FYI - This is Dman30.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Belichick, Pioli Speak out on Spygate, Walsh (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter twitch
- Start date
mad sweeney
Footballguy
I'm pretty sure most everybody figured it was either Dman or Syrus.
BigSteelThrill
Footballguy
Do you "out" all alias'?It would be solid if you did.
Last edited by a moderator:
pizzatyme
Footballguy
And if not, I think it is a pretty bush league thing to do. There have to be hundreds of aliases on these boards posting similar threads.Either out all of the aliases or none. IMO
SeniorVBDStudent
Footballguy
I don't know why I didn't realize this sooner...DMan30 is Matt Walsh.Workhorse said:
Pat Patriot
Footballguy
There are hundreds of posters pretending to be fans of a team they hate and posting inflammatory posts in an attempt to make the fanbase of that team look bad?I would hope there arent that many lowlifes on this site. I thought this was strictly schtick used by DMan and Darth Cheney.pizzatyme said:
from PFT
TAPING PRACTICES IS NOTHING NEW
Regardless of whether the Patriots did or didn't videotape the Rams' walk-through practice prior to Super Bowl XXXVI, it's not the first time that such allegations have been raised.
As Jason Cole of Yahoo! Sports wrote in the days following the discovery that the Pats were taping defensive coaching signals during a Week One game against the Jets, the Broncos were suspected at one time of secretly videotaping Chargers practices.
Wrote Cole: "The San Diego Chargers increased their security several years ago at a hill overlooking the practice field at the team facility during weeks when they played the Denver Broncos. Why? It turns out Broncos coach Mike Shanahan had been hiring spies to videotape the Chargers practices. The NFL had been aware of it for several years (at least one NFL official had seen one of the tapes), but didn't step in because it was considered a team issue."
Such stories tend to support the rumor that Patriots coach Bill Belichick included with the materials surrendered to the league extensive evidence of cheating by other teams.
Further bolstering the belief that the Pats weren't the only team doing what they were caught doing are the comments of former Cowboys and Dolphins coach Jimmy Johnson. The Boston Herald has posted the transcript of a WFAN interview that we first mentioned on September 29, during which Johnson said that the videotaping of defensive coaching signals was a widespread practice.
"I did it with video and so did a lot of other teams in the league," Johnson said on September 28. "Just to make sure that you could study it and take your time, because you're going to play the other team the second time around. But a lot of coaches did it, this was commonplace."
And this kind stuff is nothing new. Way back in 1967, Lee Grosscup wrote an item for Sport magazine that delved into the issue of spying in football.
The bigger issue with what the Patriots did against the Jets is that the Pats continued to do something that the league had specifically told teams not to do, and that the Jets decided to make a sufficiently big deal about it that it set off a media firestorm.
The staggering penalty applied to the Patriots ($250,000 fine and loss of a first-round pick) and coach Bill Belichick ($500,000 fine) created the impression that this really was a big deal, regardless of the fact that it had been going on for an extended period of time.
And by hitting the Pats so hard, the league backed itself into a corner. If the videotaping of defensive coaching signals compels such a harsh sanction, evidence that such things have been occurring on a widespread basis would potentially shake public confidence in the sport.
But at a time when folks are chasing (as we think they should) the question of whether the Patriots cheated in connection with Super Bowl XXXVI or any other postseason game since 2001, we think that resources and effort also should be devoted to exploring whether and to what extent there has been cheating by other teams.
Maybe that's why teams like the Steelers and Eagles aren't willing to blame spying on losses to the Pats in the 2004 AFC title game and Super Bowl XXXIX, respectively. Maybe the problem in both cases isn't that either of the teams within Senator Arlen Specter's territory were the victims of skullduggery. Maybe the problem is that they didn't take enough steps to prevent themselves from being victimized by practices that were an open secret prior to Week One of the 2007 regular season.
TAPING PRACTICES IS NOTHING NEW
Regardless of whether the Patriots did or didn't videotape the Rams' walk-through practice prior to Super Bowl XXXVI, it's not the first time that such allegations have been raised.
As Jason Cole of Yahoo! Sports wrote in the days following the discovery that the Pats were taping defensive coaching signals during a Week One game against the Jets, the Broncos were suspected at one time of secretly videotaping Chargers practices.
Wrote Cole: "The San Diego Chargers increased their security several years ago at a hill overlooking the practice field at the team facility during weeks when they played the Denver Broncos. Why? It turns out Broncos coach Mike Shanahan had been hiring spies to videotape the Chargers practices. The NFL had been aware of it for several years (at least one NFL official had seen one of the tapes), but didn't step in because it was considered a team issue."
Such stories tend to support the rumor that Patriots coach Bill Belichick included with the materials surrendered to the league extensive evidence of cheating by other teams.
Further bolstering the belief that the Pats weren't the only team doing what they were caught doing are the comments of former Cowboys and Dolphins coach Jimmy Johnson. The Boston Herald has posted the transcript of a WFAN interview that we first mentioned on September 29, during which Johnson said that the videotaping of defensive coaching signals was a widespread practice.
"I did it with video and so did a lot of other teams in the league," Johnson said on September 28. "Just to make sure that you could study it and take your time, because you're going to play the other team the second time around. But a lot of coaches did it, this was commonplace."
And this kind stuff is nothing new. Way back in 1967, Lee Grosscup wrote an item for Sport magazine that delved into the issue of spying in football.
The bigger issue with what the Patriots did against the Jets is that the Pats continued to do something that the league had specifically told teams not to do, and that the Jets decided to make a sufficiently big deal about it that it set off a media firestorm.
The staggering penalty applied to the Patriots ($250,000 fine and loss of a first-round pick) and coach Bill Belichick ($500,000 fine) created the impression that this really was a big deal, regardless of the fact that it had been going on for an extended period of time.
And by hitting the Pats so hard, the league backed itself into a corner. If the videotaping of defensive coaching signals compels such a harsh sanction, evidence that such things have been occurring on a widespread basis would potentially shake public confidence in the sport.
But at a time when folks are chasing (as we think they should) the question of whether the Patriots cheated in connection with Super Bowl XXXVI or any other postseason game since 2001, we think that resources and effort also should be devoted to exploring whether and to what extent there has been cheating by other teams.
Maybe that's why teams like the Steelers and Eagles aren't willing to blame spying on losses to the Pats in the 2004 AFC title game and Super Bowl XXXIX, respectively. Maybe the problem in both cases isn't that either of the teams within Senator Arlen Specter's territory were the victims of skullduggery. Maybe the problem is that they didn't take enough steps to prevent themselves from being victimized by practices that were an open secret prior to Week One of the 2007 regular season.
Last edited by a moderator:
Read it again. It doesn't say that Belichick was engaged in unfair play or dishonest competition. Only that the rules were "designed" for this purpose.Let me put it this way. Suppose a town put in a 10pm curfew "designed" to reduce violent crime and keep the community safe. One day a teenager is caught walking home at 11pm. Does that mean he committed a violent crime?
Class Dismissed
Footballguy
Does he get fined $750,000 and lose a 1st round draft pick?Is he walking alone, or are all the kids doing it?
Workhorse
Footballguy
fatness
Footballguy
You're kidding, right? Seriously. "Avoiding the rules" is "cheating".Go avoid the speed limit rules, get a ticket, and tell me how that explanation holds up in court, OK?
Road Warriors
Footballguy
Nice analogy. Let me expound.Speed limit is designed to avoid car accidents, right?If you speed, its a minor violation. You get fined and you move on.If you speed and cause an accident, its a much more major infraction, with much more severe penatlies. The Patriots broke the rule that was designed to stop an in-game advantage. Minor infraction... Fined.No evidence at all that they used the tapes during the game, so the didn't violate what the rule was intended to stop. If they had, major infraction and more severe penalties.For all the noise, unless proof comes out that the Patriots used the tapes of opponents signals during the games in which they were taken, Spygate is over and done with ( as it relates to taping opponents signals )You're kidding, right? Seriously. "Avoiding the rules" is "cheating".Go avoid the speed limit rules, get a ticket, and tell me how that explanation holds up in court, OK?
He certainly gets punished for breaking curfew, just as BB was punished for breaking the rule.But he does not get punished for a mythical "violent crime" when there's no evidence that he committed one.
Agreed. If there were new evidence that the video was used during the game, or that other rules were violated, then BB would be suspended (and probably fired), as he should be.
SeniorVBDStudent
Footballguy
mad sweeney
Footballguy
The problem is that people are saying it was a minor violation but yet they got punished as if they committed a major violation, not just an accident but an serious injury reslutling from their "speeding". That doesn't add up in your analogy. It's like getting a minor speeding ticket and getting fined $35K and having your car seized by the court instead of $350 and a few points on your license. Doesn't make sense to get nailed with what they got for a "minor" infraction. I agree for the most part with your analogy, but what keeps me on my stance is the very obvious disparity between the "minor" violation and the "MAJOR" punishment.Nice analogy. Let me expound.You're kidding, right? Seriously.
"Avoiding the rules" is "cheating".
Go avoid the speed limit rules, get a ticket, and tell me how that explanation holds up in court, OK?
Speed limit is designed to avoid car accidents, right?
If you speed, its a minor violation. You get fined and you move on.
If you speed and cause an accident, its a much more major infraction, with much more severe penatlies.
The Patriots broke the rule that was designed to stop an in-game advantage. Minor infraction... Fined.
No evidence at all that they used the tapes during the game, so the didn't violate what the rule was intended to stop. If they had, major infraction and more severe penalties.
For all the noise, unless proof comes out that the Patriots used the tapes of opponents signals during the games in which they were taken, Spygate is over and done with ( as it relates to taping opponents signals )
Road Warriors
Footballguy
I understand where you're coming from. Let me ask you this... Did you think the punishment fit the crime on the Wade Wilson - HGH ruling? Or did that penatly seem excessive, in order to send a message?The problem is that people are saying it was a minor violation but yet they got punished as if they committed a major violation, not just an accident but an serious injury reslutling from their "speeding". That doesn't add up in your analogy. It's like getting a minor speeding ticket and getting fined $35K and having your car seized by the court instead of $350 and a few points on your license. Doesn't make sense to get nailed with what they got for a "minor" infraction. I agree for the most part with your analogy, but what keeps me on my stance is the very obvious disparity between the "minor" violation and the "MAJOR" punishment.Nice analogy. Let me expound.You're kidding, right? Seriously.
"Avoiding the rules" is "cheating".
Go avoid the speed limit rules, get a ticket, and tell me how that explanation holds up in court, OK?
Speed limit is designed to avoid car accidents, right?
If you speed, its a minor violation. You get fined and you move on.
If you speed and cause an accident, its a much more major infraction, with much more severe penatlies.
The Patriots broke the rule that was designed to stop an in-game advantage. Minor infraction... Fined.
No evidence at all that they used the tapes during the game, so the didn't violate what the rule was intended to stop. If they had, major infraction and more severe penalties.
For all the noise, unless proof comes out that the Patriots used the tapes of opponents signals during the games in which they were taken, Spygate is over and done with ( as it relates to taping opponents signals )
The reasoning behind the penalty is speculation.
Either of these could be true, but I doubt we'll ever know.
The transgression was such a major violation that it required a stiff penalty.
The transgression was such a blatant disregard for the league's authority that it required a stiff penalty. ( ie. disregarding the memo )
I tend to believe the "new sheriff" was trying to send a message more about the NFL front office authority, moreso than trying to indicate how "bad" a violation of the rules the taping was. It fits with his harsh penalties for Pac Man, for Wilson, for Vick. I could be wrong, he could have ruled that the violation was the biggest instance of cheating ever, but the facts as reported right now don't really support that.
All we have is the results, and we're trying to infer the reasoning based on the end results. I don't expect to change your mind. I don't expect to change my mind, without anything new coming to light, either.
If this is it, I'm ready to move on. If there's more, please bring it forward. I, for one, am tired of rumor and innuendo.
mad sweeney
Footballguy
I don't recall when he said it, but Goodell said at one time that he didn't buy Wilson's "personal use" story and it was clear from that comment that he thought Wilson was distributing it to players. So in this case the punishment was harsh because Goodell "knew" the HGH was being used for much more devious purposes than what Wilson was officially punished for. Which if you applied that reasoning to the Pats' punishment, would also imply that the transgression was worse than the officially stated reason. I'm not necessarily saying that's why he did it, but it would parallel the Wilson penalty.I understand where you're coming from. Let me ask you this... Did you think the punishment fit the crime on the Wade Wilson - HGH ruling? Or did that penatly seem excessive, in order to send a message?The problem is that people are saying it was a minor violation but yet they got punished as if they committed a major violation, not just an accident but an serious injury reslutling from their "speeding". That doesn't add up in your analogy. It's like getting a minor speeding ticket and getting fined $35K and having your car seized by the court instead of $350 and a few points on your license. Doesn't make sense to get nailed with what they got for a "minor" infraction. I agree for the most part with your analogy, but what keeps me on my stance is the very obvious disparity between the "minor" violation and the "MAJOR" punishment.Nice analogy. Let me expound.You're kidding, right? Seriously.
"Avoiding the rules" is "cheating".
Go avoid the speed limit rules, get a ticket, and tell me how that explanation holds up in court, OK?
Speed limit is designed to avoid car accidents, right?
If you speed, its a minor violation. You get fined and you move on.
If you speed and cause an accident, its a much more major infraction, with much more severe penatlies.
The Patriots broke the rule that was designed to stop an in-game advantage. Minor infraction... Fined.
No evidence at all that they used the tapes during the game, so the didn't violate what the rule was intended to stop. If they had, major infraction and more severe penalties.
For all the noise, unless proof comes out that the Patriots used the tapes of opponents signals during the games in which they were taken, Spygate is over and done with ( as it relates to taping opponents signals )
The reasoning behind the penalty is speculation.
Either of these could be true, but I doubt we'll ever know.
The transgression was such a major violation that it required a stiff penalty.
The transgression was such a blatant disregard for the league's authority that it required a stiff penalty. ( ie. disregarding the memo )
I tend to believe the "new sheriff" was trying to send a message more about the NFL front office authority, moreso than trying to indicate how "bad" a violation of the rules the taping was. It fits with his harsh penalties for Pac Man, for Wilson, for Vick. I could be wrong, he could have ruled that the violation was the biggest instance of cheating ever, but the facts as reported right now don't really support that.
All we have is the results, and we're trying to infer the reasoning based on the end results. I don't expect to change your mind. I don't expect to change my mind, without anything new coming to light, either.
If this is it, I'm ready to move on. If there's more, please bring it forward. I, for one, am tired of rumor and innuendo.
As for sending a message, I don't buy that the Pats FO, nor any other team's FO, would accept an unfairly large punishment given out by the Sheriff just to flex his guns. Owners will stick together to a large degree and they don't want to be on the receiving end of a message in their own future. I think if the punishment was too far out of line you'd see a lot of owners speaking out agains the Commish abusing his authority.
As for Pacman and Vick, they deserved what they got. So, it still doesn't make sense to me with the Commish's other decisions that what the Pats did was a minor violation in relation to the major punishment.
Kit Fisto
Footballguy
What I find laughable about this thread, and the general opinions on Spygate on this board is:
Some of you guys want to paint this picture of what the Pats must have done in order to validate "the stiffest penalty in league history" from one side of your mouth, while the other side says the penalty wasn't nearly enough... i.e. Belichick should be banned, suspended, take the #7 away etc.
Can't have it both ways fellas. I trust the Commish, Belichick and the Competition Committee over a handful of message board conspiracy theorists. I recommend you do the same. You'll feel much better to let it go and spend your energy on more productive matters... ya know, like living your life.
Feel free to revisit this topic if anything else evers comes out of this other than innuendo and slander.
Some of you guys want to paint this picture of what the Pats must have done in order to validate "the stiffest penalty in league history" from one side of your mouth, while the other side says the penalty wasn't nearly enough... i.e. Belichick should be banned, suspended, take the #7 away etc.
Can't have it both ways fellas. I trust the Commish, Belichick and the Competition Committee over a handful of message board conspiracy theorists. I recommend you do the same. You'll feel much better to let it go and spend your energy on more productive matters... ya know, like living your life.
Feel free to revisit this topic if anything else evers comes out of this other than innuendo and slander.
Bossman
Footballguy
Das Boot
Footballguy
Bossman
Footballguy
This is low... even for an obvious Jets fan.are there no boundrys on this board? Can anyone create a second, or third account and post at any time?Who is responsable for policing this nonsense?The offending party should be disclosed and lambasted on this message board.
SeniorVBDStudent
Footballguy
One of the mods identified the owner of the alias, who denied it and called the mod a liar, and the owner of the alias hasn't been heard from in a few days. I suspect but can't confirm the offending party has been given a "vacation" from the board. I won't inflame the issue further by naming either party, but agree with your sentiment.This is low... even for an obvious Jets fan.are there no boundrys on this board? Can anyone create a second, or third account and post at any time?Who is responsable for policing this nonsense?The offending party should be disclosed and lambasted on this message board.
jonessed
Footballguy
There are hundreds of aliases used on these boards. If they are going to start banning people for it they should be consistent about it. Selectively choosing posts you don't like and outing/banning those people is about as bush league as I've seen around here.One of the mods identified the owner of the alias, who denied it and called the mod a liar, and the owner of the alias hasn't been heard from in a few days. I suspect but can't confirm the offending party has been given a "vacation" from the board. I won't inflame the issue further by naming either party, but agree with your sentiment.This is low... even for an obvious Jets fan.are there no boundrys on this board? Can anyone create a second, or third account and post at any time?
Who is responsable for policing this nonsense?
The offending party should be disclosed and lambasted on this message board.
mad sweeney
Footballguy
It's what those people said and continuously say that gets them banned, not that they have an alias. Dman offers zero football insight and turns nearly every single comment he makes into a Pats bashing comment regardless of the topic. This board is better off by far without him.There are hundreds of aliases used on these boards. If they are going to start banning people for it they should be consistent about it. Selectively choosing posts you don't like and outing/banning those people is about as bush league as I've seen around here.One of the mods identified the owner of the alias, who denied it and called the mod a liar, and the owner of the alias hasn't been heard from in a few days. I suspect but can't confirm the offending party has been given a "vacation" from the board. I won't inflame the issue further by naming either party, but agree with your sentiment.This is low... even for an obvious Jets fan.are there no boundrys on this board? Can anyone create a second, or third account and post at any time?
Who is responsable for policing this nonsense?
The offending party should be disclosed and lambasted on this message board.
fatness
Footballguy
jonessed
Footballguy
I've never seen an admin out an alias. If that alias was even DMan.It's what those people said and continuously say that gets them banned, not that they have an alias. Dman offers zero football insight and turns nearly every single comment he makes into a Pats bashing comment regardless of the topic. This board is better off by far without him.There are hundreds of aliases used on these boards. If they are going to start banning people for it they should be consistent about it. Selectively choosing posts you don't like and outing/banning those people is about as bush league as I've seen around here.One of the mods identified the owner of the alias, who denied it and called the mod a liar, and the owner of the alias hasn't been heard from in a few days. I suspect but can't confirm the offending party has been given a "vacation" from the board. I won't inflame the issue further by naming either party, but agree with your sentiment.This is low... even for an obvious Jets fan.are there no boundrys on this board? Can anyone create a second, or third account and post at any time?
Who is responsable for policing this nonsense?
The offending party should be disclosed and lambasted on this message board.
parrot
Footballguy
Why didn't you bold the part where he says "I, for one, believe that tape does not exist."?If he's right about that one part, the rest of it is meaningless.
Mookie Blaylock
Footballguy
Maybe because it's peter king, and everything he says is meaningless. Has there ever been a bigger jock-sniffer than peter king? What does he really have to offer as a journalist? Lakers fans think he's a frontrunner.
Last edited by a moderator:
fatness
Footballguy
Because that's Peter King guessing. The stuff I bolded is what he actually heard people saying at the combine. If you think his beliefs are more important than actual information, more power to you.
mad sweeney
Footballguy
You're confusing "actual information" with "true information". King is simply reporting what he is hearing about Martz. That is actual info from King. Doesn't make it true, but it's something he's reporting as a fact. Not that they are talking, but that he hears that they are. His opinion about the tape is just that, his opinion. He didn't hear his opinion at the combine like he heard about Martz. Nobody is saying or has said that what King heard is true.
Bossman
Footballguy
Sheesh, how many alias' does this DMan have anyway?There are hundreds of aliases used on these boards. If they are going to start banning people for it they should be consistent about it. Selectively choosing posts you don't like and outing/banning those people is about as bush league as I've seen around here.One of the mods identified the owner of the alias, who denied it and called the mod a liar, and the owner of the alias hasn't been heard from in a few days. I suspect but can't confirm the offending party has been given a "vacation" from the board. I won't inflame the issue further by naming either party, but agree with your sentiment.This is low... even for an obvious Jets fan.are there no boundrys on this board? Can anyone create a second, or third account and post at any time?
Who is responsable for policing this nonsense?
The offending party should be disclosed and lambasted on this message board.
SeniorVBDStudent
Footballguy
I would like to believe that is not true.If it is true, I agree with your point about consistency, but I disagree that selective banning is more bush league than using an alias to being with, which to me is the pinnacle of bush league.There are hundreds of aliases used on these boards. If they are going to start banning people for it they should be consistent about it. Selectively choosing posts you don't like and outing/banning those people is about as bush league as I've seen around here.One of the mods identified the owner of the alias, who denied it and called the mod a liar, and the owner of the alias hasn't been heard from in a few days. I suspect but can't confirm the offending party has been given a "vacation" from the board. I won't inflame the issue further by naming either party, but agree with your sentiment.This is low... even for an obvious Jets fan.are there no boundrys on this board? Can anyone create a second, or third account and post at any time?
Who is responsable for policing this nonsense?
The offending party should be disclosed and lambasted on this message board.
SeniorVBDStudent
Footballguy
I don't disagree with you, but my own opinion is that Walsh either taped the game without direction from NE or got his hands on a third party tape of the walkthrough. We've argued this point before, but I still say he needs corroboration in addition to possession of some tape absent chain of custody on either the tape itself or the instructions to engage in illicit videotaping. Think of it this way, if Goodell sees the tape and kicks BB out of the league, even though BB denies that he authorized it, wouldn't it be trivial for BB to win a lawsuit against the NFL?
jonessed
Footballguy
There are quite a few aliases in the FFA and I see them pop up in here when people don't log out (or don't care). A few hundred is probably a low estimate.I would think that admins should be held to a standard somewhere above a poster. Either make it a policy to out aliases or don't do it at all.I would like to believe that is not true.If it is true, I agree with your point about consistency, but I disagree that selective banning is more bush league than using an alias to being with, which to me is the pinnacle of bush league.There are hundreds of aliases used on these boards. If they are going to start banning people for it they should be consistent about it. Selectively choosing posts you don't like and outing/banning those people is about as bush league as I've seen around here.One of the mods identified the owner of the alias, who denied it and called the mod a liar, and the owner of the alias hasn't been heard from in a few days. I suspect but can't confirm the offending party has been given a "vacation" from the board. I won't inflame the issue further by naming either party, but agree with your sentiment.This is low... even for an obvious Jets fan.are there no boundrys on this board? Can anyone create a second, or third account and post at any time?
Who is responsable for policing this nonsense?
The offending party should be disclosed and lambasted on this message board.
Last edited by a moderator:
BigSteelThrill
Footballguy
An extremely low estimate.There are quite a few aliases in the FFA and I see them pop up in here when people don't log out (or don't care). A few hundred is probably a low estimate.I would think that admins should be held to a standard somewhere above a poster. Either make it a policy to out aliases or don't do it at all.I would like to believe that is not true.If it is true, I agree with your point about consistency, but I disagree that selective banning is more bush league than using an alias to being with, which to me is the pinnacle of bush league.There are hundreds of aliases used on these boards. If they are going to start banning people for it they should be consistent about it. Selectively choosing posts you don't like and outing/banning those people is about as bush league as I've seen around here.One of the mods identified the owner of the alias, who denied it and called the mod a liar, and the owner of the alias hasn't been heard from in a few days. I suspect but can't confirm the offending party has been given a "vacation" from the board. I won't inflame the issue further by naming either party, but agree with your sentiment.This is low... even for an obvious Jets fan.are there no boundrys on this board? Can anyone create a second, or third account and post at any time?
Who is responsable for policing this nonsense?
The offending party should be disclosed and lambasted on this message board.
fatness
Footballguy
Yes, I do, since in the previous paragraph he was talking about "people in the league".
fatness
Footballguy
I don't care so much Walsh has (or doesn't have). I just want it to all come out fully, in public, for us all to see. NFL football is the best game going; nothing else is even close. In 5-10 years all the players will be different, in 20 years many of the owners will be different. But the league will remain and the game will endure. And there will be fans just like us who love it and want to rest assured that it's played on an even field for all, and that games are won by blocking and tackling and passing and running --- not by breaking rules. Having all this come out openly is the best thing for the game in the long term, not covering anything up. I have a serious problem with trying to just wish this potential cheating problem away, trying to cover it up, or anything of the sort. It needs to come out, whatever "it" is.
Agreed.
Wilbur Wood
Footballguy
Ex-Pat Linebacker Ted Johnson said that ~ 1 hour before game time he would get a printout of the oppositions audible calls for that day's game. No one ever said where they came from and were accurate most of the time
Per ESPN Radio today.
Per ESPN Radio today.
Bossman
Footballguy
audible calls. Offensive "vocal" calls.Not to hard to obtain with any game film I would think.I should think every defensive team would partake in this practice.Not sure how this has anything to do with illeagal videotaping.
Pat Patriot
Footballguy
The above is exactly what Ted Johnson has said in follow up. He says that his quotes were selectively used and that the interview from 5 years ago does not reference videotaping or intimate the information was gained through illegal videotaping.
BigSteelThrill
Footballguy
It doesnt really need to.
Pat Patriot
Footballguy
My biggest problem with the course of "Spygate" has been that people continue to invent new things and extrapolate new accusations based on 0 evidence.
People do realize that what the Patriots were "caught" doing and punished for was taping defensive signals from an illegal location in violation of NFL rules. THAT IS IT. Stealing offensive calls is very different but is used as evidence of further Patriot wrongdoing. The Dolphins openly bragged about stealing all of the Patriots line calls by purchasing a Video and using the audio. Yet people want to use this to further discredit the Patriots.
When was the Super Bowl? Over three weeks ago when the story about the Rams walkthrough broke. That is 3 weeks of digging and there is not a single shred of evidence that the Patriots taped a walkthrough. Yet people still talk about it as if it has already been proven.
People do realize that what the Patriots were "caught" doing and punished for was taping defensive signals from an illegal location in violation of NFL rules. THAT IS IT. Stealing offensive calls is very different but is used as evidence of further Patriot wrongdoing. The Dolphins openly bragged about stealing all of the Patriots line calls by purchasing a Video and using the audio. Yet people want to use this to further discredit the Patriots.
When was the Super Bowl? Over three weeks ago when the story about the Rams walkthrough broke. That is 3 weeks of digging and there is not a single shred of evidence that the Patriots taped a walkthrough. Yet people still talk about it as if it has already been proven.
