Russ vs. JimmyJack and UnderRoos

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

    Re: Russ vs. JimmyJack and UnderRoos

    In Response to Re: Russ vs. JimmyJack and UnderRoos:
    In Response to Re: Russ vs. JimmyJack and UnderRoos : You should probably consider seeking help or leave that island of yours once in a while and talk to fans who aren't Patriots fans. A heavy majroity of them mention Spygate within 3 minutes of any football talk and are jealous of the accomplishments, the sustained high quality play,  BB and Brady and the fact they aren't falling off the map. It drives them fahcking berserk. Again, it's a figure of speech (90% of non Pats fans).  It's very rare that any non-Pats fan can talk football with a Pats fan without them becoming annoyed at the success and continued success. When BB retires and Brady is gone, that's when you'll see less of that behavior. Maybe if you left your house once in a while and actually had a conversation with other humans, you'd understand this. I'd bet money any Pats fan living outside of NE can vouch for this, too.
    Posted by russgriswold


    Couldn't find that data, could you.  Thought so.

    Now you are flip flopping in the wind.  First you make a statement as if it were fact. Then, you state that it was a generalisation

    per http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/generalisation

    "3. reasoning from detailed facts to general principles " - hmmm, u fail again because your generalisation was clearly NOT based on any facts.

    Now, you're saying it's a "figure of speech".

    per wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Figure_of_speech

    The saying "I got your back" almost never has the literal meaning of receipt or possession of another's spine. It is a figure of speech that means the speaker intends to protect the listener, actually or symbolically. It originates from war, in which one soldier informs another that the first will train his weapon toward an area from which an enemy might shoot the second in the back.

    Other examples of figures of speech:

    • "It's raining cats and dogs" means it's raining intensely.
    • "I'll give you a piece of my mind" means the speaker will state a frank opinion.
    • "Break a leg" is a saying from theatre meaning "Good luck."
    • "Butterflies in your stomach" figuratively describes nervousness.
    • "You want a piece of me?" means "Do you want a fight?"
    • "You're climbing the ladder to success!" means "You are doing a decent job at trying to achieve success."
    You just can't admit that your wrong can you?  Like I said, guess I gotta change my numbers to 1 out of the 3....lol.

    Have a great day, Russ :)
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from p-mike. Show p-mike's posts

    Re: Russ vs. JimmyJack and UnderRoos

    In Response to Re: Russ vs. JimmyJack and UnderRoos:
    In Response to Re: Russ vs. JimmyJack and UnderRoos : You should probably consider seeking help or leave that island of yours once in a while and talk to fans who aren't Patriots fans. A heavy majroity of them mention Spygate within 3 minutes of any football talk and are jealous of the accomplishments, the sustained high quality play,  BB and Brady and the fact they aren't falling off the map. It drives them fahcking berserk. Again, it's a figure of speech (90% of non Pats fans).  It's very rare that any non-Pats fan can talk football with a Pats fan without them becoming annoyed at the success and continued success. When BB retires and Brady is gone, that's when you'll see less of that behavior. Maybe if you left your house once in a while and actually had a conversation with other humans, you'd understand this. I'd bet money any Pats fan living outside of NE can vouch for this, too.
    Posted by russgriswold


    I get that 90% is hyperbole designed to accentuate the point and wouldn't begin to guess what the actual number might be (although it's probably more than .05%, too), but as a Pats fan in the upper midwest I can tell you from experience that Rusty is actually right about the Spygate thing. Come out in defense of the Pats with Vikings or Packers fan and it's the first thing you hear:"Spygate" this and "cheat" that. It's just normal human jealousy.

    On a thread similar to our "Top 5 Most Hated Teams" on the Vikings KFAN board, in 32 responses the Pats were mentioned nine times. I'm not gonna do the math but I think that's about 35 percent. I'd say that's as good a random sampling of a bunch of people just like the people who hang out here, but root for a different team and don't have any rivalry bias, as you're going to get. Familiarity breeds contempt, as the saying goes, and people who otherwise couldn't care less got sick of looking at the Pats all over their TV screens for most of the past decade. It's kind of a "sour grapes" scenario. Fan envy. The Vikes have come agonizingly close over and over again, but never won the whole thing . . .   so that they can attach the "Spygate"  caveat to the Pats' success makes them feel better about the fact that their heroes are a bunch of gaggers. 



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

    Re: Russ vs. JimmyJack and UnderRoos

    In Response to Re: Russ vs. JimmyJack and UnderRoos:
    In Response to Re: Russ vs. JimmyJack and UnderRoos : I get that 90% is hyperbole designed to accentuate the point and wouldn't begin to guess what the actual number might be (although it's probably more than .05%, too), but as a Pats fan in the upper midwest I can tell you from experience that Rusty is actually right about the Spygate thing. Come out in defense of the Pats with Vikikngs or Packers fan and it's the first thing you hear:"Spygate" this and "cheat" that. It's just normal human jealousy. On a thread similar to our "Top 5 Most Hated Teams" on the Vikings KFAN board, in 32 responses the Pats were mentioned nine times. I'm not gonna do the math but I think that's about 35 percent. I'd say that's as good a random sampling of a bunch of people just like the people who hang out here, but root for a different team and don't have any rivalry bias, as you're going to get. Familiarity breeds contempt, as the saying goes, and people who otherwise couldn't care less got sick of looking at the Pats all over their TV screens for most of the past decade. It's kind of a "sour grapes" scenario. Fan envy. The Vikes have come agonizingly close over and over again, but never won the whole thing . . .   so that they can attach the "Spygate"  caveat to the Pats' success makes them feel better about the fact that their heroes are a bunch of gaggers. 
    Posted by p-mike


    p-mike, I also would agree that it's prolly more than .05% . Even a stupid man like me who knows nothing about football can easily see that the numbers are biased downwards because there is a good chance that not all Patriot haters registered on the website that I referred to. Unfortunately, people as smart as Russ couldn't figure that out....lol

    That's the hysterical part about this...
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from BubbaInHawaii. Show BubbaInHawaii's posts

    Re: Russ vs. JimmyJack and UnderRoos



    In Response to Re: Russ vs. JimmyJack and UnderRoos:
    In Response to Re: Russ vs. JimmyJack and UnderRoos : I get that 90% is hyperbole designed to accentuate the point and wouldn't begin to guess what the actual number might be (although it's probably more than .05%, too), but as a Pats fan in the upper midwest I can tell you from experience that Rusty is actually right about the Spygate thing. Come out in defense of the Pats with Vikikngs or Packers fan and it's the first thing you hear:"Spygate" this and "cheat" that. It's just normal human jealousy. On a thread similar to our "Top 5 Most Hated Teams" on the Vikings KFAN board, in 32 responses the Pats were mentioned nine times. I'm not gonna do the math but I think that's about 35 percent. I'd say that's as good a random sampling of a bunch of people just like the people who hang out here, but root for a different team and don't have any rivalry bias, as you're going to get. Familiarity breeds contempt, as the saying goes, and people who otherwise couldn't care less got sick of looking at the Pats all over their TV screens for most of the past decade. It's kind of a "sour grapes" scenario. Fan envy. The Vikes have come agonizingly close over and over again, but never won the whole thing . . .   so that they can attach the "Spygate"  caveat to the Pats' success makes them feel better about the fact that their heroes are a bunch of gaggers. 
    Posted by p-mike


    Hyperbole is an appropriate word to describe the statement of 90% that Russ used. Basically its an exageration to make a point.

    Even at 35% though, doesn't make it a "majority"....I figure 61% (for polls with a 10% error of margin) at a minimum would be considered to meet that kind of criteria...
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from Celtics12345. Show Celtics12345's posts

    Re: Russ vs. JimmyJack and UnderRoos

    i'm surprised i wasn't mentioned, haha.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from shenanigan. Show shenanigan's posts

    Re: Russ vs. JimmyJack and UnderRoos

    I would guess that roughly 31 out of every 32 NFL fans do not care for the Pats.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from BubbaInHawaii. Show BubbaInHawaii's posts

    Re: Russ vs. JimmyJack and UnderRoos

    In Response to Re: Russ vs. JimmyJack and UnderRoos:
    In Response to Re: Russ vs. JimmyJack and UnderRoos : I agree.  This is what we see out there, no doubt. I just thought it was funny Tubby in Hawaii, who proclaims he doesn';t follow the NFL much, is telling everyone this isn't the case and I need to adjust my numbers. You just can't make this stuff up.
    Posted by russgriswold



    First of all, the quote in question was about your use of 90% as a quantitative figure to support your statement that 90% of football fans (who aren't patriot fans) hate the patriots. Nothing more, nothing less. The bottom line is, it isn't a fact, a generalisation, or a figure of speach. Pmike (not draggin you in this, btw) correctly used the term hyperbole to characterize your original statement. Even with PMike's assessment that 35% of the fans hate the Patriots - that's still a far cry from 90%.

    On this particular thread, I made zero comments on Spygate.  However, since you brought it up - of course people are going to throw that in our faces cuz it's easy fodder. The fact that the patriots cheated made huge news because it sold papers and ads - not necessarily because the media hates the patriots. Case in point. Tiger Woods was a media darling prior to the news breaking that, in fact, he cheated on his wife. He made the front cover of the NY Post for 30+ straight days detailing his actions. Can we now conclude that the media now hates Tiger Woods? I don't think so.  I think they did it because of the bottom line - NOT because they hate the Patriots.  However, I'm sure that those who are NOT tiger fans will certainly bring up his affairs in a hurry during any discussion.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from Jimmy42Jack0. Show Jimmy42Jack0's posts

    Re: Russ vs. JimmyJack and UnderRoos

    and back to spygate...thank god i managed to stay out of this thread mostly...russ...if you could be more of a doo.sh, your picture would be in the dictionary next to the definition

    and alfie...see ya and dont let the door hit ya...
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from HRK103. Show HRK103's posts

    Re: Russ vs. JimmyJack and UnderRoos

    Jimmy don't fret over alfie. Any day now the only person he'll be able to talk to on here will be himself. He's put everyone on ignore that looked at him cross-eyed. You'd think he'd have a thicker skin being a Marine and all, I guess it's just a thicker skull.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from Jimmy42Jack0. Show Jimmy42Jack0's posts

    Re: Russ vs. JimmyJack and UnderRoos

    In Response to Re: Russ vs. JimmyJack and UnderRoos:
    Jimmy don't fret over alfie. Any day now the only person he'll be able to talk to on here will be himself. He's put everyone on ignore that looked at him cross-eyed. You'd think he'd have a thicker skin being a Marine and all, I guess it's just a thicker skull.
    Posted by HRK103

    touche my good man...get in any riding this weekend?

    is the hall of fame game here yet? (shrugs)
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from HRK103. Show HRK103's posts

    Re: Russ vs. JimmyJack and UnderRoos

    Thanks and yes we went on what I call a Gilligand (a 3 hour tour) had a brew and rode home.
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from BubbaInHawaii. Show BubbaInHawaii's posts

    Re: Russ vs. JimmyJack and UnderRoos

    In Response to Re: Russ vs. JimmyJack and UnderRoos:
    The fact is, they didn't "cheat".  That's the problem. Explain how distance or position of a camera equates to an advantage. This is the problem. You're either a troll or you, too, also took the media bait.   Roids are a distinct, scientific advantage because it enhances stamina, level of blood flow for sharper vision, etc.   Corking a bat allows you speed up the bat for hitting a ball easier. Hiding actual contract values like Denver did in 1997 and 1999, intentionally lying about them to the league to be able to sign more high end FAs, is also cheating. These are actual advantages that stem from intent and deceit. If filming, the act itself is legal, explain to us right here and now how it is "cheating". If you are going to continue to troll, then do it on this thread, but at least explain how it is an advantage, where the intent and/or deceit is, etc. Finally, Tiger Woods and his slimeball/creepy arranged affairs AFTER he decided to get married, and comparing it to a smear campaign by a jealous rival and subsequent botched handling of a minor rules violation by a Draconian commissioner, is ridiculous. 1.  One shows intent and deceit. The other doesn't. 2.  The media continued to lie about Spygate for 8 months.  This is did not carry on with Tigie's situation whatsoever.  He admitted to his affairs and that was that. 3.  Lies were made up well after NE was punished by Sheriff Goodell.  This also did not occur in the Woods situation.  Woods had adult film stars all over and chose to live his life like that. Not even remotely the same thing.  You are flat out wrong.  The media perpetauated Spygate for MONTHS AFTER Goodell punished NE.  And that is because ESPN saw a chance to get revenge on BB and the Pats for not giving the more access during the dynasty years. Didn't Tom Jackson step out of line, dating back to Sept of 2003?  He lied on live tv.  Flat out lied. Thanks.
    Posted by russgriswold


    As many other patriot fans have already told you numerous times, just because one has a differing perspective than you - doesn't mean they are a troll.

    Definition of cheat: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cheat
    to violate rules or regulations:

    Answer the following. Did the Patriots violate any NFL rules regarding where they could "legally" videotape? If the answer is yes, then by definition, they cheated. It really isn't any more complicated than that.  In addition, based on previous posts - and even this thread, it's pretty clear that you are confused about the definition of words and terms like facts, generalisations, and figure of speech.

    Let's be realistic about what really happened. Mangini snitched on BB and the Patriots. The NFL investigated the situation and concluded that the Patriots did in fact violate a rule.  Even if it was a "common" practice that several other teams were involved in (and there certainly have been coaches who admitted that they did indeed violated the same rule) - the difference is that the Patriots got caught.

    I'm afraid I don't agree with you about the media. And that's okay.  In my opinion, bad news sells - because it makes money for them - not because they care one way or the other about the Patriots. It's called sensationalism.  It's what makes shows like Jerry Springer and any of these reality shows so popular. The point is that the negative media coverage for both the Patriots and Tiger Woods sells papers and ads.

    The reason why Spygate continued on was not because of the media's "hate" for the Patriots...it's because it takes time to go through a process of investigating the violation. Tiger's didn't last very long. The Patriots investigation took longer than Tiger's.

    Then Goodell decided to burn the tapes.  Hmmm, that certainly raised my eyebrows.

    Then Senator Specter got involved. Regardless of his true motivations for becoming involved, the legal/legislative  process is cumbersome and takes time.
    Since investigations take time - the announcements of any findings will occur over time. That's the reason why the media attention "lasted longer" for the Patriots.

    I can see how you'd like to make things out like people and entities are out to get the Patriots - and that fits your paranoid personality. But it simply ain't so, Joe.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from themightypatriotz. Show themightypatriotz's posts

    Re: Russ vs. JimmyJack and UnderRoos

    Aha!  Russ has been unmasked:


    Tongue out
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from BubbaInHawaii. Show BubbaInHawaii's posts

    Re: Russ vs. JimmyJack and UnderRoos

    In Response to Re: Russ vs. JimmyJack and UnderRoos:
    Do you know Goodell destroyed the tapes?    You seem to claim "an investigation" into a non-story AFTER a punishment had already been levied. Why the "investigation" for 8 months after the punishment???? Huh? Care to answer that one? As for the definition of cheat, note the order of each version of the definition. Note which one is listed #4 and which is #5. Read those again. They are listed in an order for a reason.
    Posted by russgriswold


    Why didn't u answer the question, Russ? Did the Patriots violate a rule?

    By the way, definition #4
    to practice fraud or deceit

    Well, did Bill do it more than once?  Ummmm, yes.  Did he tell people like Goodell he was doing it? Ummm, no.  So, even if we used #4 - then I guess the Patriots cheated....lol.

    And why in the world would a current coach admit to violating a current rule? Isn't that just saying - Mr. Goodell, please frick me up da azz? Of course, they're not going to do that. Ya think that baseball players are gonna tell the ump that they're using a corked bat before they go up to hit?  LOL.

    Yes, the NFL destroyed the tapes.
    http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3225539
    Again, it's a matter of a timeline Russ.  Tapes were obviously destroyed upon completion of the NFL investigation. Seems like they can't destroy them before they get them, can they? Spector can't complain until AFTER the NFL makes a decision. Tell me Russ - how long did Specter's investigation last? Did that occur before or after the NFL's ruling?

    My use of those terms are consistent w/ the sources that were cited.
    Yours are not.

    It's also obvious that Goodell and the NFL also followed a similar definition of cheat - otherwise, the Patriots wouldn't have been found guilty. They really didn't have any choice anyway.

    Thank goodness rational people don't have to follow Russ' definitions, cus they might look like this:
    Fact = opinion
    Generalisation = not really a majority, but I will make up shyt
    Figure of Speech = not really a common saying that means something else
    Troll = anyone who disagrees with me
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from BubbaInHawaii. Show BubbaInHawaii's posts

    Re: Russ vs. JimmyJack and UnderRoos

    In Response to Re: Russ vs. JimmyJack and UnderRoos:
    Aha!  Russ has been unmasked:
    Posted by themightypatriotz


    mighty, who is the picture? Afraid I don't recognize...
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from BubbaInHawaii. Show BubbaInHawaii's posts

    Re: Russ vs. JimmyJack and UnderRoos

    In Response to Re: Russ vs. JimmyJack and UnderRoos:
    In Response to Re: Russ vs. JimmyJack and UnderRoos : Yes, they broke a portion of a rule.  They were punished, but the media prodded a non-story for SIX MORE MONTHS. Trust me when I  am not the only here who sees you as irrational. If they cheated, just what is the advantsge they had?  Can you explain it? I noticed you havent' answered my very basic questions.  Not surprising. If you did, you'd look even more foolish than you already do. You should also be embarrassed you don't know who Jonathan Kraft is, too.  Pathetic, Bubby.   Why do you even post here?  You have a lot to say for someone who doesn't know anything.
    Posted by russgriswold

    And, according to "your" rules...since it was only partially broken - it wasn't cheating.  Hmmm, I only put half the amount of spit on this ball mr. ump...so, its not cheating.

    Since your blinders are still on Russ, I suggest you follow the timeline of the Spygate situation at the following link. Put simply, the occurrence of events happen over time.

    http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3392047
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from BubbaInHawaii. Show BubbaInHawaii's posts

    Re: Russ vs. JimmyJack and UnderRoos

    In Response to Re: Russ vs. JimmyJack and UnderRoos:
    In Response to Re: Russ vs. JimmyJack and UnderRoos : Yes, they broke a portion of a rule.  They were punished, but the media prodded a non-story for SIX MORE MONTHS. Trust me when I  am not the only here who sees you as irrational. If they cheated, just what is the advantage they had?  Can you explain it? I noticed you haven't answered my very basic questions.  Not surprising. If you did, you'd look even more foolish than you already do. You should also be embarrassed you don't know who Jonathan Kraft is, too.  Pathetic, Bubby.   Why do you even post here?  You have a lot to say for someone who doesn't know anything.
    Posted by russgriswold


    I don't answer your question because they're irrelevant to the question in hand.  The question is whether the Patriots cheated or not. You stated that it is a fact that the Patriots did NOT cheat.  And, unfortunately, you're wrong.

    Show me from a known source like dictionary.com where it says that there had to have been an "advantage".  That's where u and I know that your makin shyt up. That's simply not in any of the defitions that I looked at.
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from BubbaInHawaii. Show BubbaInHawaii's posts

    Re: Russ vs. JimmyJack and UnderRoos

    In Response to Re: Russ vs. JimmyJack and UnderRoos:
    I noticed you aren't answering the questions.  Speaks volumes. You lose. Again. Lol, the guy cites an ESPN column. Oh my god. 
    Posted by russgriswold


    It's a timeline. as usual, u have no source to back u up, do u?
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from BubbaInHawaii. Show BubbaInHawaii's posts

    Re: Russ vs. JimmyJack and UnderRoos

    In Response to Re: Russ vs. JimmyJack and UnderRoos:
    I noticed you aren't answering the questions.  Speaks volumes. You lose. Again. Lol, the guy cites an ESPN column. Oh my god.  Of course there has to be an advantage, you idiot!  Holy crap. Otherwise, why would anyone try to cheat? lol What is your IQ? I mean, seriously. If all 32 teams are legally allowed to film game action, where does the advantage lie? You can't even answer it because you'll sound like an idiot.
    Posted by russgriswold

    You couldn't find a definition anywhere to support "advantage" could u?
    looks like u lost...lol.

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

    Re: Russ vs. JimmyJack and UnderRoos

    In Response to Re: Russ vs. JimmyJack and UnderRoos:
    Nice backpedaling. You dodged both of my simple questions in multiple posts, and you did that for a reason. Anyone can read this exchange and see you don't understand $pygate was a witch hunt that was overblown for a rea$on. You also have stated you don';t know much about football, the NFL nor do you know whom Jonathan Kraft is. Case closed.
    Posted by russgriswold


    LOL....just because the timeline disproved your bullshyt...don't blame me..It's all there in black and white. There's is so much more actual evidence that supports my statements then yours.

    Case is closed. The patriots  did indeed cheat.
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from BubbaInHawaii. Show BubbaInHawaii's posts

    Re: Russ vs. JimmyJack and UnderRoos

    In Response to Re: Russ vs. JimmyJack and UnderRoos:
    What is this timeline you are babbling about?  Like I said, it's very telling why you didn't answer the questions I asked of you.  What is very disturbing is you asked why Goodell destroyed the tapes and don't want to know why. lol You just can't make this up, folks. Did mommy drop on your head as a child once or twice? More than twice?
    Posted by russgriswold


    As I stated clearly before Russ, the questions you ask are irrelevant, therefore, they go unanswered.

    Let's start at the beginning, since, you have obviously confused yourself :)

    90% of non-Pats fans HATE NE. Posted by russgriswold

    Is this a fact, generalisation, figure of speech, or hyperbole?

    Obviously, you tried to pass this off as fact. Then you changed your mind and tried to pass it off as a generalisation or figure of speech. Except, all three would be wrong.  The correct answer is hyperbole - (which a different poster correctly defined). Basically, you were using it as a way of overexagerating your opinion. 

    The fact is, they didn't "cheat". Posted by russgriwold

    Well, if we follow the definitions from dictionary.com: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cheat

    4. to practice fraud or deceit:
    5. to violate rules or regulations

    And we ask the simple question: Did the Patriots violate a rule? and if the answer is yes, then Patriots cheated. It doesn't matter how many times you write it or say it out loud Russ - it's NOT going to change the fact that Roger Goodell/NFL determined that the Patriots violated the rule.   This becomes easy fodder for people to talk about. If it happened to the Colts, we would be using it against them all the time.

    "Yes, they broke a portion of a rule.  They were punished, but the media prodded a non-story for SIX MORE MONTHS." Posted by Russgriswold

    So, if they broke a rule, then by the definition previously used - the Patriots cheated.  Cheating part way is still cheating....lol :)

    "The media continued to lie about Spygate for 8 months" Posted by Russgriswold.

    Did they? Hmmm, interesting. I agree that the media covered not only the original story but also subsequent related stories for a long time. But are they really lies? I don't believe there is any proof to say one way or the other about the lies you mentioned.  Hence, a timeline - which explains why the coverage lasted so long. Like I said before - which you completely ignored - a series of event happened in a linear fashion - these events occurred over time.

    http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3225539

    Sept. 9, 2007: NFL security officials confiscate a camera and videotape from 26-year-old Patriots' video assistant Matt Estrella on the New England sidelines when it was suspected he was recording the Jets' defensive signals during New England's 38-14 victory in the season-opening game at Giants Stadium. Clubs had been reminded of the prohibition against taping sideline signals in a Sept. 6, 2006, directive from league headquarters: "Videotaping of any type, including but not limited to taping of an opponent's offensive or defensive signals, is prohibited on the sidelines, in the coaches' booth, in the locker room or at any other locations accessible to club staff members during the game.''

    Sept. 11, 2007: League sources tell ESPN's Chris Mortensen that NFL commissioner Roger Goodell has determined that the Patriots violated league rules when they videotaped the Jets' defensive signals, and is considering severe sanctions in light of his earlier stern warnings to all teams about competitive violations. … New England owner Robert Kraft is quoted from comments made at a charity appearance that day, saying, "When you're successful in anything, a lot of people like to try to take you down and do different things. We understand that." … Reports surface that the Patriots had been caught videotaping once before. In November 2006 during a game in Green Bay, the Packers caught Estrella shooting unauthorized video and told him to stop.

    Sept. 12, 2007: The New York Daily News quotes an anonymous source who says Jets coach Eric Mangini was aware of New England's surveillance methods from his earlier tenure as a Patriots assistant coach. … Patriots' coach Bill Belichick issues a short statement that says in part, "Although it remains a league matter, I want to apologize to everyone who has been affected, most of all ownership, staff and players. Following the league's decision, I will have further comment." When pressed for further information, Belichick walks out of his weekly news conference.

    Sept. 13, 2007: Goodell issues an "emergency" order mandating that New England must turn over all videotape and sign-stealing material in violation of league policy. At the same time, before receiving the requested tapes and materials, Goodell fines Belichick the NFL maximum of $500,000, and the Patriots are ordered to pay $250,000 for spying on an opponent's defensive signals. In addition, Goodell orders the team to give up its first-round draft choice in 2008 if it reaches the playoffs this season, or its second- and third-round picks if it misses the postseason. In a written response accepting responsibility, Belichick says in part, "As the commissioner acknowledged, our use of sideline video had no impact on the outcome of last week's game. We have never used sideline video to obtain a competitive advantage while the game was in progress. Part of my job as head coach is to ensure that our football operations are conducted in compliance of the league rules and all accepted interpretations of them. My interpretation of a rule in the Constitution and Bylaws was incorrect." Neither Goodell's statement nor Belichick's response mentions the videotaping practice extending into the past.

    Sept. 14, 2007: On ESPN Radio's Mike & Mike show, Mortensen reports the league might not close the book on the controversy and might continue to "review" it. Mortensen suggests that the videotaping of the Sept. 9 game against the Jets could be the tip of the iceberg, and that the Patriots' practices could include jamming the radio frequency in opponents' head-sets, and miking the Pats' defensive linemen to hear the offense's audibles and the cadence between the center and the quarterback. … Mortensen also reports that Belichick has privately told Goodell he has been taping opponents' signals since he became the Pats' head coach in 2000.

    Sept. 16, 2007: In an NBC television interview at halftime of New England's Sunday night game against the San Diego Chargers, Kraft says he didn't know his team was using a sideline camera in the game against the Jets. During the interview, Kraft is asked if anything else might have been done that would incur further penalties. "I know of nothing else that could be in this category," he says. ESPN's Mortensen reports that sources tell him Goodell has ordered the Patriots to turn over all videotape, files and notes relating to all their activity that resulted in the disciplinary action. If the Patriots are not compliant, the commissioner is prepared to impose even greater sanctions, Mortensen's sources say. Privately, the commissioner was more specific in his demands and expectations with Kraft when the two men spoke on Sept. 13, Mortensen's sources say.

    Sept. 17, 2007: In an Associated Press report, Belichick says he will comply with league request to turn over notes and videotapes but refuses to confirm that there is additional video, saying it is a league issue. Within the next three days, New England turns over materials.

    Sept. 20, 2007: The NFL announces New England is in compliance with the request for tapes and other documents.

    Sept. 22, 2007: The AP reports that the NFL has received and destroyed all materials it requested from the New England Patriots concerning videotaping of opponents' sidelines, but discloses nothing about the contents. A league spokesman says the team is unlikely to face any further sanctions. Asked if there is evidence of the Patriots using the tactics in their Super Bowl wins, spokesman Greg Aiello declines to comment.

    Nov. 15, 2007: Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., writes to Goodell, expressing concern about the league's destruction of tapes.

    Dec. 19, 2007: After more than a month without a response, Specter writes to Goodell again.

    [+] EnlargeMatt Walsh, Roger Goodell
    Mike Fish/ESPN.com, AP Photo/Paul SancyaFormer Patriots video assistant Matt Walsh (left) sent eight game tapes to NFL commissioner Roger Goodell. The tapes arrived at the NFL office May 8.
    Jan. 31, 2008: In a letter to Specter, Goodell responds that the tapes and notes were destroyed to ensure that the Patriots "would not secure any possible competitive advantage as a result of the misconduct that had been identified. The Patriots have separately certified to me in writing that we received all tapes, all notes, and that no other material exists relating to the taping of defensive signals.''

    Feb. 1, 2008: A New York Times story makes public Specter's interest in wanting an explanation from Goodell about the league's destruction of evidence related to the Patriots' spying. In public comments, Specter, a lifelong Philadelphia Eagles fan, says Goodell's explanation "absolutely makes no sense at all.'' The Times story introduces Matt Walsh as a former New England video assistant who says, "I'd like to see a resolution to the situation, so I don't have to field media calls, especially after being out of the league for more than four years." … ESPN.com's Mike Fish profiles Walsh as being in position to further pull back the curtain on the Patriots' taping history. "If I had a reason to want to go public or tell a story, I could have done it before this even broke," Walsh tells Fish. "I could have said everything rather than having [Eric] Mangini be the one to bring it out."

    Feb. 1, 2008: At his annual Super Bowl news conference, Goodell says the evidence from the Patriots destroyed by the league consisted of six tapes from the 2006 season and 2007 preseason. Asked twice how far back the Patriots began to tape their opponents' signals, Goodell doesn't give a specific answer. There is no mention from Goodell that the practice dated back to 2000. Of the 38 questions posed to Goodell, 10 are related to Spygate. Among other things, Goodell reveals the reason the league destroyed the tapes turned over by the Patriots: "They were totally consistent with what the team told me. There was no purpose for them." Goodell also says he believes the Patriots gained no advantage from taping: "I think it probably had a limited effect, if any effect, on the outcome on any game. … There was no indication that it benefited them in any of the Super Bowl victories." And Goodell says the league did not inform the teams that had been taped: "We didn't. We didn't see any need to."

    Feb. 2, 2008: The Boston Herald reports that an unnamed source has claimed a Patriots employee secretly videotaped the St. Louis Rams' walk-through the day before Super Bowl XXXVI. The Herald story doesn't name the employee. The Patriots issue a statement denying the information in the Herald story: "The suggestion that the New England Patriots recorded the St. Louis Rams' walkthrough on the day before Super Bowl XXXVI in 2002 is absolutely false. Any suggestion to the contrary is untrue."

    Feb. 6, 2008: At the Pro Bowl in Hawaii, Goodell acknowledges that the league had heard rumors about the alleged Super Bowl walk-through taping. "We were aware of this before," Goodell says. "We pursued it and weren't able to get any information that was credible. We were aware of some of the rumors and we pursued some of them and we continue that. From Day 1, I said if we feel there is new information that's inconsistent with what we've been told [by the Patriots], I reserve the right to reopen it." Asked why the Patriots turned over six tapes, Goodell says, "That's what they had. My guess is they taped over some of those from time to time. … Their notes were reflective of that."

    Feb. 13, 2008: During a 1-hour, 40-minute meeting with Goodell, Specter says the commissioner told him Belichick had been taping the sidelines since 2000. "There was confirmation that there has been taping since 2000, when Coach Belichick took over," Specter says.

    Feb. 15, 2008: Specter tells ESPN.com's Mike Fish he is not swayed by the answers he received from Goodell and will continue his investigation. Specter says, "You have answers and positions where [Goodell] is saying that with the destruction of tapes that, 'We did the right thing. We're absolutely sure.' Well, that is absurd. … Goodell says things that don't make sense.'' Among other things, Specter says he learned that the tapes, as well as the notes, turned over by the Patriots in September were destroyed in Foxborough, Mass., rather than in the league's New York offices, and that NFL executives Jeffrey Pash and Ray Anderson reviewed the materials and received an OK from Goodell to destroy the evidence. Specter says he is particularly concerned about how the taping might have affected New England's games involving teams from his home state in the 2004 postseason, including Pittsburgh, which lost the AFC title game to New England after the Steelers had won a regular-season game in late October of that season. … Steelers officials issue a statement that reads: "We consider the tapes of our coaching staff during our games against the New England Patriots to be a non-issue. In our opinion, they had no impact on the results of those games. The Steelers fully support the manner in which commissioner Goodell handled the situation and the discipline that he levied against those who violated league rules. We are confident that the commissioner has taken appropriate action in his investigation of this matter, and will do so again if new information arises which requires further investigation and/or discipline."

    Feb. 17, 2007: Belichick tells the Boston Globe he has never seen another team's practice film prior to a game, never taped a walk-through during his coaching career and couldn't pick Walsh out of a lineup. As for the taping of opposing coaches' signals, Belichick said, "I misinterpreted the rule . . . I take responsibility for it. Even though I felt there was a gray area in the rule and I misinterpreted the rule, that was my mistake and we've been penalized for it.''

    Feb. 22, 2008: At the league meetings, the NFL's Competition Committee issues strong support for Goodell's handling of Spygate. … In Washington, in an interview with ESPN.com's Fish, Specter accuses the league of stonewalling his investigation. Specter reveals his staff has been rebuffed in efforts to speak with members of the New England Patriots and New York Jets. He also says Kansas City Chiefs quarterback Damon Huard, a former backup to Tom Brady in New England, refused to speak with him during a phone call.

    March 9, 2008: A former video assistant with Cleveland tells ESPN.com that the Browns taped defensive signals -- although not from the sideline -- when Belichick was head coach there in the '90s. Fish also reports that an NFL investigator has been inquiring about Matt Walsh with Walsh's former bosses at a Cape Cod, Mass., golf club where he worked after leaving the Patriots.

    March 31-April 1, 2008: Kraft reportedly apologizes for the Pats' past taping practices to the league's owners and head coaches in a private session at the league's meetings in West Palm Beach, Fla., and Kraft and Belichick both address the media there. Kraft says Walsh didn't sign a confidentiality agreement when he left the Patriots in 2003 and says, "I think we've covered the subject. We broke a rule the first week of the season. We were penalized very heavily, and look what happened after that game. To me, that says more than anything. Players work very hard and coaches work very hard, and I think they accomplished something remarkable. I think everything stands on its own after that." Belichick says, "We've been forthright and true. I've answered every question twice that they've come to us with, made everybody in our organization accessible that they wanted to talk to. We've complied with everything they've asked of us." In addition, Belichick says, "I re-read that [videotaping] rule; I still interpreted it, obviously, incorrectly, that as long as it wasn't used in that game, that it was OK. I paid a price for that mistake. It was my mistake."

    April 1, 2008: At the league's meetings, a rule is passed that allows headsets to be installed in the helmets of defensive players for sideline-to-field communications.

    April 23, 2008: Walsh and the NFL reach an agreement for Walsh to meet with league officials and turn over any videotapes he might have to support his allegations. In a release announcing the agreement, the NFL wrote that Goodell had determined "the Patriots had violated league rules by videotaping opposing coaches' defensive signals'' throughout Belichick's tenure as head coach.

    May 8, 2008: Eight videotapes containing footage of six games between 2000 and 2002 involving five teams arrive from Walsh at NFL offices in New York. A tape of the Rams' walk-through before Super Bowl XXXVI is not among the evidence turned over by Walsh.

    May 13, 2008: Walsh meets for more than three hours in New York with NFL commissioner Roger Goodell. Commissioner says at a news conference afterward that no new information was revealed.

    Russ, it doesn't take a genius to understand that since the different events happened over a period of time - that the media coverage will also occur over a period of time to correlate with each event.


    All of Tiger's skeletons came out over about a months time. If another woman made a claim tomorrow - do you believe it would NOT be covered in the news?

    Was it really a conspiracy, Russ? I don't expect you to change your mind.

    Now, if you want to really impress all of us....provide actual proof (meaning data from a known source that can be shared with us) to support your statements. I've just done so. Now it's your turn.


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

    Re: Russ vs. JimmyJack and UnderRoos

    I look at this like baseball where the batter takes a peak between the catchers legs to steal a sign to get a jump on the fastball or an idea if the pitch is headed inside.  Except that in baseball it is an unwritten rule and it will result in getting beaned in the head.  In football it is spelled out that teams may NOT videotape their opponents sideline/coaching staff.

    That being said, I am a little more than disappointed in this thread as a whole.  What was billed as a 3 men enter--one man leave event has turned into rusty regurgitating the same garbage over and over and over.  Hawaii has beaten him to a pulp yet rusty just continues rambling on.  I would not expect any less from Rusty.

    Jimmyjack and underdoggg better put down the popcorn and defend yourselves like...men???
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from Jimmy42Jack0. Show Jimmy42Jack0's posts

    Re: Russ vs. JimmyJack and UnderRoos

    In Response to Re: Russ vs. JimmyJack and UnderRoos:
    I look at this like baseball where the batter takes a peak between the catchers legs to steal a sign to get a jump on the fastball or an idea if the pitch is headed inside.  Except that in baseball it is an unwritten rule and it will result in getting beaned in the head.  In football it is spelled out that teams may NOT videotape their opponents sideline/coaching staff. That being said, I am a little more than disappointed in this thread as a whole.  What was billed as a 3 men enter--one man leave event has turned into rusty regurgitating the same garbage over and over and over.  Hawaii has beaten him to a pulp yet rusty just continues rambling on.  I would not expect any less from Rusty. Jimmyjack and underdoggg better put down the popcorn and defend yourselves like...men???
    Posted by whodeawhodat

    what am i defending against? being called a troll? well there are two people here that dont like me...

    1. alfie...who apparently has everyone on ignore for something or another
    2. crusty...who is small man liar and has been called out by several other members for being full of sh*t

    aside from them, i enjoy a reasonably good relationship with my fellow posters and hope it continues so that we can all talk football and have fun...what else would the purpose of being here be? being obnoxious isnt nearly as interesting as being interesting
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from Jimmy42Jack0. Show Jimmy42Jack0's posts

    Re: Russ vs. JimmyJack and UnderRoos

    you have been called out several times...dont let facts get in the way of your rhetoric crusty
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from Jimmy42Jack0. Show Jimmy42Jack0's posts

    Re: Russ vs. JimmyJack and UnderRoos

    In Response to Re: Russ vs. JimmyJack and UnderRoos:
    By whom?    By trolls?  Name one Pats fan besides Tubby here who has "called me out" for lying.  What is the topic and the lie?  You're really, really a dumb person. How's the paper pushing coming today? Enjoying it, are we?
    Posted by russgriswold

    being called out at all for your ruling out a conspiracy that actually did happen by a fellow fan of the team you both root for...that is just sad

    oh and making fun of my job...well lets see...you have attacked me personally, my family, the teams i root for and now my job...you just dont get tired of getting smaller and smaller everyday do you?
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share