Well I don't think you should take it so personally, as if they were only "cheating" against the Jets. They were only caught because the coach of the Jets, who used to be complicit in the "cheating", called them out on it. I find it even more pathetic and embarrassing that presumably Eric Mangini won SB rings by "cheating" and then was the whistleblower on it I don't have a strong opinion on it really. I don't think about it at all until I find other people complaining about it
Come on, dude. The only reason the Patriots were even caught cheating was because the Jets hired an ex-Patriots assistant who was summarily locked out of the building. Charlie Casserly had called them out on filming sidelines the year before and Belichick reacted angrily to his assertions. I don't take it personally that he cheated against the Jets, but I'm not just going to act like it never affected the years of success they had previous and not going to pretend the lack of intel didn't affect his ability to win Super Bowls after that. I'm also not going to be embarrassed when AFCE fans throw it in Pats fans' faces when they strut around the internet world acting like they have a sense of entitlement due to the success of a football franchise that they have no financial stake in other than (possibly) buying tickets and (more likely) team gear.
Ha fair enough. I just have yet to hear an argument regarding what sort of significant edge that sideline filming was giving them. People usually end up pointing out the fact that they were punished as proof that it was cheating, but we all know Goodell is far from competent. I always figured Roger dropped the hammer as the new guy on the block trying to show Bill who was boss.
It's a very funny coincidence that David Tyree hasn't made a catch in this league since the helmet catch
yeah and? The Giants won a SB after it. The Pats haven't after Spygate which makes it fun to pester Pats fans with. They were caught cheating, they haven't won a SB after it, they won 3 SBs before it. Maybe the real turning point was they lost their aging veterans on D, couldn't find young offensive talent, got the bad side of the luck coin finally, and made a team too centered around the QB. Or I can just say Spygate when Pats fans act annoying to pester them.
Like I've been saying, to each their own. Personally I don't get why it is a big deal to just admit that another team has been more successful than to blame it on supposed cheating from years ago.
No I understand. Like I said when Pats fans start acting annoying, then I use it. If we talk about football, I'll talk football. Once they go into that entitled stuff or pretend that they're "above" other teams, kind of like how Cardinals fans in baseball act, then I'll use it. That stupid, "we're classy" or whatever stuff
Sideline filming by itself doesn't give them a giant edge on every team. The proven precedent of the Patriots actively cheating raises the question of what other methods they used to gather intelligence on every team they faced. They were fined the largest monetary amount in history and also the largest draft pick in history, the NFL burned the evidence and then they stopped winning Super Bowls. The extent of the NFL's investigation into their dirty deeds has never been made public.
So you think losing the money and a 1st rounder was a big enough deterrent to stop them from methods that were putting them over the top and got them 3 SBs? Enough of a deterrent that when they realized they couldn't win without it that they didn't go back to those methods in the future? Losing a first rounder and money in exchange for SB wins seems like a bargain any coach would take
I never said they stopped completely. Belichick is too much of a dickhead for that. But I do think it kept them from the wholesale robbery they were used to. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/2008-02-21-competition-committee_N.htm "Every now and then I'd get a sheet, one hour before the game, with a list of audibles for our opponent," Johnson said in November 2005. "I don't know how, but they just showed up." ^ that didn't come from filming from the sideline during a game.
The Pats have been an unbelievably consistent and dominant franchise since Spygate, but just to be fair: It wasn't "supposed" cheating . . . it was cheating.
Only 7 Superbowls have been played since the 2007 regular season, how often are you supposed to win them? It's not a coincidence, the SB is hard to win and only 1 out of all 32 teams can win it each season. NE has actually been good enough to make it back twice and lost on two ridiculous catches (Or a catch and a drop), one of which should have been blown dead before it ever happened. Of the 7 games played, 5 were lost by the teams with 3 of this generations greatest QBs, another retired QB is most likely going to enter the HoF. Not an easy game to win and a little bit of luck is required. Saying that any of this is a coincidence is just stupid as nobody has been consistently closer than New England and they've done nothing but prove they're a top 4 team every season since then. This is also one of the funniest threads with some hilarious logic used throughout.
That is why it's a funny coincidence in my eyes. The getting caught hasn't led to them to not winning Super Bowls. And it's funny in my eyes because people do buy into the coincidence. It's what you said plus stuff I have said in my back and forth with BeastBeach. See below.
Great. Lines from a universally panned, debunked, and ridiculed book. Regurgitated by the most universally ridiculed rag in the country.
The Pats won 3 of the 7 previous Super Bowls. 0 of the following Super Bowls. How often? I guess at least one of the two they appeared in?
