Rubes Posted May 15, 2008 Posted May 15, 2008 Yep, there is no argument for Montana, Graham, Unitas, Marino, Elway, or Gelbaugh. Baloney. Stan Gelbaugh was a crappy quarterback. The guy threw like 10 TDs his entire career!
Adam Posted May 15, 2008 Posted May 15, 2008 I heard LT on ESPN today saying that every team watches so much tape on the opponent that they know what the plays being called are def. and off. by game day. He didn't think they had any advantage over anyone. He mentions you still have to execute def. and off. even if you know the play ahead of time. He works for the NFL, which is trying to make the whole incident go away
Johnny Coli Posted May 15, 2008 Posted May 15, 2008 I heard LT on ESPN today saying that every team watches so much tape on the opponent that they know what the plays being called are def. and off. by game day. He didn't think they had any advantage over anyone. He mentions you still have to execute def. and off. even if you know the play ahead of time. That argument is entirely stupid. This is a huge difference between knowing a teams tendencies and making an educated guess as to what defense they will try in specific instances and knowing the actual !@#$ing play. These league-memo talking points are a joke.
sven233 Posted May 15, 2008 Author Posted May 15, 2008 That argument is entirely stupid. This is a huge difference between knowing a teams tendencies and making an educated guess as to what defense they will try in specific instances and knowing the actual !@#$ing play. These league-memo talking points are a joke. BINGO!!!! Of course teams may know the tendencies of their opponents. But the Pats* basically had their opponents playbook and gameplan on their sideline! A lot easier to counter what the defense is doing when you know EXACTLY what they are doing!!!!
Kelly the Dog Posted May 15, 2008 Posted May 15, 2008 All I know is, in a big stakes card game, you try everything you can to figure out what the other guys are holding, and what they may or may not play, and bet -- you don't sneak a peek over at the other guy's cards. Because even if it didn't help you win that hand or game, if you cheat at cards, Armadillo Slim is going to go James Hardy on you and bust a cap in your ass.
VOR Posted May 15, 2008 Posted May 15, 2008 That argument is entirely stupid. This is a huge difference between knowing a teams tendencies and making an educated guess as to what defense they will try in specific instances and knowing the actual !@#$ing play. These league-memo talking points are a joke. And it still doesn't answer why, if it truly means little, did the Patri*ts continue to do it for 8 years, especially after getting caught and warned? Also, why was Walsh instructed to conceal what he was doing, if it was simply a "misinterpretation of the rules?" I think we all know the answer.
Steely Dan Posted May 15, 2008 Posted May 15, 2008 He played offense and defense. He probably knew 150% of the plays. C'mon the most any player can give is 110%. Look at all the receivers that went onto other teams & they are nowhere near as good as they were with the pats. There whole operation is in question. Im sorry, but I watched Tom Brady in college & the guy was just not a good qb. He could not even beat out Drew Henson for the fulltime job. I realize that failure/success in the college game sometimes does not translate to the pro game but come on. This guy was not a good qb in high school(only reason he got a scholarship to michigan was because one of the recruiters owed his dad a favor) & he was not a good qb in college. I find it hard to believe that this guy did not benefit greatly from cheating. I always wonder how when you watch the pats games that alot of times wrs are so wide opened you can not see anybody else in the screen. Fug you chowderheads. That's a really good point. If you were being serious, which I hope you weren't, that's like saying Barry Bonds, despite the 'roids, is one of the greatest baseball players ever. Barry Bonds has hemorrhoids? How the could that benefit him! Especially on slides!! I heard LT on ESPN today saying that every team watches so much tape on the opponent that they know what the plays being called are def. and off. by game day. He didn't think they had any advantage over anyone. He mentions you still have to execute def. and off. even if you know the play ahead of time. I have heard players say that a team should be able to execute even if the other team knows the plays ahead of time. I think that's just bravado. If a team really knows what a defense is going to do next it's a huge advantage. If the safety is out of position for the play it can make a huge difference. Also if the QB knows the pass rush is on it really helps.
RayFinkle Posted May 15, 2008 Posted May 15, 2008 BINGO!!!! Of course teams may know the tendencies of their opponents. But the Pats* basically had their opponents playbook and gameplan on their sideline! A lot easier to counter what the defense is doing when you know EXACTLY what they are doing!!!! I think they are tainted scum bags for doing what they did but be realistic. It helped them in situations where they played the same team more than once the same year.
justnzane Posted May 15, 2008 Posted May 15, 2008 C'mon the most any player can give is 110%. Come on Steely, dontcha know that Troy Brown isn't just one player? He cloned himself years ago so his stamina wasn't effected by giving his all. Thus Bown gave his 220% every play
stevewin Posted May 16, 2008 Posted May 16, 2008 When the Bills played the Phakeriots* at home in 2004 (the infamous naked bootleg fumble returned for TD game) I was absolutelly dumb struck by two plays where the Bills all out blitzed and both times Brady just heaved the ball down the field to a spot - on both he wasn't even looking where he was throwing as he avoided players coming at him - and both were completed for long gains. I actually remember thinking at the time "Holy Crap - maybe the Patriots(*) are that well coached - it's like they did the exact right thing". I have absolutely no doubt now that for those two miraculous plays they knew exactly where the blitz was coming from and Brady knew where to throw the ball. Re: Brady - people seem to forget for the QB position how absolutely crititical decision-making on where to look for receivers and throw the ball is. It is absolutely the essence of being a good or great QB in the NFL. There are tons of talented athletes with strong arms who can make all the throws. It is a huge scrap heap - the pile of QBs that had great arms but not the ability to decide in a matter of seconds the proper place to put the ball. People who say it doesn't matter that the QB knows what the defense is before the snap are so full of crap I can hardly stand it. Without the pesky annoyance of a defense actually getting in the way - it becomes a game of throw and catch. *- prior to known proven 8 years of cheating
alg Posted May 16, 2008 Posted May 16, 2008 bull sh--. the cheating exposes him as nothing more than a system QB, with that system being "cheating" and "holding." On any other team in the league, brady* would be a slightly above average QB with 0 rings.
BillnutinHouston Posted May 16, 2008 Posted May 16, 2008 There is no doubt - JP would be an absolute GOD in a system where he knew with certainty what the defense was running. It effectively would eliminate 75% of the mental game a QB needs to play. I have read the Senator's report and all I can say is - OMG. This is bad for the Pats.
buffaloboyinATL Posted May 16, 2008 Posted May 16, 2008 Easy there tiger. The Pats might have helped themselves out a bit but Tom Brady is still the greatest QB to ever play the game. I felt this way as well. I would love for my son to play QB when he is old enough (he's 6 now) so I always tell him to watch how Brady plays the position. That being said, it is pretty damn easy to look good when you know what the defense is doing. He is still a good QB but I am starting to have my doubts about his legacy. Not being a hater, just not sure what to believe...
Tim Anderson's Lunch Pail Posted May 16, 2008 Posted May 16, 2008 bull sh--. the cheating exposes him as nothing more than a system QB, with that system being "cheating" and "holding." On any other team in the league, brady* would be a slightly above average QB with 0 rings. Comments like this make us look like dolts.
justnzane Posted May 16, 2008 Posted May 16, 2008 Comments like this make us look like dolts. While his rant was a little off, his reason for the rant was warranted by the numerous times the Bills were cheated by the Pats*. If you want to see comments that make us look like dolts click on this thread here about homework
keepthefaith Posted May 16, 2008 Posted May 16, 2008 Nope, you are wrong You are right. The greatest QB of all time label is being saved for Trent Edwards.
sven233 Posted May 16, 2008 Author Posted May 16, 2008 There is no doubt - JP would be an absolute GOD in a system where he knew with certainty what the defense was running. It effectively would eliminate 75% of the mental game a QB needs to play. I have read the Senator's report and all I can say is - OMG. This is bad for the Pats. Unfortunately, I don't know how bad this really is for the Pats*. They seem to have the entire NFL, including Goodell, in their pockets! They do not want to do anything to the Pats*. Who knows, maybe the league is even in on all this!!!!!!!! I have no idea, but the NFL is doing everything they can to hide what is actually going on here. So, without them wanting to punish the Pats* at all, I am not sure how bad it will be. With this all happening, can anyone give me a realistic reason that Belicheat is still in the league???? I men, basically, he was doing all he could to FIX games!
Dan Posted May 16, 2008 Posted May 16, 2008 Wow. That report pretty much completely calls out Goodell, the NFL, and the pats* organization for excessive cheating and the subsequent cover up by the league. How every news outlet in the country can't be all over this demanding action is beyond me.
PromoTheRobot Posted May 16, 2008 Posted May 16, 2008 Wow. That report pretty much completely calls out Goodell, the NFL, and the pats* organization for excessive cheating and the subsequent cover up by the league. How every news outlet in the country can't be all over this demanding action is beyond me. The NFL exerts a lot of influence over media outlets and reporters who cover them. Especially certain reporters who are considered "connected". I can imagine that those people are expected to sell what the NFL is shoveling. They are the ones who are hemming and hawing the loudest about Specter and how they are sick and tired of Spygate. Any REAL journalist would be all over this story. Anyone who spends 30 seconds looking at the timeline would be suspicious. Goodell is looking like an amateur. I'm also shocked that the other 31 teams are silent. But I guess the other owners know this is bad ju ju for the NFL. What we need is a modern day Woodward and Bernstien to work this. In fact I'm old enough to remember Watergate, and it's funny how Spygate is following a similar pattern: it was also "no big deal" and "investigated by the White House" and declared to be done as well. It took a source like "Deep Throat" and several years for the full story to come out. Maybe the real story of Spygate will emerge eventually, and I'm certain it will a monumental embarrassment to the Pats* and the NFL as a whole. PTR
NEEDFREDJACKSONNOW Posted May 16, 2008 Posted May 16, 2008 I would think that the process the Pats* used to cheat would mean they would come on stronger later in games. I seem to remember some Bills games where the Bills were in it for awhile, then the Pats* just blew them out. This may be a good research project for someone who has more time on their hands than me. Based on the report, the Pats* defense of their taping is indefensible. To make it more fair, then, the team they were playing should have had the same opportunity to figure out the Pats* signals. Ten you would have a "sport within a sport". Imagine if the networks would have an analyst explaining the signals/plays to the fans!
Recommended Posts