yourself in a position to allow the sanction?
    That's why the locations are specified. 

    This is honest to god, why that rule has the locations and it just doesn't say "no taping by a team".

    This is how paranoid and jealous teams are of NE's success.  Some idiot and scummy loser decided to come up with a claim, BB's halftime adjustements are so good because of this.  lol
    Can you prove this never happened?  What if someone's able to decipher by the 4th Q, would the information still be valuable?
    Yes, whiskyour intern into the locker room and huddle around a VCR!  Our adjustments are golden!

    Good one!

    This is also why when that story broke, that Monday morning, the media said "they take it into the locker room" and why it was "we CAUGHT them red handed".

    Red handed with what?

    This is also why NY waited for Castrella to start walking into the locker room before accosting him and getting the tape.  They felt if they waited it would show intent, not simply upholding the sideline rule.

    I ask again, why didnt the NFL punish the Jets in 2006 or ANY OTHER TEAM FOR YEARS BEFORE?
    Goodell.  New Sheriff.  And as I said yesterday, I am willing to posit that all teams who were caught were warned once.  The pats were caught twice. 
    Keep this in mind.

    So, the media went from:

    1. NE takes this into the locker room.
    2. Wait, that is total BS, we are sorry about that ludicrous claim.
    3. But, still NE "cheated" even though other teams were doing the same thing.

    All BB did was not have his camera guy, technically, in the correct spot under a new stipulation in a rule.  Ok.  So, it's not the right spot and the rule should be followed exactly.

    If there was intent to cheat, the tapes never would have been edited and one of their interns would have said "yes, we took the tapes out".
    1) why wouldn't they have been edited? Further, the spliced signals tape can be combined with the game tape to more easily decipher the signals for future games.
    2) what purpose would it serve an intern to tell anyone whether or not they took the tapes out.  If they were willing to be deceitful by taping, why would they choose to be honest about what was done with the tapes when it can't be proven otherwise?  

    No intent.

    Very clear.

    How does one stand in broad daylight for 3 hours every road game and show "intent"?
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from Indylove. Show Indylove's posts

    Re: National Media Back on Pat's Jocks

    By the way - I guess we dispensed with your false claim that the pats have had more turnover than the colts.  I guess that means that the colts have rebuilt more successfully than the pats, eh?
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from BBReigns. Show BBReigns's posts

    Re: National Media Back on Pat's Jocks

    Taping is legal. Last time, stupid.  TAPING IS AUTHORIZED BY THE NFL EVEN TODAY.

    STICK TO FACTS.

    Stop saying taping is illegal and they were deceitful.

    Stop saying "caught" too. It's legal.  The home team HAS TO provide the specified spot as well.

    When that isn't done, you might have seen (pre 2007) teams film from wherever.

    This is someting you did not know as well, because you mouth off after following ESPN's  lead.

    Guess what? ESPN left out facts and misled you. How does that feel to be so naive?




     
  13. 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]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?
    Posted by Indylove[/QUOTE]

    Why couldn't Rusty leave well enough alone - here I had you backpedaling( in your own fashion) and here he comes to rescue you by advancing the worthless arguement of intent - intent is irrelevant - to me the bottom line is the Patriots did break the rules, as have other franchises, and were punished in a manner out of proportion to the past   - that makes Goodells motives suspect in my eyes - though I'll agree that we'll never know the truth of most of the story

    Hey Indy - did you really mean suggest that Matt Cassell's record was better than Brady in some way?

    Also, props to the Colts for winning 5 or the last 6 against the Pats - of course, I wouldn't characterize the last 3 wins as domination ( by a combined 8 points with all 3 wins coming in INDY) - but you won them fair and square, no excuses

    I personally am very eager for this years game - I think the Pats are showing the grit that made them the franchise they now are and I thinking they'll have that game circled on the calendar
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from BBReigns. Show BBReigns's posts

    Re: National Media Back on Pat's Jocks

    I said intent was irrelevant.  I said it to Bubba.

    It's more reason to dispute the silly claims of "cheating".

    You need to try to cheat to actually do it. Duh.
     
  15. 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]Taping is legal. Last time, stupid.  TAPING IS AUTHORIZED BY THE NFL EVEN TODAY. STICK TO FACTS. Stop saying taping is illegal and they were deceitful. Stop saying "caught" too. It's legal. 
    Sorry - can't give the "smartest" coach in the NFL a pass.  He knew what he was doing, and knew it was outside the confines of the rules.   

    The home team HAS TO provide the specified spot as well. When that isn't done, you might have seen (pre 2007) teams film from wherever.
    So are you saying the pats were granted permission to film from a spot that was off limits per NFL rules and the memo, and filming material that had been specifically mentioned as off limits in the NFL memo? 

    This is someting you did not know as well, because you mouth off after following ESPN's  lead. Guess what? ESPN left out facts and misled you. How does that feel to be so naive?
    Interesting thing here is you blame ESPN, but yesterday you cited 2 articles from them in an attempt to support your failed position.  Ironic, huh?

    Posted by BBReigns[/QUOTE]
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from BBReigns. Show BBReigns's posts

    Re: National Media Back on Pat's Jocks

    1. No, he didn't.  The NFL did not punish the Jets in 2006. WHy would Belichcik even think for a second something so minor would ever be blown up into  witch hunt?  The NFL simply shut down the Jets camera, which was VERY LIKELy normal operating procedure when that rule was broken.

    2. ESPN may have provided the columns, but the sources are not ESPN sourced, dummy.

    Their sourced commentary comes from hands-on NFL experience.  GEt it? They were IN THE NFL prior to working at ESPN.

    Do you know what the difference between primary or secondary sources are, Einstein?

    I do and you don't, apparently.

    "Ironic, huh"?


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

    Re: National Media Back on Pat's Jocks

    Why couldn't Rusty leave well enough alone - here I had you backpedaling( in your own fashion) and here he comes to rescue you by advancing the worthless arguement of intent - intent is irrelevant - to me the bottom line is the Patriots did break the rules, as have other franchises, and were punished in a manner out of proportion to the past   - that makes Goodells motives suspect in my eyes - though I'll agree that we'll never know the truth of most of the story
    I don't know if I was backpedling.  can you explain?  I would expect you to suspect Goodell's motives.  You are a pats fan.  But I think you have to admit that he has handed down harsher penalties across the board than previous Commissioners.  So precedent, be damned.  

    Hey Indy - did you really mean suggest that Matt Cassell's record was better than Brady in some way?
    Wasn't his record in 08 better than Tom's in 09?

    Also, props to the Colts for winning 5 or the last 6 against the Pats - of course, I wouldn't characterize the last 3 wins as domination ( by a combined 8 points with all 3 wins coming in INDY) - but you won them fair and square, no excuses
    Appreciated - I think.

    I personally am very eager for this years game - I think the Pats are showing the grit that made them the franchise they now are and I thinking they'll have that game circled on the calendar
    The pats would have to be favored in this game.  Indy, although the SB rep last year from the AFC, was not dominant last year, and appears to be even less so this year. 
     
  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]1. No, he didn't.  The NFL did not punish the Jets in 2006. WHy would Belichcik even think for a second something so minor would ever be blown up into  witch hunt?  The NFL simply shut down the Jets camera, which was VERY LIKELy normal operating procedure when that rule was broken. 2. ESPN may have provided the columns, but the sources are not ESPN sourced, dummy. Their sourced commentary comes from hands-on NFL experience.  GEt it? They were IN THE NFL prior to working at ESPN. Do you know what the difference between primary or secondary sources are, Einstein? I do and you don't, apparently. "Ironic, huh"?
    Posted by BBReigns[/QUOTE]

    Where were the jets caught in 06?  source please.  the pats weren't punished in 06 either although they were caught by the packers.  Explain that. 
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from BubbaInHawaii. Show BubbaInHawaii's posts

    Re: National Media Back on Pat's Jocks

    In Response to Re: National Media Back on Pat's Jocks:
    [QUOTE]I said intent was irrelevant.  I said it to Bubba. It's more reason to dispute the silly claims of "cheating". You need to try to cheat to actually do it. Duh.
    Posted by BBReigns[/QUOTE]

    Well, actually you didn't.
    "
    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. Posted by BBReigns

    "
    It's implicit that your definition of cheat includes proving both intent and a competitive advantage.

    If I'm mistaken - please define cheat for me.
     
  20. 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 : Where were the jets caught in 06?  source please.  the pats weren't punished in 06 either although they were caught by the packers.  Explain that. 
    Posted by Indylove[/QUOTE]

    You are an annoying little biyatch asking for sources I gave you yesterday.



     
  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]In Response to Re: National Media Back on Pat's Jocks : Well, actually you didn't. " 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. Posted by BBReigns " It's implicit that your definition of cheat includes proving both intent and a competitive advantage. If I'm mistaken - please define cheat for me.
    Posted by BubbaInHawaii[/QUOTE]

    Yes, I did.

    The act of filming is LEGAL. LAST TIME.
     
  22. 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 are an annoying little biyatch asking for sources I gave you yesterday.
    Posted by BBReigns[/QUOTE]

    If you are referring to the Jets filming from endzone positions with permission, then that would be something entirely different, but I understand that your hallucinations don't allow you to get the difference.  Apology accepted. 

    oh and you forgot to explain why the pats weren't punished in 06.  Please explain.
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from harleyroadking1. Show harleyroadking1's posts

    Re: National Media Back on Pat's Jocks

    Dog why are you copying TexasPat style? Also how are things in the South?
     
  24. 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 : If you are referring to the Jets filming from endzone positions with permission, then that would be something entirely different, but I understand that your hallucinations don't allow you to get the difference.  Apology accepted.  oh and you forgot to explain why the pats weren't punished in 06.  Please explain.
    Posted by Indylove[/QUOTE]

    Spygate....Indy's standard deflection from having to explain why Manning has only one ring. We should start calling him Frodo
     
  25. 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 : If you are referring to the Jets filming from endzone positions with permission, then that would be something entirely different, but I understand that your hallucinations don't allow you to get the difference.  Apology accepted.  oh and you forgot to explain why the pats weren't punished in 06.  Please explain.
    Posted by Indylove[/QUOTE]

    No, I am rerring to when the NFL shut down their camera from the additional angle from the sidelines.

    That's what I am referring to.

    You'd have to ask why Rogie didn't punish the Jets in 2006. Or NE. Or any other team.

    Is this "hallucinating"?

    http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=txpatriotsjetsspying

    You do realize you are splitting hairs over camera angles, correct?

    "When you practice, anytime you practice, you try to shoot the unit from the sideline and then from the end zone behind them, so that you can see hand placement, fits, that type of thing," Mangini said. "That's how you watch practice every day. That's how you evaluate practice every day. And it's the same thing with games. You like to have that same copy because, really, that's just an extension of the evaluation."

    Even coat tail rider extraordinaire, Manboobs, is telling us right here, this is a normal procedure all NFL teams have that provides teaching and scouting information.

    No deceit, no intent, no advantage.

    Could not be any clearer.

    The simple fact is, 99% of NFL fans had no idea aboiut the ins and outs of NFL scouting procedures prior to Sept 2007.

    This element created an aura of suspicion and intrigue, which we know, the media loves.

    This spying idea is like selling sex.  It sells.  

    When the tape was stolen, Goodell was forced to act. 
     

Share