Spygate or Saints worse

  1. 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 : 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]


    Those comments were related specifically to all the tapes the Pats had given Goodell and were a summary of their entire investigation.

    Trying to spin the conclusion of the investigation as pertaining to one game is just more of your dishonest approach to these issues.

    You are as bad as any Pats' fan has ever been on the spygate issue, just from the opposing perspective.
     
  2. 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]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.
    Posted by wasecl[/QUOTE]

    My recent surgeries were pretty painful but that has nothing to do with the 2 SB losses and neither does legally taping from an unauthorized spot on the field.
     
  3. 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]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.
    Posted by wasecl[/QUOTE]


    Tainted in the eyes of who? That's the key. They aren't tainted in the eyes of the NFL and it's their rule and their call.

    The last 2 SB losses are painful because they are losses. The pain of the loss has absolutely nothing to do with spygate. You're an idiot.
     
  4. 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 : 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.
    Posted by pezz4pats[/QUOTE]
    Oh my - and I am biased?  Belichick looks for more loopholes than the accountant for the mob.  That bothers me, because rules aren't put in place to just find ways around them.  That said, I am not naive enough to think that it doesn't happen daily.  so, I give him credit where credit is due.  But where spygate is concerned, he took his "interpretations" too far.  As you correctly noted, if Belichick were to take his case to court, he'd win, but the NFL is not a court.  His actions as it related to taping were egregious.  This wasn't telling McGinest to take a dive to slow down the colts or telling his db's to manhandle colts receivers until a penalty was called.  These were actions taking place outside the sidelines of the game.  I am more than certain that Belichick understood the rules and their intent, but bet on the fact that he could beat them through semantics.  This isn't the US district court.  Its my contention that Belichick knew what he was trying to get away with and thought he was smart enough to explain his way out of it.  It backfired on him. 

    As I said, I am speculating (you've done it yourself) about whether or not he was warned.  We don't know, but we do know that other teams have said they caught him at it.  Whether or not those incidents were brought to the league, I don't know, but if they were, I would think the pats were contacted about it. 

    You'll never get me to believe that Belichick isn't constantly looking for an opportunity to exploit a loophole (perceived or not) to his advantage.  Too much of his exposed history tells us that much.  Logic indeed.
     
  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 : 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.
    Posted by BabeParilli[/QUOTE]

    How would anyone other than Belichick and his players who may have benefitted from knowing these signals know whether or not an advantage was gained?  You are not naive enough to believe they are going to share that information publicly are you? 

    You do know there are some patriot opponents who've said they believe the pats may have gained an advantage on them - but do they KNOW? No.  Only Belichick and his organization know that, and as is their history - they aren't talking. 

    Enough with the personal attacks.
     
  6. 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 : Those comments were related specifically to all the tapes the Pats had given Goodell and were a summary of their entire investigation. Trying to spin the conclusion of the investigation as pertaining to one game is just more of your dishonest approach to these issues. You are as bad as any Pats' fan has ever been on the spygate issue, just from the opposing perspective.
    Posted by BabeParilli[/QUOTE]

    I've read differently. 

    These are Goodell's words -
    "The actual effectiveness of taping and taking of signals from opponents - it is something done widely in many sports. I think it probably had limited, if any effect, on the outcome of games," Goodell said.

    Spin away.
     
  7. 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 : How would anyone other than Belichick and his players who may have benefitted from knowing these signals know whether or not an advantage was gained?  You are not naive enough to believe they are going to share that information publicly are you?  You do know there are some patriot opponents who've said they believe the pats may have gained an advantage on them - but do they KNOW? No.  Only Belichick and his organization know that, and as is their history - they aren't talking.  Enough with the personal attacks.
    Posted by UD6[/QUOTE]

    What we know matters, what we don't know is moot. We know the Pats violated a rule, were punished and the league says they gained no advantage from the infraction. Anything else is BS.

    Stop flinging BS and I'll stop pointing out that you are doing so.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from CablesWyndBairn. Show CablesWyndBairn's posts

    Re: Spygate or Saints worse

    Is this even a debate?  When "spygate" happened, about 4 or 5 former NFL coaches come out to say that the penalty the Pats paid was for something every other team in the NFL does.  Jimmy Johnson, Andy Reid, Herm Edwards and others all said that BB was made an example of but that all teams used similar tactics.  The Pats paid the price and BB was humbled.     

    Find me the coach that comes forward to defend bounties -- if they do they are crazy.  Pay your players to intentionally hurt guys and get paid for doing it?  That is despicable behavior, poor sportsmanship, or whatever words you want to use.  To give a guy a financial incentive to take that extra shot or to hit an opponent late is just wrong. 

    I can't even believe this is a debate.  Well, yes I can, it takes a schadenfreude from another NFL town to look at spygate and use it as the basis for a witch hunt or as a way to make themselves feel better about their own team's lack of success. 
     
  9. 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 : What we know matters, what we don't know is moot. We know the Pats violated a rule, were punished and the league says they gained no advantage from the infraction. Anything else is BS. Stop flinging BS and I'll stop pointing out that you are doing so.
    Posted by BabeParilli[/QUOTE]

    I am not slinging.  I just showed a citation of Goodell's comments.  You show me where the league STATED the pats gained no advantage for their taping other than in the game in which the camera was confiscated. 
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from Davedsone. Show Davedsone's posts

    Re: Spygate or Saints worse

    There is no such thing as spygate.  And I really don't care about motivating players with cash.  What I care about is if they intentionally targeted players but I guess that happens too.  The Giants admitted to attempting to give a guy a concussion but not much was said.  That bothered me more than this thing with Gregg Williams.  
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from Davedsone. Show Davedsone'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]


    Please explain to me how Trent Green would know more about Belichick than you or I.  Go ahead.  Play the BB "arrogant" crud.  St. Dungy is 10 times more arrogant in my opinion, having had 2 great teams and only getting ONE Superbowl win, but thinking he's fit to give advice to everyone.  YOU are an arrogant little pr!ck too, now that you mention it.  
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from NCPatsFan1971. Show NCPatsFan1971's posts

    Re: Spygate or Saints worse

    Hey Babe Parrilli,

    I know longer read UD6 posts but unfortunately I get a passing glance at some of them when people reply to him.

    I have also come to the conclusion that arguing with UD6 would be like arguing with my X-Wife.   :)

    I can't imagine spending my time over at an Indianapolis Colt Chat Room busting chops.   It must take a special kind of personality to do something like that.





     
     
  13. 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've read differently.  These are Goodell's words - "The actual effectiveness of taping and taking of signals from opponents - it is something done widely in many sports. I think it probably had limited, if any effect, on the outcome of games," Goodell said. Spin away.
    Posted by UD6[/QUOTE]

    Notice the word GAMES.  Not one game, games.  How the heck do you spin that?
     
  14. 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 : Oh my - and I am biased?  Belichick looks for more loopholes than the accountant for the mob.  That bothers me, because rules aren't put in place to just find ways around them.  That said, I am not naive enough to think that it doesn't happen daily.  so, I give him credit where credit is due.  But where spygate is concerned, he took his "interpretations" too far.  As you correctly noted, if Belichick were to take his case to court, he'd win, but the NFL is not a court.  His actions as it related to taping were egregious.  This wasn't telling McGinest to take a dive to slow down the colts or telling his db's to manhandle colts receivers until a penalty was called.  These were actions taking place outside the sidelines of the game.  I am more than certain that Belichick understood the rules and their intent, but bet on the fact that he could beat them through semantics.  This isn't the US district court.  Its my contention that Belichick knew what he was trying to get away with and thought he was smart enough to explain his way out of it.  It backfired on him.  As I said, I am speculating (you've done it yourself) about whether or not he was warned.  We don't know, but we do know that other teams have said they caught him at it.  Whether or not those incidents were brought to the league, I don't know, but if they were, I would think the pats were contacted about it.  You'll never get me to believe that Belichick isn't constantly looking for an opportunity to exploit a loophole (perceived or not) to his advantage.  Too much of his exposed history tells us that much.  Logic indeed.
    Posted by UD6[/QUOTE]

    I never said he didn't use a loophole.  It was there and he exploited it and obviously thought he was in the right until Goodell told him he wasn't.
    Whether he was right or wrong, is also debatable but Godell was the judge and jury in this case and we all know how that ended.
    Just don't understand how it was ignored for years if it was so despicable. Don't understand why all the coaches caught on tape waving, didn't scream to high heaven if so despicable.
    Then again I don't understand how Welker was allowed to wear his hat for 16 games and then without so much as a warning, suddenly fined, either.
    I also saw Tim Tebow with an un authorised hat during a play-off press conference, but as expected......NO fine.
    Someone's biased but it's not me. 
     
  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 : Notice the word GAMES.  Not one game, games.  How the heck do you spin that?
    Posted by pezz4pats[/QUOTE]
    Come on pezz - keep up with things here.  Goodell specifically said that the pats taping had no effect on the outcome of the game in which the camera was seized. 

    On the other hand, the quote I cited, had the qualification of he didn't "think" it had much of an effect, if any.  There's a very big difference.  

    Truth be told only belichick and his players know the answer to that question, and my logic tells me that it had enough for Belichick to continue doing it.  If it had none, he would have stopped. 
     
  16. 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 : I am not slinging.  I just showed a citation of Goodell's comments.  You show me where the league STATED the pats gained no advantage for their taping other than in the game in which the camera was confiscated. 
    Posted by UD6[/QUOTE]


    FOXBOROUGH - There will be no further sanctions against the Patriots as a result of the NFL's investigation into the team's videotaping procedures, a league source confirmed last night.

    According to the source, NFL commissioner Roger Goodell sent a memo to all 32 clubs last night in which he said he was satisfied the Patriots fully cooperated and complied with his instructions.

    Goodell wrote that NFL staffers met twice with top Patriots officials and took possession of all tapes and documents relating to the team's videotaping of opposing signals. All materials were destroyed and the Patriots also certified in writing that no copies or other records exist, NFL spokesman Greg Aiello confirmed. (Reiss)

     

    What you can't wrap your brain around is that there was never any proof they gained a competitive advantage. There was only proof they violated a rule regarding the location of the taping.

     
  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 : Come on pezz - keep up with things here.  Goodell specifically said that the pats taping had no effect on the outcome of the game in which the camera was seized.  On the other hand, the quote I cited, had the qualification of he didn't "think" it had much of an effect, if any.  There's a very big difference.   Truth be told only belichick and his players know the answer to that question, and my logic tells me that it had enough for Belichick to continue doing it.  If it had none, he would have stopped. 
    Posted by UD6[/QUOTE]

    I'm pretty certain nobdy here is interested in your "logic". But just for your logic's sake; maybe he was hoping someday it would work but it had never worked to that point.

    Bottom line is that there is no proof of the rule violation affecting any game ever. Refute that.
     
  18. 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 : Come on pezz - keep up with things here.  Goodell specifically said that the pats taping had no effect on the outcome of the game in which the camera was seized.  On the other hand, the quote I cited, had the qualification of he didn't "think" it had much of an effect, if any.  There's a very big difference.   Truth be told only belichick and his players know the answer to that question, and my logic tells me that it had enough for Belichick to continue doing it.  If it had none, he would have stopped. 
    Posted by UD6[/QUOTE]

    OMG. They confiscated years of tapes, not just the one during the Jets games.
    Goddell said that after he reviewed them all.  Again, where is the logic in saying he meant only one game (when he never said that).
    And where is the logic that a coach would intentionally do something that would hurt his team after he spent years to build it?
    Maybe that's logical for a suit case like Williams but not for arguably one of the best coaches in the NFL.
    I see logic isn't your forte.
    You don't believe BB, you don't believe Godell but you believe every thing Dungy says.   BAWAHAHAHA.  Seems they just caught him in a big fat lie just the other day.  Now he changed his story to say, "I just put 2 & 2 together, after he previously stated he knew for a fact Williams had a hit on Peyton.  Too funny!
    Clean your own house, mines just fine.
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from Wizardsjag. Show Wizardsjag's posts

    Re: Spygate or Saints worse

    IMO both were commonplace in the league. What needs to be seen is how does bountygate end up in future lawsuits.

    Here's some more Jimmy Johnson comments on spygate I always refer back too like a overbeaten drum.

    http://www.arrowheadpride.com/2008/2/23/122122/210
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from Rocky. Show Rocky's posts

    Re: Spygate or Saints worse

    Sharper’s past words undercut his current claims

    106062117_crop_650x440Getty Images

    The current “Darren Sharper Radio Tour,” which seems to be part of a broader “Darren Sharper Wants A Job In TV Tour,” contains consistent denials of the worst aspects of the bounty system his former team, the Saints, used for the last three seasons.

    Sharper, in radio appearances from Monday, says that no one was paid for trying to injure anyone and that if he was aware of any deliberate attempts to injure opponents, he would have done something to stop it.

    Compare that to what Sharper said in early 2010, after the league decided that the Vikings-Saints Bounty Bowl from the 2009 playoffs was sufficiently compelling to justify a season-opening rematch.

    “Well, y’all seen Brett had surgery on that ankle we got after in the championship game,” Sharper said on Twitter.  “Come Thursday night 1st game.  X marks the spot.”

    If Sharper were still playing, I think I’d be in favor of the NFL giving him a lifetime ban, to go along with the one that Rams defensive coordinator Gregg Williams deserves.


     
  21. 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 : FOXBOROUGH - There will be no further sanctions against the Patriots as a result of the NFL's investigation into the team's videotaping procedures, a league source confirmed last night. According to the source, NFL commissioner Roger Goodell sent a memo to all 32 clubs last night in which he said he was satisfied the Patriots fully cooperated and complied with his instructions. Goodell wrote that NFL staffers met twice with top Patriots officials and took possession of all tapes and documents relating to the team's videotaping of opposing signals. All materials were destroyed and the Patriots also certified in writing that no copies or other records exist, NFL spokesman Greg Aiello confirmed. (Reiss)   What you can't wrap your brain around is that there was never any proof they gained a competitive advantage . There was only proof they violated a rule regarding the location of the taping.
    Posted by BabeParilli[/QUOTE]

    This is laughable - That's your proof that the NFL said the Patriots didn't gain any advantage from their activities?  Good Lord.  That's embarrassing.  

    I provided proof that Goodell thinks the pats may have gained an advantage.  

    Here are Goodell's words that the Pats were subverting fair play rules:  "This episode represents a calculated and deliberate attempt to avoid longstanding rules designed to encourage fair play and promote honest competition on the playing field."

    Belichick admitted to carrying out the practice from the beginning of his tenure with the pats.  Every reasonable person understands that a process that produces no value over time will cease to be a process used.  Belichick never stopped the process.  It had value.  That value, regardless of what it was, resulted from a practice that subverted rules of fair play and honest competition. 

    Fool yourself if you choose, but its not going to change the truth.  

    One last thing - unfortunately for pats fans there is commentary - even from former patriots - that what the patriots did was worse than the saints.  The reasons given is that there are all kinds of financial incentives given to players for game play.  I think many former players see this as a part of the game.  

    I believe that due tothe NFL's position regarding safety issues as well as the continued threat of lawsuits regarding injuries from former players that the NFL will come down harder on the saints than the pats.  






     
  22. 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 : OMG. They confiscated years of tapes, not just the one during the Jets games. Goddell said that after he reviewed them all.  Again, where is the logic in saying he meant only one game (when he never said that). And where is the logic that a coach would intentionally do something that would hurt his team after he spent years to build it? Maybe that's logical for a suit case like Williams but not for arguably one of the best coaches in the NFL. I see logic isn't your forte. You don't believe BB, you don't believe Godell but you believe every thing Dungy says.   BAWAHAHAHA.  Seems they just caught him in a big fat lie just the other day.  Now he changed his story to say, "I just put 2 & 2 together, after he previously stated he knew for a fact Williams had a hit on Peyton.  Too funny! Clean your own house, mines just fine.
    Posted by pezz4pats[/QUOTE]

    I wish I believed you were smart enough to keep up, but I don't and clearly you are not.  

    As for your questions of logic and why would Belichick do such a thing, I would refer you to Richard Nixon, but he's dead.  It was common knowlegde that Nixon was well ahead of his competitor yet he still had people breaking into the oppositions hotel to gain more information about their campaign.  

    Why do people rob banks when they are perfectly capable of earning decent livings?

    Just because you can't apply logic to an act and its intentions doesn't mean it isn't true.  
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from ChasaB. Show ChasaB'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 episode represents a calculated and deliberate attempt to avoid longstanding rules designed to encourage fair play and promote honest competition on the playing field." 
    Posted by UD6[/QUOTE]


    I bolded the word attempt. attemp is defined as "Make an effort to achieve or complete (something, typically a difficult task or action)"

    This is pretty important, and the reason i Bolded it is because the definition fits perfectly for the facts. The patriots Attempted to gain an advantage, and failed. No advantage was gained.

    Please stop ignoring facts. The patriots are BETTER since spygate, Goodell after viewing all the tapes said "I dont think this provided an advantage". Jimmy johnson said "I did it, it was common place, everyone was doing it"

    The jets did it post spygate, and they are still terrible.

    Facts are facts, the patriots paid some intern 500 a month to video tape signals. Maybe they get a break and learn one thing maybe they dont, the investment is minimal, and the advantage is minimal, if there was one at all. much more likely it made the patriots worse, since their record is better post spygate.

    Maybe you should leave this board and head over to Horseface.com and talk with all your fellow colt fans about how your team is going into the gutter for the next few years once manning gets cut in 2 days.
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from UD6. Show UD6's posts

    Re: Spygate or Saints worse

    Since you are attempting to play semantics here - Can you show me anywhere in the quote I cited where Goodell says the pats failed to gain any advantage?  Can you show me anywhere in the definition you provided where failure is a part of the definition?  Can't an attempt result in success?    

    Jimmy Johnson is a personal friend of Belichick's.  That fact cannot be separated from his comments.  Johnson also said he stopped the act because it provided him no value.  Belichick never stopped the act until he was caught.  If we assume Belichick has similar decision making capabilities as Johnson, then don't we have to assume that he found value in the action since he never stopped?

    When I first came on this board, the board only cared about postseason success.  That's it.  The only reason that standard has changed is because since their last superbowl and spygate, the pats have a losing postseason record.  By the standards that existed then and still by some now, the pats are not more succesful than they were then.  
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from ChasaB. Show ChasaB's posts

    Re: Spygate or Saints worse

    In Response to Re: Spygate or Saints worse:
    [QUOTE]Since you are attempting to play semantics here - Can you show me anywhere in the quote I cited where Goodell says the pats failed to gain any advantage?  Can you show me anywhere in the definition you provided where failure is a part of the definition?  Can't an attempt result in success?     Jimmy Johnson is a personal friend of Belichick's.  That fact cannot be separated from his comments.  Johnson also said he stopped the act because it provided him no value.  Belichick never stopped the act until he was caught.  If we assume Belichick has similar decision making capabilities as Johnson, then don't we have to assume that he found value in the action since he never stopped? When I first came on this board, the board only cared about postseason success.  That's it.  The only reason that standard has changed is because since their last superbowl and spygate, the pats have a losing postseason record.  By the standards that existed then and still by some now, the pats are not more succesful than they were then.  
    Posted by UD6[/QUOTE]

    Im sorry i guess having an .800 win% since spygate, albiet losing 2 superbowls should make me ashamed to be a patriots fan. I mean being the second best team in the league 2 times in the last 4 years is pretty depressing.

    An attempt is just that an attempt. If they had suceeded goodell would have said "the patriots suceeded in gaining an advantage" not "they attempted to gain an advantage" You never read "Bank robbers attempted to rob the first national bank and made off with 1 million dollars" its always "bank robbers made off with an unknown amount of money" or "2 criminals are dead after an attempted bank robbery"

    in regards to goodel saying there was no advantage gained:

    "The actual effectiveness of taping and taking of signals from opponents - it is something done widely in many sports. I think it probably had limited, if any effect, on the outcome of games," Goodell said. "That doesn't change my perspective on violating rules and the need to be punished."

    Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/02/01/SP4MUQNO8.DTL#ixzz1oLsHsGh6
     

    Goodell clearly says it had "limited, if any, effect on the outcome of games" which is to say he feels there was no advantage, and at worst a very minimal one which wouldnt effect the outcome at all.

    But please, continue with your hate train preaching.

     

Share