Successfully derailed this utterly ridiculous thread with my little Belicheat comment. Pats suck! *Headshot*
It's not that tough finding out what buttons to push with us. :lol: I hate to drag this out, but to shed some light on the question a few posts up, here's a Don Banks SI article from July 2007, two months before "Spygate" broke. It's interesting reading it now... the Patriots certainly seemed to provide the impetus behind the league memo at that time. Take it FWIW. 1. Pictures are worth a thousand words: The "stealing'' of signs -- both on offense and defense -- is the area that's most often cited as fertile ground for cheating. The most common practice is for a team to videotape an opponent's signal-givers on the sideline, and later marry up those indications to the game tape in order to identify tendencies or patterns. Though no disciplinary action by the league ever resulted, the Patriots last year were reportedly the impetus of a sternly written letter from the league office to all teams, reminding them that it was illegal for an advance scout or personnel official to bring a video recording device of any kind into the press box for the purposes of taping a potential opponent's signals or play-calling gestures from the sideline. Teams have also been chastised for having a second camera in the press box-area video box, with one camera shooting the game action and the other one being trained on the opposing team's signal-givers. On offense, that's why coaches have taken to holding their play-calling charts in front of their mouths when they're sending in the play to the quarterback via the radio headset system. On defense, teams have gone to having two different signal callers, with one being a dummy signaler and other being responsible for the "hot,'' or real, call. Other teams use different color wrist bands during a game, with the defensive captain switching to a different color before each series, and the defensive signal-caller calling formations and blitzes from a list that corresponds with that color. "That type of sign-stealing goes on a ton in the league,'' said one NFL source who was both a former coach and player in the league. "From a coaching standpoint, you know who's signaling in the personnel on the opposing sideline, and then there's another guy making the play calls on the headset. Defenses used to watch the play-caller, and if a guy spoke for a real long time, that was usually a pass, because the calls take longer. A run is always a shorter call. So coaches shield their mouths when they're calling plays now. If you make your calls out in the open, the other team will steal your signals and your tendencies.'' http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/writers/don_banks/07/06/cheating.nfl/index.html
not really..sf division sucked so winning it took nothing out of them for playoff run and the steelers ravens colts of the past decade were certainly as good as most of the competition sf faced with motana...they were great but lets stop the myth and bullshit about the past-football is more competitive now
The teams of the 80s were so much better b/c they didn't have FA and teams didn't break apart. SF's division wasn't great(but let's not forget the Rams had a bunch of good years and the Saints toward the end of the decade) and SF had to get through teams like Chicago, Washington, NYG- truly great teams(some of them). NE had to get through Indy and their choking QB, Baltimore? please, Pitt? they beat Pitt w/ Kordell Stewart in '01 and w/ a rookie ben in '04.
It's true? I'd like to see one publication that lists an asterisk after the Pats Super Bowl wins. The only asterisk is the one that jealous, envious rival fans make up in their mind to make them feel better.
When I think of the reason for competition it's so the strong survive and the weak perish. Competitive balance is an entirely different concept. The NFL today is built on competitive balance manipulated by cap, draft, limited FA and shared revenue. That is very different than the past NFL that was based on the strong surviving and the weak perishing.
absoloute nonsense. the nfl pre-salary cap and free agency was the same teams winning all the time because there were only 5-6 great teams and a bunch of stiffs...it was so much easier to win back then because of disparity of talent...how often were the steelers or cowboys actually threatened or had to win a tough division? like the 49ers of the 80's their divisions were horrible and guaranteed them first place and similarly the road to the SB was easier with no wild card and maybe one tough opponent...sorry but it was not nearly as true a test of mettle as winning a division and SB today...and the steelers, colts, pats and ravens of the past decade could certainly beat those teams and knew yea in and year out they would have to get thru each other to get there...i'd say the cowboys of the 90's and the gb and 49ers teams they faced to get to the sb in the nfccg were as great or greater victories than anything the great teams of the 70's and 80's faced to get there...honestly, this american obsession with worshipping the past has got to stop..it's silly and 75% BULLSHIT
The Cowboys of the 70's never had easy pickings in their division. In the 70's the Cards (early) and Eagles (late) were very good teams, and the Redskins were good every year. They would also have to get past the Vikings in the playoffs. In the 90's the Giants were still a tough out, and the Eagles and Redskins were good also. BTW, the Cowboys and 49ers of the late 80's and early 90's were pre-salary cap teams.
It was MUCH tougher navigating through the NFC in the 80s and 90s than anything NE has ever had to go through. There were wild cards in the 80s and 90s by the way. The toughest team NE had to beat en route to a SB? Indy '03 maybe? which was a good team for this era but w/ a choker at QB. In the 80s there were multiple legit great teams throughout the decade: SF, Wash, Chi, NYG plus some very good 2nd tier teams like Philly, LA, Dal, Min, NO, in the 90s in the NFC you had great teams like Dal, Was, GB and SF and very good 2nd tier teams like Philly, Det, Atl, TB, NE has had mainly deal w/ Pitt and Indy- neither were great teams. Other than that they had to beat teams like Jax, NYJ('06), SD. The Pats are a great franchise, they had great teams in the 90s but they aren't even in the discussion w/ teams like dal of the '90s or SF of the '80s.
They went through at least 3 of them every playoff. 1980 Falcons won the division at 12 & 4 81 Rams won the division at 11 & 5. 82 strike year Falcons won the division. 83 Rams won the division. 84 SB 49ers Rams went 10 and 6, 85 Rams won the division at 11 and 5. 86 SF won the division at 10 5 and 1 Rams were 10 + 6, 87 Rams won the division NO went 12 and 3 to come in second. 88 SF, LA and NO were all 10 +8 SF won the SB. 89 Rams 11 +5 NO 9+7. Wrong again the Stealers went through Great Oakland and Cowboy teams lead by All pro and a HOF QB with better defenses and skill position players weren't protected. A much tougher game of atrition than todays NFL were a great QB protected by the rules gives teams a huge edge. Compare what the Steelers had to do going through 2 great teams with great QB's to the 01 Pats. A Kordel Stewart lead Steeler team in the AFC finals. Kordel Stewart vs. an in your prime Ken Stabler and the No. 2 Defensive team in the NFL. The Rams were a legit great team but the Rams were not the overall team on both sides of the ball the Cowboys were. If you were being honest you would admit you probably have been watching football since 1996 since any football fan in NE before that date were hard corp. NY Giants fans, the team that had the highest viewership and radio listeners in the NE area prior to the Pats getting to the SB.
And the Pats of course have lost two Super Bowls now to a wild card team with 9 or 10 wins that barely had a top 10 QB. Teams like that just didn't win anything in the 80's and 90's. They got to the show and then the powerhouse blew them out, like happened to the Pats in '85 and '96.
I don't disagree, but let's face it. The cap has made it virtually impossible for a team to get as stacked as the Cowboys, Steelers, or 49ers in their heyday. The Pats did beat one powerhouse for a SB title when they beat the Rams (Greatest show on turf). I still love watching the SB film with Proehl annoncing as the Rams came on the field "The start of the Dynasty" :rofl:
Agreed with the Cap preventing today's teams from achieving the dominance of past era's great teams. If a team today can become as stacked as those Aikman/Cowboys, Montana/Niners, Bradshaw/Steelers, only 1-2 seasons before FA tears up that roster. Breakup even more dramatic right after SB because their role players jump in value (salary-cap wise). They get overpaid by everyone else because they're now "winners" and bring "leadership". Even if all the big starters can be resigned, the depth is gonna be paper thin. Many look at those HOF players from great dynasties in the past but they were also so deep at so many positions. Today, injuries have much bigger impact which reduces chance for one team to keep winning championships. It's why I've always given Gibbs & Parcells props for taking SB with different qb that required different offensive schemes. I'm going from my memory (which I do admit is not great) weren't there collusion accusations also from the players in previous decades? If so, then the great teams of that era are even more unreachable by today's standards. === Today's Pats fall short of the great teams of the 70s-90s but if those same teams were put in today's era they'd take big hits from Free Agency & Salary Cap too.
Dynasty was pushing it a bit but if Kurt Warner doesn't jam his thumb twice on opponent's helmets I think the Rams probably dominate the window that the Pats had instead from 2001 to 2004. And yeah I get that the Pats beat them in 2001 with whatever help they had doing that. Tom Brady is a great QB but I'll take Kurt Warner in his prime before the injuries over anybody who is throwing the ball today.
Interesting timing, just saw this on NFL.com last night... it was an article headlined, "best torch-passing moments" or something like that. http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d82943314/article/reviewing-the-nfls-best-torchpassing-moments 2001: THE LAST GREATEST PICTURE SHOW ON TURF. Kurt Warner's era of quarterback dominance was as sudden as it was shocking. In 2001, he was coming off his second MVP season, in which he threw for more than 4,800 yards and 36 touchdowns, leading the league in passer rating as well. By 2001, Warner had been otherworldly for three seasons, and it looked like the league would be his for years to come. The true path to NFL stardom, it turned out, was bagging groceries, not winning an SEC scholarship. Then came Tom Brady in Super Bowl XXXVI. No one knew what kind of game he'd play -- remember, he was coming off an injury in the AFC Championship Game that saw Drew Bledsoe leap off the bench to help stave off the Pittsburgh Steelers. It should have been a mismatch. But what I'll remember from that game is the continually frustrated look on Warner's face as things refused to go his way and plays blew up on the St. Louis Rams. Still, Brady was no world-beater that day, and I didn't think there was any way, with 1:30 left, he was going to lead the New England Patriots to the game-winning score. Then, of course, John Madden uttered his famous "I'd play for overtime" comment, which I bet he wishes he could take back. In retrospect, we've since seen Brady engineer final drives like that plenty of times. A couple of short passes, a long one, another short one, and a clock spike with seven seconds left to set up Adam Vinatieri with the game-winning field goal. Yawn. Wake me when "60 Minutes" is on. But watching that sequence of events unfold back then, it was all new, and I was incredulous, seeing this kid mount such a drive after playing such an average game. You've seen that shot of Brady in the post-game celebration, where, with confetti falling around him, he has his hands on his head and an "aw-shucks" look on his face that says "I can't believe what I just did!" Don't fall for that. That grin is only for the cameras (and Gisele). Fast-forward, and the only guy bigger than Brady the last 10 years has been, well, Bieber. Meanwhile, Warner's subsquent fall was like a flash flood. He was never the same after that game. In 2002, he threw a lot of interceptions and broke a finger, missing most of the season. In 2003, he fumbled six times in the season opener against the New York Giants and lost his job for good to Marc Bulger. And while he did have a great second act much later on with the Arizona Cardinals, he never really reached the dizzying heights many thought he could in the early days of his career.
WOW! It should no long be called "spygate", it should be called "CRYGATE", because that's what weak minded Jet fans are doing by this constant repudiated WHINE. Even the guy who started the derailment of the thread ADMITS he did only to push buttons on BOTH sides of the topic. BTW- here are some Goodell quotes on why the tapes where burned (FYI) Here is Goodell stating that filming that the Pats did in 2006 was within the rules, which kind of makes a mockery of Jet fans and other haters who would like forget that the Pats did NOTHING illegal in 2001, 2003, and 2004 when they won their superbowls. CRYGATE demands asterisks and Jet fans whose team hasn't even BEEN to a super bowl in 43 years NEED something to "cry" about. CRYGATE - has a nice ring doesn't it. :wink:
