Jets caught videotaping signals in Foxboro (1 Viewer)

[mad sweeney]

Pretty much...and anyone who claims we don't know all the facts and its not yet factual to say the Jets cheated are just haters making excuses.

Mods, any chance we could ban the use of this word for a week? It would be heaven to not have to read what has become the most over-used word on this forum (though "whiny tools" is a very close second).

Did you use to whine to the teachers when you were in grade school?

Stay classy Pat's fans...

jets cheated. deal with it. pats fans have nothing to di with it.

Not according to the NFL, so deal with that.

 

[thehornet]

Pretty much...and anyone who claims we don't know all the facts and its not yet factual to say the Jets cheated are just haters making excuses.

Mods, any chance we could ban the use of this word for a week? It would be heaven to not have to read what has become the most over-used word on this forum (though "whiny tools" is a very close second).

Did you use to whine to the teachers when you were in grade school?

Stay classy Pat's fans...

jets cheated. deal with it. pats fans have nothing to di with it.

Not according to the NFL, so deal with that.

no, they cheated. just because you aren't punished doesnt mean it didnt happen.

 

[sho nuff]

Pretty much...and anyone who claims we don't know all the facts and its not yet factual to say the Jets cheated are just haters making excuses.

Mods, any chance we could ban the use of this word for a week? It would be heaven to not have to read what has become the most over-used word on this forum (though "whiny tools" is a very close second).

Did you use to whine to the teachers when you were in grade school?

Stay classy Pat's fans...

jets cheated. deal with it. pats fans have nothing to di with it.

Not according to the NFL, so deal with that.

no, they cheated. just because you aren't punished doesnt mean it didnt happen.

When the NFL says you did nothing wrong...its pretty much proof that there was no "cheating".

 

[mad sweeney]

Pretty much...and anyone who claims we don't know all the facts and its not yet factual to say the Jets cheated are just haters making excuses.

Mods, any chance we could ban the use of this word for a week? It would be heaven to not have to read what has become the most over-used word on this forum (though "whiny tools" is a very close second).

Did you use to whine to the teachers when you were in grade school?

Stay classy Pat's fans...

jets cheated. deal with it. pats fans have nothing to di with it.

Not according to the NFL, so deal with that.

no, they cheated. just because you aren't punished doesnt mean it didnt happen.

No, the NFL said that what the Jets did was legal. Sorry.

 

[thehornet]

Pretty much...and anyone who claims we don't know all the facts and its not yet factual to say the Jets cheated are just haters making excuses.

Mods, any chance we could ban the use of this word for a week? It would be heaven to not have to read what has become the most over-used word on this forum (though "whiny tools" is a very close second).

Did you use to whine to the teachers when you were in grade school?

Stay classy Pat's fans...

jets cheated. deal with it. pats fans have nothing to di with it.

Not according to the NFL, so deal with that.

no, they cheated. just because you aren't punished doesnt mean it didnt happen.

When the NFL says you did nothing wrong...its pretty much proof that there was no "cheating".

when bush said there were WMD's in Iraq, I guess that was proof positive too. jets cheated.

 

[mad sweeney]

Pretty much...and anyone who claims we don't know all the facts and its not yet factual to say the Jets cheated are just haters making excuses.

Mods, any chance we could ban the use of this word for a week? It would be heaven to not have to read what has become the most over-used word on this forum (though "whiny tools" is a very close second).

Did you use to whine to the teachers when you were in grade school?

Stay classy Pat's fans...

jets cheated. deal with it. pats fans have nothing to di with it.

Not according to the NFL, so deal with that.

no, they cheated. just because you aren't punished doesnt mean it didnt happen.

When the NFL says you did nothing wrong...its pretty much proof that there was no "cheating".

when bush said there were WMD's in Iraq, I guess that was proof positive too. jets cheated.

Goodell said the Pats' boxes of tapes turned over gave them no competitive advantage, but by your theory are we to then confirm that the Pats were indeed cheating in years past?

 

[Road Warriors]

...jets cheated. deal with it. pats fans have nothing to di with it.

Let it go. There is no smoking gun, so the NFL has nothing to investigate. This was a media creation built to stir up the nest during the week and sell some papers. I'm not making any claims that it happened, didn't happen, whatever. There is no tape to prove why the Jets employee was removed, so there is no proof of wrongdoing. Whether the Jets cameraman did something against the rules or not is irrelevant. With no proof, there's no story.

 

[thehornet]

Pretty much...and anyone who claims we don't know all the facts and its not yet factual to say the Jets cheated are just haters making excuses.

Mods, any chance we could ban the use of this word for a week? It would be heaven to not have to read what has become the most over-used word on this forum (though "whiny tools" is a very close second).

Did you use to whine to the teachers when you were in grade school?

Stay classy Pat's fans...

jets cheated. deal with it. pats fans have nothing to di with it.

Not according to the NFL, so deal with that.

no, they cheated. just because you aren't punished doesnt mean it didnt happen.

When the NFL says you did nothing wrong...its pretty much proof that there was no "cheating".

when bush said there were WMD's in Iraq, I guess that was proof positive too. jets cheated.

Goodell said the Pats' boxes of tapes turned over gave them no competitive advantage, but by your theory are we to then confirm that the Pats were indeed cheating in years past?

i dont see the connection. my point is that the Jets are fully capable of cheating even though they haven't been formally punished.My point can be summed up with this current event:

I was just watching the Mitchell Report on MLB Steroid problem. Sen. Mitchell's main point of the conference was that they found widespread use of steroids on every major league baseball team, but that they will not be handing down punishments for past illegalities. Does this mean that cheating didnt occur?

 

[sho nuff]

when bush said there were WMD's in Iraq, I guess that was proof positive too. jets cheated.

Goodell said the Pats' boxes of tapes turned over gave them no competitive advantage, but by your theory are we to then confirm that the Pats were indeed cheating in years past?

i dont see the connection. my point is that the Jets are fully capable of cheating even though they haven't been formally punished.My point can be summed up with this current event:I was just watching the Mitchell Report on MLB Steroid problem. Sen. Mitchell's main point of the conference was that they found widespread use of steroids on every major league baseball team, but that they will not be handing down punishments for past illegalities. Does this mean that cheating didnt occur?

No...it does not mean cheating did not occur.It also does not mean cheating did occur from every team.You made the claim the jets cheated...you simply have no proof of such and have got to be just fishing...or you are that stupid.Which is it?

 

[thehornet]

when bush said there were WMD's in Iraq, I guess that was proof positive too. jets cheated.

Goodell said the Pats' boxes of tapes turned over gave them no competitive advantage, but by your theory are we to then confirm that the Pats were indeed cheating in years past?

i dont see the connection. my point is that the Jets are fully capable of cheating even though they haven't been formally punished.My point can be summed up with this current event:I was just watching the Mitchell Report on MLB Steroid problem. Sen. Mitchell's main point of the conference was that they found widespread use of steroids on every major league baseball team, but that they will not be handing down punishments for past illegalities. Does this mean that cheating didnt occur?

No...it does not mean cheating did not occur.It also does not mean cheating did occur from every team.You made the claim the jets cheated...you simply have no proof of such and have got to be just fishing...or you are that stupid.Which is it?

look man, a jets employee was terminated from the field for videotaping the pats signals. dont be so naive.

 

[sho nuff]

when bush said there were WMD's in Iraq, I guess that was proof positive too. jets cheated.

Goodell said the Pats' boxes of tapes turned over gave them no competitive advantage, but by your theory are we to then confirm that the Pats were indeed cheating in years past?

i dont see the connection. my point is that the Jets are fully capable of cheating even though they haven't been formally punished.My point can be summed up with this current event:I was just watching the Mitchell Report on MLB Steroid problem. Sen. Mitchell's main point of the conference was that they found widespread use of steroids on every major league baseball team, but that they will not be handing down punishments for past illegalities. Does this mean that cheating didnt occur?

No...it does not mean cheating did not occur.It also does not mean cheating did occur from every team.You made the claim the jets cheated...you simply have no proof of such and have got to be just fishing...or you are that stupid.Which is it?

look man, a jets employee was terminated from the field for videotaping the pats signals. dont be so naive.

Yawn...your tired crap goes old.I don't know why they decided to kick the guy out...but apparently, he was doing nothing illegal...that according to the NFL

 

[mad sweeney]

when bush said there were WMD's in Iraq, I guess that was proof positive too. jets cheated.

Goodell said the Pats' boxes of tapes turned over gave them no competitive advantage, but by your theory are we to then confirm that the Pats were indeed cheating in years past?

i dont see the connection. my point is that the Jets are fully capable of cheating even though they haven't been formally punished.My point can be summed up with this current event:I was just watching the Mitchell Report on MLB Steroid problem. Sen. Mitchell's main point of the conference was that they found widespread use of steroids on every major league baseball team, but that they will not be handing down punishments for past illegalities. Does this mean that cheating didnt occur?

No...it does not mean cheating did not occur.It also does not mean cheating did occur from every team.You made the claim the jets cheated...you simply have no proof of such and have got to be just fishing...or you are that stupid.Which is it?

look man, a jets employee was terminated from the field for videotaping the pats signals. dont be so naive.

Link? He was removed from his legal taping spot after the Pats changed their mind. There is no proof whatsoever of what the guy was filming. He was in a legal position, period. Therefore NO CHEATING. There really should be a minimum IQ test for the SP.

 

[thehornet]

when bush said there were WMD's in Iraq, I guess that was proof positive too. jets cheated.

Goodell said the Pats' boxes of tapes turned over gave them no competitive advantage, but by your theory are we to then confirm that the Pats were indeed cheating in years past?

i dont see the connection. my point is that the Jets are fully capable of cheating even though they haven't been formally punished.My point can be summed up with this current event:I was just watching the Mitchell Report on MLB Steroid problem. Sen. Mitchell's main point of the conference was that they found widespread use of steroids on every major league baseball team, but that they will not be handing down punishments for past illegalities. Does this mean that cheating didnt occur?

No...it does not mean cheating did not occur.It also does not mean cheating did occur from every team.You made the claim the jets cheated...you simply have no proof of such and have got to be just fishing...or you are that stupid.Which is it?

look man, a jets employee was terminated from the field for videotaping the pats signals. dont be so naive.

Link? He was removed from his legal taping spot after the Pats changed their mind. There is no proof whatsoever of what the guy was filming. He was in a legal position, period. Therefore NO CHEATING. There really should be a minimum IQ test for the SP.

i guess you'd have to be booted from this place because all of you comments are are speculative and baseless. you were there? you know cheating didnt occur? oh ya, i forgot, since the nfl said nothing happened then case closed.i just have one little question for you. Why are you all so interested in the film that was confiscated by the league concerning the pats spygate? the commissioner said there was no competitive advantage. how is this any different than the league saying the jets did nothing illegal? you play both sides of the argument to your favor and it is so pathetically obvious. i'd be careful slinging around the iq test requirement. you may be the first one out of this place.

 

[Road Warriors]

when bush said there were WMD's in Iraq, I guess that was proof positive too.

jets cheated.

Goodell said the Pats' boxes of tapes turned over gave them no competitive advantage, but by your theory are we to then confirm that the Pats were indeed cheating in years past?

i dont see the connection. my point is that the Jets are fully capable of cheating even though they haven't been formally punished.My point can be summed up with this current event:

I was just watching the Mitchell Report on MLB Steroid problem. Sen. Mitchell's main point of the conference was that they found widespread use of steroids on every major league baseball team, but that they will not be handing down punishments for past illegalities. Does this mean that cheating didnt occur?

No...it does not mean cheating did not occur.It also does not mean cheating did occur from every team.

You made the claim the jets cheated...you simply have no proof of such and have got to be just fishing...or you are that stupid.

Which is it?

look man, a jets employee was terminated from the field for videotaping the pats signals. dont be so naive.

Link? He was removed from his legal taping spot after the Pats changed their mind. There is no proof whatsoever of what the guy was filming. He was in a legal position, period. Therefore NO CHEATING. There really should be a minimum IQ test for the SP.

Legal to tape the onfield action, right. As you note, there is no proof of what he was taping, and I'm not making any claims of what they were taping. But, if he were taping the sidelines instead of the onfield action, it would be against the league rules. So the reason the NFL has ruled it is not a violation is that there is no proof available, not because it has been proven they were within the rules.

 

[mad sweeney]

when bush said there were WMD's in Iraq, I guess that was proof positive too.

jets cheated.

Goodell said the Pats' boxes of tapes turned over gave them no competitive advantage, but by your theory are we to then confirm that the Pats were indeed cheating in years past?

i dont see the connection. my point is that the Jets are fully capable of cheating even though they haven't been formally punished.My point can be summed up with this current event:

I was just watching the Mitchell Report on MLB Steroid problem. Sen. Mitchell's main point of the conference was that they found widespread use of steroids on every major league baseball team, but that they will not be handing down punishments for past illegalities. Does this mean that cheating didnt occur?

No...it does not mean cheating did not occur.It also does not mean cheating did occur from every team.

You made the claim the jets cheated...you simply have no proof of such and have got to be just fishing...or you are that stupid.

Which is it?

look man, a jets employee was terminated from the field for videotaping the pats signals. dont be so naive.

Link? He was removed from his legal taping spot after the Pats changed their mind. There is no proof whatsoever of what the guy was filming. He was in a legal position, period. Therefore NO CHEATING. There really should be a minimum IQ test for the SP.

i guess you'd have to be booted from this place because all of you comments are are speculative and baseless. you were there? you know cheating didnt occur? oh ya, i forgot, since the nfl said nothing happened then case closed.

i just have one little question for you. Why are you all so interested in the film that was confiscated by the league concerning the pats spygate? the commissioner said there was no competitive advantage. how is this any different than the league saying the jets did nothing illegal?

you play both sides of the argument to your favor and it is so pathetically obvious. i'd be careful slinging around the iq test requirement. you may be the first one out of this place.

That's exactly what I said about the Pat's boxes of tapes, yet you couldn't seem to follow that line of reasoning unless you're going to try and use it against me. That makes you the one playing both sides of the argument. What the Pats did was illegal because they had a guy in an illegal place who they proved to be taping signals. What the Jets did was have a guy in a legal place and whose taping target is unknown. All of this IS substantiated and completely non-speculative. It is fact. Yet in spite of all this you continue to insist the Jets cheated because no one can prove that they weren't. Now THAT is unsubstantiated and speculative. That would make YOU the one making speculative and unsubstantiated comments. Not me. You are truly a piece of work with your head buried so deep in sand it's unbelievable.

 

[sho nuff]

i guess you'd have to be booted from this place because all of you comments are are speculative and baseless. you were there? you know cheating didnt occur? oh ya, i forgot, since the nfl said nothing happened then case closed.i just have one little question for you. Why are you all so interested in the film that was confiscated by the league concerning the pats spygate? the commissioner said there was no competitive advantage. how is this any different than the league saying the jets did nothing illegal? you play both sides of the argument to your favor and it is so pathetically obvious. i'd be careful slinging around the iq test requirement. you may be the first one out of this place.

Dude...you are the one claiming cheating happened...yet not one ounce of evidence suggests this.It is your comments that are speculative and baseless...not the other way around.Do you really believe that the Pats gained no competitive advantage by taping opponents signals? If so...why would BB risk getting busted and the consequences...to do something that gave him no advantage? I guess he is no genius...but a complete moron.

 

[Eric]

I think everyone here needs to take a step back and look at the big picture. There are two major extremes: one group who thinks the Pats can do no wrong, and one who thinks they're a symbol of what's wrong in sports. Both have good points, but neither is correct. The Pats are being singled out, but they are by no means the only team who's bent the rules. The Giants were accused of intercepting play calls in the 41-0 thumping of the Vikings in the 2000 NFC championship game. The Jets were caught taping signals, and then the Pats were. It just happened that the Pats did it at the wrong time and got punished for it. I would venture to say that every team in the NFL has done something similar at one time or another in the past 10 years. Sure, Brady is an arrogant SOB and Bellichick needs a personality coach, but is that any reason to lessen what they've accomplished? What's really pathetic is the number of people who think the NFL are in on all of this. You people probably believe in UFOs, ghosts, and psychics too. Oh, and 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB OMGWTFBBQ! right? Time for a reality check.

 

[mad sweeney]

I think everyone here needs to take a step back and look at the big picture. There are two major extremes: one group who thinks the Pats can do no wrong, and one who thinks they're a symbol of what's wrong in sports. Both have good points, but neither is correct. The Pats are being singled out, but they are by no means the only team who's bent the rules. The Giants were accused of intercepting play calls in the 41-0 thumping of the Vikings in the 2000 NFC championship game. The Jets were caught taping signals, and then the Pats were. It just happened that the Pats did it at the wrong time and got punished for it. I would venture to say that every team in the NFL has done something similar at one time or another in the past 10 years. Sure, Brady is an arrogant SOB and Bellichick needs a personality coach, but is that any reason to lessen what they've accomplished? What's really pathetic is the number of people who think the NFL are in on all of this. You people probably believe in UFOs, ghosts, and psychics too. Oh, and 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB OMGWTFBBQ! right? Time for a reality check.

Please tell me when this occurred. If you're talking about this current story then that's a completely false statement. The only thing that's known is that the Jets' cameraman was asked to leave from a legal taping area. That is a far cry from "caught taping signals".

 

[Road Warriors]

It seems to me that you believe the NFL ruling when it suits your argument.

I don't know why they decided to kick the guy out...but apparently, he was doing nothing illegal...that according to the NFL

And you ignore the NFL ruling when it doesn't suit your argument.

...

Do you really believe that the Pats gained no competitive advantage by taping opponents signals? If so...why would BB risk getting busted and the consequences...to do something that gave him no advantage? I guess he is no genius...but a complete moron.

So which is it? Is an NFL ruling to be believed ( ie. no Jets cheating, no Patriots advantage gained from tapes )?Or do you get to decide which ruling has merit and which doesn't?

 

[Stillers Jr.]

Why are you people accommodating TheHornet character?

ignore = he'll go away

There is nothing you could type here that will change his mind.

NOTHING.

He's resorted to referencing George Bush for crissakes.

 

[phthalatemagic]

All I can add is to scapegoat's post. Seriously, seriously

 

[thehornet]

Why are you people accommodating TheHornet character?

ignore = he'll go away

There is nothing you could type here that will change his mind.

NOTHING.

He's resorted to referencing George Bush for crissakes.

see post # 269. this is what we are trying to get across.

 

[mad sweeney]

Why are you people accommodating TheHornet character?

ignore = he'll go away

There is nothing you could type here that will change his mind.

NOTHING.

He's resorted to referencing George Bush for crissakes.

I'm just dong it cuz it's fun. He's either deliberately obtuse or completely clueless. Either way it's entertaining.

 

[sho nuff]

It seems to me that you believe the NFL ruling when it suits your argument.

I don't know why they decided to kick the guy out...but apparently, he was doing nothing illegal...that according to the NFL

And you ignore the NFL ruling when it doesn't suit your argument.

...

Do you really believe that the Pats gained no competitive advantage by taping opponents signals? If so...why would BB risk getting busted and the consequences...to do something that gave him no advantage? I guess he is no genius...but a complete moron.

So which is it? Is an NFL ruling to be believed ( ie. no Jets cheating, no Patriots advantage gained from tapes )?Or do you get to decide which ruling has merit and which doesn't?

I cannot say the Jets cheated...as the NFL has cleared them for that.And from what I recall, what the NFL said was that the tape they have created no advantage for that one Jets game.

If I am wrong...please supply a quote saying they never had an advantage because of their taping.

Again...I asked a question....does anyone really think that BB got no competitive advantage from videotaping?

 

[sho nuff]

Why are you people accommodating TheHornet character?

ignore = he'll go away

There is nothing you could type here that will change his mind.

NOTHING.

He's resorted to referencing George Bush for crissakes.

see post # 269. this is what we are trying to get across.

No...you keep claiming the Jets cheated.A far cry from that attempt against me...which I have addressed.

 

[NYCGangGreen]

Lets put this to bed and have a laugh. I think they made a pretty damn funny video of the "confirmed actions".

Maybe they will do one on the "speculatory actions" as well. But if not, we have this little nugget and it gave me a laugh. Especially the Ellis Hobbs part! = LOL!

 

[thehornet]

Why are you people accommodating TheHornet character?

ignore = he'll go away

There is nothing you could type here that will change his mind.

NOTHING.

He's resorted to referencing George Bush for crissakes.

I'm just dong it cuz it's fun. He's either deliberately obtuse or completely clueless. Either way it's entertaining.

lol, u seriously are a clown.

 

[mad sweeney]

Why are you people accommodating TheHornet character?

ignore = he'll go away

There is nothing you could type here that will change his mind.

NOTHING.

He's resorted to referencing George Bush for crissakes.

see post # 269. this is what we are trying to get across.

Oh yeah? Then by insisting that the Jets cheated even though the NFL said they didn't, as you have been, then you are also saying that it's equally evident that the Pats have been cheating for the past several years.

 

[thehornet]

Why are you people accommodating TheHornet character?

ignore = he'll go away

There is nothing you could type here that will change his mind.

NOTHING.

He's resorted to referencing George Bush for crissakes.

see post # 269. this is what we are trying to get across.

Oh yeah? Then by insisting that the Jets cheated even though the NFL said they didn't, as you have been, then you are also saying that it's equally evident that the Pats have been cheating for the past several years.

no, im not saying that. im done with you.

 

[sho nuff]

Why are you people accommodating TheHornet character?

ignore = he'll go away

There is nothing you could type here that will change his mind.

NOTHING.

He's resorted to referencing George Bush for crissakes.

see post # 269. this is what we are trying to get across.

Oh yeah? Then by insisting that the Jets cheated even though the NFL said they didn't, as you have been, then you are also saying that it's equally evident that the Pats have been cheating for the past several years.

no, im not saying that. im done with you.

If you claim the Jets are cheating because of this report (which is what you have done)...then you have to admit tha the Pats have cheated in the past...since there are reports of it being done in Detroit and Green Bay last season.You should have been done spreading BS long ago...but for some reason, you kept going.

 

[mad sweeney]

Why are you people accommodating TheHornet character?

ignore = he'll go away

There is nothing you could type here that will change his mind.

NOTHING.

He's resorted to referencing George Bush for crissakes.

see post # 269. this is what we are trying to get across.

Oh yeah? Then by insisting that the Jets cheated even though the NFL said they didn't, as you have been, then you are also saying that it's equally evident that the Pats have been cheating for the past several years.

no, im not saying that. im done with you.

More flip flopping. And then quit when you get stomped. Post 269 which is what you're trying to get across states basically that you either believe the NFL (Jets didn't cheat and the tapes gave NE no advantage) or you don't. You don't pick and choose when to believe the NFL. Well, you are insisting that the Jets cheated despite the NFL saying they didn't. So you are choosing option 1, don't believe the NFL. And the NFL said that the Pats got no advantage from their boxes of tapes so therefore by your own logic, insistence and reference to post 269, you are tacitly confirming your belief that the NFL was wrong about the Pats tapes. It's a very,very simple logical progression that you yourself have laid out.

You come around with unsubstanitated crap all the while blaming others of doing the same.

You try to use logic to prove a point when the same logic you're trying to use disproves your point.

You can't compete so you wave bye bye. It's ok though, you don't have to keep playing. Everyone knows your point is totally moot (sorry, I'm not going to use the popular but highly incorrect 'mute' here) and your head is so far in the sand you have to pick it out of the clumps of deodorant in your armpits.

 

[Stillers Jr.]

Why are you people accommodating TheHornet character?

ignore = he'll go away

There is nothing you could type here that will change his mind.

NOTHING.

He's resorted to referencing George Bush for crissakes.

I'm just dong it cuz it's fun. He's either deliberately obtuse or completely clueless. Either way it's entertaining.

Ok that makes sense...you shouldn't make fun of the insane...it's bad karma..

 

[montanagold]

"All filming at last year's Patriots game was done with pre-approval from the Patriots and in accordance with NFL rules"

Not sure what the problem is.

Sounds like a CYA statement from the Jets. 1) If it was okay.. why was the cameraman stopped and ejected?2) The league's RULES clearly state no videotaping of any kind from anywhere accessible by staff. he was in violation of the league rules... and he was ejected just like the Pats cameraman.

So Bruce is lying then?

Apparently. Why would an authorized cameraman be stopped and ejected? Seems pretty obvious the Pats allowed the Jets cameraman to shoot some B-roll of the crowd or something and he was stopped and ejected when it became obvious he wasn't shooting what he claimed to be, and instead was cheating by shooting signals.

Having not read the whole thread... how hard is it to believe that Mangini having worked with Bellichek knew what he was up against and figured he had to resort to the same techniques he had learned working with his mentor!?

 

[thehornet]

Why are you people accommodating TheHornet character?

ignore = he'll go away

There is nothing you could type here that will change his mind.

NOTHING.

He's resorted to referencing George Bush for crissakes.

see post # 269. this is what we are trying to get across.

Oh yeah? Then by insisting that the Jets cheated even though the NFL said they didn't, as you have been, then you are also saying that it's equally evident that the Pats have been cheating for the past several years.

no, im not saying that. im done with you.

More flip flopping. And then quit when you get stomped. Post 269 which is what you're trying to get across states basically that you either believe the NFL (Jets didn't cheat and the tapes gave NE no advantage) or you don't. You don't pick and choose when to believe the NFL. Well, you are insisting that the Jets cheated despite the NFL saying they didn't. So you are choosing option 1, don't believe the NFL. And the NFL said that the Pats got no advantage from their boxes of tapes so therefore by your own logic, insistence and reference to post 269, you are tacitly confirming your belief that the NFL was wrong about the Pats tapes. It's a very,very simple logical progression that you yourself have laid out.

You come around with unsubstanitated crap all the while blaming others of doing the same.

You try to use logic to prove a point when the same logic you're trying to use disproves your point.

You can't compete so you wave bye bye. It's ok though, you don't have to keep playing. Everyone knows your point is totally moot (sorry, I'm not going to use the popular but highly incorrect 'mute' here) and your head is so far in the sand you have to pick it out of the clumps of deodorant in your armpits.

you must have no life to get so heated about a message board. I think the Jets cheated. Just because the NFL hasn't punished them doesn't measn that they didn't cheat and it also won't change my opinion. go outside buddy and develope a meaningful relationship rather than trrying to be king of a football message board with your snide comments.

 

[JohnnyU]

:sniffsbaitandswimsaway:

 

[phthalatemagic]

Why are you people accommodating TheHornet character?

ignore = he'll go away

There is nothing you could type here that will change his mind.

NOTHING.

He's resorted to referencing George Bush for crissakes.

see post # 269. this is what we are trying to get across.

Oh yeah? Then by insisting that the Jets cheated even though the NFL said they didn't, as you have been, then you are also saying that it's equally evident that the Pats have been cheating for the past several years.

no, im not saying that. im done with you.

More flip flopping. And then quit when you get stomped. Post 269 which is what you're trying to get across states basically that you either believe the NFL (Jets didn't cheat and the tapes gave NE no advantage) or you don't. You don't pick and choose when to believe the NFL. Well, you are insisting that the Jets cheated despite the NFL saying they didn't. So you are choosing option 1, don't believe the NFL. And the NFL said that the Pats got no advantage from their boxes of tapes so therefore by your own logic, insistence and reference to post 269, you are tacitly confirming your belief that the NFL was wrong about the Pats tapes. It's a very,very simple logical progression that you yourself have laid out.

You come around with unsubstanitated crap all the while blaming others of doing the same.

You try to use logic to prove a point when the same logic you're trying to use disproves your point.

You can't compete so you wave bye bye. It's ok though, you don't have to keep playing. Everyone knows your point is totally moot (sorry, I'm not going to use the popular but highly incorrect 'mute' here) and your head is so far in the sand you have to pick it out of the clumps of deodorant in your armpits.

 

[mad sweeney]

Why are you people accommodating TheHornet character?

ignore = he'll go away

There is nothing you could type here that will change his mind.

NOTHING.

He's resorted to referencing George Bush for crissakes.

see post # 269. this is what we are trying to get across.

Oh yeah? Then by insisting that the Jets cheated even though the NFL said they didn't, as you have been, then you are also saying that it's equally evident that the Pats have been cheating for the past several years.

no, im not saying that. im done with you.

More flip flopping. And then quit when you get stomped. Post 269 which is what you're trying to get across states basically that you either believe the NFL (Jets didn't cheat and the tapes gave NE no advantage) or you don't. You don't pick and choose when to believe the NFL. Well, you are insisting that the Jets cheated despite the NFL saying they didn't. So you are choosing option 1, don't believe the NFL. And the NFL said that the Pats got no advantage from their boxes of tapes so therefore by your own logic, insistence and reference to post 269, you are tacitly confirming your belief that the NFL was wrong about the Pats tapes. It's a very,very simple logical progression that you yourself have laid out.

You come around with unsubstanitated crap all the while blaming others of doing the same.

You try to use logic to prove a point when the same logic you're trying to use disproves your point.

You can't compete so you wave bye bye. It's ok though, you don't have to keep playing. Everyone knows your point is totally moot (sorry, I'm not going to use the popular but highly incorrect 'mute' here) and your head is so far in the sand you have to pick it out of the clumps of deodorant in your armpits.

you must have no life to get so heated about a message board. I think the Jets cheated. Just because the NFL hasn't punished them doesn't measn that they didn't cheat and it also won't change my opinion. go outside buddy and develope a meaningful relationship rather than trrying to be king of a football message board with your snide comments.

Oh so now you THINK the Jets cheated. I thought they DID cheat. So the Jets cheated even though there's no proof, they were taping in a legal location and the NFL cleared them. But I'm the one making unsubstantiated claims. Gotcha. If I'm going to take life lessons from someone of your caliber I might as well go shoot myself in the head. And as for being king of a message board, out-debating you barely ranks above jester-level since you pretty much beat yourself every other post. Toodles.

 

[Dodge]

Whenever someone pulls the "get a life" card on a message board argument you know they already lost.

Oh btw, this thread makes my head hurt.

 

[Road Warriors]

It seems to me that you believe the NFL ruling when it suits your argument.

I don't know why they decided to kick the guy out...but apparently, he was doing nothing illegal...that according to the NFL

And you ignore the NFL ruling when it doesn't suit your argument.

...

Do you really believe that the Pats gained no competitive advantage by taping opponents signals? If so...why would BB risk getting busted and the consequences...to do something that gave him no advantage? I guess he is no genius...but a complete moron.

So which is it? Is an NFL ruling to be believed ( ie. no Jets cheating, no Patriots advantage gained from tapes )?Or do you get to decide which ruling has merit and which doesn't?

I cannot say the Jets cheated...as the NFL has cleared them for that.And from what I recall, what the NFL said was that the tape they have created no advantage for that one Jets game.

If I am wrong...please supply a quote saying they never had an advantage because of their taping.

Again...I asked a question....does anyone really think that BB got no competitive advantage from videotaping?

I don't have a quote handy. I recall, during the flurry of stories at the time, the NFL making a statement about no competitive advantage, and I know that no further penalties were handed down after receiving the totality of the Patriots tapes. I guess, to me, logic followed that the NFL found nothing in the collection that expanded the penalty already handed down.to answer your question... There is an advantage to stealing signals, absolutely. Every team, every sport tries to decipher what the other side is doing. You study game film, you try to catch a defensive call, you look for patterns.

If you are asking did any of the taping impact the game in which it was taped, I would say no. I don't believe that an advantage was gained during the current game.

Was the tape used to extract tendencies from the opponents, which will give an advantage, then yes... I believe he did get that advantage. Its one more detail to add to the prep.

 

[Road Warriors]

:sniffsbaitandswimsaway:

You're a smarter man than I.

 

[sho nuff]

It seems to me that you believe the NFL ruling when it suits your argument.

I don't know why they decided to kick the guy out...but apparently, he was doing nothing illegal...that according to the NFL

And you ignore the NFL ruling when it doesn't suit your argument.

...

Do you really believe that the Pats gained no competitive advantage by taping opponents signals? If so...why would BB risk getting busted and the consequences...to do something that gave him no advantage? I guess he is no genius...but a complete moron.

So which is it? Is an NFL ruling to be believed ( ie. no Jets cheating, no Patriots advantage gained from tapes )?Or do you get to decide which ruling has merit and which doesn't?

I cannot say the Jets cheated...as the NFL has cleared them for that.And from what I recall, what the NFL said was that the tape they have created no advantage for that one Jets game.

If I am wrong...please supply a quote saying they never had an advantage because of their taping.

Again...I asked a question....does anyone really think that BB got no competitive advantage from videotaping?

I don't have a quote handy. I recall, during the flurry of stories at the time, the NFL making a statement about no competitive advantage, and I know that no further penalties were handed down after receiving the totality of the Patriots tapes. I guess, to me, logic followed that the NFL found nothing in the collection that expanded the penalty already handed down.to answer your question... There is an advantage to stealing signals, absolutely. Every team, every sport tries to decipher what the other side is doing. You study game film, you try to catch a defensive call, you look for patterns.

If you are asking did any of the taping impact the game in which it was taped, I would say no. I don't believe that an advantage was gained during the current game.

Was the tape used to extract tendencies from the opponents, which will give an advantage, then yes... I believe he did get that advantage. Its one more detail to add to the prep.

This I agree with.The only thing I recall is them saying they got nothing for that game (as far as an advantage). And I agree there.

But overall, yes, I think there has to be some advantage gained from it...otherwise a guy who is supposedly as smart as people think BB is, would not have risked what he did to tape the signals.

 

[Shrek]

when bush said there were WMD's in Iraq, I guess that was proof positive too. jets cheated.

Goodell said the Pats' boxes of tapes turned over gave them no competitive advantage, but by your theory are we to then confirm that the Pats were indeed cheating in years past?

i dont see the connection. my point is that the Jets are fully capable of cheating even though they haven't been formally punished.My point can be summed up with this current event:I was just watching the Mitchell Report on MLB Steroid problem. Sen. Mitchell's main point of the conference was that they found widespread use of steroids on every major league baseball team, but that they will not be handing down punishments for past illegalities. Does this mean that cheating didnt occur?

No...it does not mean cheating did not occur.It also does not mean cheating did occur from every team.You made the claim the jets cheated...you simply have no proof of such and have got to be just fishing...or you are that stupid.Which is it?

look man, a jets employee was terminated from the field for videotaping the pats signals. dont be so naive.

What in the hell does "terminated from the field" mean? Making up terms as we go along now? And it says nothing about signals either. But thank you for continuing to be the voice of the ignorant perspective in this thread.

 

[Shrek]

I think everyone here needs to take a step back and look at the big picture. There are two major extremes: one group who thinks the Pats can do no wrong, and one who thinks they're a symbol of what's wrong in sports. Both have good points, but neither is correct. The Pats are being singled out, but they are by no means the only team who's bent the rules. The Giants were accused of intercepting play calls in the 41-0 thumping of the Vikings in the 2000 NFC championship game. The Jets were caught taping signals, and then the Pats were. It just happened that the Pats did it at the wrong time and got punished for it. I would venture to say that every team in the NFL has done something similar at one time or another in the past 10 years. Sure, Brady is an arrogant SOB and Bellichick needs a personality coach, but is that any reason to lessen what they've accomplished? What's really pathetic is the number of people who think the NFL are in on all of this. You people probably believe in UFOs, ghosts, and psychics too. Oh, and 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB OMGWTFBBQ! right? Time for a reality check.

Again, provide a link or stop saying it. Applying the Rove technique of repeating something 500 times until everyone believes it is a fact isn't going to work here.Seriously, this thread is an abortion. The NFL has ruled that nothing illegal happened. Joe has closed down threads for a lot less lying and speculation than this. I can't believe that no mod has read it yet. It has boiled down to baseless accusations, speculation, and straight up lying. This thread needs to be locked.

 

[montanagold]

Ok.. I read the whole thing...

I mean... who's to say other teams have not done this? In the least, the league felt NE was the worst and had to crack down on them. Kind of like the Roy Williams rule? Lot's of people horse collar.. it's just he takes it to the extreme.

Pats fans give it rest... it's your continued crying that adds the *.

I'm out... I won't be revisiting this crap...

 

[TxBuckeye]

Pretty much...and anyone who claims we don't know all the facts and its not yet factual to say the Jets cheated are just haters making excuses.

Mods, any chance we could ban the use of this word for a week? It would be heaven to not have to read what has become the most over-used word on this forum (though "whiny tools" is a very close second).

Did you use to whine to the teachers when you were in grade school?

Stay classy Pat's fans...

jets cheated. deal with it. pats fans have nothing to di with it.

I couldn't care less if the Jets cheated. You know full well that isn't what I was referring to. Well, at least I would think you do. But I'll bold it for you just in case. If you bother to re-read what I wrote for comprehension, rather than just making the usual knee-jerk reaction, you'll see how idiotic your reply was.

 

[Shrek]

It seems to me that you believe the NFL ruling when it suits your argument.

I don't know why they decided to kick the guy out...but apparently, he was doing nothing illegal...that according to the NFL

And you ignore the NFL ruling when it doesn't suit your argument.

...

Do you really believe that the Pats gained no competitive advantage by taping opponents signals? If so...why would BB risk getting busted and the consequences...to do something that gave him no advantage? I guess he is no genius...but a complete moron.

So which is it? Is an NFL ruling to be believed ( ie. no Jets cheating, no Patriots advantage gained from tapes )?Or do you get to decide which ruling has merit and which doesn't?

I'll give you credit for having somewhat of an argument here, but it's disingenuous IMO.The NFL made rulings on both cases. However, they weren't asked to make a ruling on whether the Pats gained an advantage from the material that was confiscated. They were just required to judge whether any rules were actually broken, then mete out punishment. It's pretty clear- you either broke the rules or you didn't. The Pats were found to have broken the rules, the Jets were not. It's that easy. The only thing left to do then is hand out punishment for those who DID break the rules.

However, for some strange reason, the Commissioner's office felt the need to tack on the additional statement that "there was no advantage gained from this material". Yet they won't let anyone actually look at the tapes. They supposedly destroyed all of it. Admit it, if you are any team besides the Patriots, it would seem highly suspicious that the NFL would say no advantage was gained, but you were denied access to look at the tapes yourself.

Why would the NFL feel the need to make that additional statement? And it's not a ruling- it's an opinion. Did it factor into the punishment? Probably. But you can't deny people the right to speculate about it when they were denied access to the tapes themselves. And we have debated to death the reasons why it would be in the NFL's best interest to make that situation go away quickly. And they did make it go away quickly, let us not forget. In five days, no less.

So if you want to make an argument about it, it's unfair to compare apples to oranges.

 

[Bill Lust]

This thread is painful. I can't believe some won't accept that the Jets did nothing wrong under the NFL rules, just as I can't believe that some apparently think that the Pats are the only team to tape an opposing team's signals.

 

[NYCGangGreen]

This thread is painful. I can't believe some won't accept that the Jets did nothing wrong under the NFL rules, just as I can't believe that some apparently think that the Pats are the only team to tape an opposing team's signals.

Most will acknowledge that the Pats are not the only team who have done/ still do it. But as it stands, they are the only team to be penalized by the league.Mike Vick may not be the only player who is involved in dog-fighting, but he is the only one found guilty by a federal court.Why is that so hard to understand...you can accuse others of doing it, but without proof and convictions handed out....they are "innocent until PROVEN guilty", not accused of being guilty.We have a game to enjoy tonight, and then even more on the weekend. Can't we just get back to that and put this to bed already.?And those who say that by posting I keep the thread going, I will post in support of my team when there are unsupported claims against them, as I would hope any loyal fan would do. The difference is that the Pats* fans who were denying any guilt during the SpyGate debacle, still wont own up to the fact they are the only team found guilty as of today for "illegal videotaping" and still try to point fingers at others. Listen, the Jets are 3-10. So obviously we are not a good team this season, but trying to rake them over the coals for taping the Pats* w/o proof is pointless, just make fun of our record. At least you can prove that!

 

[Bill Lust]

Most will acknowledge that the Pats are not the only team who have done/ still do it. But as it stands, they are the only team to be penalized by the league.

True, but Jimmy Johnson has stated that when a coach he did it, too. Does that mean that the Cowboys and/or Dolphins deserve asterisks as well?

 

[NYCGangGreen]

Most will acknowledge that the Pats are not the only team who have done/ still do it. But as it stands, they are the only team to be penalized by the league.

True, but Jimmy Johnson has stated that when a coach he did it, too. Does that mean that the Cowboys and/or Dolphins deserve asterisks as well?

No, they were never caught in violation of the rules by the league, and there has never been any penalty handed to them.If I say I have driven after having a few drinks before, can they retroactively give me a DWI???