Revis Rips bellicheat and Brady

If you're referring to questions regarding proof that the Pats cheated, again I don't need to prove anything. That's already a fact. The burden if Pats fans choose to accept it is on them to prove they weren't gaining any advantage by cheating. No Pats fan has done that yet. All I've read is people trying to say they gained no advantage (without evidence) or actually denying that they cheated at all which is actually absurd. FTR, I don't think any fan is going to be able to prove they didn't gain an advantage. A complete explanation by Belichick MAY help, but I doubt it - and we all know that is never going to happen.

What questions have I ignored?

So you admit that it's not normal for a team to be 10-3 in close games and since spygate that has evened out to a more realistic average. Glad to hear it.

 

I'm sure no one would have noticed a guy in the stands with a giant HD Video camera. Putting a guy in a box wouldn't even be the same thing - I think it's actually legal to video from the boxes.

 

Please show me a link to the article where Goodell states the Patriots did not cheat.

Really? This is the angle you're going to take? Goodell punished the Pats for cheating because he wanted to establish himself as boss? This just keeps getting better.

No, you haven't.

You're right, I don't understand football.

Nope.

So why were neither and why was all the evidence destroyed? Probably for the fun of it just like they were only video taping for the fun of it without ninja gear on.

No you haven't debunked shit, you just keep claiming you did.

You are the only one ignoring reality here. You and a handful of other Belichick fan bois continue to repeat the mantra that the Pats didn't cheat when the world knows they did. That's ignoring reality my friend.

Oh and ftr, I mostly just enjoy getting under the skin of Pats fans.

 

The guy had a vhs hand-held camera, that even Walsh, who looking to bury the Pats because they fired him, said was handed in at THE END of the game.

...and admitting that it wouldn't be illegal to do the same thing from the boxes shows that you actually do know that what they were taping does not, as the league determined, give them an unfair advantage.

And that the taping was not in and of itself against the rules. It was where they were taping from.

Scouts inc. explained in an article how the tapes were use. The signals and down situations taped would be matched with game films to decipher teams play calling tendencies. This was done anywhere from a week to months after the actual game. If teams were silly enough to keep the same defensive signals the next time they played, all the better. Knowing that virtually all teams had guys on the sideline looking to steal the signs immediately during the game, it makes the argument that this was worse a bit silly.

 

your point?

You know that's not true, but if it makes you feel better to say it, be my guest.

Again, your point?

You know what is silly? Trying to argue that the Pats didn't gain an advantage doing something that landed them a huge fine and lost them draft picks. They must have done it for fun.

 

Bill Belichick has been known to be a stubborn asshole

He annually skips the photo op with all the coaches together and doesn't let himself appear on Madden for no real reason. He resigned on a piece of scrap paper and didn't even fully write it out for fucks sake.

I view spygate similarly. He was just being a defiant asshole because that is who he is and Goodell had to show he was the Alpha male.

 

No one is ever going to be able to "prove" anything at this point, either way. The only real fact we can and should all agree on is that the Patriots violated an NFL rule stating that you cannot film opposing teams' hand signals from the sideline. They were punished for it accordingly.

As I've said repeatedly in this thread, I understand the perspective of opposing fans. And I understand the perspective of New England fans. The truth, as it usually does, probably lies somewhere in the middle.

You've also repeated, several times, the 10-3 pre-Spygate and 10-8 post-Spygate records in games decided by a FG or less.

But after looking into the 10-8 part of your numbers, first of all it looks like that's not right, and secondly, Brady did not play in two of those games because they happened in 2008.

One in 2007 - Only loss was by three points to the Giants in the Super Bowl. (1)

Two in 2008 - Cassel replaced Brady in week one and Patriots had two three-point losses that year... one to Indy 15-18; and one to the Jets in an OT game at Foxboro. (3)

Three in 2009 - Lost in OT, 17-20, @ Denver (against McDaniels); lost; infamous "4th-and-2" game loss @ Indy, 34-35; third was a 21-22 loss @ Miami. (6)

2010 - Lost two games, plus the playoff game to the Jets; all three losses were by more than 3 points (not even close, really). (6)

2011 - Lost early in the season when Buffalo came back from a big deficit, dropping one close game 31-34. (7)

Then they lost the most recent SB by four points.

So I'm getting seven losses, not eight, and Brady did not play in two of those games. Maybe I'm missing something but I just pulled up the schedules for 2007-2011 and did a quick count.

So... 10-3, assuming that's correct (I did not check those games/seasons), pre-Spygate.

10-5 post-Spygate, with Brady and not Cassel.

And a much, much shittier defense post-Spygate. In fact, I can think of at least three or four of those seven losses where the defense just sucked at the biggest moments of those games (including the first SB loss).

When you hash it all out, pre-Spygate and post-Spygate look pretty much the same, wouldn't you say? Two game difference? Especially since I'm betting that you believe the NFL handed the Patriots one of those pre-Spygate wins due to the tuck rule, lol...

 

I think that's a very, very reasonable take on the situation.

The only spot I would differ on a little bit is that what the Saints were doing - even if it's commonplace - directly flew in the face of player safety, which is really a hot-button issue right now. Violating rules to win games and violating rules to deliberately injure players are both infractions, but it's really difficult to relate them to each other. The end result is the same (giving your team an advantage), but the road taken to that point could not be more different.

If I had to use some kind of analogy, the Patriots are like an executive who got busted for some kind of white-collar-type crime. Not victimless, but no one was directly (physically) hurt by it. The Saints, on the other hand, are more like an arrest for assault or something like that. I'm not saying one is better than the other, or worse, but they're just different.

 

Nice to see there are some Jets fans who get it.

 

This is where you're ignoring what others have posted. This has been addressed numerous times.

Many people on BOTH sides of this agree that the severity of the fine and lost draft pick was more about the direct defiance of the memo that was sent out two months before Mangini turned Belichick in.

You got kids?

Sometimes my kids do things they shouldn't do. So I tell them not to do it. Most of the time they listen.

If they do it again, things escalate and the consequences become greater.

The severity of the punishment was more about Goodell establishing himself as the league disciplinarian and less about the severity of the Patriots' offense. I think that's clear to anyone who read/followed/learned what they could about Spygate.

I've already posted this SI link, but if you haven't looked at it, please... do. It's an article that came out in July 2007, two months prior to Spygate, that mentions the Patriots being the focal point of that memo.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/writers/don_banks/07/06/cheating.nfl/index.html

 

There are, but he's a 'Phins fan. :wink:

 

I agree that Saints should be handled more seriously. The one thing the NFL has been consistent about promoting was player safety and the Saints allegations and information was flying in the face of that. It ruined the brand of the NFL where the NFL can play the Patriots thing off as a minor incident against memo and downplay the impact. The problem was the handling of the incident and burning the tapes. The actual incident in my eyes wasn't too big of a deal until the NFL mishandled it.

 

Thanks as always for inserting some objectivity into this thread.

The only question I would ask is what else could have been on the tapes? If it was three or ten or a hundred hours of coaches signaling in plays, is that something that the world needed to see? Once you've seen 30 seconds of it, didn't you get the idea and anything beyond that would have just been equal parts boring and useless?

No one's ever disputed what was on there, and the small snippets we've seen are pretty basic... just a zoomed in frame of offensive coordinators using hand signals.

I guess I'm just not sure what else even could have been included.

A second shooter on the grassy knoll?

Verified video of Elvis? :wink:

Only asking because I really don't get what the big deal was with the tapes being destroyed. I guess the NFL could have made all the video available to the public, but that would have been odd because they would have been giving the other 31 teams the same information that the Patriots got punished for filming! :rofl:

 

You are a liar, You really don't get what the big deal is with the tapes being destroyed without any real explanation?


Why do you Pats fans feel the need to go back and forth defending your A-hole coach? He doesn't give a shit about you.. its debateable whether he gives a shit about anyone except himself. To be on a Jets message board endlessly arguing "your" side on the spygate issue is pathetic- I'm sorry. Can we please end this debate?

Harbaugh in Baltimore was 100% dead on in this issue - regardless of whether it provided any advantage at all or was worth it, it still taints your superbowls in the minds of everyone else and will do so forever.

For your own sanity I suggest just accepting this, stop giving a shit and arguing for something you know NOTHING about and enjoy your superbowls**********

especially since it could very well be a long, long time before you get another.

 

Well it was the handling of it. Burning the tapes just led to more speculation. They literally burned them. It just seems so strange. You never hear of evidence being destroyed unless it is to hide something. Again I'm not implying that the NFL was hiding something, but clearly the connotation of destroying evidence is that it was incriminating or you are hiding something. My other problem was the NFL asked the Patriots to hand over whatever tapes broke the rules and it was 3-4 days before the Patriots handed over the tapes. I have serious doubts Bill handed over his whole collection and this plays in with all the arrogant Bill theories. Again we will never know, but the way it was handled and the Patriots lack of Super Bowls is just fuel to the speculation fire that will never if ever die.

Well I counter your last point by saying as you say if the tapes made no difference why would it hurt to show everyone? :wink: (just being a jerk here)

 

LOL! I'm a liar, huh?

1. I'm asking a legitimate question.

Maybe instead of getting all pissy about it you could answer it for me, because I've asked it at least twice now and I seem to have stumped all of you.

WHAT ELSE COULD HAVE BEEN ON THE TAPES????? Everyone agrees, the accusers and the accused, that it was offensive plays being signaled into games.

Do you need to see 100 hours of that to understand what it was?

Or are you suggesting something else was on them?

It's a valid question. Give it a second of rational thought, if you're capable.

2. I'm not defending Belichick.

Try, you know, reading shit before spouting off like a gigantic asshole. I specifically said, several posts ago, that I'm pissed that he brought this on the team.

And I've acknowledged numerous times, in this thread and others, that he's probably an asshole. I don't care... he's a football coach. He's not babysitting my kids. Rex Ryan is likely an asshole too, but that doesn't stop any of you from pretending that he's a super down-to-earth kind of guy and slurping his balls.

3. Harbaugh was right, I agree.

There is, indeed, a perception out there that their SBs are tainted. But that perception exists mainly because people want them to be tainted. You denying that is as ridiculous as a Pats fan denying that they don't want it to be true.

Does it annoy me a bit? Sure as shit it does. I've been following the Patriots since I was a kid in the 70s. So it sucks, yes. But not to the point where I'm really bothered by it.

4. Yes, I know nothing about this subject, LOL!

Yes... clearly I'm outgunned by your knowledge!

As a Patriots fan for the last four decades I've had almost no exposure to Spygate. Zero.

But I will say, in my experience on football message boards, when someone starts dropping comments like that, it usually means that they know jack shit about the game, and simply have nothing else valid to say.

But I'm sure it's not like that this time. You're like the Stephen Hawking of the NFL, sans the wheelchair and creepy robot voice. :up:

5. "... especially since it could very well be a long, long time before you get another."

You mean, like, 43 years? Like that long?



Mixed in with all the crap in this thread there has been a fairly civil, productive discussion about Spygate. If it annoys you, or if you find it so pathetic, then why are you still reading it?

 

This all makes sense, and I can objectively see the point you're making. I don't think anyone would have been up-in-arms if it had been, say, the Jaguars, or some other team that didn't have the success that the Patriots had earlier in the decade.

When the Patriots made their run in 2001 and won that Super Bowl against the Rams, it was a great story, and a lot of people nationally were pulling for them as the underdog. But two titles later, and a long period of sustained success, has made them one of the most hated teams in the league. I get that, I really do. I'm not expecting that to change, and it doesn't really matter to me. It's just the natural course of things. If the Jets run off a couple of championships in the next few years, they'll have the same bulls-eye on their backs.

So the preexisting animosity toward the Patriots, plus the way it was handled by the NFL, combined to create kind of a perfect storm of sorts. Believe me, if something similar had happened with the 49ers in the 1980s or the Cowboys in the 1990s, I would have glibly piled on with the fans from the rest of the NFL.