Okay, so we are supposed to take you seriously when you say that the Patriots cheated from 2001-2006, with no references whatsoever to demonstrate what rules they actually broke? But you laugh at the idea of listening to a law professor interpret a rule, simply because he doesn't physically own a copy of the manual it is taken from? What rule (that actually existed) did the Patriots break between 2001-2006? If you can't answer that, the fact that you are questioning the validity of anyone else's opinion is pretty hypocritical. Even Goodell stated that the Patriots main infraction was ignoring a memo sent to all teams in 2007. And if you actually read the article that I linked to, you would realize that this memo misquoted a rule that didn't exist.
Well if it's some random dude posting on the internet saying it then sure it's false. But I've seen people whose career it is to watch these guys play say the same thing.
You don't have to take me seriously, I'm not the only one who knows the Pats cheated. The entire world knows. Only those living in a Patriots kool aid bubble seem to believe otherwise. The guy is basically saying - I don't have the rule book, but here are all the reasons why the patriots didn't violate the rule book. You know, the rule book I don't have and have never read. Really? That's your guy? That's cool. The Patriots were illegally video taping from a position on the field they were not allowed to video tape from.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/sports/20080511_NFL_DOCUMENTS.pdf Here is the rulebook in question. The rules, as stated, are exactly as he quoted them. As far as I can tell, he also included all of the relevant parts. Are you disagreeing with his interpretation? Are you disagreeing with the rules that he interpreted? Or is it just that you don't feel like admitting this guy has any validity or credibility since it isn't convenient to your argument?
And this is even more vague and incomplete than the arguments that you are saying "cool story bro" to. Can you specifically show me where the Patriots were videotaping from in 2001-2006? Can you specifically show me the rules that say that was illegal at the time? Otherwise this just sounds like you are saying "Well, they violated the rules by... umm... doing something that was... against the rules... and... umm... making video tapes that were... umm... against the rules..."
You're showing me a rulebook from 2007 to prove that the Pats didn't break any rules from 2001-2006? You're good. I'm going to go kill a bunch of brain cells. Maybe when I get back I'll be able to understand where you're coming from.
Once again, we're not the ones on trial here and the ones on trial have already been convicted and sentenced. You keep telling me I need to show you proof. I don't.
No I'm showing you the rulebook from 2007 because you were questioning someone's ability to interpret the rules within that handbook without having it. Now that you have it, I am hoping that you can make a more informed judgement on whether his interpretation is valid. He didn't misquote or exclude any relevant information, so obviously his interpretation was not weakened or changed by the fact that he did not have the rulebook.
And people whose career it is to watch these guys play let him go all the way till the 43rd pick It was hardly the consensus that he would have been top 15 or he would have gone much higher. He was a 3rd/4th round prospect based on production
The Patriots were never on trial for cheating in 2001-2006, and were certainly never convicted. If they were, surely the three titles that they won during that time would have been taken away, no?
The Pats stole signals from the Eagle's in the game they played 20 months before that SB? Are you serious? Andy Reid doesn't talk about taking a shit at halftime without covering his mouth with a play card. You think they had the same signals from 20 months before and Beli was onto them? I'm thinking it was two things you forget. Kordell Stewart throws picks and McNabb pukes in the huddle.
The bold part is an interesting statement by you. Spygate was all about stealing defensive calls, and offensive calls are radioed in and had been for something like 10 or 12 years at that point. The Patriots were never accused of stealing offensive play calls. But hey, they're cheaters, and we don't need any stinking facts other than that, right? :wink: Yeah, facts. They're just speed bumps on your way to your opinions!
Fact is you're defending a convicted NFL felon of cheating running your team. For a guy who doesn't think his team is tainted you're spending time on a Jets board defending your team of taint. I’m not saying a criminal doesn’t deserve a good defense but clearly a crime was committed. Any good lawyer would point out the other suspects, you know the other 31 NFL coaches who all did the same thing. I assume every post on this board is that person’s opinion and facts are used in limited context to back that opinion. Some have context others don’t. It’s like providing stats to prove a point without a statistician properly analyzing them they are simply a tool to either back or knock an opinion you either agree with or don’t. They certainly aren’t facts. Just like the fact that it wasn't illegal prior to 06 is a limited context fact that's not even a fact. So we are clear, this is my opinion not a fact and you are certainly entitled to yours which is also not based on facts. BB and the Pats were convicted for cheating to gain an edge in direct violation of the NFL rules, rules that go directly to reasonable expectations of fair play in a competitive arena. Yes I think BB would do anything to gain an edge legal or otherwise and probably has done so throughout his career legal and otherwise in an attempt to get a competitive edge in direct violation of any reasonable expectation of fair play. The fact that the Pats haven't won in spite of having the best horse in the game talent wise since doesn't prove he lost because he didn't cheat or won previously for cheating. It just proves under the harsh light of the league, on an even playing field, since his exposure he couldn't get the best horse over the line first. I respect that your a very good fan of your team otherwise you wouldn't be here defending it. The fact that you are says something about this sorid mess. You deserve better!
Thanks for the last line... :beer: I've asked before, "What if it had been your team?" I think a fan who would jump ship or denounce their team for something like Spygate would not be a real diehard. But in all honesty, I wasn't trying to defend anything... just busting your cahones a little for what you posted. Even if you believe the worst about Spygate, no one ever accused the Patriots of stealing offensive play calls. That would not be possible since those calls are radioed in. IIRC, teams have hand signals as an emergency if the audio systems crap out, but that rarely comes into play. Your statements about the Steelers and Eagles just doesn't jive with what we all know for sure -- that Spygate was all about stealing defensive calls, not play calls on offense. And regarding the bold-face line at the end of your post... I don't think anyone would say that the Patriots have had the most talented overall team since Spygate broke in 2007. Maybe offensively, but as I'm reminded often here at GG, their defense during these past few seasons "couldn't stop a nosebleed." I think that the Patriots, in a lot of ways, have become an updated version of the Colts of the early 2000s. Offensive juggernaut, average defensively at best (and that's being generous), and not a team that is built for what most consider to be the best blueprint for postseason success. Even the defense in 2007, the 16-0 season, with a lot of the older guys, was showing signs of breaking down. Last year they had UFAs and offensive players holding down positions in the secondary. They really had no business being in the SB last year, but sometimes an all-world offense will cover up a lot of ugliness on the other side of the ball.
Kicking this back up to revisit the drafts and what we've seen so far out of both teams' picks (inspired by watching the Patriots Colts game) Jets: Coples 1st- playing a bit more lately 20 tackles 15 Solo 2 sacks Hill 2nd- battling injuries and drops but has started when healthy 14 catches 196 yards 3 TDs. Davis 3rd- Playing more lately- 23 tackles 18 solo Bush 6th- Hasn't played much 7 tackles 5 solo Ganaway 6th- Cut Griffin 6th - cut Allen 7th - practice squad White 7th - practice squad Patriots Jones 1st- DROY candidate 18 tackles 16 solo 6 sacks 3 FF 2 PD Hightower 1st- rotation player 31 tackles 23 solo 2 sacks 1 FR 1PD 1 TD Wilson 2nd- Rotation safety 31 tackles 22 solo 4 INT 6 PD Bequette 3rd- backup played a few snaps late in blowouts, no stats Ebner 6th- barely played 8 tackles 7 solo Dennard 7th- played 6 games- 20 tackles 19 solo 3 INT 5 PD 1 TD Ebert 7th- cut
