Spygate or Saints worse

  1. 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]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]


    I would imagine that when you came to this board the Colts were also a relevant team in the league.  I guess time changes things for everybody.  Sure, Johnson was/is a friend of Bill's but he also indicated that your boy Mudd was also the best in the game at stealing signals.  If you believe for one second that he didn't do th exact same thing when he was employed by the Colts, then there's nothing that can be said for you.  You don't offer any insight or objective opinion.  Any opinion you ever take is anti-Patriot and you cling to Spygate like a desperate pimple-faced teenager without anything else going on in his life.  If you looked at facts like a rational human being you would see the points which many here are offering up, but that's not what you're after. 

    In short: get a life.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from BassFishing. Show BassFishing'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]

    Chuck Knox, Shula, Bud Grant and Bill Cowher aren't "personal friends" of Belichick.

    It is true that all that should matter is postseason success, something a Colts fan literally has no idea about, but just because two plays in 2 SBs favored the opponent, that doesn't mean NE is somehow a failed franchise.

    Utterly preposterous reasoning. NE is the envy of the 95% of the NFL.

    NE is the favorite to win the SB next year and the odds will go up for the Pats after the draft and FA period.  If the basis of your reasoning was correct, NE would have completely faltered due to this supposed mystery advantage.  You would be correct if the Pats just fell off the map, but 2007's undefeated regular season put a halt to any ridiculous rhetoric, or at least SHOULD HAVE. Now, it's years later and we see trolls still hammering on it, ignoring facts and primary sources.

    Scary times we live in when the facts are right on the table and totally ignored.

    Be sure to comment on the Steelers and Ravens futures in upcoming years. And your own.  All done.




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

    Re: Spygate or Saints worse

    ud6 is the kirk cameron of football fans.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from BassFishing. Show BassFishing'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 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.  
    Posted by UD6[/QUOTE]

    No NFL teams have stopped their process of how they scout with video. This is the part you're not understanding or refuse to admit.  The Colts employ a video coordinator. The Colts tell this person what to shoot during a game and it just ain't Gomer's forehead.

    Why hasn't the act of filming been banned if there is some definitive way to get an advantage

    The only thing NE did wrong was putting an intern on a sideline.  This was a clear second chapter to NE blocking NY from filming in 2006.  NY didn't even ask for rights in the playoff game (direct quote from Mangini), which in turn set up the 2007 game in NY.

    It was widley rmored that Belichick was putting Estrella way out front like that to mess with Mangini and the Jets. It's not really a rumor. It's what happened. Tannenbaum was enraged and took over the feud between BB and Mangini, using it his advantage and brining it to the NFL's attention.

    Good job by the Jets to try to get a punishment for something they SHOULD have been punished for a year earlier themselves, but weren't simply because NE didn't bring out into the public. GB did the same thing with NE in 2006.  Whether or not NE asked for a spot or were blocked by GB at Lambeau, GB simply shut NE down.  GB could have been in violation if they didn't provide a spot. We don't know the details on that one. But, it's not a big deal. You just ask NFL personnel to address it.   Technically, the NFL needs to make sure the road team has a spot, but not every NFL team takes a coordinator on the road either.

    We all know BB will cross the Ts and dot the Is, so he's one to build a scouting portfolio if he so chose to do so. Roger Goodell had literally no idea about this aspect of the game until the Jets/Pats feud went down. If he had, he would have dealt with the Jets in 2006.

    The only concern with the memo in 2006 was positioning of the cameraman (sidelines, coach's booths, etc) because it became clear some teams were messing with one another in this area.  The proof is that Goodell acknolwedged other teams were in violation of this aspect of the rule.  

    The location of the road team's cameraman may or may not be an advantage, but considering the home team has their preferred spots and angles, that's a pretty weak argument.  The home team shoots from more than one angle.  Unless you've never been to an NFL game, this is pretty obvious. The people in the non-broadcast vests are team employees.

    And yes, even the Colts have multiple cameramen.  The Colts.

    There is no advantage unless the home team blocks the road team from filming. Even then, you're reaching, going as far as to say a video scouting group is somehow so much better than other teams' to the point it's an "advantage".

    If this was a fear, there'd be no team filming of any kind. Period.

    Pretend Bill Cowher has his hand raised in court when reading this:

    December 2010

    Bill Cowher:  "You know, let me just say this:  To answer your question, no, I don’t think so. I just know as a head coach, you are always looking for a competitive edge. We had people out there trying to look at signals. We had guys go to games. They would tape the signal caller and also write it down. They would take it back and match up the signals with the game film and certain defenses with certain plays that were being called, particularly the defenses being called, to see if we could come up with some kind of an alert for a signal.  So, what they did with videotaping the signal caller, people do it with the people in the stands!! 

    These people sitting there in the stands, looking at the signal, writing it down and matching up the 1st and 10 signal. Ok? Then you go back again and the 2nd and 10 and here’s the signal. You do that for a whole game.

    You then go back and match up the defenses with the signal.  And you can come up with what the signal was. So, you don’t need a video tape with what they were talking about doing. And people were doing it. WE were doing that.  Everybody does that. You’re TRYING to gain a competitive edge. There is nothing wrong with that.

     

    That’s why baseball players go through the mirage of signals. They’ve got all these different codes. That’s part of the competitive spirit of the game. I think it’s totally overblown.  I think if  you get caught (signals compromised), then do what we did and go to wristbands, so you aren'T worried about it.  We started putting defenses on wristbands. Then you find a way to not get caught (signals compromised).  When your good at something and people try steal from ya, I think it’s flattering."

     

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from BassFishing. Show BassFishing's posts

    Re: Spygate or Saints worse

    Pretty sure this ends the thread. Again.  Anyone dispelling primary sources from any topic is one step away from Josef Goebbels level agenda.

    Spygate = overblown.  Bountygate will be "underblown" because the media doesn't dislike Payton as much as they already disliked BB.

    All 32 NFL teams have the option to film their games.  All 32 NFL teams do not have an "option" to put out bounties on players, attempt to injure and possibly ruin one's career or life.

    And, comparing Belichick's desire to raise the bar of intensity a bit in camp for his players to start fights, etc, is nothign more than coaching It's his team and it's in house. He's not breaking rules by coaching and he's not channeling that outside the practice fields in Foxborough.

    Only a troll would try to connect the two.

    Thread over.




     
  6. 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]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]

    God, your insufferable!
    Jimmy J. is going to admit doing something he did not do or negate it's relevance to save his friend?  YUP, in your world!
    And again, Why do you quantify the importance of taping from the wrong position on the field to only post season? If it had any relevance at all it would be relevant in the regular season as well as the post season.  Since their regular season stats are better, that blows up your theory rather than supports it.  Also (if) the taping from the wrong position had any relevance what so ever, wouldn't that give them an advantage against AFC teams since they play them 3 times as much and have 3x's the tape? 
    Get it through your head, taping is taping.  All teams have the ability to tape from designated areas.  The only difference between taping from the field and taping 50 ft up in a covered area, is the amount of zoom used.  That is all!
    Taping is legal.
    There is no rule against scouting or signal stealing other than where you can do it from. BFD!  Get over it.
    You should be more concerned about the league looking into a lottery system for draft picks to prevent teams like the Colts from tanking seasons.
    Now that IS WRONG, in every sense of the word.  No one will defend that, not even Polian's friends.  (if he has any)  But, I'm sure you don't want to talk about that, now.  Do you?  You'd rather talk about a 5 yr. old rule infraction that did not provide any benefit to the team, as apposed to a MAJOR violation that did.
    Brilliant!  Get your priorities straight, would ya?
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from BassFishing. Show BassFishing's posts

    Re: Spygate or Saints worse

    UD6 has to be a moderator.
     
  8. 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 : 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.
    Posted by ChasaB[/QUOTE]

    As you note, Goodell "thinks" it may have had an effect.  If he states that it may have had an effect, how in the world can you claim that he said it didn't? 

    The pats succeeded in subverting league fairness rules regarding taping for 6 years until they were caught.  Whether or not they succeeded in using that information to their benefit is known only by the players and staff involved with it during that time, and they have an incentive regarding their own legacy to say that the taping had no effect.  I refer you again back to your Jimmy Johnson comments.  He stopped taping because he saw no value.  Belichick continued taping until he was caught.  If it wasn't valuable, why would he continue to break rules over 6 years (even if he "allegedly" believed he wasn't) if the act provided no value to him and his team? 
     
  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 : I would imagine that when you came to this board the Colts were also a relevant team in the league.  I guess time changes things for everybody.  Sure, Johnson was/is a friend of Bill's but he also indicated that your boy Mudd was also the best in the game at stealing signals.  If you believe for one second that he didn't do th exact same thing when he was employed by the Colts, then there's nothing that can be said for you.  You don't offer any insight or objective opinion.  Any opinion you ever take is anti-Patriot and you cling to Spygate like a desperate pimple-faced teenager without anything else going on in his life.  If you looked at facts like a rational human being you would see the points which many here are offering up, but that's not what you're after.  In short: get a life.
    Posted by jeffab[/QUOTE]
    Could Johnson have had an agenda to protect Belichick by fingering an assistant on the pats biggest rival at the time?  I can make a case for that.  Additionally, Johnson's source was someone who was at the time of his comments and remains today, dead.  No way to corroborate Johnson's statement.  Brilliant stuff by Johnson. 

    But regardless, of these interesting facts, lets take Johnson at his word, and analyze.  First - Mudd was an assistant.  I have a hard time believing that Mudd controlled the video department on that team as a line coach.  Do you believe that Belichick's assistants don't follow his orders?  If you wish to finger someone for the act, finger the head coach and/or front office.  If the taping during Mudd's years with the Chiefs took place, he may have been ordered by his superiors to decipher signals and may have been quite good at it.   

    As it relates to the Colts - I believe that Tony Dungy and/or Bill Polian controlled the video department - not Howard Mudd.  Tony Dungy specifically said the colts did not engage in such activities.  If you believe for a second (to use your words) that Mudd was operating outside of the orders of his superiors as it relates to this act, then there is nothing that can be said for you (to use your words).
     
  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 : Could Johnson have had an agenda to protect Belichick by fingering an assistant on the pats biggest rival at the time?  I can make a case for that.  Additionally, Johnson's source was someone who was at the time of his comments and remains today, dead.  No way to corroborate Johnson's statement.  Brilliant stuff by Johnson.  But regardless, of these interesting facts, lets take Johnson at his word, and analyze.  First - Mudd was an assistant.  I have a hard time believing that Mudd controlled the video department on that team as a line coach.  Do you believe that Belichick's assistants don't follow his orders?  If you wish to finger someone for the act, finger the head coach and/or front office.  If the taping during Mudd's years with the Chiefs took place, he may have been ordered by his superiors to decipher signals and may have been quite good at it.    As it relates to the Colts - I believe that Tony Dungy and/or Bill Polian controlled the video department - not Howard Mudd.  Tony Dungy specifically said the colts did not engage in such activities.  If you believe for a second (to use your words) that Mudd was operating outside of the orders of his superiors as it relates to this act, then there is nothing that can be said for you (to use your words).
    Posted by UD6[/QUOTE]

    Hmm... wasn't Gregg Williams an assistant too?  Didn't his superiors deny they knew anything about it until they were presented wit 50k pages of evidence?
    Didn't the Redskins deny it too?  Funny how Dungheap knew there was a bounty on Peyton BEFORE he coached the team but knew NOTHING about other coaches taping signals.  I guess he missed the cameraman in plain view on the sidelines every time they played the Pats for 7 years.  Hilarious!!!!

    What were Cowher's and Vermeil's and other's reasons for defending SpyGate?
    Friends?  LOL   Get a clue!  Here's a SIMPLE article you MIGHT understand:

    Do most people even know what spygate was?

    From all the posts I have read it seems as though most people are clueless. The Patriots were never accused of taping practices or walk throughs... even Rams head coach Dick Vermeil came out this week and said it had no impact on the superbowl between the Rams and Patriots. The Patriots were fined for having a camera man in a "wrong" area during a game. There was no rule against taping other teams hand signals.
    Also just to make sure people know, most coaches have defended the Patriots. Jimmy Johnson, Bill Cowher, Dick Vermeil... and many others.
    This is the actual rule they "violated"
    "No video recording devices of any kind are permitted to be in use in the coaches' booth, on the field, or in the locker room during the game...All video shooting locations must be enclosed on all sides with a roof overhead."
    The Patriots also did not view the tape until after the game was over... and signals change each week, so there was no real benefit.

    here is the article about Vermeil talking about "spygate"
    http://bleacherreport.com/articles/59723…
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from BassFishing. Show BassFishing's posts

    Re: Spygate or Saints worse

    Stop saying "fingerging". The only thing you will be "fingering" is yourself once you get your fingers off that smelly keyboard of yours.  There is no way on earth you've ever even kissed a girl. No way.

    How does one do something for 6 full years, for 3 hours, in the open in broad daylight and be "caught"?  There was no deception, no intent to sneak around, etc, because it's LEGAL.    Wouldn't logic explain that the fact nothing ever happened in this area of the NFL for 30+ years and the NFL did nothing in 2006 when the Jets were blocked from a specified location in FOxborough, that not only was this legal and known, no one really cared where anyone stood as long as the tape was never removed from the camcorder?  I think so. Otherwise, the NFL would have confiscated NY's tapes in 2006 and Goodell would have at least looked at NY's tapes. It was the same reaason why some teams were whining about the Dolphins in 2006. They purchased synched up field audio from someone at CBS to  match it up to the gamefilm, etc.

    Miami beat NE 21-0 in December 2006.  NE was a SB contender, Miami awful. Brady was awful.  The offense was awful. NE's audibles were compromised.  Miami won.   Did you hear one PAts fan complain? Did the general NFL public complain, or was that technology used to benefit Miami?  No one cared and the NFL cast it aside as "gamesmanship" because Miami was no real threat of being good or great.

    http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2696227

    If NE had the NFL shutdown the Jets in 2006, likely not within NE's rights to do so, but just to mess with Mangini, why was NY shut down at all? Or, if they were in violation based on the NFL's judegment and shutdown, why weren't they punished?  Does anyone care, or just trolls who want to pretend only NE employs video coordinators in order to try to streamline the scouting process?

    Maybe because the whole time it was never a punishable offense? Maybe?  Maybe the NFL simply dealt with it on a case by case basis between feuding teams who played petty games with one another, etc? And, maybe, just maybe, NE was so well run and so good, teams were looking for any technicality within a longstanding rule to try to hurt anything that NE was good at, including scouting?

    Hmm? 

    The Colts have filmed my team every time my beloved Pats visit Indy. As Pats fans, we have no idea what is captured on those tapes, nor do we care. It is unknown if Dungy or Caldwell travel with a video coordinator on the road or not.

    Why did Bill Cowher provide NE with a perch at Heinz Field, in January 2002 during the AFC Title game, DIRECTLY ACROSS FROM HIS BENCH? Why? It was the legal, specified spot Pitt provided road teams. That's why.   

    Is this really that hard? The whole reason why NE was punished was due to location and taking a personal feud public. End of story.  

    PS There is no way on earth I will ever believe a word Tony Dungy says. He's one of the most sanctimonius humans on tv right now.  About 50% of what he says has merit.  Total fraud.
     
  12. 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 : As you note, Goodell "thinks" it may have had an effect. 
    Posted by UD6[/QUOTE]


    Clearly you reading comprehension skills are kindergarten level.

    Goodell says and i quote " I think it probably had limited, if any effect, on the outcome of games"

    this means goodell though it had "Restricted in size, amount, or extent; few, small, or short: "a limited number of places are available" if Any effect which means it was so microscopic that 

    it probably had NO EFFECT.

    its plain english dude.

    Little if any effect. aka no significant advantage.. aka not really a big deal.

    but go ahead twist this into making it seem like the only reason the patriots ever won a game before spygate is because they knew every single play that was going to be called right?
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from ChasaB. Show ChasaB's posts

    Re: Spygate or Saints worse

    i give up with UD6 i knew there was a reason i had him on ignore before.

    Enjoy another 3-13 season chump.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from TFB12. Show TFB12's posts

    Re: Spygate or Saints worse

    LOL @ anyone thinking that spygate was/is worse then bountygate.  Watching ESPN a guy just was making an argument that spygate was worse.  Give me a break.  Putting a bounty on someone to take them out of the game is messing with peoples health, their livelihood, making money to take care of the wife and kids, their future.  We are talking about handing out an extra money incentive to focus on hurting someone!  Not play the game but to physically injure someone.

    Wow, these people are very jealous of the Patriots or just plain delusional.  There isn't even an argument to this, this question is a slam dunk.  I seriously can not believe that there is even a comparison to which is worse.  The real question should be... are the people saying spygate was worse even competent enough to be commenting about football or even anything for that matter?  My mind is blown!
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from BassFishing. Show BassFishing's posts

    Re: Spygate or Saints worse

    In Response to Re: Spygate or Saints worse:
    [QUOTE]LOL @ anyone thinking that spygate was/is worse then bountygate.  Watching ESPN a guy just was making an argument that spygate was worse.  Give me a break.  Putting a bounty on someone to take them out of the game is messing with peoples health, their livelihood, making money to take care of the wife and kids, their future.  We are talking about handing out an extra money incentive to focus on hurting someone!  Not play the game but to physically injure someone. Wow, these people are very jealous of the Patriots or just plain delusional.  There isn't even an argument to this, this question is a slam dunk.  I seriously can not believe that there is even a comparison to which is worse.  The real question should be... are the people saying spygate was worse even competent enough to be commenting about football or even anything for that matter?  My mind is blown!
    Posted by TFB12[/QUOTE]

    That just proves what ESPN tries to do with perpetuating Spygate and knowing it makes them money if they continue to use it. It's why John Clayton snuck in a line the other day saying: "Bountygate is worse even if Spygate helped NE win 'close' games".

    So, if NE blew a team out from 2001-2006, they didn't use their scouting video before the game? And if they won a close game, they did?  It's just mindboggling the lengths to which ESPN will go to lie and be guilty of libel without repurcussion.


     
  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]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.  
    Posted by NCPatsFan1971[/QUOTE]

    Arguing with him is pointless. But not letting him spam his inane nonsense without opposition is not; in that those who observe his foolish and biased claims will be reminded just how much he is full of sh!t.
     
  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 : 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.  
    Posted by UD6[/QUOTE]

    "That's your proof that the NFL said the Patriots didn't gain any advantage from their activities?  Good Lord."

    No. You asked for clarification that the NFL's conclusions on spygate pertained to the entire investigation. I gave you that and then you call it laughable. This shows either your lack of comprehension skill or your lack of sincerity in this discussion.

    (Your original request for reference; "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.")

    These are the facts:

    1. The Patriots were proven to be violating a rule regarding taping from an unauthorized location. For this they were punished. They were not punished for gaining a competitive advantage.

    2. The is no proof whatsoever that any competitive advantage was gained from the rule violation.

    If you have anything other than your spin that can make these statements false present it. Or shut up.
     
  18. 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]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]

    "Can you show me anywhere in the quote I cited where Goodell says the pats failed to gain any advantage?"


    Can you show me any proof the Colts never piped in noise to their stadium?

     
  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]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]

    The only reason that standard has changed is because since their last superbowl and spygate, the pats have a losing postseason record.

    This is incorrect. Try to get your facts right.
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from BassFishing. Show BassFishing's posts

    Re: Spygate or Saints worse

    Since 2007 and SB 42, where the luckiest catch in SB history was featured on a winning drive, NE lost continuity and the base of the core of their dynasty.

    When Rodney HArrison leaves, Samuel leaves, Bruschi hands the reins over to Mayo, Vrabel and Seymour leave in 2009, you're talking about major blows to the base of a defense all at once.  Expecting veterans to come from the draft is ludicrous. Expecting veterans to come from other teams/systems and immediately dominate at their levels is also ludicrous.

    This is why they are just now coming back into the limelight as a juggernaut for years and years to come.   2009, NE wasn't a legit SB contender.  Same with 2010.  2010 they were better, but things needed to break right if they were going to go to a SB and beat that Packers team.  This year, it was right there. Yes.

    Put it this way, if Brady didn't throw a terrible INT on 1st down or Welker doesn't drop a catchable ball, wide open, UD6 isn't here slamming the drum over and over with his last, desperate point of NE somehow not having access to secret tapes to help them win in the postseason.  It's beyond reason how any adult human could seriously pretend secret tapes somehow are ably applied to a game on a football field, securing guaranteed victory. If this was that simple, NE would never lose. No team would ever lose if they had this special secret with video.

    Again, UD6 has to be a moderator.  There is no other explantion as to why the behavior is tolerated.
     
  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 : "Can you show me anywhere in the quote I cited where Goodell says the pats failed to gain any advantage? " Can you show me any proof the Colts never piped in noise to their stadium?
    Posted by BabeParilli[/QUOTE]
    Nice change of subject Babe.  And I'll be happy to admit that the colts frequently used their stadium speaker system to make announcements and play music.  Of course, none of that is against the rules. I'd imagine the pats do the same thing.  Otherwise why have a speaker system, right?
     
  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 : The only reason that standard has changed is because since their last superbowl and spygate, the pats have a losing postseason record. This is incorrect. Try to get your facts right.
    Posted by BabeParilli[/QUOTE]

    my apologies - .500 record.
     
  23. 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 : Nice change of subject Babe.  And I'll be happy to admit that the colts frequently used their stadium speaker system to make announcements and play music.  Of course, none of that is against the rules. I'd imagine the pats do the same thing.  Otherwise why have a speaker system, right?
    Posted by UD6[/QUOTE]


    I directly addressed the subject of what you were doing with an example of the logical fallacy inherent in the question.

    "Can you show me anywhere in the quote I cited where Goodell says the pats failed to gain any advantage? "

    Can you show me that unicorns don't exist?

    Can you or Goodell show me that a competitive advantage was gained?

    No and no and no.

     
  24. 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 : "That's your proof that the NFL said the Patriots didn't gain any advantage from their activities?  Good Lord." No. You asked for clarification that the NFL's conclusions on spygate pertained to the entire investigation. I gave you that and then you call it laughable. This shows either your lack of comprehension skill or your lack of sincerity in this discussion. (Your original request for reference; "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." ) These are the facts: 1. The Patriots were proven to be violating a rule regarding taping from an unauthorized location. For this they were punished. They were not punished for gaining a competitive advantage. 2. The is no proof whatsoever that any competitive advantage was gained from the rule violation. If you have anything other than your spin that can make these statements false present it. Or shut up.
    Posted by BabeParilli[/QUOTE]
    Babe, foggy morning in san fran? 

    The patriots violated a longstanding rule designed to promote fair play and honest competition (Roger Goodell).  If they could not gain an advantage, then there would be no reason to continue taping (see Jimmy Johnson).  The pats taped until they were caught, that suggests that they found value in it. 

    The proof you seek is held by Belichick, the players, and the patriots staff involved.  They have a vested interest regarding their legacy to reveal nothing about the practice and its value. 
     
  25. 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 directly addressed the subject of what you were doing with an example of the logical fallacy inherent in the question. "Can you show me anywhere in the quote I cited where Goodell says the pats failed to gain any advantage? " Can you show me that unicorns don't exist? Can you or Goodell show me that a competitive advantage was gained? No and no and no.
    Posted by BabeParilli[/QUOTE]

    The cheater who doesn't get caught doesn't have to reveal the value his cheating provided.  Doesn't mean he didn't cheat and it doesn't mean he didn't find value.  But you keep stumping on your logic. 
     

Share