Tim Graham defends the Patriots claim to

[The Dean]

WRT Lynch, let's be clear on one thing: there allegedly was marijuana found in his car. The cops claim they saw "blunts" but didn't charge anyone because no one admitted they were his. That's probably the most retarded excuse I've ever heard. Maybe Kaczur should have used that line.

 

 

They also said they "smelled marijuana", which is not an unusual tactic to justify a search when no actual circumstance can justify it. I'm not saying there was no pot, I'm just saying we don't know if there was, or wasn't, and/or if Marshawn did, or didn't, smoke it.

[VOR]

They also said they "smelled marijuana", which is not an unusual tactic to justify a search when no actual circumstance can justify it. I'm not saying there was no pot, I'm just saying we don't know if there was, or wasn't, and/or if Marshawn did, or didn't, smoke it.

Exactly. And all that I care about is he hasn't failed a drug test. At least that we know of.

[4thand1]

No, I just like to point out when they seem to get different treatment than the rest of the League. Kind of like Wilfork getting fined 4 times in one season, but not suspended, when Roy Williams (S) gets suspended a game for two horse collar tackles during the same season. Or things like the fact that the Pats* got to play the Bills 4 years in a row after their bye week--odds of that happening as a "coincidence"? About 4,000 to 1. BTW, guess who the Pats* play this year after their bye--Miami, their biggest rival in the division this year, much like we'd been (or seen to have been pre-season) much of those prior 4 years. It's good to have friends in the League office apparently.....

 

The Bills have been the biggest rival of the Patriots the last 4 years? Don't you have to win a game in that time span to be considered a rival? Unless the Patriots have had two bye weeks in a regular season, there is no reason for you to complain. Everyone in the NFL gets one bye week. And I'm sure it really hurt the Bills chances of winning against the Patriots. Just think, they may have only lost 52-10 instead of 56-10.

 

They could beat the Bills in their sleep. If they had had a bye week each of the last 4 years with the Colts as the next game afterwards, then you might have a point.

[MattM]

The Bills have been the biggest rival of the Patriots the last 4 years? Don't you have to win a game in that time span to be considered a rival? Unless the Patriots have had two bye weeks in a regular season, there is no reason for you to complain. Everyone in the NFL gets one bye week. And I'm sure it really hurt the Bills chances of winning against the Patriots. Just think, they may have only lost 52-10 instead of 56-10.

 

They could beat the Bills in their sleep. If they had had a bye week each of the last 4 years with the Colts as the next game afterwards, then you might have a point.

 

No, I still have a point. Division games are the most meaningful in terms of playoff chances and seedings and many of those years we were (rightly or wrongly as history turned out) considered likely to be No. 2 in the Division. Kind of like Miami is this year--who's that you're playing after the bye-week again this year? Like I said, it really pays to have friends at League HQ--those same friends who made sure that when you had 4 West Coast games last year you got to play two sets of back to back games......

 

PS That reminds me--during Spygate Dr. Z at SI.com (God bless him) actually had the gall to wonder aloud in his column, on his own behalf and on behalf of other unnamed NFL sources, whether the League was handling Spygate and the Pats* with kid gloves because Kraft was the team's owner and was a very influential owner in League management circles (not to mention helping Goodell get the job in the first place). He seemed to think that others would not have been so lucky had they been in the Pats* shoes, and, as you'll see from this thread, many others around the League agree with him.

[Mr. WEO]

People believe all sorts of things. And they'll go to every length possible to make excuses despite evidence to the contrary. Hell some people still think OJ is innocent.

Yes--like there was no marijuana (or that it can be "checked for DNA"). The police made it up--despite the fact that doing so would have negated cause for the search AND the fact that neither ML nor his expensive legal representation bothered to challenge the report (or even make such a silly claim).

 

See, when people ask simple, logical questions, your arguments fall apart. They dissipate into the atmosphere like foul flatus--offensive but insignificant.

 

The pats broke the rules (cheated). They got caught (of course you have no explaination as to why it took so long for them to get "caught" when they were known around the league to be taping). The combination of fines and a first round pick loss were unprecedented in severity. The facts of the episode were exhaustively reported for months. The key players have weighed in.

 

It is therefore ironic (imagine that, if you can) that you say others will believe what is known "despite evidence to the contrary", when you have absolutely no evidence to the contrary to what the league and its owners have concluded.

 

You have innuendo, discredited complaints and wacky, illogical conspiracy theories so eloquently articulated by guys like The Angriest Man in New Hampshire.

 

And no one truly believes OJ is not guilty--not even those on his criminal jury.

[Mr. WEO]

Exactly. And all that I care about is he hasn't failed a drug test. At least that we know of.

You don't seem to care that he got himself suspended for the gun charge. Go figure.

[4thand1]

No, I still have a point. Division games are the most meaningful in terms of playoff chances and seedings and many of those years we were (rightly or wrongly as history turned out) considered likely to be No. 2 in the Division. Kind of like Miami is this year--who's that you're playing after the bye-week again this year? Like I said, it really pays to have friends at League HQ--those same friends who made sure that when you had 4 West Coast games last year you got to play two sets of back to back games......

 

PS That reminds me--during Spygate Dr. Z at SI.com (God bless him) actually had the gall to wonder aloud in his column, on his own behalf and on behalf of other unnamed NFL sources, whether the League was handling Spygate and the Pats* with kid gloves because Kraft was the team's owner and was a very influential owner in League management circles (not to mention helping Goodell get the job in the first place). He seemed to think that others would not have been so lucky had they been in the Pats* shoes, and, as you'll see from this thread, many others around the League agree with him.

 

From what I've seen, the Jets are number 2 in most people's minds. The Dolphins are expected to regress. The Patriots (with all of their injuries) lost to the Dolphins 38-13 only to come back and beat them 48-28 (without a bye week). Division games are important, but the Patriots could bring out a QB with no arms and no legs and still beat the Bills, bye or no bye.

 

How about this, what has the Bills record been against the Patriots in the other games played, not after the bye week?

 

"Dr. Z" can wonder all he wants. Other organizations (you know, the guys who supposedly got "screwed" out of potentially millions of dollars) agreed with the investigation and are ready to move on. Heck, even Tim Graham said that Jay Fiedler had no problem with spygate, and that they wouldn't know the Dolphins calls anyways.

[4thand1]

You don't seem to care that he got himself suspended for the gun charge. Go figure.

 

Don't be silly, everyone else in the NFL is a perfect little angel. With the halo and everything. Only one evil scum organization can do anything wrong.

[MattM]

From what I've seen, the Jets are number 2 in most people's minds. The Dolphins are expected to regress. The Patriots (with all of their injuries) lost to the Dolphins 38-13 only to come back and beat them 48-28 (without a bye week). Division games are important, but the Patriots could bring out a QB with no arms and no legs and still beat the Bills, bye or no bye.

 

How about this, what has the Bills record been against the Patriots in the other games played, not after the bye week?

 

"Dr. Z" can wonder all he wants. Other organizations (you know, the guys who supposedly got "screwed" out of potentially millions of dollars) agreed with the investigation and are ready to move on. Heck, even Tim Graham said that Jay Fiedler had no problem with spygate, and that they wouldn't know the Dolphins calls anyways.

 

Apparently you don't read much (no shock there)--either about football (the bolded portion there is ridiculous, for ex.) or even further up this thread, where many of your arguments have been deboned. I'm done, as all these points have been bludgeoned to death in this and countless other threads here and on many other message boards (folks in the rest of the League you'll find pretty much think you're all cheaters, too)--arguing with you is like having a battle of wits with an unarmed man.....

 

PS For ex., both Athlon Sports and PFW have the Jets 4th and the Dolphins 2nd this coming season. I'm pretty sure the Sporting News did as well, but couldn't find the link.

[Steely Dan]

If everyone does it, how come 1 team, not 32 teams were punished?

 

The entire spygate screams of a cover-up. If there's nothing wrong, they why not show everyone? If there's no weed in your room, then why are you blocking the door so your dad can't take a peek?The pats* cheated, plain and simple. It likely played a large role in them barely squeaking out 3 tainted super bowl "victories."

 

To the poster who said the panthers were on 'roids, how come there's no mention to rodney harrison (may he rot in hell) being on HGH? (along with a good chunk of the rest of the pats* D) Every wonder why the pats picked up over-the-hill players and they suddenly found "new life?"

 

What he said!

 

 

For those who doubt the beneficial officiating NE* and Belicheat* get please don't miss the opening Monday night 2009 game. You won't have any doubts after that. That is only one benefit of Belciheat'*s cheating. When you win you gain esteem and the officials give you the calls, especially if the coach* is considered a genius*. Other benefits include getting players like Randy Moss on the cheap. When you win players want to play for you. Cheating has been a wonderful escalation of benefits for Belicheat*, Kraft* (that is why he signed Belicheat* to a long term extension during the scandal!), Brady*, the whole team*, and all NE* fans*. The fans* only have to deal with a little bit of annoyance from some disgruntled fans of other teams. As I've said before in NE where I live it is not considered polite to even talk about Belicheat's* cheating publicly. A few posters have suggested Tim Graham write an article for ESPN about the aftermath of Spygate. THAT WILL NEVER HAPPEN. HE WOULD NOT EVEN REFERENCE IT EXCEPT TO DISMISS IT.

 

But to Patsie* fans out there I will repeat my point. Do you respect Belicheat*'s football intelligence or don't you? If he* said we are going to cheat* (videotaping, miking, turning off mics in opponent's helmets, illegal playing and practicing of players, etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc.) to help us win THEN GIVE HIM CREDIT, HE, BELICHEAT*, the master cheater*, thought cheating would help him win. Are you going to argue with him* or give him* credit that he* knew what he was doing. He is the genius* not you or I and he knows what is necessary for HIM* to win.

 

What he said too!

 

 

Probably because they ignored the memo that was sent out in 2006 warning teams against taping in certain locations. The Patriots blew leads in the 4th quarter of all 3 Super Bowl games, so I fail to see how it played a "large role".

 

I mentioned the Panthers being on steroids because the only time anybody mentions the Panthers in regards to the Patriots is that they were cheated out of that Super Bowl. But yeah, I guess it's okay for the Panthers to break the rules.

 

New life? Like Junior Seau coming back in 2008 and looking downright pathetic at times?

 

Not "all" of the Panthers were on steroids so making it sound like they are is just a way to amplify your argument in an underhanded way. Nice try. Learn that from Belichick?

 

 

Link please?

 

 

 

What did you expect? That the other owners would agree to a full scale investigation into the Patriots, which could potentially uncover that they've had indeed been cheating, thus necessitating the league stripping them of their SB wins? For all the world to see? Yeah, that might have happened.

 

What good would it do the league as VOR points out. All of the owners know where their bread is baked. If a lot of cheating was discovered most, if not all, would be pissed about it but would know better than to go public with what they know.

[BLZFAN4LIFE]

Apparently you don't read much (no shock there)--either about football (the bolded portion there is ridiculous, for ex.) or even further up this thread, where many of your arguments have been deboned. I'm done, as all these points have been bludgeoned to death in this and countless other threads here and on many other message boards (folks in the rest of the League you'll find pretty much think you're all cheaters, too)--arguing with you is like having a battle of wits with an unarmed man.....

 

 

I'm surprised that this thread turned into an 11 page spy-gate debate. The original point of this thread was to serve Tim Graham his deserved ration of sh-- for fawning over Tom Brady and the Patsies. After all, does anyone else find this comment suspect...

 

Tom Brady is the embodiment of the All-American quarterback, a dashing leader who flings touchdowns and makes the ladies swoon.

 

Dashing leader who flings touchdowns ?!?! There's a statement just begging to be read with a lisp.

I detect a man crush. Anything we need to know about Timmy? Do Tom Brady underoos come in adult size?

[Mr. WEO]

What he said!

 

 

 

 

What he said too!

 

 

 

 

Not "all" of the Panthers were on steroids so making it sound like they are is just a way to amplify your argument in an underhanded way. Nice try. Learn that from Belichick?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What good would it do the league as VOR points out. All of the owners know where their bread is baked. If a lot of cheating was discovered most, if not all, would be pissed about it but would know better than to go public with what they know.

A lot of cheating was discovered---going back years! What good would stripping them of their SBs have done?.............Hmmmmm.

 

Let's all think real hard about that one. Maybe....maybe it would have "preserved the reputation of the league"! Oh, wait, in bizzarro world, the good reputation of the league is best preserved by letting everyone assume it's totally crooked.

 

My favorite part is that Goodell is somehow in fear of his job if he angers Bob "Gotti" Kraft. The burden of credibility strains further to zero as each new layer of goofy assumption is stacked on the existing pile.

[VOR]

Yes--like there was no marijuana (or that it can be "checked for DNA"). The police made it up--despite the fact that doing so would have negated cause for the search AND the fact that neither ML nor his expensive legal representation bothered to challenge the report (or even make such a silly claim).

 

See, when people ask simple, logical questions, your arguments fall apart. They dissipate into the atmosphere like foul flatus--offensive but insignificant.

I know you fancy yourself an expert on everything, when you are far from it (although I have no doubt that you are indeed an expert on flatus), but do yourself a favor and ask an attorney (as I did) about the success rate of trying to get a client cleared of a valid gun charge, by claiming illegal search based on cops thinking they saw and smelled pot, even if there is no proof of that allegation. Beyond that, keep in mind that the cops said they approached the vehicle because of improper license plates. What would have had to be argued is what constitutes probable cause.

 

And again, the absurdity of the DNA and fingerprint on the "blunts," which again were conveniently never retrieved, is only matched by believing the cops when they said they didn't charge anyone because no one admitted they were his. Bahahaha! That's about as laughable as Belchick "not understanding" the illegal videotaping rule.

 

The pats broke the rules (cheated). They got caught (of course you have no explaination as to why it took so long for them to get "caught" when they were known around the league to be taping). The combination of fines and a first round pick loss were unprecedented in severity. The facts of the episode were exhaustively reported for months. The key players have weighed in.

 

It is therefore ironic (imagine that, if you can) that you say others will believe what is known "despite evidence to the contrary", when you have absolutely no evidence to the contrary to what the league and its owners have concluded.

 

You have innuendo, discredited complaints and wacky, illogical conspiracy theories so eloquently articulated by guys like The Angriest Man in New Hampshire.

Actually chief, I have proof of them being caught cheating after having been warned about it in the year before, and proof that they have been doing it since 2000, when Belchick arrived. So there goes the "it didn't help" lame excuse, because no one does something for long periods of time, when there are significant risks involved, unless it helps. I also have a long-standing rule which forbids it, obviously because it's an unfair advantage, which was "clarified" the year before the Patriots got caught, again.

 

What I don't have is ANY OTHER TEAM being implicated in doing it, much less charged, so there goes the "everyone did it" bullshiit. Regurgitate all the worthless anecdotes you want from the irreproachable Jimmy Johnson you want, or the "it was no big deal" quotes from people who stand to lose more than investigating the Patriots would have gained.

 

And I know you want to subsume this under some sort of conspiracy theory, because conspiracy theorists are nuts. Do what you want. I don't consider a "conspiracy" so much as it's a business decision to try and limit the damage, with a simple "drop it" edict being given to coaches and players, and by extension, to the media. This is just football. It's not, say, the CIA "misleading" congress.

 

And no one truly believes OJ is not guilty--not even those on his criminal jury.

And no one truly believes the Patriots didn't cheat. Even Patriots fans. Though they've done a good job of trying to convince themselves otherwise.

[VOR]

You don't seem to care that he got himself suspended for the gun charge. Go figure.

I "don't seem to care?" Try paying attention once in awhile, pally. I said Lynch deserved to get nailed for having the gun. But that the suspension by Goodell was bullshiit, given his past actions/inactions when it came to first-time player offenses, especially the example you gave in Tank Johnson.

[Flbillsfan#1]

A lot of cheating was discovered---going back years! What good would stripping them of their SBs have done?.............Hmmmmm.

 

Let's all think real hard about that one. Maybe....maybe it would have "preserved the reputation of the league"! Oh, wait, in bizzarro world, the good reputation of the league is best preserved by letting everyone assume it's totally crooked.

 

My favorite part is that Goodell is somehow in fear of his job if he angers Bob "Gotti" Kraft. The burden of credibility strains further to zero as each new layer of goofy assumption is stacked on the existing pile.

Just as you have tried to make people think you are a Bills fan when it it OBVIOUS you are a Pats* fan, the league would like people to think the Pats wins are legitimate. That looks better for the league than stripping the wins. How would they even do that it would be opening a can of worms. Just as it is obvious you are a Pats* fan NOT a Bills fan, it is obvious the Pats owe MUCH of their success to CHEATING.

[VOR]

A lot of cheating was discovered---going back years! What good would stripping them of their SBs have done?.............Hmmmmm.

 

Let's all think real hard about that one. Maybe....maybe it would have "preserved the reputation of the league"! Oh, wait, in bizzarro world, the good reputation of the league is best preserved by letting everyone assume it's totally crooked.

 

My favorite part is that Goodell is somehow in fear of his job if he angers Bob "Gotti" Kraft. The burden of credibility strains further to zero as each new layer of goofy assumption is stacked on the existing pile.

Yes, stripping the Patriots of their titles, versus saying "nothing to see here, move along" (while fining them the maximum for "nothing" after hurriedly burning the tapes, in Nixonian fashion) would be SO much better for the league. You are beyond delusional, poser.

[4thand1]

Apparently you don't read much (no shock there)--either about football (the bolded portion there is ridiculous, for ex.) or even further up this thread, where many of your arguments have been deboned. I'm done, as all these points have been bludgeoned to death in this and countless other threads here and on many other message boards (folks in the rest of the League you'll find pretty much think you're all cheaters, too)--arguing with you is like having a battle of wits with an unarmed man.....

 

PS For ex., both Athlon Sports and PFW have the Jets 4th and the Dolphins 2nd this coming season. I'm pretty sure the Sporting News did as well, but couldn't find the link.

 

Being a janitor at Ralph Wilson stadium doesn't mean you're in the league, Matt. You still haven't answered my question about how the Bills fared against the Patriots in games that weren't after the bye week. And puking up links from Dr. Z and the New York times, wondering if the league was too light on Belichick, or maybe they did something else, or they were accused of this or that, is really impressive. You sure owned me.

 

I don't think if I went to a Saints or Bengals website that they would care much about spygate anymore. Even Jets fans have mostly moved on. The owners have, as well.

 

But no, let's ignore them, ignore Jay Fiedler, ignore Jimmy Johnson, ignore Herm Edwards, and let's go with the guys who really know what they're talking about. Dr Z, Arlen Specter, and a few angry Buffalo Bills fans.

[MattM]

Being a janitor at Ralph Wilson stadium doesn't mean you're in the league, Matt. You still haven't answered my question about how the Bills fared against the Patriots in games that weren't after the bye week. And puking up links from Dr. Z and the New York times, wondering if the league was too light on Belichick, or maybe they did something else, or they were accused of this or that, is really impressive. You sure owned me.

 

I don't think if I went to a Saints or Bengals website that they would care much about spygate anymore. Even Jets fans have mostly moved on. The owners have, as well.

But no, let's ignore them, ignore Jay Fiedler, ignore Jimmy Johnson, ignore Herm Edwards, and let's go with the guys who really know what they're talking about. Dr Z, Arlen Specter, and a few angry Buffalo Bills fans.

 

I was reading a thread/story (quoted on a Pats board, no less) earlier today from a Steelers board/site and in a piece on the 2004 AFCCG against the Pats* there were still a pretty large number of Steeler fans there who called you dirty cheaters. I suspect that's the reaction you get any time you mention the Pats anywhere else in the League. Wear that with pride, after all, you've earned it--and if your fantasy that Goodell and Kraft's plan to make this all go away worked on all NFL fans makes you sleep any better at night, then I won't burst your dream bubble. Fact is, however, that mention your team just about anywhere else in the League and "Cheater" is the first thing you'll hear (well, maybe "dirty cheater").

 

PS My father's been a janitor (and I would wager is twice the man you are), but I'll compare my educational credentials against yours any day of the week, genius--I was going to grad school in Boston when I was there and I'll let you figure the rest out on your own.....

[Mr. WEO]

Yes, stripping the Patriots of their titles, versus saying "nothing to see here, move along" (while fining them the maximum for "nothing" after hurriedly burning the tapes, in Nixonian fashion) would be SO much better for the league. You are beyond delusional, poser.

Yes, in fact, it would. It's not hard to figure out. Look, if you and an army of people think the Commish, the other owners (including the sage Raplh Wilson) and the refs are owned by one man, how is that a "good reputation" for the league? I've asked you this many times, as has Tim Graham.

 

 

Yes, you have proof that cheated for years. No one is disputing this! You don't have proof any other team is doing it because none was caught. In fact the pats weren't caught for years, yet they were only caught in '07. Does that mean they weren't doing it before then? If they were never caught does that mean they weren't doing it?

 

Delusional? You believe that this very exclusive group of millionaires willfully let themselves get ripped off by one owner and are just laying down? You think the league would, what, fold if the pats truly cheated their way to SB wins and were subsequently stripped of their Lombardies? The press has no interest in a huge scandal story--the biggest of the century (or last?)?

 

Why did BB list Brady as questionable for every game for years? Don't you think he felt he got an advantage? Do you believe it gave him an advantage (it's OK, this is not a trick question)? I'll help you---of course it didn't.

 

I asked my lawyer at your request. After he stopped laughing, he said that for cops in the metro LA area, finding a few blunts on the floor of a car would be like finding cigarette butts--and about as consequential. That amount of weed would get you a small fine, if the cops bothered to charge for it. He said the weed gave probable cause to search the car. Obviously the weapon---they are not going to let it skate.

 

ML should count his blessings--if he had been found to have an unregistered weapon in his house, the commish would have given him 6 games.

[VOR]

Yes, in fact, it would. It's not hard to figure out. Look, if you and an army of people think the Commish, the other owners (including the sage Raplh Wilson) and the refs are owned by one man, how is that a "good reputation" for the league? I've asked you this many times, as has Tim Graham.

 

Yes, you have proof that cheated for years. No one is disputing this! You don't have proof any other team is doing it because none was caught. In fact the pats weren't caught for years, yet they were only caught in '07. Does that mean they weren't doing it before then? If they were never caught does that mean they weren't doing it?

 

Delusional? You believe that this very exclusive group of millionaires willfully let themselves get ripped off by one owner and are just laying down? You think the league would, what, fold if the pats truly cheated their way to SB wins and were subsequently stripped of their Lombardies? The press has no interest in a huge scandal story--the biggest of the century (or last?)?

 

Why did BB list Brady as questionable for every game for years? Don't you think he felt he got an advantage? Do you believe it gave him an advantage (it's OK, this is not a trick question)? I'll help you---of course it didn't.

 

I asked my lawyer at your request. After he stopped laughing, he said that for cops in the metro LA area, finding a few blunts on the floor of a car would be like finding cigarette butts--and about as consequential. That amount of weed would get you a small fine, if the cops bothered to charge for it. He said the weed gave probable cause to search the car. Obviously the weapon---they are not going to let it skate.

 

ML should count his blessings--if he had been found to have an unregistered weapon in his house, the commish would have given him 6 games.

Whoa, whoa, whoa! Who said anything about "willfully let[ting] themselves get ripped off by one owner?" Who said that the NFL knew about the illegal videotaping prior to 2006, when the clarification was sent to teams after the Patriots were first caught doing it and warned? Or even that Kraft was involved in Belichick's decision to illegally videotape? Talk about a straw man!

 

The NFL ruled that the Patriots committed a most serious trangression, hence nailing them with the maximum penalty. Then Goodell hurriedly destroyed the evidence and the NFL closed ranks in what I said was a "business decision" and not a "conspiracy." Again stripping the Patriots of their titles would have been far worse than doing what they did, which was allowing there to be suspicion, but trying to counter by disseminating the "nothing to see here, move along" company line. The damage/ripping-off had already been done and the point was to lessen further damage. What you are advocating is like saying OJ would have been no worse-off being found guilty and going to jail, than everyone suspecting he was guilty while he was a free man and continued to profess his innocence. That's just plain bonkers, man!

 

"Obviously the weapon---they are not going to let it skate." Thank you and end of discussion.

 

Tank Johnson was suspended for violating his probation, from previously being found to have had an illegal gun in his SUV. You know, being a repeat offender. Lynch has never had a gun charge, or any other criminal charge. Just the egregious "bringing his own booze into bars" and hitting a drunk chick who should have known better than to be out at 2 AM and watch her friend dance in the street and not where she was walking (the "Donte Stallworth" defense).