Cheaters?

  1. This post has been removed.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from underdoggggg. Show underdoggggg's posts

    Re: Cheaters?

    Russ Russ Russ - I said a few other teams may have been doing it.  Maybe that's why the memo went out.  Get it? 

    Russ, who was doing it after the memo, which spelled out specifically what was and was not allowed, was delivered to teams?  The only team I know of is the New England Patriots.  Do you know of others? 

    How am I calling Goodell or Walsh a liar?  Stop making things up. 

    As for Walsh's oath, what oath?  this wasn't a court proceeding.  he wasn't being deposed.  Further, Walsh's agreement with the NFL was that regardless of what he said he would be protected from litigation by the league and its teams. 

    Come back Russ, when you really have something to counter with. 
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from Artist-Frmrly-Knwn-As-NickC1188. Show Artist-Frmrly-Knwn-As-NickC1188's posts

    Re: Cheaters?

    In Response to Re: Cheaters?:
    I still have a hard time referring to stealing signals as "cheating." That's all the Pats were doing--and they weren't even using the tapes during the games (Matt Walsh confirmed this). They were using them for scouting purposes later on (most likely to scout their own offensive tendencies to see if they were giving away any secrets with their formations). Stealing signals continues to go on in every football game played in America to this very day. Spygate: the most overblown bunch of nonsense, ever, starting with Goodell's ridiculous over-punishment and continuing with the media hysteria because they smelled Belichick's blood in the water, and most of them hate Belichick and were looking to exact a little revenge against him. A big bunch of nothing; that's what it was. Anyone who's followed football for more than 5 minutes knows that this kind of thing has been going on since the days of leather helmets.
    Posted by hardright


    Even though you're right, people will never listen.

    Even ESPN said this was the case: http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3394809

    Whatever.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from underdoggggg. Show underdoggggg's posts

    Re: Cheaters?

    1.  Walsh absolutely gave a deposition. You're too stupid to know what that is and what the legal ramifications are if you lie during a deposition.
    LOL - Really.  I'd appreciate if you could share that link.  

    2.  The Jets were asked to shut down in 2006 after not being granted permission to film at Foxborough.   This is what led to Mangini's attempt at revenge in Week 1 in 2007 for that block by BB at Gillette.
    Ok, your point?

    Anything else?

    In case you are too stupid to read between the lines, this rule is an NFL rule, not a team or stadium rule. When Manboobs says he was asked by NE to shut down the camera, that's a lie.  NE cannot directly ask that, NFL personnel has to ask
    Ah, reading between the lines.  Yes.  The things I have read say that only 2 cameras are allowed, but occassionally a team will ask another team for permission to operate a 3rd camera (say from an endzone angle).  If an team sees an opposing team operating an extra camera without authorization then why can't they ask the violating team to shut them down?  How many "non-team related" NFL personnel work a game other than the referees?  Who are these people?

    It was and they were in violation in 2006, but the NFL and Goodell did nothing.
    ??

    We've seen other violations where Goodell did nothing too, like Miami buying audio from CBS personnel to use it to splice up audio against Brady's audbiles.
    Maybe Goodell treated Miami like he treated the pats.  He warned them first.  You seem to forget that Belichick chose to disregard the league warning and memo.

    Again, no violation there because what was captured was not used in the game THAT DAY. That was Goodell's explanation via the NFL office then.
    The language does not specify using video for "THAT GAME" is the only way using the video constitutes a violation of the rules.  Besides, Walsh said everyone in the org knew what they were doing was wrong.

    NE asked NFL personnel to shut them down because they were filming from an unspecified spot. This is why they were shut down.
    I suppose that if this happened this is part of the reason for memo going out.  Any team that was doing it (as I said, I was aware there were a few), caused the memo to be sent.  Belichick disregarded the memo and continued taping.  Did anyone else?

    Ironic how what people feel was soemthing illegal by NE, was actually being done all over the league by many teams, if not all, as coaches play games with one another within this rule.
    This is nothing but an assumption.  You don't know this.

    It got out of hand and the Jets pounced on an opportunity to smear a rival whom they are very, very jealous of.
    That is very possible.  At the same time, Belichick chose to snub his nose at 2 warnings by the league to stop.  You know the saying - Fool me once, shame on you.  Fool me twice, shame on me.  A commissioner being disregarded by a coach will almost always result in a slap on the hand - or in the face, if need be. 

    http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/articles/2007/12/13/focus_on_jet_camera/

    You just continue to walk face first into a door on this topic and I wish your boyfriend "Jimmy-JackYouOff" was here to try to chime in with his  canned "you cheated, move on" backpedal.
    Nope.  At the end of the day, I know what he did was wrong.  He was asked twice to stop.  He didn't.  It was against the rules, it was used to gain an advantage, and it was systematic in the org from the beginning of Belichick's time. 

    You're finished.  Take your bludegeoning like a man. 
    If you want to bludgeon, I recommend something more than your words.  They are nothing more than empty, hot air. 
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from underdoggggg. Show underdoggggg's posts

    Re: Cheaters?

    In Response to Re: Cheaters?:
    In Response to Re: Cheaters? : Even though you're right, people will never listen. Even ESPN said this was the case:  http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3394809 Whatever.
    Posted by Artist-Frmrly-Knwn-As-NickC1188

    I think the NFL protected the Pats by not showing some of those videos.  And the article does say the taping provides and advantage over the pen and paper advance scouting. 

    The question no one who's a fan of belichick wants to ask is if there is no advantage why would he do it for 6 years? 

    Could Ernie Adams have reviewed the tape during the game and had it to the team by the 4th Q?  The guy is supposed to be a super genius and he is not involved with the team during the game.  Right? 

    Regardless, it prepares them for their next game against the team they have taped beyond what they may have otherwise had to work from.  That is an advantage.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from hardright. Show hardright's posts

    Re: Cheaters?

    In Response to Re: Cheaters?:
    Because it is legal. The act is legal. How stupid are you? The NFL allows any 32 teams to tape their games, including today. Give it up, dummy.  Holy mackerel are you dumb.
    Posted by russgriswold


    This again, goes to the inconsistencies between the now-famous memo and the actual rule or rules in place.

    The rulebook in one spot actually says teams MUST videotape their games and then exchange the tapes with opponents. It actually says that in one section, and it also says that the "legal" filming must include filming the scoreboard (for time, down and distance) so that opponents scouting the game film know the situation when each play was run.

    However, the memo addressed (and embellished) a particular portion of the rules which said "no recording devices....except polaroid-type cameras" were allowed to be used during the game, and that filming signals was not allowed (I can't remember if the actual rulebook addresses signals at all). Then it goes on to state the language about filming only being allowed in the "enclosed shooting locations" inside the stadium.

    So....if only "polaroid-type cameras" are supposed to be allowed during the game, then why does another section of the rulebook state that filming MUST take place so that teams can share the film with other teams, and that filming is allowed from enclosed locations inside the stadium? The language about filming being prohibited "in areas accessible to team personnel" is also contradictory, since it stands to reason that team personnel would include the guys filming the game tapes to be later exchanged with opponents.

    The entire thing is very contradictory, and for all of the media hand-wringing about how Belichick was "lying" regarding his interpretation of the rule (that the taping was OK as long as they were not being used during the game), he had a very solid legal foot to stand on, because the rulebook contradicts itself in certain places, and the memo contradicts the rulebook to boot.

    In the end, this still comes down to nothing more than a sophisticated (and, before the memo from the NFL, common) way to decipher opponent's signals--as opposed to the binoculars and notepad method that still goes on to this day, every single Sunday.

    Spygate: one big ball of NOTHING.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from underdoggggg. Show underdoggggg's posts

    Re: Cheaters?

    LOL Rusty - you can keep up the name calling but it won't do you any good.  You know as well as I do (if you've read) that the NFL limits the number of camera's a team may use to film the game and only by permission from the other team may they use more cameras.  Additionally you know that there are limitations to where those cameras may be used, and limitations as to what they may be used to film. 
    The fact is not only was what Belichick had his crew doing against the rules, he knew it was against the rules, was notified twice that it was against the rules and warned not to do it but disregarded the notifications and warnings and did it anyway. 

    Can you think of any clearer reason for punishment?  I can't. 

    I won't call you dumb, because I know you are a fan, and fans sometimes can't see the forest for the trees which is certainly the case here.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from underdoggggg. Show underdoggggg's posts

    Re: Cheaters?

    I love when you guys dissect rules in a way that suggests you know it better than the people applying it.  LOL.

    Oh and by the way, I seem to recall some information as all of this came to light stating that the pats were warned about doing this prior to the memo coming out.  That would be warned twice.  Maybe I am wrong, but clearly they were known for it:

    Green Bay officials removed a New England cameraman from the sideline during the Patriots' 35-0 victory at Lambeau Field last season. As word filtered through league channels, Indianapolis officials were suspicious enough to remove all non-network cameras from the RCA Dome before the Colts and Patriots played in the most recent AFC title game, scouts said.


    Oh and this little snippet suggest that you are absolutely wrong about NFL officials being the ones required to remove cameras.  It appears to me that the home team polices their house, just as the pats did with the Jets endzone camera in the link you provided.

    It was absolutely sinister.  Kraft's good friend Goodell said so:

    "This episode represents a calculated and deliberate attempt to avoid long-standing rules designed to encourage fair play and promote honest competition on the playing field," Goodell said in a letter to the Patriots.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from hardright. Show hardright's posts

    Re: Cheaters?

    In Response to Re: Cheaters?:
    In Response to Re: Cheaters? : You're wrong. He was not asked twice to stop at all. All 32  teams had a memo sent out by Ray Anderson, reminding them of the rule. You lie constantly to try to convincer yourself this is some kind of a sinister thing because it absolves Egghead Manning's failures as he trhew INT after INT and choked so many times into a 9-9 career playoff record. It's legal to film games and I can guarantee every single NFL team, at some time or another, filmed NE. Guarantee.  I know this because it's legal.
    Posted by russgriswold


    The few times the Patriots were "caught" before the NY Jets game in September 2007 (once in Green Bay in 2006 and I think against Detroit, also in 2006), the other teams asked them to stop, and the Pats did....the NFL never asked them to stop. They merely sent out a memo to all 32 teams, because they knew that New England was not the only team doing this (Jimmy Johnson said he knew "for a fact" that other teams were doing it, too).

    Again, the entire notion that the Pats were using this practice for some massive competitive advantage, or any competitive advantage at all for that matter, is completely voided by the fact that they were filming a mediocre Green Bay team in 2006 in a game in which they destroyed the Packers by something like 35 points, and a bad Detroit team later in the year.

    Why on earth would they film those bad or mediocre teams? They didn't need to film them to beat them, and they certainly wouldn't be filming Detroit because they were thinking, "hey, we may see this team in the Super Bowl next year, so we'd better get their signals now, here in November 2006, even though the signals would probably be completely different by then."

    It's ludicrous.

    They were doing it for scouting purposes---most likely scouting their own offense to see how teams reacted and what defenses they called whenever the Pats lined up in certain offensive formations.

    It was simply, as the Scouts, Inc. article says, a mechanism for streamlining the scouting process, and nothing more.

    I know idiot trolls like underdogg will never get this, but then again, he probably believes that having Polian on the Competition Committee doesn't give his team an unfair competitive advantage---and he probably believes that the Colts never pumped in crowd noise at the RCA Dome, either.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from underdoggggg. Show underdoggggg's posts

    Re: Cheaters?

    Taz - its Rusty.  He can't stop and he has no arguement.  If you are worried about this coming up, police your own fans.  I did not bring this up.  This thread was not started by me. 
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from underdoggggg. Show underdoggggg's posts

    Re: Cheaters?

    Well when people start making excuses for Belichick (the smartest man in football), and attempt to suggest his motives were innocent.  I call BS. 

    Anyway, on another subject for you and me.  Looks like the colts and pats have some issues to deal with.  Colts - Wayne and Mathis.  Pats - Mankins.  Thoughts.
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from underdoggggg. Show underdoggggg's posts

    Re: Cheaters?

    I think Wayne will be back and Mathis, too.  They are not in the same situation as Mankins.  That said, having them unhappy is not a good thing. 

    Wayne is an excellent receiver.  One of the best.  That doesn't mean he is perfect.  He is doing right now what Harrison did for him.  He's the decoy allowing opening for other receivers. 

    Look out for 5 wide this year.  Don't know if this will happen, but - Wayne, Gonzalez, Clark, Collie, and Garcon all healthy (I hope-apparently a small set back for gonzo).  Manning's got to be smiling thinking of the options.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from N464Mex-N460A. Show N464Mex-N460A's posts

    Re: Cheaters?

    No one cares about your team here underfroggggg go away


    In Response to Re: Cheaters?:
    I think Wayne will be back and Mathis, too.  They are not in the same situation as Mankins.  That said, having them unhappy is not a good thing.  Wayne is an excellent receiver.  One of the best.  That doesn't mean he is perfect.  He is doing right now what Harrison did for him.  He's the decoy allowing opening for other receivers.  Look out for 5 wide this year.  Don't know if this will happen, but - Wayne, Gonzalez, Clark, Collie, and Garcon all healthy (I hope-apparently a small set back for gonzo).  Manning's got to be smiling thinking of the options.
    Posted by underdoggggg

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from jjaycee. Show jjaycee's posts

    Re: Cheaters?

    In Response to Re: Cheaters?:
    yep if the pats were involved they'd be calling it ota gate- 
    Posted by sirpinochle
    why are you quoting a draft dodger, liar, disbarred lawyer, and  adulterer???
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from kansaspatriot. Show kansaspatriot's posts

    Re: Cheaters?

    In Response to Re: Cheaters?:
    You have filled up this page with nothing more than convaluted junk, and still failed to answer the direct question and to state how it is an advantage. You have proven to do what I wanted. It's not an advantage. WHen confronted on this topic: 1. You have not done your homework. I have a pretty good idea of what I think on the subject.  I am comfortable with my opinion.   2. Don't have facts. The facts are that the pats were punished for breaking rules that the commission considered a calculated effort to undermine the rules.   3. Fail to clearly state how it is a definitive advantage over another team doing the same act within the rules. Who said "another team" was doing it.  We are aware that there may have been another "team or two" doing it along with the Pats.  Because of these few teams not following the rules, the commish felt the need to send a memo to the teams.  Do you know of any other team doing what the pats did after the memo was sent?  No.  The pats were warned and chose not to listen.   You even just said "caught" and "caught again". Caught doing what?  There is not calculation here.   It's a portion of a rule they didn't follow, for whatever reason, and were fined. You have to come to the reality that the Pats were notified to stop taping on the sidelines and chose not to do that.  There was absolute calculation in it.  They chose to continue taping signals in order to gain an advantage (as the commish said, and not for "whatever reason" LOL) were caught and punished.   And yes, we DO trust that, because Matt Walsh, the villain in this thing, UNDER OATH, said he they never took the tapes out of the camcorder. No - you trust because you are a blind belichick fan.  If the tapes were never taken out of the camcorder then how many cameras did they have?  The league recovered 6 tapes (right?) and the team was doing this for 6 years.  Besides was Walsh with these tapes 24 hrs a day?  Was he entrusted with ensuring the tapes did not leave the recorder? Not based on the way Belichick described him. This was stated by BB in Sept 2007 and corroborated every every video coordinator who ever worked for them. FACT. What purpose would it serve any of these people to say otherwise? So, even when facts point to this being the greatest witch hunt ever, you still pretend these facts somehow point to someting sinister and deceptive. The facts don't point to your opinion.  If they did the general public would not agree with the punishment.  You are a loser.  That's what is obvious. Your team is a loser more often than not when it counts, so you need someone to blame. Ouch.  I win . You are so stupid, you're a miracle. Ouch.  I win.  "Camera maginicification"? Are you for real here? No answer?  "Camera maginification"? Now NE has magical cameras? Incoherent questions. So, your answer to why NE had an advantage and hence "cheated" is because a guy on the field has a better camera angle from the SAME angle, as compared to him being, say 20 feet back but just in the stands from the NFL specified location? My opinion is that NE used the information to learn (illicitly) as much as they could about the opposition for their benefit.  The commissioner in his statement confirmed that.  I believe the NFL specified location is well above the field with about a 50 yard view of the field where the game tapes are recorded.  So, distance, in your opinion, is how they cheated?  lol I don't know the answer to this.  I am asking.  Do you have the answer?  I guess not. Every team is allowed to film.  Hence, why any team has been taping one another for decades, NOT just NE. Yes they film the game on the field, and they use that tape to evaluate their team and the other team for future reference.  Specifically filming a coaches signals from the sidelines is different.  WHy did Pitt allow NE to tape them in the 2001 AFC title game in the stands in Pittsburgh? Did they allow it from the endzone?  It came out from all of this that occassionally a team will ask another team if they may film the game from the endzone (different perspective of the field).  Because it's legal, you idiot!!   Ouch.  I win.   You find it normal that NFL personnel sat there next to Walsh for 3 hours every game NE decided to film an opponent and didn't know their own rules, do ya? What NFL officials, other than the game refs are on the field? Do ya?   I'd say that's pretty impropable for a multi billion dollar entity to not know their own rules for such a long period  of time, wouldn't you, Underoos? I'd say that Belichick was trying to subvert the rules (as stated by the commish).  the commish put out a memo specifically about it.  Why do you think Belichick consciously disregarded it? Note how the tapes on the road are from the field and not from a specified spot.  This means BB never asked where his cameraman should be or teams never provided him a spot.  Either way, he was wrong not to follow the exact rule, but the act is absolutely not cheating. Actually if he never asked for permission, it means he was intentionally trying to subvert the rules.  You say that Belichick is the best, smartest coach in the league, but he wouldn't ask where the cameraman should be?  Really?  Doesn't pass the smell test for me.  How's that for a fact?  pretty poor.   All the tapes Goodell showed us showed with Walsh in the stands in Foxborough and on the field on the road after the SB title in February 2002. Interesting, isn't it? Not really.  Goodell wasn't going to show the worst tapes.  He was trying to protect his boss (Kraft) as best he could.  You see today how close they are.  Goodell knows where his bread is buttered.  Your arrogance in that you think only NE has decided to film a particular game or games is hilarious and shows how stupid and naive you are. FACT: The Indianapolis Colts have filmed the NE Patriots within the last 25 years. Its possible.  Its unknown.  Its pure speculation in an effort to take the spotlight off of Belichick.  My opinion is that there were a few teams doing it (including the pats).  they were all turned into the league.  The league issued a memo specifying the intent of the rule.  The other teams took it seriously.  Belichick used it as toilet paper.   
    Posted by underdoggggg


    what a waste of message board space. the admin should limit posts to 500 words minimum
     

Share