Spygate or Saints worse

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

    Re: Spygate or Saints worse

    In Response to Re: Spygate or Saints worse:
    [QUOTE]If you should have a 1099 coming and you didn't file it... I'd say that the Saints are worse off. I still want to know how an O coordinator can afford to pay a hundred grand over the season.  Like in any fun scandal or in politics you need to follow the money.
    Posted by Philskiw1[/QUOTE]

    Would this also relate to Belichick paying players to start fights in practice.

    http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/11/04/former-player-says-belichick-paid-him-to-start-fights/
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from seawolfxs. Show seawolfxs's posts

    Re: Spygate or Saints worse


    I think to have a team policy to harm another team's player is
    not in the same universe as the alledged spygate.

    I think the treansgression that BB did was going against
    a fiat by Goodell - supposedly breaking the rule wasnt as
    bad as ignoring goodell - and on that I agree

    Ernie Acorsi (great Giant GM) said that BB was the smartest
    coach he ever interviewed - my bet is that BB didn't know
    and he should have- or if he did he thought he had a loop hole.
    I think it the only reason that Kraft stood behind BB
    Kraft is way way to great to put up with cheating

    I really don't think Spygate made a difference in anything
    The NFL really didn't investigate to the hilt
    It seemed to me that all the assistant coaches
    were never in the investigation - including Mangini-
    or Crennel or Weis -

    To this:
    I think Williams is gone - for at least awhile,
    some players are going to be suspended
    and Sean Peyton is going to get a 1 $million fine
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from couldntthinkofone. Show couldntthinkofone's posts

    Re: Spygate or Saints worse

    In Response to Re: Spygate or Saints worse:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Spygate or Saints worse : No more obtuse than comparing spygate to taunting.
    Posted by UD6[/QUOTE]
    There are 7 pages of posts pointing out no advantage was gained  -  same as taunting

    back on ignore


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

    Re: Spygate or Saints worse

    The point you made, however, was that experts said no advantage could be gained from taping. so why would he do it? Further, how do we know Belichick wasn't warned previously. We know that the pats were caught taping the packers. Since we are in the speculation game, I am going to speculate that Belichick was likely talked to privately by the league about this incident without punishment. If that's the case, then Belichick disregarded not only the private conversation, but also the memo. Unlike many here, I don't think that the league operates only to stick it to NE. Its not good business to do that.

    Uggh, because BB is known to enjoy breaking down tape and obviously prefers it to computer screens although they are much more efficient.  If you look at the other coaches that said they did it, they are the "old school" guys who are used to breaking down tape. 
    There is NO evidence of him EVER being warned other than the contradicting memo that all teams received.
    His own words also support this as he admitted he should have gotten clarification.  If he had been warned face to face or with a phone call, would there be need for clarification?  Don't think so.
    The fact that they were recording in front of God, the NFL, the fans there, the other coaches and all of viewing America and what ever countries are watching, aren't the actions of a person trying to hide anything. It's the action of someone who felt he was operating within the law.
    If he were trying to deceive someone, don't you think he would have become sneaky or deceptive like placing someone with recording Binoculars in the stands behind the sidelines? 
    Do you think he's that stupid or outwardly defiant?   Puullleeeaaasssee?
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from UD6. Show UD6's posts

    Re: Spygate or Saints worse

    In Response to Re: Spygate or Saints worse:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Spygate or Saints worse : There are 7 pages of posts pointing out no advantage was gained  -  same as taunting back on ignore
    Posted by couldntthinkofone[/QUOTE]

    My fault, I thought you guys were biased.  Noted.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from jeffab. Show jeffab's posts

    Re: Spygate or Saints worse

    I think the Patriots should just do what the Colts did in the past: join the competition committee and change the rules to give their team an advantage as otherwise, they would not able to compete and advance in the playoffs against a physical club.  That, or pipe in crowd noise. 

    Then their fans should go on another teams message board and try to rile people up because their team is in a downward spiral and finished with 2 wins after failing to build a deep team around their franchise quarterback.  Unfortunately for Pats fans, their team is still relevant and competitive. 
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from UD6. Show UD6's posts

    Re: Spygate or Saints worse

    In Response to Re: Spygate or Saints worse:
    [QUOTE]The point you made, however, was that experts said no advantage could be gained from taping. so why would he do it? Further, how do we know Belichick wasn't warned previously. We know that the pats were caught taping the packers. Since we are in the speculation game, I am going to speculate that Belichick was likely talked to privately by the league about this incident without punishment. If that's the case, then Belichick disregarded not only the private conversation, but also the memo. Unlike many here, I don't think that the league operates only to stick it to NE. Its not good business to do that. Uggh, because BB is known to enjoy breaking down tape and obviously prefers it to computer screens although they are much more efficient.  If you look at the other coaches that said they did it, they are the "old school" guys who are used to breaking down tape.  There is NO evidence of him EVER being warned other than the contradicting memo that all teams received. His own words also support this as he admitted he should have gotten clarification.  If he had been warned face to face or with a phone call, would there be need for clarification?  Don't think so. The fact that they were recording in front of God, the NFL, the fans there, the other coaches and all of viewing America and what ever countries are watching, aren't the actions of a person trying to hide anything. It's the action of someone who felt he was operating within the law. If he were trying to deceive someone, don't you think he would have become sneaky or deceptive like placing someone with recording Binoculars in the stands behind the sidelines?  Do you think he's that stupid or outwardly defiant?   Puullleeeaaasssee?
    Posted by pezz4pats[/QUOTE]

    just because there is no public evidence doesn't mean that it didn't happen.  forgive me for thinking Belichick has way with being disingenuous with the media. As far as I am concerned his "explanation" was just a way to attempt to cover his behind.

    And I believe, it is partially because Belichick intentionally disregarded both a private reprimand and a league memo that he and the team were punished so severely.  Have you ever heard the saying "hidden in plain sight".  The fact is that for Belichick to get the information he wanted, he needed to do it from the sidelines. To do so from a different angle may have caused the signals to be indecipherable and thus useless.  And yes, I think Belichick is that outwardly defiant. 
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from jeffab. Show jeffab's posts

    Re: Spygate or Saints worse

    In Response to Re: Spygate or Saints worse:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Spygate or Saints worse : just because there is no public evidence doesn't mean that it didn't happen.  forgive me for thinking Belichick has way with being disingenuous with the media. As far as I am concerned his "explanation" was just a way to attempt to cover his behind. And I believe, it is partially because Belichick intentionally disregarded both a private reprimand and a league memo that he and the team were punished so severely.  Have you ever heard the saying "hidden in plain sight".  The fact is that for Belichick to get the information he wanted, he needed to do it from the sidelines. To do so from a different angle may have caused the signals to be indecipherable and thus useless.  And yes, I think Belichick is that outwardly defiant. 
    Posted by UD6[/QUOTE]

    Why do coaches cover their mouths to this day when they make play calls in the NFL?


     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from Philskiw1. Show Philskiw1's posts

    Re: Spygate or Saints worse

    Would this also relate to Belichick paying players to start fights in practice

    Is that all you have? A practice squad player that looks like Curleys brother from 15 years ago? I didn't see where he said BB put cash in his locker. Pretty weak if you ask me.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from pezz4pats. Show pezz4pats's posts

    Re: Spygate or Saints worse

    In Response to Re: Spygate or Saints worse:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Spygate or Saints worse : just because there is no public evidence doesn't mean that it didn't happen.  forgive me for thinking Belichick has way with being disingenuous with the media. As far as I am concerned his "explanation" was just a way to attempt to cover his behind. And I believe, it is partially because Belichick intentionally disregarded both a private reprimand and a league memo that he and the team were punished so severely.  Have you ever heard the saying "hidden in plain sight".  The fact is that for Belichick to get the information he wanted, he needed to do it from the sidelines. To do so from a different angle may have caused the signals to be indecipherable and thus useless.  And yes, I think Belichick is that outwardly defiant. 
    Posted by UD6[/QUOTE]

    Give it up dog.  There's no evidence to support your biased opinion.  If he were privately warned, he would have stopped. I sincerely doubt he would purposely hurt the team that way, knowing there would be repercussions for his actions.
    Does that sound like something he would do?  PFFT!
    He is defiant but always operates within the letter of the law.  The hoodie is a good example and so is listing players on the injury report if some one gave them a band-aid.  Letter of the law, even though he is mocking it!!!
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Spygate or Saints worse

    In Response to Re: Spygate or Saints worse:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Spygate or Saints worse : just because there is no public evidence doesn't mean that it didn't happen.
    Posted by UD6[/QUOTE]

    Double standards much? That statement could pertain to the Colts piping in noise and turning up the heat, couldn't it?
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Spygate or Saints worse

    In Response to Re: Spygate or Saints worse:
    [QUOTE]In response to "Re: Spygate or Saints worse": So then everyone wasnt doing it?
    Posted by PorterRULES[/QUOTE]

    So then many were doing it. Thus the use of the word common.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Spygate or Saints worse

    In Response to Re: Spygate or Saints worse:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Spygate or Saints worse : Babe , part - timer might have (for all I know) this "never-talk-about-it" hang-up as you said...  Many Pats Fans do, and their blood DOES immediately boil after and whenever that nerve gets struck.  But then again, part-timer just might have the same affliction that me & many other Pats Fans undoubtedly share instead:   Namely, the headache driven migraine which unstably flips back & forth between anger & depression...  Anger, because it just NEVER, Ever goes away for good.  And depression because it's a sad & perfectly fitting reminder that there's a Whooole 'lota stvp!d people around, who gulp down spoon fed liquid drivel because they're actually too lazy to the point where chewing solid food would require far too much self drive and detrmination...  So rather than bothering with such a lofty standard of personal effort or insight on their part, it's much easier to swallow the paste, while happily regurgitating the child food after your stomach gets too full...   And so, One might just pass it off by stating something to the effect of: "Just let stvp!d people believe what they want...YOU ain't gonna change 'em, ya know..." Indeed, chances are you never will...  YET, actually trully caring and fully believing in such an ideal where you don't care what people (even and especially, really dvmb ones), IS- much easier said than done...  The things we value...and like...and believe in, DO get sullied whenever someone (and many "someones", mind you)- end up expressing their dislike, distaste, and even hate about this thing you value deeply.  And unfortunately, It doesn't make enough of a difference in how their thoughts on whatever this matter happens to be, Are ill-informed...or are just plain wrong...or are even the perfect definition of id!ot!c, even...  I actually really wish it did.    
    Posted by LazarusintheSanatorium[/QUOTE]

    It's never going to go away. That's especially why it was soooo stupid.

    But for us the bottom line is that we have the trophies and the league stated no competitive advantage was gained.

    This inherently destroys any argument a troll has that we "cheated" and thus our achievements are "tainted".

    The accuser cannot apply the authority of an NFL rule to be the measure of their accusation of cheating and then ignore the very entity that created the rule when that entity's verdict on the violation of their rule determines that cheating didn't occur.

    It's an argument the troll can never win, but only keep up to be annoying.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Spygate or Saints worse

    In Response to Re: Spygate or Saints worse:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Spygate or Saints worse : You mean you can gain a competitive edge over an entire defense by taunting?
    Posted by UD6[/QUOTE]


    The NFL has stated that no competitive advantage was gained from signal taping by the Pats. So exactly what the hell are you talking about here?
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from UD6. Show UD6's posts

    Re: Spygate or Saints worse

    In Response to Re: Spygate or Saints worse:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Spygate or Saints worse : Double standards much? That statement could pertain to the Colts piping in noise and turning up the heat, couldn't it?
    Posted by BabeParilli[/QUOTE]

    It could, but then again the pats business partner, CBS, copped to the sound problem which dismisses that claim.  On the other hand, due to the configuration of the stadium, the RCA Dome was known as one of the loudest venues in the NFL (and not because of noise piping).  It was actually one of the reasons I wished they had not built Lucas Oil. 

    As for the heat, you can make the claim.  I admitted that I am speculating that the league addressed the taping issue with Belichick after the Packers incident (there was also an incident with the Lions).  But I don't know if there are rules against temperatures just as I don't know that there are rules against allowing fields to remain uncovered during storms and then covered immediately thereafter to keep them soaked.  In both cases, both teams have to play under the same conditions so I don't know where the extra advantage is gained.  Do you?
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from UD6. Show UD6's posts

    Re: Spygate or Saints worse

    In Response to Re: Spygate or Saints worse:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Spygate or Saints worse : Give it up dog.  There's no evidence to support your biased opinion.  If he were privately warned, he would have stopped. I sincerely doubt he would purposely hurt the team that way, knowing there would be repercussions for his actions. Does that sound like something he would do?  PFFT! He is defiant but always operates within the letter of the law.  The hoodie is a good example and so is listing players on the injury report if some one gave them a band-aid.  Letter of the law, even though he is mocking it!!!
    Posted by pezz4pats[/QUOTE]
    This is great - you disregard my assumptions because there is no public evidence to support it while making a claim that you know he would have stopped taping if he had been called on it.  Evidence please.

    Who's biased?

    Trent Green, who likely knows more about Belichick than either you or I, likened him to Colonel Jessup.  Arrogant to the point of being above the rules.
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Spygate or Saints worse

    In Response to Re: Spygate or Saints worse:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Spygate or Saints worse : Yep, and nearly everyone here thought the pats shouldn't have been punished.  So now some of the board is hoping for the worst kind of punishment for the saints, and not all because of the act itself but because the pats were so severely punished.  Not much integrity there.   Ultimately my opinion on this is Goodell protecting the league for the future.  He's also got his own integrity on the line because of spygate.   x-players are going to continue to sue the NFL regarding their post playing days health and wellbeing.  The NFL cannot sit idly by, and allow incentivized head hunting or it will be out of the business of football due to judgment obligations very quickly. When the x-players run out of money due to their own mismanagement of funds, you can be sure there will be an ambulance chaser at their door telling them I can help you get some money.
    Posted by UD6[/QUOTE]

    The idiot Goodell set the standard on spygate. Of course he has to punish the Saints team and not just individuals in this instance. The need for consistent standards on this is the epitome of integrity.

    Try this on for size. Attain a shred of integrity and objectivity yourself, shelve your Colts colored glasses and see how your perspective changes.
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from UD6. Show UD6's posts

    Re: Spygate or Saints worse

    In Response to Re: Spygate or Saints worse:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Spygate or Saints worse : The NFL has stated that no competitive advantage was gained from signal taping by the Pats. So exactly what the hell are you talking about here?
    Posted by BabeParilli[/QUOTE]

    I think those comments were related specifically to the game in which the camera was confiscated.  If you have more than that, I am willing to listen.
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Spygate or Saints worse

    In Response to Re: Spygate or Saints worse:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Spygate or Saints worse : Dysfunction! What type of A$sh0le have you graduated to being? Lets see you as a perported Pats fan dredge up the violations of Denver,Pitts,Dallas, Miami. NO BUT YOU would defend the right to dig up ancient history to besmirch the team of your supposed favorite to support. The saints situation is far above any and all recognized violations in the NFL yet YOU wish to find a way to tie that abomination of human behavior ( pay for inflicting intentional injury) to any thing the Pats may have done. Maby your extreme youth preclude you from being aware of the multiple admitted and realized violations and embarrassments of the NFL but don't let your ignorance to any of them be an excuse to remain fixated upon the one other violation you happen to be aware of. BABY your aggressive confrontational approach defending your right to constantly criticize the pats might be appreciated more on many opposing team boards but, you might blend in to much as you are obviously begging for as much attention as possible, be it negative or negative. Talk about dysfunction.
    Posted by part-timer[/QUOTE]



    GET OVER YOURSELF YOU FOOL.

    I don't criticize the Pats any more than the average moron who constantly gripes about how BB doesn't run the ball enough or how Brady just isn't somehow good enough.

    People are going to compare spygate and bountygate. And an idiot like you crying like a spoiled baby about it isn't going to change a thing.
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Spygate or Saints worse

    In Response to Re: Spygate or Saints worse:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Spygate or Saints worse : The common refrain is Bill Belichick is a genius.  Bill Belichick is the smartest guy in football.  Bill Belichick doesn't waste his time on useless things.
    Posted by UD6[/QUOTE]


    This is obviously untrue. BB clearly has wasted his time on numerous things.

    Larry Maroney, Chad Jackson and Darius Butler just to name a few.
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from pezz4pats. Show pezz4pats's posts

    Re: Spygate or Saints worse

    In Response to Re: Spygate or Saints worse:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Spygate or Saints worse : This is great - you disregard my assumptions because there is no public evidence to support it while making a claim that you know he would have stopped taping if he had been called on it.  Evidence please. Who's biased? Trent Green, who likely knows more about Belichick than either you or I, likened him to Colonel Jessup.  Arrogant to the point of being above the rules.
    Posted by UD6[/QUOTE]

    Try using logic for once.
    The man who has dedicated his life to the team to make them relevant would not purposely do anything detrimental to that.
    Isn't that a bit more logical them him saying, " F the team, F Robert Kraft, F Goodell; I don't give a dam... I'm doing what ever the F I want to and I don't give a F who I hurt.  I'm Bill Belichick!!!" 
    That's what he would be saying by purposely defying orders.
    Which is more logical dog? 
    No proof needed, just a little common sense.  Try it, you might like it!
    Assuming he was warned prior to the memo is not logical, especially when that has NEVER been mentioned by any one other than you.
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from ChasaB. Show ChasaB's posts

    Re: Spygate or Saints worse

    every player the colts have ever drafted has had a good career in the NFL.

    The polians and the Colts org is the best ever.
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from pezz4pats. Show pezz4pats's posts

    Re: Spygate or Saints worse

    In Response to Re: Spygate or Saints worse:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Spygate or Saints worse : I think those comments were related specifically to the game in which the camera was confiscated.  If you have more than that, I am willing to listen.
    Posted by UD6[/QUOTE]

    Again, logically, why would you assume he meant that one game when he had years of tapes turned over to him??  I'm very sure he did not specify that one game.  If so, that would make all the other tapes even more irrelevant, like they didn't matter.
    Think, man!
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Spygate or Saints worse

    In Response to Re: Spygate or Saints worse:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Spygate or Saints worse : It could, but then again the pats business partner, CBS, copped to the sound problem which dismisses that claim.  On the other hand, due to the configuration of the stadium, the RCA Dome was known as one of the loudest venues in the NFL (and not because of noise piping).  It was actually one of the reasons I wished they had not built Lucas Oil.  As for the heat, you can make the claim.  I admitted that I am speculating that the league addressed the taping issue with Belichick after the Packers incident (there was also an incident with the Lions).  But I don't know if there are rules against temperatures just as I don't know that there are rules against allowing fields to remain uncovered during storms and then covered immediately thereafter to keep them soaked.  In both cases, both teams have to play under the same conditions so I don't know where the extra advantage is gained.  Do you?
    Posted by UD6[/QUOTE]

    I have seen no official pronouncement that any competitive advantage was gained in any of these examples we have been speaking about. So I don't claim there was an advantage gained, unlike yourself.

    That's the difference between us. I have integrity in these matters, you don't.
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from wasecl. Show wasecl's posts

    Re: Spygate or Saints worse

    Who cares. The Pats 3 superbowls will be tainted because of Spygate and the Saints 1 superbowl will be tainted by Bountygate. The only way to diminish the effect would be for either team to win a superbowl outside of these. Which makes the last two superbowl losses all the more painful for NE.
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share