Tim Graham defends the Patriots claim to

[Buftex]

I think Texans are dyed in the wool Cowboys fans and when they bandwagoners jump it's for the Cowboys. I'd imagine there would be a lot of ridicule for any Texan in Pets* gear.

 

 

You give Cowboys fans, and Texans too much credit. While most love the Cowboys, win or lose (most don't actually watch the games, and barely know what is going on with them), they love their Cowboys gear. It is everywhere....

 

"Cool" sports fans in Texas loathe the Cowboys (Mavericks and Rangers as well), instead throwing their allegences behind the Houston franchises.

 

The Dallas/Ft Worth area kind of represents classic Texas, with its' overdone pride, big money, and "bigger is better" attitude. Houston, an ugly metropolis, is much more soulful and arty...a very diverse place... you may not meet as many Texan (an unfortunate choice of names), Astros and Rockets fans, but they tend to be much more knowledgable sports fans than Cowboys/Rangers/Mavs fans.

 

I realize, I am making a very broad generalization here....there are some very knowledgable Cowboy fans, but they have never really suffered enough to really know what being a fan is about...they can only point to their last place finish in 1990, as their down period...of course it was followed by 3 Super Bowl wins in 4 years... they feel entitled to a Super Bowl....this current "rut" they are in, doesn't seem to phase them so much...

[PromoTheRobot]

Being a journalist covering the NFL requires a certain amount of toeing the party line. The NFL is not Congress, state legislature or the White House. The 1st Amendment or Freedom of Information Act does not apply. The NFL can restrict or cutoff access to any journalist who they feel is not representing the league or sport in a proper light.

 

I'm not suggesting that Tim or anyone else is being censored or told what to write by the NFL. But I do believe that the NFL decided it was best to close ranks and get the broom out re: the Pats*. And I'm quite sure that if any journalist decided to dig deeper into it, he or she would first be shouted down and derided by the NFL press corps, then he or she would find access to teams, players and officials increasingly more difficult. And if said journalist worked for a network that had dealings with the NFL, like pretty much all of them, those networks would likely find their lucrative dealings jeopardized.

 

PTR

[bills44]

**

[Flbillsfan#1]

Being a journalist covering the NFL requires a certain amount of toeing the party line. The NFL is not Congress, state legislature or the White House. The 1st Amendment or Freedom of Information Act does not apply. The NFL can restrict or cutoff access to any journalist who they feel is not representing the league or sport in a proper light.

 

I'm not suggesting that Tim or anyone else is being censored or told what to write by the NFL. But I do believe that the NFL decided it was best to close ranks and get the broom out re: the Pats*. And I'm quite sure that if any journalist decided to dig deeper into it, he or she would first be shouted down and derided by the NFL press corps, then he or she would find access to teams, players and officials increasingly more difficult.

 

PTR

Yeah I agree. Nothing to see here move along. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. As much as the Pats* & the league would like this all to be forgotten, they KNOW that will NEVER happen. The next best thing...............try to persuade people it was no big deal. The league may not like it but MOST people will view the Pats* Super Bowl wins as TAINTED* & time WILL NOT diminish the fact that they CHEATED.

[Lori]

Now the members of PFWA are in on the conspiracy to sweep Spygate under the rug? For the second time in this thread, I have to ask: seriously?

 

However, I'm completely with you on the thoughts about teams restricting access to their personnel. "Paranoia" and "duplicity" are words I've heard a lot lately.

[Flbillsfan#1]

Now the members of PFWA are in on the conspiracy to sweep Spygate under the rug? For the second time in this thread, I have to ask: seriously?

 

However, I'm completely with you on the thoughts about teams restricting access to their personnel. "Paranoia" and "duplicity" are words I've heard a lot lately.

I am not including them. I just think they are being misled. They are being fed the company line by "insiders" & buying it. As for me, I'm not buying what they are selling.

[Booster4324]

Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed seeing them get whacked with the $500K fine and the first-round pick, and I still employ an asterisk from time to time (mostly to push the buttons of any Patsfan trolls who wander into our neck of the woods).

 

But whether or not it helped them -- and despite the insiders' opinions you've shared with us, I do think there's some room for reasoned debate there -- the league isn't sending repo men after their Lombardi Trophies. Given that, I see no real point to obsessing over it two years later.

 

Then again, this is the board that still fires up a Flutie/Johnson flamewar every now and then just for old times' sake. Knowing your opinion on Spygate ahead of time, I had a pretty good idea how this thread was going to turn out.

 

So ... good luck with that.

 

Translation: I love you, but you are on your own Tim.

 

I personally don't care about Spygate. I think they got a marginal advantage from it at best. None of the other allegations have ever been proven (tampering with radios and such). Mind you, didn't stop me from unloading on a *Pats fan who made fun of my Bills.

 

Put me in the category of people who lost respect of, and interest in, the NFL due to the excuse used. Oh well, everyone does it. Even my team?

 

Sure there have been individual scumbags on the team doing much worse things, but my team is filled with cheaters? Well, if you guys say so...

[Steely Dan]

This whole thread is getting ridiculous. To me I see people here who just want answers to why the scandal was just "dropped" without ANY real investigation, and then you have people who just want it to "go away" because it's "in the past". I really dont stress over this at all...I'm through worrying about it, but it came at the price of my NFL allegience. However, I have issues with people who won't see both sides of the debate. The big issue I have is that people will dismiss the whole thing because Jay Fieldler's opinion is that it didn't help them win games....well thanks Jay. Were you in the Pats film room when they disected your plays. Were you aware they took plays right out of headsets and also messed with the other teams communications? No, probably not and you'd be chastised by the rest of the NFL for going against the "company line" regardless if you're still an active player or not. Of course, he could be totally right and "may" not have helped the Pats win at all.

 

I can see both sides and have no problem listening to the "other side", I only ask everyone do the same here. Somewhere in the middle lies the truth. I do have serious questions regarding why Belicheck would continue to "cheat" if there was no real benefit to doing it. I've not heard any good reasonings to why he would continue. Obviously, there's something there. Has anyone had a situation where telling a lie or keeping truth from a group of people was actually more beneficial then telling them the truth? Of course you have...do you have parents? Ever see them get into a serious argument? Did they both smile and tell you everything is alright, just so you feel better? Sure they did...well, I bet most of the time

 

Anyway it's a silly argument to say "well Jay Fiedler an Herm Edwards said so, so it must be Gospel." All I'm saying in response to that is that there very well could have been a company policy stating that the NFL saw no issue and it would be in the BEST INTEREST OF THE NFL TO KEEP IT THAT WAY. Fiedler is a retired player who recieves a pension right? What happens to his pension when the league takes a hit? You don't know? Go ask Enron's employees what happens to pensions when the company does porrly. Again, there's so much more going on that we aren't privy too, but I'm all ears in listening to find out what it might be. That's what makes these boards so much fun.

 

McD

 

I can't remember the former O-line player who played for Buffalo and NE writing an article about the Pets*. He said the Pets* would put PS players in different players uniforms so if the NFL stopped they wouldn't know the difference. It gave the starters a chance to rest and teach the PS players. When he asked about it another player told him "Everybody does it" IIRC, he had played for three teams including the Bills and told the guy that none of the teams he played for did it.

 

We're not just talking about cheating on one thing. It seems cheating took many levels for them. I don't think they could prove more than the taping and gave them a fairly harsh penalty. The problem is that nothing else was proveable. If everything they did could be proven and brought out it would really taint their Dienasty. JMO

 

 

Why did Belicheat* cheat for at least 8 years if cheating didn't help Belicheat* win? Most are agreed he is a brilliant coach and talent evaluator so he already has a clear edge over most coaches and organizations. And to put it mildly the officials are not unkind to the NE* franchise in the way penalties are called on the opposition. So why cheat unless Belicheat is simply a pathological cheater* who cheats because it is his nature. That may be somewhat true but I think Belicheat* is able to rank in terms of importance what it takes to win and clearly the measures they used, illegal videotaping and miking, shutting off opponents headsets on offense at crucial moments of the game, etc. Belicheat* felt were factors in helping him win.

 

The point is you either respect Belicheat* or you don't. I respect him* and therefore feel that if he* cheated then clearly there was a noticeable advantage in cheating or he* wouldn't have taken the risk to do it. If the putative best coach* in the game cheats then cheating must be advantageous to the best coach* of the game. Who are we to say it wasn't a big deal? Are you saying Belicheat* was an idiot to cheat? I wouldn't have the nerve to do that because his knowledge of football is light years ahead of mine and if he* says we are going to cheat to help us win then give him credit that cheating helped him* win.

 

How much cheat could a belicheat* cheat if a belicheat* could cheat bellys?

 

Yeah I agree. Nothing to see here move along. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. As much as the Pats* & the league would like this all to be forgotten, they KNOW that will NEVER happen. The next best thing...............try to persuade people it was no big deal. The league may not like it but MOST people will view the Pats* Super Bowl wins as TAINTED* & time WILL NOT diminish the fact that they CHEATED.

 

Time definitely will diminish the fact they cheated. In twenty years nobody but you and me and some other die hard NFL fans will look at it that way. I also believe there is a lot more animosity about this behind closed stadium doors than is said in public but the average fan doesn't really care. Especially all of the Pets* bandwagoners.

[NewHampshireBillsFan]

Time definitely will diminish the fact they cheated. In twenty years nobody but you and me and some other die hard NFL fans will look at it that way. I also believe there is a lot more animosity about this behind closed stadium doors than is said in public but the average fan doesn't really care. Especially all of the Pets* bandwagoners.

 

 

You are probably right about time diminishing the cheating. However, I also think that a number of fans can never look at the NFL the same way again. I know that is true in my case. I can take a decade or two with no playoffs easier than realizing the most successful team in my division blatantly cheated in a way that clearly helped them gain some wins. And with winning comes many other perks such as getting better free agents, getting better calls from the refs, getting big time suck up treatment from the national media, etc. So the whole thing escalates. The fact that the NFL knows this and still felt the need to cover it all up has made me lose any silly idealistic notion of the integrity of the game. I don't know what Goodell could have done instead of covering it up like he did but I will never look at the NFL the same way again. I guess one thing Goodell could have at least done is told Belicheat* not to act like a smart aleck after getting his wrist slapped by Goodell. Belicheat* made Goodell look like an even bigger idiot by refusing to even acknowledge that he* had committed a violation but instead snidely said that he had misunderstood the rules. Well maybe Goodell told him to do that to further minimize things.

[MattM]

I can't remember the former O-line player who played for Buffalo and NE writing an article about the Pets*. He said the Pets* would put PS players in different players uniforms so if the NFL stopped they wouldn't know the difference. It gave the starters a chance to rest and teach the PS players. When he asked about it another player told him "Everybody does it" IIRC, he had played for three teams including the Bills and told the guy that none of the teams he played for did it.

 

We're not just talking about cheating on one thing. It seems cheating took many levels for them. I don't think they could prove more than the taping and gave them a fairly harsh penalty. The problem is that nothing else was proveable. If everything they did could be proven and brought out it would really taint their Dienasty. JMO

 

 

 

 

How much cheat could a belicheat* cheat if a belicheat* could cheat bellys?

 

 

 

Time definitely will diminish the fact they cheated. In twenty years nobody but you and me and some other die hard NFL fans will look at it that way. I also believe there is a lot more animosity about this behind closed stadium doors than is said in public but the average fan doesn't really care. Especially all of the Pets* bandwagoners.

 

The player was Ross Tucker of SI.com, who's quickly becoming one of my favorite NFL writers (along with NFL Post and its crew) (no offense, Tim)......

[Lori]

Speaking of Tucker's column, I believe there was something in there about players on IR practicing (which is also against the rules), as well. Wouldn't help them for the game that Sunday, obviously, but gave younger players a jump-start on being ready for the following season ... something Paul Posluszny could have used after he broke his arm, for example.

[ans4e64]

So huge and cumbersome a seventh grader could carry it on his shoulder in 1983.

 

Ever hear of a tripod? That's what the Patriots used for their mind-boggling, 22nd century technology. As for your Betamax with remote control on a cord ... That wasn't a recorder. It was a tape player. I hope you didn't try to film your wedding or birth of your children with a piece of equipment that didn't have a lens.

The Patriots didn't hide their cameras. Nobody ever accused them of hiding their cameras. Teams are allowed to film all sorts of things during a game. What matters is where they're pointed.

 

[MattM]

Tim, if you're still reading, what say you to an article on fans of other teams' perception of the Pats and Spygate, etc. a year later? For ex., giving some of the folks here who think they cheated more than has been let on a voice in the mainstream media. I suspect (in fact, I know, since I did it myself last year) that if you poll fans of other teams you'll find that the folks here writing in this thread are not the only ones who smell something rotten in Denmark when it comes to Spygate and New England more generally. I'd be curious whether ESPN (and the League) would take kindly to opening that back up, or whether that's something they just want the lid to stay on as tightly as possible.....

[thebandit27]

This whole thread is getting ridiculous. To me I see people here who just want answers to why the scandal was just "dropped" without ANY real investigation, and then you have people who just want it to "go away" because it's "in the past". I really dont stress over this at all...I'm through worrying about it, but it came at the price of my NFL allegience. However, I have issues with people who won't see both sides of the debate. The big issue I have is that people will dismiss the whole thing because Jay Fieldler's opinion is that it didn't help them win games....well thanks Jay. Were you in the Pats film room when they disected your plays. Were you aware they took plays right out of headsets and also messed with the other teams communications? No, probably not and you'd be chastised by the rest of the NFL for going against the "company line" regardless if you're still an active player or not. Of course, he could be totally right and "may" not have helped the Pats win at all.

 

I can see both sides and have no problem listening to the "other side", I only ask everyone do the same here. Somewhere in the middle lies the truth. I do have serious questions regarding why Belicheck would continue to "cheat" if there was no real benefit to doing it. I've not heard any good reasonings to why he would continue. Obviously, there's something there. Has anyone had a situation where telling a lie or keeping truth from a group of people was actually more beneficial then telling them the truth? Of course you have...do you have parents? Ever see them get into a serious argument? Did they both smile and tell you everything is alright, just so you feel better? Sure they did...well, I bet most of the time

 

Anyway it's a silly argument to say "well Jay Fiedler an Herm Edwards said so, so it must be Gospel." All I'm saying in response to that is that there very well could have been a company policy stating that the NFL saw no issue and it would be in the BEST INTEREST OF THE NFL TO KEEP IT THAT WAY. Fiedler is a retired player who recieves a pension right? What happens to his pension when the league takes a hit? You don't know? Go ask Enron's employees what happens to pensions when the company does porrly. Again, there's so much more going on that we aren't privy too, but I'm all ears in listening to find out what it might be. That's what makes these boards so much fun.

 

McD

 

I don't mean to insinuate that you aren't entitled to your opinion, but I think you are pigeon-holing Tim's point a bit. The quote that I think summarizes his position on spygate quite clearly is this (post #50):

 

I've interviewed more people than I can count about Spygate, and the most anybody will say is "It couldn't have hurt," but nobody can say how they benefited. Even the coaches and players who supposedly were cheated during those years don't think the videotaping mattered. Coaches and analysts insist it was a common practice; the Patriots were the only ones caught because of a bitter former employee.

 

You seem to want to pare that down to "Herm Edwards and Jay Fiedler don't think it mattered", which I believe is over-simplifying at best.

 

Yes, New England cheated. Yes, they were caught. Yes, other teams did it too (see other references in this thread). And yes, New England continued to do it despite the league-wide memo that clearly stated it was forbidden. This last point, in my opinion, is the cause of the entire spygate hulabaloo in its entirety. I believe that it was more about the arrogance that Belichick displayed in the face of the NFL's warning that made Mangini (who, by the way, I've taken to calling "The Manjackass") tattle on his former cohort. And, moreover, they were punished more heavily than any other team in history as far as I can recall.

 

Goodell destroyed the evidence, yes. Why? As Peter King stated (can't find the archived link) "to put the entire thing in the past". Good desicion/bad desicion, who knows? However, to draw the conclusion that it's some kind of cover-up that everyone in the league takes part in is--in my mind--kind of ridiculous. Some players were really bothered by it, some others (like Fiedler and former Bills' QB Frank Reich) say it didn't matter in the least. Tim's statement is that (according to him, and I have no reason to doubt his word) most people that he's spoken to don't think it made a huge difference.

 

So then, you ask, why continue to do it at the risk of being caught? I'm not sure. Perhaps Belichick figured that so many other teams had done it that nobody would dare turn him in. Maybe he thought that his on-field opponents already knew about it and would have reported it already if they cared enough to. It's also possible that he really did "misinterpret" the memo that the league sent out (dubious, but possible). Or maybe, just maybe, he said to himself "I'm Bill Belichick, and I work for Robert Kraft, the league can't touch me".

 

The point is, the team certainly didn't take any steps backward because of spygate, which in a lot of people's minds debunks the assertion that the taping of defensive signals played a large role in their superbowl victories. I think there's plenty of credence to that argument.

[4thand1]

I think you guys are severely overestimating the "brotherhood" of the NFL, by saying other NFL teams were sweeping it under the rug for the better part of the league, or nonsense like saying Jay Fiedler's words don't matter because he's spouting the company line. If these teams truly felt that spygate screwed them out of millions of dollars, then do you really think they would have stood for it?

 

An example, in 2003, the Patriots beat the Titans and then hosted the Colts at Gillette. Now let's say spygate was the reason why they beat the Titans (it didn't appear to, seeing as how they beat the Titans by 8 in the regular season and only 3 in the playoffs, more on that in a second), take spygate and cheating out, and the Titans win, and instead they go to Indianapolis. So Indy is now hosting a playoff game and Tennessee is still in it.

 

I don't know how much each team would take in money wise for hosting playoff games, but you're also talking about merchandise like the lame t-shirts that say "conference champion", and also Super Bowl apparel for one of those two teams that win. And perhaps one of those two teams beats the Panthers in the Super Bowl. Now they've got super bowl champion videos, clothing, mugs, etc. Heck, even if they lost, now the Panthers have those things instead. We're talking about millions and millions of dollars here. Trust me, you shouldn't undestimate what money means to people.

 

I said that the Patriots beat the Titans by less the second time around than the first time in 2003, and you can go all through the decade seeing numbers like that. The Dolphins, in my opinion, have been the worst of the AFC East teams this decade, yet they've more or less have gone even with the Patriots this decade. I would think divisional opponents would be the best example. Of course the Patriots have dominated the Bills, but the Bills played scared every time they face New England.

 

Other examples of this would be, say, the Eagles in 2003. The Patriots beat them 31-10. Go forward a year and a half later, and those magical stolen signals should have made Super Bowl 39 a blowout.....right? Steelers fans are the biggest whiners when it comes to spygate, but look at the details of the 2001 AFCCG. That was the first time Belichick played the Steelers as head coach in New England (and thus was cheating). That game was won by two special teams touchdowns. It was the first time the Patriots themselves had faced the Steelers since 1998, and Belichick himself had not faced the Steelers since 1996 I believe it was.

 

They had to face teams they hadn't faced in years during this decade of success, and they pretty much beat everyone whether it was the first time playing them or not. The best examples you could use against it helping the Patriots was against the Rams in 2001 (Patriots lost the first meeting by 7) and the Steelers in 2004 (Patriots lost the first meeting by 14). But Antowain Smith fumbled at the 1 yard line in that 2001 game, and the Patriots went up on the Steelers 24-3 at halftime in the second meeting. I've seen people say that they cheat by "learning all the signals at halftime", and yet the Steelers scored 24 points in the second half in 2004 and the Rams outscored the Patriots 14-6 in the second half in the Super Bowl.

 

Well, you could argue that they never lose the second time in a season against the same opponent. But the 2004 team lost to the Dolphins the second go around, and the Broncos and Colts in 2005 and 2006 in the playoffs, and I'm sure it happened a few times in the two crappy seasons they had since they started cheating, 2000 and 2002.

[MattM]

I think you guys are severely overestimating the "brotherhood" of the NFL, by saying other NFL teams were sweeping it under the rug for the better part of the league, or nonsense like saying Jay Fiedler's words don't matter because he's spouting the company line. If these teams truly felt that spygate screwed them out of millions of dollars, then do you really think they would have stood for it?

 

An example, in 2003, the Patriots beat the Titans and then hosted the Colts at Gillette. Now let's say spygate was the reason why they beat the Titans (it didn't appear to, seeing as how they beat the Titans by 8 in the regular season and only 3 in the playoffs, more on that in a second), take spygate and cheating out, and the Titans win, and instead they go to Indianapolis. So Indy is now hosting a playoff game and Tennessee is still in it.

 

I don't know how much each team would take in money wise for hosting playoff games, but you're also talking about merchandise like the lame t-shirts that say "conference champion", and also Super Bowl apparel for one of those two teams that win. And perhaps one of those two teams beats the Panthers in the Super Bowl. Now they've got super bowl champion videos, clothing, mugs, etc. Heck, even if they lost, now the Panthers have those things instead. We're talking about millions and millions of dollars here. Trust me, you shouldn't undestimate what money means to people.

 

I said that the Patriots beat the Titans by less the second time around than the first time in 2003, and you can go all through the decade seeing numbers like that. The Dolphins, in my opinion, have been the worst of the AFC East teams this decade, yet they've more or less have gone even with the Patriots this decade. I would think divisional opponents would be the best example. Of course the Patriots have dominated the Bills, but the Bills played scared every time they face New England.

 

Other examples of this would be, say, the Eagles in 2003. The Patriots beat them 31-10. Go forward a year and a half later, and those magical stolen signals should have made Super Bowl 39 a blowout.....right? Steelers fans are the biggest whiners when it comes to spygate, but look at the details of the 2001 AFCCG. That was the first time Belichick played the Steelers as head coach in New England (and thus was cheating). That game was won by two special teams touchdowns. It was the first time the Patriots themselves had faced the Steelers since 1998, and Belichick himself had not faced the Steelers since 1996 I believe it was.

 

They had to face teams they hadn't faced in years during this decade of success, and they pretty much beat everyone whether it was the first time playing them or not. The best examples you could use against it helping the Patriots was against the Rams in 2001 (Patriots lost the first meeting by 7) and the Steelers in 2004 (Patriots lost the first meeting by 14). But Antowain Smith fumbled at the 1 yard line in that 2001 game, and the Patriots went up on the Steelers 24-3 at halftime in the second meeting. I've seen people say that they cheat by "learning all the signals at halftime", and yet the Steelers scored 24 points in the second half in 2004 and the Rams outscored the Patriots 14-6 in the second half in the Super Bowl.

 

Well, you could argue that they never lose the second time in a season against the same opponent. But the 2004 team lost to the Dolphins the second go around, and the Broncos and Colts in 2005 and 2006 in the playoffs, and I'm sure it happened a few times in the two crappy seasons they had since they started cheating, 2000 and 2002.

 

Welcome to the Board, Pats fan. I say "Pats fan" since you joined yesterday and have a seemingly well-researched/rehearsed line on why it was all no big deal. Although from some of the posts above perhaps you work for the League!

 

On your arguments re: money, wouldn't it make even more economic sense for the owners to downplay any threat to the integrity of the game so as to save "the franchise" (ie., the League)? Once folks start understanding that it's more like the WWF than a major sport, you risk destroying the entire League. None of the owners wants to remotely go there.

 

As you can see above, rightly or wrongly, not many here are likely to be buying what you're selling. I, like others here, suspect that New England did more cheating than just Spygate, but that's just me/us. I won't go rehash all the aruments above, but while we're on the topic of Steelers-Pats games, I seem to recall one playoff game between the two several years ago when the Steelers had about a 70 yard run nullified on a phantom holding call--par for the course for the Pats, so you probably don't remember it, but rest assured that others who follow the League do......

[Mr. WEO]

Tim, if you're still reading, what say you to an article on fans of other teams' perception of the Pats and Spygate, etc. a year later? For ex., giving some of the folks here who think they cheated more than has been let on a voice in the mainstream media. I suspect (in fact, I know, since I did it myself last year) that if you poll fans of other teams you'll find that the folks here writing in this thread are not the only ones who smell something rotten in Denmark when it comes to Spygate and New England more generally. I'd be curious whether ESPN (and the League) would take kindly to opening that back up, or whether that's something they just want the lid to stay on as tightly as possible.....

You see Tim? This is what we have here. These guys have painted themselves into such a tight corner. Their entire mindset is absolutely dependent on accepting that there is a leaguewide coverup or whitewashing involving every owner, coach, almost all players AND the media.

 

The simple questions cannot be answered with logic. Why did all the owners--including the cheated ones---decide to say nothing? What is the benefit to them? Oh, that's right--they are silent to "protect the integrity of the league". Which leads to the next question: how would such a blatant coverup preserve the league's intergrity? If all of the SBs were tainted, why wouldn't the integrity of the league be better served by making a very public example of BB by tossing him out after exposing all of the "other" evils acts he committed? What's Kraft going to do? Walk away from the league?

 

And the press?? How on earth would they benefit from burying a story, that if true, would be the biggest sports scandal since the Blacksox (gee, no one would want to break that story, eh? Are they worried about losing "access"--this is nonsense! Any investigative reporter could have done a story without fear of repercussions. The Boston Herald actually tried to run such a "bombshell story", but in their hasteto get this hot story out, they threw juornalistic basics and integrity out the windowand ended up retracting the story--it was a hoax. And as pointed out, the goofball who wrote the story was actually notkilled by Kraft's henchmen--in fact, he is still writing sports for that paper.

 

And, as a sign of desperation and confusion, now you have these guys calling past questionable/favorable calls "cheating".

 

These guys are staked to these crazy arguments and the more you push back, the loonier they get. It's great off-season entertainment, though.

[thebandit27]

Welcome to the Board, Pats fan. I say "Pats fan" since you joined yesterday and have a seemingly well-researched/rehearsed line on why it was all no big deal. Although from some of the posts above perhaps you work for the League!

 

On your arguments re: money, wouldn't it make even more economic sense for the owners to downplay any threat to the integrity of the game so as to save "the franchise" (ie., the League)? Once folks start understanding that it's more like the WWF than a major sport, you risk destroying the entire League. None of the owners wants to remotely go there.

 

As you can see above, rightly or wrongly, not many here are likely to be buying what you're selling. I, like others here, suspect that New England did more cheating than just Spygate, but that's just me/us. I won't go rehash all the aruments above, but while we're on the topic of Steelers-Pats games, I seem to recall one playoff game between the two several years ago when the Steelers had about a 70 yard run nullified on a phantom holding call--par for the course for the Pats, so you probably don't remember it, but rest assured that others who follow the League do......

 

Well, since I'm a well-documented New England hater, and I agree with 4thand1's post, perhaps I'll respond.

 

it's okay for someone to think that spygate was no big deal. just because the poster has a different opinion doesn't mean he's wrong. perhaps this poster, just like a lot of others already belonging to the board, has thought about spygate quite a bit and already has an opinion. i'll say that this thread represents my first post on the subject despite being highly-opinionated on the topic and a member of the board since october.

 

By your logic, MattM, the rest of the league owners simply don't care about winning at all, and are happy to just sit around until Roger Goodell and Bob Kraft decide that it's somebody else's turn to win a few, right? I guess Dan Rooney won the drawing this year, huh? honestly, that kind of thinking seems a little bit silly to me. it's a business, and the 32 respective business owners all have goals that they are trying to meet, one of which is to win the superbowl. bottom line profit is part of it too, but you can't make me believe that a successful business owner (let alone 31 successful business owners) are going to sit idly by while one rogue enterprise gets away with cheating, all in the name of preserving a game that likely wouldn't suffer any kind of profit loss if the supposed (remember, yours is just a supposition, not even an allegation) league-wide cheating scandal cover-up were exposed. that's crazy.

 

Not once in the entire post did 4thand1 assert that no other cheating aside from spygate went on, he simply reiterated (albeit long-windedly) that the rest of the league probably wasn't shelling out for New England.

 

Have I felt, at times, that New England gets a lot of calls? Yep. Buffalo's Sunday night loss in 2004 (in New England) was a particularly bad one, where I felt the team was hosed on several holding calls. But there's another side of that argument: I also watched the 2005 Superbowl, in which the referees practically handed the game to the Steelers. I've also seen countless regular-season games in which Peyton Manning gets away with head-faking (to simulate a snap) at the line of scrimmage and taking the play clock past :00 mulitiple times per game. Face it, the good teams get the calls, that's just the nature of sports.

 

Even a guy like Mike Florio (PFT), who loves to look for consipiracies and get people thinking in that direction, has opined on several occasions that league-wide sentiment is that spygate wasn't a big deal.

 

Call me a New England fan if you'd like (although my 22 years as a Bills' season ticket holder should lead you to think otherwise), but if the vast majority of talk around the league indicates that it wasn't a big deal, I'm inclined to believe it.

[The Senator]

You see Tim? This is what we have here. These guys have painted themselves into such a tight corner. Their entire mindset is absolutely dependent on accepting that there is a leaguewide coverup or whitewashing involving every owner, coach, almost all players AND the media.

 

The simple questions cannot be answered with logic. Why did all the owners--including the cheated ones---decide to say nothing? What is the benefit to them? Oh, that's right--they are silent to "protect the integrity of the league". Which leads to the next question: how would such a blatant coverup preserve the league's intergrity? If all of the SBs were tainted, why wouldn't the integrity of the league be better served by making a very public example of BB by tossing him out after exposing all of the "other" evils acts he committed? What's Kraft going to do? Walk away from the league?

 

And the press?? How on earth would they benefit from burying a story, that if true, would be the biggest sports scandal since the Blacksox (gee, no one would want to break that story, eh? Are they worried about losing "access"--this is nonsense! Any investigative reporter could have done a story without fear of repercussions. The Boston Herald actually tried to run such a "bombshell story", but in their hasteto get this hot story out, they threw juornalistic basics and integrity out the windowand ended up retracting the story--it was a hoax. And as pointed out, the goofball who wrote the story was actually notkilled by Kraft's henchmen--in fact, he is still writing sports for that paper.

 

These guys are staked to these crazy arguments and the more you push back, the loonier they get. It's great off-season entertainment, though.

I didn't know they read - or even sold - The Boston Herald in Provincetown

 

Why do you persist with this futile charade that you're not a 'dyed-in-the-wool' Patriettes* fan (albeit most likely a bandwaggoner who will jump off when they go 8-8 this season) when it's so freakin' obvious?

[Dan]

I think you guys are severely overestimating the "brotherhood" of the NFL, by saying other NFL teams were sweeping it under the rug for the better part of the league, or nonsense like saying Jay Fiedler's words don't matter because he's spouting the company line. If these teams truly felt that spygate screwed them out of millions of dollars, then do you really think they would have stood for it?

 

An example, in 2003, the Patriots beat the Titans and then hosted the Colts at Gillette. Now let's say spygate was the reason why they beat the Titans (it didn't appear to, seeing as how they beat the Titans by 8 in the regular season and only 3 in the playoffs, more on that in a second), take spygate and cheating out, and the Titans win, and instead they go to Indianapolis. So Indy is now hosting a playoff game and Tennessee is still in it.

 

I don't know how much each team would take in money wise for hosting playoff games, but you're also talking about merchandise like the lame t-shirts that say "conference champion", and also Super Bowl apparel for one of those two teams that win. And perhaps one of those two teams beats the Panthers in the Super Bowl. Now they've got super bowl champion videos, clothing, mugs, etc. Heck, even if they lost, now the Panthers have those things instead. We're talking about millions and millions of dollars here. Trust me, you shouldn't undestimate what money means to people.

 

I said that the Patriots beat the Titans by less the second time around than the first time in 2003, and you can go all through the decade seeing numbers like that. The Dolphins, in my opinion, have been the worst of the AFC East teams this decade, yet they've more or less have gone even with the Patriots this decade. I would think divisional opponents would be the best example. Of course the Patriots have dominated the Bills, but the Bills played scared every time they face New England.

 

Other examples of this would be, say, the Eagles in 2003. The Patriots beat them 31-10. Go forward a year and a half later, and those magical stolen signals should have made Super Bowl 39 a blowout.....right? Steelers fans are the biggest whiners when it comes to spygate, but look at the details of the 2001 AFCCG. That was the first time Belichick played the Steelers as head coach in New England (and thus was cheating). That game was won by two special teams touchdowns. It was the first time the Patriots themselves had faced the Steelers since 1998, and Belichick himself had not faced the Steelers since 1996 I believe it was.

 

They had to face teams they hadn't faced in years during this decade of success, and they pretty much beat everyone whether it was the first time playing them or not. The best examples you could use against it helping the Patriots was against the Rams in 2001 (Patriots lost the first meeting by 7) and the Steelers in 2004 (Patriots lost the first meeting by 14). But Antowain Smith fumbled at the 1 yard line in that 2001 game, and the Patriots went up on the Steelers 24-3 at halftime in the second meeting. I've seen people say that they cheat by "learning all the signals at halftime", and yet the Steelers scored 24 points in the second half in 2004 and the Rams outscored the Patriots 14-6 in the second half in the Super Bowl.

 

Well, you could argue that they never lose the second time in a season against the same opponent. But the 2004 team lost to the Dolphins the second go around, and the Broncos and Colts in 2005 and 2006 in the playoffs, and I'm sure it happened a few times in the two crappy seasons they had since they started cheating, 2000 and 2002.

If I may offer as a rebuttal to this line of reasoning.... you don't need to cheat all the time in all situations if you're a good team. Think of it this way, you're taking a test. You study, you know most of the material, but you just can't remember that tricky little Nitrogen Cycle. So you write that down on a piece of paper. During the course of the exam, you may only use that cheat sheet 2 or 3 times, but that's enough to give you an A over a B. So was it worth it? That may be the only exam you cheat on, but without that A, you don't maintain your A average. So, you haven't cheated on all tests (games) on all questions (plays), but you did do something that was unfair that gave you an advantage.

 

How extensive was the Pats* cheating? How much did it actually help? These are questions that a more thorough investigation could have answered. But, no investigation, no answers, no problems. I guess.

 

 

 

Just for kicks.. take the Rams walk through they allegedly taped. It's been argued that wouldn't help, what could they get from that. It's of no value. However, if your a coach trying to prepare your team, you look over all the tape of their games during the season and end up with maybe a couple dozen formations and plays you feel are likely to be used. However, upon reviewing a tape of their walk though, you see that they're only utilizing 6 formations and plays. Does it give you a big advantage knowing you can forget about all those other formations?

 

Again back to the test analogy. If you're given a 24 chapter text book and I say you'll be tested on this in 2 weeks, you have alot of studying to do. What if you then find out 2 days before that the test is only going to cover a few chapters? Now you can forget all that other crap, concentrate on the right chapters and greatly increase your chance of success.

 

Again, a more thorough investigation could have answered the questions of exactly what was done, how much of it was done, and what advantages it had.