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 : 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. 
    Posted by UD6[/QUOTE]

    I understand your need to speculate. But speculation is not proof. The bottom line is the league has no proof that such advantage was gained and has never said that it was.

    Goodell has given his speculation as you have.
     
  2. 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 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. 
    Posted by UD6[/QUOTE]


    You keep stumbling on your semantics. Rules are broken in the NFL constantly. What rises to the level of cheating is a matter of opinion unless you want to call every rule violation in the history of the game that.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from wasecl. Show wasecl'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 keep stumbling on your semantics. Rules are broken in the NFL constantly. What rises to the level of cheating is a matter of opinion unless you want to call every rule violation in the history of the game that.
    Posted by BabeParilli[/QUOTE]

    Babe - If you truly believe Spygate was a non-issue why do you feel the need to post so many comments defending it? Obviously it will always be an issue and you'll never be able to change the thoughts of others who think there will always be an issue with the 3 superbowls.
     
  4. 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 : 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. 
    Posted by UD6[/QUOTE]

    The only disadvantage in promoting fair play is the position of the cameras.  The other teams are provided a designated spot to tape and do so from that position.  The only advantage was being closer to the field which as previously stated, the Zoom on their camera could rectify.
    What part of the other coaches quit the practice because they didn't find it beneficial don't you understand?
    BB felt he was justified in being closer to the field because of contradictions in the memo and Bi-law.  But in reality he is doing no more than any other coach is doing, which is acquiring scouting tapes. Just closer to the field.

    BB likes to study tape.  Case closed!
     
  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 : The only disadvantage in promoting fair play is the position of the cameras.  The other teams are provided a designated spot to tape and do so from that position.  The only advantage was being closer to the field which as previously stated, the Zoom on their camera could rectify. What part of the other coaches quit the practice because they didn't find it beneficial don't you understand? BB felt he was justified in being closer to the field because of contradictions in the memo and Bi-law.  But in reality he is doing no more than any other coach is doing, which is acquiring scouting tapes. Just closer to the field. BB likes to study tape.  Case closed!
    Posted by pezz4pats[/QUOTE]

    Well if that's all it was then the commissioner must have been wrong in his assessment that the pats broke longstanding rules designed to promote fair play and honest competition, but he's the judge and jury, so he must not be wrong.
     
  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]In Response to Re: Spygate or Saints worse : Babe - If you truly believe Spygate was a non-issue why do you feel the need to post so many comments defending it? Obviously it will always be an issue and you'll never be able to change the thoughts of others who think there will always be an issue with the 3 superbowls.
    Posted by wasecl[/QUOTE]


    Maybe he feels the need to educate the uneducated and ignorant!!!
    Where would we be without educators?  Even dumber, that's where.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from CaptainZdeno33. Show CaptainZdeno33's posts

    Re: Spygate or Saints worse

    Don't you have anything better to do than argue about spygate for the umpteenth time, Dogg? Everyone knows where he stands, why engage him any further?
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Spygate or Saints worse

    The fact is the Patriots did not "cheat".

    The bylaws state that such taping is prohibited "that might aid a team during the playing of a game."

    Goodell's memo stated that such taping is prohibited in "locations accessible to club staff members during the game."

    Walsh was an adversarial witness who testified to Goodell that such tapes were never used during that game. This in fact proves that no "cheating" occurred as specified by the rules. The rules make no mention of using such tape after that specific game.

    BB was wrong and "broke a rule" because the location he taped from was accessible during the game. He did not "cheat" because it is testified to that he did not use them during that game.


     
  9. 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 - If you truly believe Spygate was a non-issue why do you feel the need to post so many comments defending it? Obviously it will always be an issue and you'll never be able to change the thoughts of others who think there will always be an issue with the 3 superbowls.
    Posted by wasecl[/QUOTE]

    You're right to an extent. BB has put Pats' fans on the defensive for eternity through a purely stupid lapse of judgement. I just feel it is worthwhile to refute the simpleton's mob rule mentality that there was "cheating". I think there have been many fans out there that have softened their views on this matter and persons standing against the mob have had an effect on that.
     
  10. 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 : Well if that's all it was then the commissioner must have been wrong in his assessment that the pats broke longstanding rules designed to promote fair play and honest competition, but he's the judge and jury, so he must not be wrong.
    Posted by UD6[/QUOTE]

    He's not wrong. They violated the provision that taping needed to be done from locations not accessible to the team during the game. It doesn't matter to him that they did not use them that game. It matters that they COULD have used them that game.
     
  11. 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 : Well if that's all it was then the commissioner must have been wrong in his assessment that the pats broke longstanding rules designed to promote fair play and honest competition, but he's the judge and jury, so he must not be wrong.
    Posted by UD6[/QUOTE]

    Fair play means that not all coaches were filming from the sidelines.  Not that they weren't taping because they most certainly were from their designated area. 
    All coaches tape scouting tapes.
    All coaches look for competitive edges.
    All coaches study tendencies.
    Not all coaches do it from the sidelines.
    Get it?  Got it?  Good!
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from Thesemenarecowards. Show Thesemenarecowards's posts

    Re: Spygate or Saints worse

    I didn't read more than the title of this thread but I'm guessing it took less than 2 pages to turn into a redundant Spygate debate.  It is amazing how insecure some Pats fans are about Spygate. 

    As to which is worse, which I'm guessing is a topic long abandoned...... neither is worse, both are equally bad for very different reasons. 
     
  13. 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]Don't you have anything better to do than argue about spygate for the umpteenth time, Dogg? Everyone knows where he stands, why engage him any further?
    Posted by CaptainZdeno33[/QUOTE]
    capy - given the right conditions, I'll respond. 

    In this case, Pezz wanted to argue and then babe got into the fray.  If someone's going to challenge my opinion, then I'll respond. 
     
  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]I didn't read more than the title of this thread but I'm guessing it took less than 2 pages to turn into a redundant Spygate debate.  It is amazing how insecure some Pats fans are about Spygate.  As to which is worse, which I'm guessing is a topic long abandoned...... neither is worse, both are equally bad for very different reasons. 
    Posted by Thesemenarecowards[/QUOTE]

    When persons make accusations that are not factual it isn't surprising that they are set straight.
     
  15. 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 : capy - given the right conditions, I'll respond.  In this case, Pezz wanted to argue and then babe got into the fray.  If someone's going to challenge my opinion, then I'll respond. 
    Posted by UD6[/QUOTE]

    Your opinion is unlikely to change if you keep disregarding the facts and cling to your speculations.
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from NYC. Show NYC's posts

    Re: Spygate or Saints worse

    Saint Gate is a mega-scandal.

    Payton and Loomis deserve equal punishment  as Williams as they knew, approved of and tried to cover up the affair. My guess is that Goodell selects Williams as the skapegoat and his punishment is stiffer. Even if he gets only a 1 year ban, he will unlikely see the NFL again as the stench from this debacle will linger for years. No team will risk taking him on. Payton and Loomis will survive because Goodell perceives that the league and NO needs their leadership. Nevertheless, lawsuits will be directed at Williams, Payton, Loomis and the NO Saints organization for intent to injure on the part of players targeted.

    No matter what Goodell's decision on this matter and it will effect the NFL for years to come. It will be powerful and set the tone for policy on player safety.
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from seawolfxs. Show seawolfxs's posts

    Re: Spygate or Saints worse

    BB's mistake as not making sure that it as stopped after
    the Pats ere told to stop

    it seems clear that Goodell finds out what is going on
    and then if rules are being broken gives a warning.
    Too many others ( Alabama coach, former Dallas coach
    and former NY jet QB) all said it was ridiculous
    But if you keep going afetr being warned, 
    Goodell is going to hammer you - more for ignoring him
    tahn the rule

    but that was the Pats big mistake - Goodell was poked in the eye!

     and it is going to be even bigger for the Saints
    and Williams. the potential lawsuits from Bountygate
    make Spygate look like a prank
     
  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 : Your opinion is unlikely to change if you keep disregarding the facts and cling to your speculations.
    Posted by BabeParilli[/QUOTE]
    I haven't disregarded a single fact.  I take the facts and ask who, what, when, where, and why. 

    A person can kill another person, but the penalty applied depends on the reason for the death. 

    Your agenda requires you to eliminate these questions so as to minimize as penalty as much as possible for your desired outcome.  
     
  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 : I haven't disregarded a single fact.  I take the facts and ask who, what, when, where, and why.  A person can kill another person, but the penalty applied depends on the reason for the death.  Your agenda requires you to eliminate these questions so as to minimize as penalty as much as possible for your desired outcome.  
    Posted by UD6[/QUOTE]

    You are saying the penalty determines the crime. That spin is weak. Try something else.

    You say they cheated. The NFL does not say that. You lose.
     
  20. This post has been removed.

     
  21. This post has been removed.

     
  22. 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]I didn't read more than the title of this thread but I'm guessing it took less than 2 pages to turn into a redundant Spygate debate.  It is amazing how insecure some Pats fans are about Spygate.  As to which is worse, which I'm guessing is a topic long abandoned...... neither is worse, both are equally bad for very different reasons. 
    Posted by Thesemenarecowards[/QUOTE]

    Pats fans are "insecure"?  Could it be some Pats fans know what happened for real and did their homework?

    How is knowing the fact and articulating those facts being "insecure"?  What's insecure is a fan from another team, one is incredibly jealous, posting on a rival's board, years and years later, pretending he played sports and also pretending an intern with a camera on a sideline provides some mystery advantage.

    The lack of education on a topic by said troll is the insecurity, not the fans who did their homework and can speak intelligently on the subject.

     
  23. 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 : You are saying the penalty determines the crime. That spin is weak. Try something else. You say they cheated. The NFL does not say that. You lose.
    Posted by BabeParilli[/QUOTE]
    No, your spin of my words is weak.  I said the intent within the violation determines the penalty. 

    The NFL said, "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".  Every reasonable person would shorten that sentence to "cheating".  

    If you don't want to, that's fine by me. 

    Please refrain from the Rusty finish.  It cheapens you.
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from vertigho. Show vertigho's posts

    Re: Spygate or Saints worse

    Was Rusty Griswold a Bass Fisherman...?
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from TFB12. Show TFB12's posts

    Re: Spygate or Saints worse

    What drives me crazy now is all the people who continue to say the Patriots have not won a SB since being punished for spygate.  Looks like they have made it to two SB since then and if not for a once in a lifetime catch made by the Giants in each of the games they would have won 2 since then.  Just for them to get to the SB should erase all the dumb thoughts of they haven't won since.

    Simple minded, jealous people will come up with anything to talk negative about the Patriots.  Not gonna change those idiots minds no matter what logic you give them.
     

Share