PDA

View Full Version : Common misconceptions about the NFL


lamberts-lost-tooth
05-11-2009, 01:24 PM
Those of us who have been fans for more years than Obama has been in office may have noticed some of the basic misconceptions that the "Talking Heads" keep spewing. There are times that I want to throw a brick through the television as I hear unsubstantiated reports and opinions that are constantely regurgitated for public consumption.

So to set the record straight, and to refute certain claims with actual...*gasp*...FACTS, lets look at some of the most common stories that piss me off.

1) The Patriots are a great drafting team.

WRONG...The worst drafting team in the past three years, holding on to only a little more than half of its drafted players is the New England Patriots. the Patriots are the masters of picking up veterans via trades to fill holes in their lineup, but their draft classes have been INCREDIBLY suspect.

Now some will point out that the Steelers drafts, though better than the Patriots, have had little success. But unlike the Pats, we dont need to overpay other peoples draft picks since we show an uncanny ability to bring in rookies as UDFA's that have the talent to make an impact.

2) Goodell is strict disiplinarian.

WRONG...Goodell has proven himself to be "hard-nosed" only in regards to players with extreme legal issues. He is a puppet to the owners. Kraft has his hand so far up Goodell's butt that if Kraft tried to scratch his nose, He and Goodell would bump heads.
The commisioners failure to properly deal with the biggest threat to the integrity of the league (spygate) and his subsequent failure to be forthcoming in the evidence set forth in that case, shows that Goodell is FAR from a disciplinarian, but rather an empty suit without the backbone to stand up against the power movers in the NFL.
Also take into consideration how Goodell bows to the whims of certain teams in regards to rule changes that does little more than pussify the game, and you see a commish without "real" balls. A commish more worried about staying popular with the owners than in looking out for the NFL.

3) Carson Palmer is one of the best QB's in the game.

WRONG....What the hell is this based on. This is another case of the "experts" throwing around terms like "he has all the tools"...and ..."he has poise in the pocket". WTF is that?? I have all the tools nescessary to fix your car, but you DO NOT want me under your hood. The last time I checked, Carson has had one winning season with no playoff wins, and even with his overated WR's he has a life time passer rating less than Ben Roethlisberger's. 'nuff said.

4) Playing the Superbowl in London would be "good for the game"

WRONG...and...BS!!! You see, other than some enlightened & sophisticated overseas fans, the vast majority of the world have their own version of "football". We have tried to get American Football to catch on in Europe and it was a money-losing failure. Does Goodell REALLY think that by denying this counties die-hard's the opportunity to see what very well may be some fans ONLY chance to see their team in the Superbowl, it is a good thing for the game? Think about it...Lets say that in 2012 (or whenever Goodell is throwing around the idea), the Detroit Lions FINALLY make it to the Super Bowl and Grandpa Smith ,who has been a fan since 1930 would have been able to see his team at the big game. But NOOOOO...Goodell has decided that he would give Europe one more chance to "catch the fever".......Idiot.

5) Ray Lewis was innocent

WRONG.......Thats all. (If you think otherwise you may be related to Tim Lumber.)

revefsreleets
05-11-2009, 01:47 PM
6) Bill Belichick is a HOF coach.

WRONG! Before we can properly evaluate Billy boy, we need to ask two things: What was his record at Cleveland? What will be his record now that NE is no able to cheat?

I'm willing to bet that from here on out, his record at NE is much closer to .500 than it is pre-*. I'm not saying he'll go 36-44 like he did at Cleveland. That was, after all, Cleveland, and he had very limited tools to work with. He's in NE now, and it's a better run franchise, and also has the favor of the commisioner as well as the fact that the players still want to go there still because of the perception that they are winners. They also pay handsome contracts to close-to-has-beens.

RodWoodsonwasprettycool
05-11-2009, 02:38 PM
6) Bill Belichick is a HOF coach.

WRONG! Before we can properly evaluate Billy boy, we need to ask two things: What was his record at Cleveland? What will be his record now that NE is no able to cheat?

I'm willing to bet that from here on out, his record at NE is much closer to .500 than it is pre-*. I'm not saying he'll go 36-44 like he did at Cleveland. That was, after all, Cleveland, and he had very limited tools to work with. He's in NE now, and it's a better run franchise, and also has the favor of the commisioner as well as the fact that the players still want to go there still because of the perception that they are winners. They also pay handsome contracts to close-to-has-beens.

If we're going to go that route:

I don't know, what would Nolls record have been if his players wern't roided up?

:flap:

Belichick got hosed in C-town, Big time.

Around 1994, He looked like he was this close to making the Browns have a New England like defense. In fact, stat-wse the Browns had the best Defense or near the top of it.

1995, many, many people thought the Browns were going to be in a dog fight with Pittsburgh for the AFC Central title. They started the season 3-1, but then the annoucement of the move (F Moddell) sort of screwed up the team, and that was the end of it.

I don't think the cheating mattered all that much, they went 10-6 and just barely missed the playoffs after they got caught, with a guy who hadn't even played a game in the NFL before.

Belichick is a good coach, I have NFL films of the '86, '90 seasons which pretty much credit him the Giants defense being as good as they were thanks to him devising different plays up.

Really, If I could have any coach not named Paul Brown, Vince Lombardi, Tom Landry, Bill Walsh, Woody Hayes, I would take Belichick in a heartbeat.

Time to get over the AFC Title game in '01, '04 and take off the Black and Gold glasses and take a look at what Mumbles has done. He's a good coach, a HOFer, and someone I'm sort of upset is not coaching the Browns at this very moment (Again, F-Moddel).

Also, I still hold by the theory that every team in the league cheats in some way. EVERY TEAM. Even my Browns (though they've been doing a crappy job at it from the looks of it.)

lamberts-lost-tooth
05-11-2009, 03:17 PM
If we're going to go that route:

I don't know, what would Nolls record have been if his players wern't roided up?



Roids were not illegal at the time....nice try.

1995, many, many people thought the Browns were going to be in a dog fight with Pittsburgh for the AFC Central title.

Yea, and they thought the same thing last year...how did that work out for ya?

I don't think the cheating mattered all that much,

IF it didnt matter and IF it didnt help....and Belichick was aware what the penalty could have been, why risk a fine and public scorn? It EITHER mattered and Belichick is a CHEATER or it didnt matter and Belichick is an IDIOT.

I'll let you decide.

Really, If I could have any coach not named Paul Brown, Vince Lombardi, Tom Landry, Bill Walsh, Woody Hayes, I would take Belichick in a heartbeat.

As a Browns fan...that list has GOTTA be a lot longer than that.

Time to get over the AFC Title game in '01, '04 and take off the Black and Gold glasses and take a look at what Mumbles has done.

Time to set the dark glasses and white cane to the side and see Belichik for waht he really is.

I'm sort of upset is not coaching the Browns at this very moment .

You should be upset that I am not coaching the Browns at this very moment.

Also, I still hold by the theory that every team in the league cheats in some way. EVERY TEAM. Even my Browns (though they've been doing a crappy job at it from the looks of it

Weak, unsubstantiated theory based on the "everyone else is doing it" argument. Try that on a cop if you ever get pulled over for drunk driving.

rbryan
05-11-2009, 03:25 PM
Everyone knows Pittsburgh is the center of the universe and obviously the only place you could get roids in the 70's.

Go figure.......No one else could get them and had no idea what they were.

lamberts-lost-tooth
05-11-2009, 03:44 PM
Everyone knows Pittsburgh is the center of the universe and obviously the only place you could get roids in the 70's.

Go figure.......No one else could get them and had no idea what they were.


And we can all ignore the fact that Browns players...Ryan Tucker and Tim Couch were both pinched in this century for steroid use.:doh:

fansince'76
05-11-2009, 03:47 PM
Everyone knows Pittsburgh is the center of the universe and obviously the only place you could get roids in the 70's.

Yep, just ask a certain Bills linebacker that played in the '80s - he knows all about it. :coffee:

stlrtruck
05-11-2009, 04:02 PM
And we can all ignore the fact that Browns players...Ryan Tucker and Tim Couch were both pinched in this century for steroid use.:doh:

But that didn't help them at all :doh: so it doesn't really count :rofl:

RodWoodsonwasprettycool
05-11-2009, 04:10 PM
Roids were not illegal at the time....nice try..

I love how you defend that.

Sure we let players harm their bodies and their well being, and we gave ourselves an unfair advantage over other teams. But it wasn't "illegal" or anything. Cannot believe you'd actually stand up for that and then scream at a guy filming a football practice.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Courson

Also, and yes, I know of the Lyle Alzado example, and he was like that in Denver and Oakland, prior to coming to the Kardiac Kids. Coach Sam, Moddell and Paul Brown were all the first to come out against it.

Steroids destroyed a lot of players health in that era, some mumbling guy in a hoodie filming didn't do anything but give him a slight advantage. And again, guaranteed that every team in the league including the Steelers, and the Browns had done a similar thing.

Funny part is, neither was Belichick's taping until after 2006 when the league made it very specific that such a thing wasn't allowed in a memo. The accused taping, much of it was done before the aforementioned memo.

fansince'76
05-11-2009, 05:10 PM
I love how you defend that.

Sure we let players harm their bodies and their well being, and we gave ourselves an unfair advantage over other teams. But it wasn't "illegal" or anything. Cannot believe you'd actually stand up for that and then scream at a guy filming a football practice.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Courson

Also, and yes, I know of the Lyle Alzado example, and he was like that in Denver and Oakland, prior to coming to the Kardiac Kids. Coach Sam, Moddell and Paul Brown were all the first to come out against it.

Steroids destroyed a lot of players health in that era, some mumbling guy in a hoodie filming didn't do anything but give him a slight advantage. And again, guaranteed that every team in the league including the Steelers, and the Browns had done a similar thing.

Funny part is, neither was Belichick's taping until after 2006 when the league made it very specific that such a thing wasn't allowed in a memo. The accused taping, much of it was done before the aforementioned memo.

And I love how you try to paint the Steelers as the only team with players that did roids and basically imply everyone on the team did them (yeah, right - Lambert's and Ham's 30-inch waists really gave their juicing away :rolleyes:) and the '70s Steelers derived an "unfair advantage" from them when a good chunk of the rest of the league's players at the time did them (and, like it or not, they were legal at the time - video spying was NEVER legal), yet turn around and defend Belicheat by saying "everyone does it." If that's the case, PROVE IT. The memo that went out in 2006 was only a reiteration of an already-existing rule:

In September 2006, the NFL sent out a memo to all teams reinforcing the NFL rule prohibiting video spying.

http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/24608413/

A memo does not set league policy, nor does it confer the passage of a new rule. It was already against the rules, it was always against the rules, and it just so happens he was arrogant enough to keep right on doing it even after the memo went out. If I didn't know better, I'd say you were a typical slobbering Pats homer. :coffee:

I_Bleed_Black_And_Gold
05-11-2009, 06:09 PM
lol...owned!

And we are all kidding ourselves if we don't think that many NFL and other top level athletes are not on some sort of "performance enhancers"

KeiselPower99
05-11-2009, 06:21 PM
Cheatin Bill might be a "great" football coach but he cheated and everything he has won is in question. End of story.

lamberts-lost-tooth
05-12-2009, 06:24 AM
And I love how you try to paint the Steelers as the only team with players that did roids and basically imply everyone on the team did them (yeah, right - Lambert's and Ham's 30-inch waists really gave their juicing away :rolleyes:) and the '70s Steelers derived an "unfair advantage" from them when a good chunk of the rest of the league's players at the time did them (and, like it or not, they were legal at the time - video spying was NEVER legal), yet turn around and defend Belicheat by saying "everyone does it." If that's the case, PROVE IT. The memo that went out in 2006 was only a reiteration of an already-existing rule:



http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/24608413/

A memo does not set league policy, nor does it confer the passage of a new rule. It was already against the rules, it was always against the rules, and it just so happens he was arrogant enough to keep right on doing it even after the memo went out. If I didn't know better, I'd say you were a typical slobbering Pats homer. :coffee:

I was about to reply...but this post says it all!!!!:toofunny:

revefsreleets
05-12-2009, 09:39 AM
The bottom line is this: There have been allegations floating around that the Pats have been cheating since 2000. They were playoff team in 94 and 96-97, so they weren't like the Lions or anything, but they were never champions.

In comes a coach who was 36-44 in his last tenure as an NFL HC. All of a sudden they start winning Super Bowls. Nobody can figure out how this mediocre coach can take mediocre talent and make it win big. The word "Teamwork" gets bandied about a lot. "System" is another word. Free agents leave and don't do shit on other teams. Free agents of questionable backgrounds come in and do very, very well. Guys who couldn't cut it on other, better teams (think: Mike Vrabel) go to the Pats and become superstars.

What could be different? What could have changed?

Fast forward several years. It comes out that the Pats have been cheating, stealing playbooks, stealing radio signals, vdeotaping and who knows what else? The timing JUST SO HAPPENS to coincide with a bunch of super bowl runs.

Coincidence? I think not...this is Ocaam's Razor: The simplest solution is usually the correct one.

St33lersguy
05-12-2009, 06:25 PM
lamberts-lost-tooth you stole the words right out of my mouth. We all know that is true. Although you did forget Tony Homo and one shot wonder Eli Manning being called elite by no-nothing experts and Ben Roethlisberger is not an elite player.
P.S. if a cheatriot had committed a horrible crime, Goodell would have condoned it like it was nothing

silver & black
05-12-2009, 06:45 PM
The bottom line is this: There have been allegations floating around that the Pats have been cheating since 2000. They were playoff team in 94 and 96-97, so they weren't like the Lions or anything, but they were never champions.

In comes a coach who was 36-44 in his last tenure as an NFL HC. All of a sudden they start winning Super Bowls. Nobody can figure out how this mediocre coach can take mediocre talent and make it win big. The word "Teamwork" gets bandied about a lot. "System" is another word. Free agents leave and don't do shit on other teams. Free agents of questionable backgrounds come in and do very, very well. Guys who couldn't cut it on other, better teams (think: Mike Vrabel) go to the Pats and become superstars.

What could be different? What could have changed?

Fast forward several years. It comes out that the Pats have been cheating, stealing playbooks, stealing radio signals, vdeotaping and who knows what else? The timing JUST SO HAPPENS to coincide with a bunch of super bowl runs.

Coincidence? I think not...this is Ocaam's Razor: The simplest solution is usually the correct one.

That pretty much sums it up. I know of a few players that wore Silver and Black that would concur with the cheating since 2000 theory.

Edman
05-12-2009, 07:26 PM
Other Misconceptions...

1) Tony Romo is an Elite QB
2) Ben Roethlisberger is not elite and is carried by a running game and defense.
3) Eli Manning is an elite QB, not only that, he occasionally slobknobbed as the best to come out of the 2004 draft. A Herculean effort by the Giants defense won Super Bowl XLII, not Eli.
4) Carson Palmer is an elite QB. One good season out of six an elite QB does not make.

revefsreleets
05-12-2009, 07:39 PM
That pretty much sums it up. I know of a few players that wore Silver and Black that would concur with the cheating since 2000 theory.

Theory?

silver & black
05-12-2009, 08:05 PM
Theory?

Hmmm... I got nuthin.

Godfather
05-12-2009, 11:44 PM
Theory?

Civ II has the Theory of Gravity as one of the scientific advances.

revefsreleets
05-13-2009, 09:36 AM
Newton, however, did not destroy the evidence of the apple falling and hitting him on the head...

Dino 6 Rings
05-13-2009, 11:01 AM
Theory?

Tuck Rule?

stlrtruck
05-13-2009, 01:46 PM
Common misconception in the NFL:

1) That there are other men outside the city of Pittsburgh that play this game like it's suppose to be played

Dino 6 Rings
05-13-2009, 05:49 PM
Common misconception

1) Anyone other than Chuck Noll is considered the greatest coach in the NFL Since 1970.

Cheppy
05-13-2009, 11:52 PM
Peyton Manning is a better quarterback than Big Ben.

Cheppy
05-13-2009, 11:56 PM
Common misconception in the NFL:

1) That there are other men outside the city of Pittsburgh that play this game like it's suppose to be played

Now that's just silly.

stlrtruck
05-14-2009, 08:49 AM
Now that's just silly.

I know completely unheard of :laughing:

HughC
05-23-2009, 03:25 PM
6) Bill Belichick is a HOF coach.

WRONG! Before we can properly evaluate Billy boy, we need to ask two things: What was his record at Cleveland? What will be his record now that NE is no able to cheat?

I'm willing to bet that from here on out, his record at NE is much closer to .500 than it is pre-*. I'm not saying he'll go 36-44 like he did at Cleveland. That was, after all, Cleveland, and he had very limited tools to work with. He's in NE now, and it's a better run franchise, and also has the favor of the commisioner as well as the fact that the players still want to go there still because of the perception that they are winners. They also pay handsome contracts to close-to-has-beens.

We'll have to wait and see, but so far his record is 29-6 since the videotaping was shut down. Would be nice to see them stumble back to mediocrity but I'm not going to hold my breath expecting that to happen anytime soon.

I do agree they are very over rated in regards to their drafting. The area in player personnel that they do a good job with is evaluating and picking up medium to low priced free agents to fit their scheme. Evaluation of college players and the draft is definitely not their strong suit.

revefsreleets
05-25-2009, 04:25 PM
That's just the videotaping. What about signal stealing? Stealing playbooks? Intercepting audio frequencies? We don't really know how deep this rabbit hole ever went, or if we've actually ever plugged it up.

I do think they'll be pretty much on a level playing field from here on out though...I've got them around 10-6/11-5 this year and losing in the 2nd round.

Dino 6 Rings
05-26-2009, 09:48 AM
Common Misconception:

"Steelers Fans Travel Well"

Actually, Steelers fans are ALREADY IN YOUR TOWN.

Kittyfish
05-27-2009, 10:54 AM
Great thread, LLT. I am learning so much.

We'll have to wait and see, but so far his record is 29-6 since the videotaping was shut down. Would be nice to see them stumble back to mediocrity but I'm not going to hold my breath expecting that to happen anytime soon.
Now, I am the first to admit I don't know nuthin' about nuthin', but spygate was exposed just a couple of years ago, wasn't it? And wasn't it the very same year the cheating was exposed that the Patsies had their legendary 18-1 season? I could be wrong about that, but in any case, did all the other teams change their plays so significantly in that same year that what the Pats learned with their previous cheating would have been of no help? Sorry for the confusing run-on sentence but this honestly confuses me and I would appreciate any enlightenment y'all could share.

revefsreleets, loved your post from page 2.

lamberts-lost-tooth
05-27-2009, 11:23 AM
Great thread, LLT. I am learning so much.

Now, I am the first to admit I don't know nuthin' about nuthin', but spygate was exposed just a couple of years ago, wasn't it? And wasn't it the very same year the cheating was exposed that the Patsies had their legendary 18-1 season? I could be wrong about that, but in any case, did all the other teams change their plays so significantly in that same year that what the Pats learned with their previous cheating would have been of no help? Sorry for the confusing run-on sentence but this honestly confuses me and I would appreciate any enlightenment y'all could share.

revefsreleets, loved your post from page 2.

As far as I am concerned...In their first year without spygate...they failed to make the playoffs...'nuff said.:thumbsup:

Kittyfish
05-27-2009, 11:40 AM
Well, it could be argued that they didn't have Brady either and that's why they didn't make the playoffs. Believe me, it pains me to even type that - I am even more sick of deification of Brady than I am of the deification of Favre, and that's saying something. But was I right about the timing of it all? Couldn't that help explain their "perfect" season - their previous cheating was still helping them? That's what I was wanting clarified.

Dino 6 Rings
05-27-2009, 01:02 PM
That's just the videotaping. What about signal stealing? Stealing playbooks? Intercepting audio frequencies? We don't really know how deep this rabbit hole ever went, or if we've actually ever plugged it up.

I do think they'll be pretty much on a level playing field from here on out though...I've got them around 10-6/11-5 this year and losing in the 2nd round.

Interesting article about the Radio "Cops" at Super Bowl XLII. Funny how they locked down every single radio signal in that Super Bowl and the Results of that Super Bowl. Just and interesting tidbit to add to the pot.

http://www.networkworld.com/news/2008/012508-nfl-radio-cops.html?page=1

The_WARDen
05-27-2009, 02:40 PM
We'll have to wait and see, but so far his record is 29-6 since the videotaping was shut down. Would be nice to see them stumble back to mediocrity but I'm not going to hold my breath expecting that to happen anytime soon.

I do agree they are very over rated in regards to their drafting. The area in player personnel that they do a good job with is evaluating and picking up medium to low priced free agents to fit their scheme. Evaluation of college players and the draft is definitely not their strong suit.

The videotaping was shut down? Where is the proof for that statement?

:noidea:

HughC
05-27-2009, 11:49 PM
Great thread, LLT. I am learning so much.

Now, I am the first to admit I don't know nuthin' about nuthin', but spygate was exposed just a couple of years ago, wasn't it? And wasn't it the very same year the cheating was exposed that the Patsies had their legendary 18-1 season? I could be wrong about that, but in any case, did all the other teams change their plays so significantly in that same year that what the Pats learned with their previous cheating would have been of no help? Sorry for the confusing run-on sentence but this honestly confuses me and I would appreciate any enlightenment y'all could share.
If some team didn't change their signals after all that publicity, they not only deserve to lose but they also deserve to have Al Davis installed as their new owner and Matt Millen as their new GM. Nobody has or did need to change their plays; they only needed to change their signals in '07. Hand signals were no longer used in '08.

As far as I am concerned...In their first year without spygate...they failed to make the playoffs...'nuff said.:thumbsup:
I can't believe I'm on this side of the argument ... :banging: crap, I swear I'll never do this again ... they never got to see the tapes from the first game of the '07 season; but they did make the playoffs that year. Even if you want to get in to semantics and argue about the '08 season, they didn't exactly fall off in to the abyss the way the Bungles and Stains did after one winning season.

Well, it could be argued that they didn't have Brady either and that's why they didn't make the playoffs. Believe me, it pains me to even type that - I am even more sick of deification of Brady than I am of the deification of Favre, and that's saying something. But was I right about the timing of it all? Couldn't that help explain their "perfect" season - their previous cheating was still helping them? That's what I was wanting clarified.
First of all, I agree, pray, and hope that the next several months does not turn in to what last season was in regards to what info the media gave us: i.e., substitute 'Brady' for 'Favre' in the way last offseason became a 24/7 Favre ball-washing, beating-a-dead-horse, milking a story till its dead and buried torture.

But again, I don't see how somebody can on one hand say their cheating helped them for 16 or 18 games, and then also say they lost the SB because they weren't able to cheat. It's either one or the other; we can't have it both ways.

Interesting article about the Radio "Cops" at Super Bowl XLII. Funny how they locked down every single radio signal in that Super Bowl and the Results of that Super Bowl. Just and interesting tidbit to add to the pot.

http://www.networkworld.com/news/2008/012508-nfl-radio-cops.html?page=1
Good find Dino. You'll also notice in that article that the NFL radio cops have been on duty since 1996. I would love to nail these bastards but to the best of my knowledge the NFL has been in charge of radio frequencies, encryption, and security for a long time - not the home team and their stadium, which has been the popluar myth.

The videotaping was shut down? Where is the proof for that statement?

:noidea:
I'm thinking with the NFL, every national news and sports agency, every fan, and every employee watching - and nothing turned up - there's a pretty good chance the illegal videotaping was indeed shutdown. Some Pats fans have already pointed out that videotaping is not illegal - it was only the location - so we may want to avoid going down this path.

Besides, if we want to make a question like that, why not ask Pats fans to prove they weren't thinking about Tom Brady when they made love to their wife last night? Isn't that a better question that is impossible to answer?


Here's an idea: rather than making excuses for when they beat us in the AFCCG (because Cowher didn't pay enough attention to special teams), how about focusing on back-to-back Super Bowls, and a third Super Bowl this decade, which will put to rest all the media's attention with the Patriots? You know, beat them on the field - again - rather than complain about past losses that aren't going to be changed?

The_WARDen
05-28-2009, 09:02 AM
I'm just saying...it was illegal before they were exposed. There was media around then also (you don't get more media coverage than a Super Bowl) and it didn't stop them then. What makes anyone think they've stopped?

:popcorn:

revefsreleets
05-28-2009, 10:05 AM
I concur. Belichick was an average coach before he started cheating, and something tells me he wants to protect his 'legacy". He's gonna dance with the one who brung him, and if he got caught cheating one way, he'll just find a way to stay one step ahead of "da man" (who conveniently happens to be of the Patiots family), and cheat another.

I also take umbrage with the suggestion that this is somehow sour grapes at past defeats the Steelers suffered at the Pats hands. Not true. I feel sorry for ALL teams who have lost due to the Patriots cheating. I don't care for the Raiders AT ALL but I don't think the tuck rule was fair, and I feel for them.

This isn't NASCAR where literally everyone does it, this is the NFL, and cheating is wrong. Period. If the Pats did it once, I bet they did it a hundred times and I bet they are still doing it.

fansince'76
05-28-2009, 10:46 AM
The videotaping was shut down? Where is the proof for that statement?

:noidea:

Now, now, we have Goodell's solemn assurances that the Patriots turned over all the illegal material (after he inexplicably destroyed it) and that they retained no copies of said material and are now abiding by all league rules, now that all the "misinterpretations" of said rules (which apparently no other team seemed to have a problem interpreting) on the part of the Patriots have been cleared up. How did Goodell know that? Because the Patriots told him so, that's how! They can be trusted - everyone knows their word is as good as gold, after all. No independent investigation or verification required! Who are we to cast aspersions on the integrity of the Golden Franchise, their SOOPER GEE-NEE-US coach and, by extension, their most dreamy of dreamy QBs, after all? :rolleyes: :yawn:

The_WARDen
05-28-2009, 11:54 AM
Now, now, we have Goodell's solemn assurances that the Patriots turned over all the illegal material (after he inexplicably destroyed it) and that they retained no copies of said material and are now abiding by all league rules, now that all the "misinterpretations" of said rules (which apparently no other team seemed to have a problem interpreting) on the part of the Patriots have been cleared up. How did Goodell know that? Because the Patriots told him so, that's how! They can be trusted - everyone knows their word is as good as gold, after all. No independent investigation or verification required! Who are we to cast aspersions on the integrity of the Golden Franchise, their SOOPER GEE-NEE-US coach and, by extension, their most dreamy of dreamy QBs, after all? :rolleyes: :yawn:

Oh yeah...forgot all that. I feel better now.

HughC
05-29-2009, 12:23 AM
The videotaping was shut down? Where is the proof for that statement?

:noidea:
That's a poor rebuttal; where is your proof that it was not shut down?


Let's say that I stole a candy bar when I was a kid.

Now you accuse me of stealing candy bars every week for the past year. It doesn't matter when I supposedly did it, where, or how. In fact, there is zero evidence that I ever did steal another candy bar; the only link is that I did it before. So by your logic now it's up to me to prove I did not steal a candy bar somewhere - I'm not even sure when or where - rather than you even having to come up with a plausible accusation of when and where I'm accused of stealing that candy bar.

Thankfully I live in the United States of America and not some middle eastern country where this is the logic that is followed by those governments and their courts.

That analogy may seem extreme, but it's really no different thank asking for proof that the videotaping ended after the Jets game.

revefsreleets
05-29-2009, 12:26 PM
The proof is that Belichick SAID it was shut down, and Goodel agreed.

Yup, that's all I need to hear...nothing else to see here, move along now...

Fact is, by destroying the evidence and making this into a big cover-up, a LOT of credibility was destroyed. Both the Pats and the NFL's reputation suffered because of it. I don't trust them, and I doubt many other teams or FO's do now, either. Fortuantely a lot of teams will "self-police", and that's probably enough in the long run.

But I bet they still employ questionable tactics (Hell, Bill still obfuscates injuries every week), and they have benefited from easy schedules. That will end this year, at least.

The_WARDen
05-29-2009, 01:16 PM
That's a poor rebuttal; where is your proof that it was not shut down?


Let's say that I stole a candy bar when I was a kid.

Now you accuse me of stealing candy bars every week for the past year. It doesn't matter when I supposedly did it, where, or how. In fact, there is zero evidence that I ever did steal another candy bar; the only link is that I did it before. So by your logic now it's up to me to prove I did not steal a candy bar somewhere - I'm not even sure when or where - rather than you even having to come up with a plausible accusation of when and where I'm accused of stealing that candy bar.

Thankfully I live in the United States of America and not some middle eastern country where this is the logic that is followed by those governments and their courts.

That analogy may seem extreme, but it's really no different thank asking for proof that the videotaping ended after the Jets game.

My proof that it's not shut down is that they were doing it in the first place! Therefore, someone has to prove to me that they've stopped.

As far as I'm concerned, they're still cheating.

If you want to use silly examples, then here's one.

A guy gets busted for selling drugs. The courts find him guilty and he does jail time. When he gets out, he has forever stopped selling drugs then right?

See, I can make up silly examples to support my cause also.

:popcorn:

HughC
05-29-2009, 10:27 PM
My proof that it's not shut down is that they were doing it in the first place! Therefore, someone has to prove to me that they've stopped.

As far as I'm concerned, they're still cheating.

If you want to use silly examples, then here's one.

A guy gets busted for selling drugs. The courts find him guilty and he does jail time. When he gets out, he has forever stopped selling drugs then right?

See, I can make up silly examples to support my cause also.

:popcorn:
You totally missed my point.

In your example, a guy gets busted for selling drugs.

Now you accuse him of still selling drugs based strictly on the premise that he sold drugs at a previous point in time. No evidence that there has been drug dealing taking place, or usage of illegal drugs; the accusation is based solely on the fact that the ex-con sold previously sold drugs.

Then rather than having the police and government come up with proof that he is once again selling drugs, you would prefer that the burden of proof be on the accused that he prove that he is not selling drugs. How in the world could anybody prove that?

To put it another way, if I accused you of murdering Nicole Simpson then you could disprove that by providing proof of where you were at the time of the murder. But if I accused you of murdering somebody (I don't know who) at some time (I don't know when) in your entire life, how could you possibly disprove that?

That is why your hypothesis of 'he did it before, therefore he is doing it know' does not pass the test of scientific theory, nor would it hold any credence in a court of law.

ShutDown24
05-29-2009, 10:47 PM
I love how you defend that.

Sure we let players harm their bodies and their well being, and we gave ourselves an unfair advantage over other teams. But it wasn't "illegal" or anything. Cannot believe you'd actually stand up for that and then scream at a guy filming a football practice.

You do know when properly used (Not abused) steroids don't do anything to directly hurt the human body, right? All they do is build muscle mass. The only people who ever have any problems after steroid usage are the people who abused them. Steroids were created for medical uses, so how are they bad for you? I hate how the common person thinks steroids = bad. Steroids = good when used correctly and many athletes do use them correctly. It's the ones that don't use correctly that pay for it later. Not condoning them, but your quote of "players harm[ing] their bodies" isn't really true.

fansince'76
05-31-2009, 02:37 PM
That is why your hypothesis of 'he did it before, therefore he is doing it know' does not pass the test of scientific theory, nor would it hold any credence in a court of law.

Maybe not, but fairly or unfairly, like it or not, many people (myself included) feel the Spygate thing was largely swept under the rug and have and will continue to look at any of that franchise's achievements with a jaundiced eye for as long as Belichick is their HC. Kraft could have gone a long way towards removing the cloud of suspicion in many people's eyes that continues to hover over his franchise by replacing the man who was ultimately responsible for his franchise's embarrassment, but instead he offered him a lucrative contract extension. I personally have never felt that I have been given any reason due to the way the matter was handled to trust that that organization is now doing things above board, I still don't trust them as far as I could throw them, and I won't until Belichick is gone. It is what it is.

The_WARDen
06-03-2009, 11:15 AM
You totally missed my point.

In your example, a guy gets busted for selling drugs.

Now you accuse him of still selling drugs based strictly on the premise that he sold drugs at a previous point in time. No evidence that there has been drug dealing taking place, or usage of illegal drugs; the accusation is based solely on the fact that the ex-con sold previously sold drugs.

Then rather than having the police and government come up with proof that he is once again selling drugs, you would prefer that the burden of proof be on the accused that he prove that he is not selling drugs. How in the world could anybody prove that?

To put it another way, if I accused you of murdering Nicole Simpson then you could disprove that by providing proof of where you were at the time of the murder. But if I accused you of murdering somebody (I don't know who) at some time (I don't know when) in your entire life, how could you possibly disprove that?

That is why your hypothesis of 'he did it before, therefore he is doing it know' does not pass the test of scientific theory, nor would it hold any credence in a court of law.

I don't have to prove anything in the court of public opinion. To me, Bonds and Clemens did steroids even though it may never be proven and yeah and Ray Ray was involved in murder.