NFL - Are You Ready For Some Football?!! - Post SuperBowl

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Koyaanisqatsi
That is the problem here: lack of context. If you want to go back through history and apply a hard-line interpretation of the rules, fine...but do it to every team for the last century. If you think this is all part of the game and no big deal, fine. But don't just single out one franchise and one coach because they're the hot team or his public image isn't personally likable. If you want to hand out asterisks you're going to need to label most of the league with them...it'd be like what baseball is dealing with for the 'steroids era'.

Well then guess what, when the Commish says, ok knock this **** off to EVERY team in the league, don't say, well, he didn't mean it and continue doing it. If they are trying to use the Pats as an example, it is only because they brought it on themselves.

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Don't you think it would be. And I'll direct you to your own quite "IF it turns out". Far cry, from people treating it as it was the truth.

Already addressed this. Time spent on "if" vs. time spent on "then". And the fans certainly treated it as reality...if you want a cite on that, just go to a Pats message board.

Of course. After all, when the Black Sox were betting on games, it isn't like they went back and asked Ty Cobb and Cap Anson about betting on baseball. They dealt with the one team in front of them.

Did they have indications that the problem was more widespread? Either way, it seems that would be willfully turning a blind eye to a situation you don't want to get involved in, 'integrity of the sport' be damned.

Because when the NFL said the Colts thing didn't happen, it ended. When the NFL said the Pats thing didn't happen, it was a footnote and the stories kept going.

Aside from the fact the NFL said the Pats thing DID happen (ie, spygate resulted in penalties).

The videotaping of signals from the sidelines, yes. Everything else, no. (And they also said the videotaping was unlikely to have had any influence on the game, fwiw.) Did the Rams story go away because the league said they investigated it and found no basis for that rumor? Or the bit about micing the defense, or the hundred variations of interfering with radio signals? No...people believed them, and the press continued to report on them, even after the NFL said they weren't true. So yeah, what the league says has little bearing on perception or reporting, apparently...and yet, all these non-Pats rumors are quickly forgotten while the Pats ones are trumpeted.

If there is evidence that Brady may have known what was on those tapes, I can asking him what was there. So they aren't calling him on destroying the tapes, but to ask what he knows about the content of them.

Um. You were the one who said they were only being brought in to talk about destroying the tapes. Just to review, my argument was that it was intellectually dishonest to be focusing on just the Pats violations, and yours was that Specter only wanted Goodell to come to Washington to talk about the destruction of the tapes and it had nothing to do with singling out the Pats because that wasn't the subject at hand.

Well then, why start there? Why not say the anti-bandwagon happened when the Patriots came into the league?! After all, beginnings don't have to be big.

*sigh*

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Well then guess what, when the Commish says, ok knock this **** off to EVERY team in the league, don't say, well, he didn't mean it and continue doing it. If they are trying to use the Pats as an example, it is only because they brought it on themselves.

And that's what they got punished for, and as I said, the punishment can be justified using exactly that argument. I never argued that. I argued all the ancillary bull**** that has come later is both willfully reported and perceived without proper context which leads to the Pats being singled out unfairly.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Koyaanisqatsi
Already addressed this. Time spent on "if" vs. time spent on "then". And the fans certainly treated it as reality...if you want a cite on that, just go to a Pats message board.

On a Pats message board fans treated it as reality. Am I surprised Pats fans would leap to victim-ness? Not really.

Did they have indications that the problem was more widespread? Either way, it seems that would be willfully turning a blind eye to a situation you don't want to get involved in, 'integrity of the sport' be damned.

Um.. YEAH!! Everyone knew that Cap Anson was betting on games and as a manager may have thrown them sometimes too. That's just the most famous example.

And it isn't turning a blind eye if you make an example out of one, which stops it from continuing (betting on baseball after the Black Sox scandel dropped greatly because of the penalties handed out).

The videotaping of signals from the sidelines, yes. Everything else, no. (And they also said the videotaping was unlikely to have had any influence on the game, fwiw.) Did the Rams story go away because the league said they investigated it and found no basis for that rumor? Or the bit about micing the defense, or the hundred variations of interfering with radio signals? No...people believed them, and the press continued to report on them, even after the NFL said they weren't true. So yeah, what the league says has little bearing on perception or reporting, apparently...and yet, all these non-Pats rumors are quickly forgotten while the Pats ones are trumpeted.

Um... the micing the defense and interfering with the radio signals rumors DID go away, within days of their rumors. I haven't heard them in months.

Um. You were the one who said they were only being brought in to talk about destroying the tapes. Just to review, my argument was that it was intellectually dishonest to be focusing on just the Pats violations, and yours was that Specter only wanted Goodell to come to Washington to talk about the destruction of the tapes and it had nothing to do with singling out the Pats because that wasn't the subject at hand.

I'd imagine that knowing what was on the destroyed tapes is pretty big in knowing perhaps why they may have been destroyed. AFAIK, the NFL has only found violations of the rule after the league was reminded by the Commisioner's Office from the Patriots. And the tapes they confiscated were destroyed.

How exactly is that "singling on the Patriots"? Unless you are saying, they are the ones who were found in violation of the rules, so how dare they get asked about it?

*sigh*

Indeed. The whole anti-bandwagon started in '01 is such an incredible piece of bull**** its amazing anyone even can say it with a straight face.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Koyaanisqatsi
And that's what they got punished for, and as I said, the punishment can be justified using exactly that argument. I never argued that. I argued all the ancillary bull**** that has come later is both willfully reported and perceived without proper context which leads to the Pats being singled out unfairly.

You mean all the stuff that goes away a few days later and is only brought up by Pats fans who keep saying that everyone else brings it up?

[-Jrabbit]

[Lord Avalon]

In other news Vick gets to keep his roster bonus.

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


On a Pats message board fans treated it as reality. Am I surprised Pats fans would leap to victim-ness? Not really.

Or Chargers, or Colts, or, well, almost every team in the league. Or general football sites, for that matter.

Um.. YEAH!! Everyone knew that Cap Anson was betting on games and as a manager may have thrown them sometimes too. That's just the most famous example.

And it isn't turning a blind eye if you make an example out of one, which stops it from continuing (betting on baseball after the Black Sox scandel dropped greatly because of the penalties handed out).

Come on, of course it is. If it was so prevalent, why should the Black Sox have been the only ones singled out to be tarred for history?

Um... the micing the defense and interfering with the radio signals rumors DID go away, within days of their rumors. I haven't heard them in months.

Then you haven't paid attention, which seems to be a trend.

I'd imagine that knowing what was on the destroyed tapes is pretty big in knowing perhaps why they may have been destroyed. AFAIK, the NFL has only found violations of the rule after the league was reminded by the Commisioner's Office from the Patriots. And the tapes they confiscated were destroyed.

How exactly is that "singling on the Patriots"? Unless you are saying, they are the ones who were found in violation of the rules, so how dare they get asked about it?

No. There were six recent tapes and notes that went back several years that may or may not have been acquired by legal means...well before the emphasis memo went out. And it is singling them out because of all the indications that other teams do similar things. As...I...said.

If they want to talk to Goodell about destroying evidence (of what, I don't know) go for it. But the Pats have already said what was on the tapes, as has the league. What is the point of bringing in Brady other than to have Tom Brady sit on capital hill with a bunch of cameras pointed at him? He didn't make a decision about what to do with them. He didn't order they be made, either. It's a political stunt that wouldn't be done if it were another team.

Indeed. The whole anti-bandwagon started in '01 is such an incredible piece of bull**** its amazing anyone even can say it with a straight face.

Just out of curiosity, how is it any better if it starts two years later and incorporates elements from two years before? Same thing either way...

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
You mean all the stuff that goes away a few days later and is only brought up by Pats fans who keep saying that everyone else brings it up?

"Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it."
--Mark Twain

Not a while you're waiting quote to my knowledge, but if not it should be.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Koyaanisqatsi
Or Chargers, or Colts, or, well, almost every team in the league. Or general football sites, for that matter.

You did say Pats message boards, right? I have a funny feeling that on these other message boards you have one or two posters saying Pats do X and the others considering them morons.

Come on, of course it is. If it was so prevalent, why should the Black Sox have been the only ones singled out to be tarred for history?

Examples to be made. Things somewhat settled down after the players saw what Commissioner Landis would do.

Then you haven't paid attention, which seems to be a trend.

Or rather, like a sizable number of Pats fans, you have incredibly oversensitive the entire season.

No. There were six recent tapes and notes that went back several years that may or may not have been acquired by legal means...well before the emphasis memo went out. And it is singling them out because of all the indications that other teams do similar things. As...I...said.

If they want to talk to Goodell about destroying evidence (of what, I don't know) go for it. But the Pats have already said what was on the tapes, as has the league. What is the point of bringing in Brady other than to have Tom Brady sit on capital hill with a bunch of cameras pointed at him? He didn't make a decision about what to do with them. He didn't order they be made, either. It's a political stunt that wouldn't be done if it were another team.

On the other hand, as you pointed out, there are new tapes. And some indications that Belichick may have lied to Goodell about the extent of the taping that was going on (as you said the ESPN folks were discussing). If that be the case, perhaps it may be a good idea to figure out what was on them.

Not saying that it really would amount to anything, but why destroy the tapes?

Just out of curiosity, how is it any better if it starts two years later and incorporates elements from two years before? Same thing either way...

It's only the "same thing" if you are so insulated that you don't realize how the obnoxiousness of the fanbase alienated so many other fans. After the second SB there was an arrogance combined with a victim mentality that put off fans immensly.

Its basically your way to remove any responsibility from the Pats' fan base and say it began because the Pats won a lot.

Hint: stuff like all the talk of the "Year of New England" is part of the reason the rest of us hate you guys.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Koyaanisqatsi
"Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it."
--Mark Twain

Not a while you're waiting quote to my knowledge, but if not it should be.

Thank you. That quote does come to mind when I read your posts.

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
You did say Pats message boards, right? I have a funny feeling that on these other message boards you have one or two posters saying Pats do X and the others considering them morons.

Tell ya what. Why don't you go check around and see what you find and get back to me. It would go quite well with the fashionable notion of having to produce evidence to defend yourself from unsubstantiated rumors.

Come on, of course it is. If it was so prevalent, why should the Black Sox have been the only ones singled out to be tarred for history?

Examples to be made. Things somewhat settled down after the players saw what Commissioner Landis would do.

And this is somehow ethical and honest to you?

Or rather, like a sizable number of Pats fans, you have incredibly oversensitive the entire season.

Tell ya what. You find articles accusing the Pats of cheating beyond what the NFL has acknowledged and/or talking about putting asterisks on the season. I'll find articles defending them. We'll compare numbers.

On the other hand, as you pointed out, there are new tapes. And some indications that Belichick may have lied to Goodell about the extent of the taping that was going on (as you said the ESPN folks were discussing). If that be the case, perhaps it may be a good idea to figure out what was on them.

There are rumors of new tapes. There are indications that Belichick may have lied (that amount to a single-source, unattributed tabloid article and a guy who was fired by the team in the middle of a season, btw. And if you want to believe rumors you should hear the ones about this tape guy...) Even assuming this is somehow a matter for the judiciary committee to investigate, what does that have to do with bringing Brady in? Talk to Goodell, or maybe Belichick, or even Mangini, for that matter. Brady is just an indication that the whole thing is grandstanding.

It's only the "same thing" if you are so insulated that you don't realize how the obnoxiousness of the fanbase alienated so many other fans. After the second SB there was an arrogance combined with a victim mentality that put off fans immensly.

Its basically your way to remove any responsibility from the Pats' fan base and say it began because the Pats won a lot.

Hint: stuff like all the talk of the "Year of New England" is part of the reason the rest of us hate you guys.

I realize some fans are obnoxious, but no more so than any other fanbase for a successful team, quite frankly. Either way, it wouldn't justify the response this year. Or is somebody being obnoxious a good reason to sell out your ethical responsibilities toward them?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Koyaanisqatsi
Tell ya what. Why don't you go check around and see what you find and get back to me. It would go quite well with the fashionable notion of having to produce evidence to defend yourself from unsubstantiated rumors.

So I ask you for a cite and you tell me to find them myself?!

Figures.

And this is somehow ethical and honest to you?

If it works, it works. You've NEVER seen someone made an example of which helps put other potential violators in line?

Tell ya what. You find articles accusing the Pats of cheating beyond what the NFL has acknowledged and/or talking about putting asterisks on the season. I'll find articles defending them. We'll compare numbers.

How many of those articles about asterisks or mics came out after the month that the spygate scandel exploded? How much was it considered an issue during the AFC playoffs? Seriously.. did any of it come out before the Chargers game, the Jacksonville game, the Giants game in Week 17? Any of it at all?

There are rumors of new tapes. There are indications that Belichick may have lied (that amount to a single-source, unattributed tabloid article and a guy who was fired by the team in the middle of a season, btw. And if you want to believe rumors you should hear the ones about this tape guy...) Even assuming this is somehow a matter for the judiciary committee to investigate, what does that have to do with bringing Brady in? Talk to Goodell, or maybe Belichick, or even Mangini, for that matter. Brady is just an indication that the whole thing is grandstanding.

Only if Brady is actually served with a subpeona and asked questions that don't apply to what was on those tapes. They are talking to Goodell. They probably will talk to Belichick. I wonder if Brady is brought in to see if he gives the same version of what's on those tapes as Belichick.

And you were the one who said there were six more tapes, so don't run around the next post saying they were just rumored.

I realize some fans are obnoxious, but no more so than any other fanbase for a successful team, quite frankly. Either way, it wouldn't justify the response this year. Or is somebody being obnoxious a good reason to sell out your ethical responsibilities toward them?

It is more so than any other fanbase for a successful team. Arrogance of winning is one thing, but combining that with a victim mentality?! Really? Considering themselves underdogs after they had won 2 SBs? What?

And after years of hammering the Yankees for their fanbase, New England fans feeling hurt because they are slammed for theirs seems very amusing.

And the response was fine, especially when Pats fans tried everything to downplay Spygate. Going back to their favorite defense "Everyone is picking on us!!!"

[Theben]

Pats lost b/c Belichick switched to a red hoody. That is all.


Personally I could care less about the Pats, but Belichick's asinine behavior makes me dislike them more than anything. I wouldn't have minded the '72 Dolphins fans finally shutting the **** up.

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
So I ask you for a cite and you tell me to find them myself?!

Figures.

Actually, you didn't ask, I suggested you go look yourself before you asked.

If it works, it works. You've NEVER seen someone made an example of which helps put other potential violators in line?

And have it be an ethical act toward the person being punished? No...the very nature of 'being an example' precludes that because it implies that the example got a harsher punishment than they would have otherwise.

How many of those articles about asterisks or mics came out after the month that the spygate scandel exploded? How much was it considered an issue during the AFC playoffs? Seriously.. did any of it come out before the Chargers game, the Jacksonville game, the Giants game in Week 17? Any of it at all?

Yes, though obviously the volume was cranked down a bit. Oh yeah, and don't just look for articles solely on the subject, either. Remember we're talking mindshare here. Include articles with snide little comments, what-if hypotheses, a general assumption of guilt greater than we have evidence for, etc.

Hell, Easterbrook alone probably will put up bigger anti-Pats numbers than the total of all defenders and context-setters.

Only if Brady is actually served with a subpeona and asked questions that don't apply to what was on those tapes. They are talking to Goodell. They probably will talk to Belichick. I wonder if Brady is brought in to see if he gives the same version of what's on those tapes as Belichick.

I suspect Brady doesn't know, since that would just seem to be a bad way to do business. Either way though, why Brady? Why not the people who broke down the tapes? Brady was mentioned because he's the guy half the country wants to see knocked down a few pegs.

And you were the one who said there were six more tapes, so don't run around the next post saying they were just rumored.

The six tapes were the ones we already knew about that were destroyed...not new or 'more'. Jesus, if you're going to argue at least get some basic facts straight.

It is more so than any other fanbase for a successful team. Arrogance of winning is one thing, but combining that with a victim mentality?! Really? Considering themselves underdogs after they had won 2 SBs? What?

And after years of hammering the Yankees for their fanbase, New England fans feeling hurt because they are slammed for theirs seems very amusing.

And the response was fine, especially when Pats fans tried everything to downplay Spygate. Going back to their favorite defense "Everyone is picking on us!!!" [/QUOTE]
Why not? If that's what's going on, what's wrong with it? Somehow just because the Pats have been fortunate they should sit there and take it when their name is dragged through the mud and not point out the glaring inconsistencies in standards?