RE:Those Lying Cheating Pats (Full Version)

All Forums >> [The Minnesota Vikings] >> General NFL Talk



Message

Jake Carlson -> RE:Those Lying Cheating Pats (9/14/2007 1:13:57 AM)

I'm generally not a fan of Dr. Z but this is a pretty good article. He's got pretty serious claims against the Pats that are from some interesting conversations/experiences. It makes me dislike Belicheat even more. http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/writers/dr_z/09/13/cheating/index.html



Dave Odle -> RE:Those Lying Cheating Pats (9/14/2007 2:21:05 AM)

I heard today that the Pats have two 1st round draft picks next year. I say take them both. The Patriots' name is mud lately: Ultimatums regarding Practice Squad players to other coaches Practicing players who are supposedly on Injured Reserve (I still don't quite see the advantage there) Now the evidence of taping other teams' signals Rodney Harrison and the illegal substance violation Dang. The Pats are trying hard to be the badboys of the NFL.



Jeff Jesser -> RE:Those Lying Cheating Pats (9/14/2007 3:12:36 AM)

ESPN just flashed the "punishment". 500K against BB, 250 against the team, 1 1st rounder if they make the playoffs in 2008 and a 2 and 3rd if they don't. Weak. :roll:



Todd M -> RE:Those Lying Cheating Pats (9/14/2007 3:34:46 AM)

[quote="Jeff Jesser"]ESPN just flashed the "punishment". 500K against BB, 250 against the team, 1 1st rounder if they make the playoffs in 2008 and a 2 and 3rd if they don't. Weak. :roll:[/quote] I wonder if that really is it. I think ESPN uses manatees to put together "news balls". Seems too light.



Lynn G. -> RE:Those Lying Cheating Pats (9/14/2007 3:49:00 AM)

That's really it. http://www.startribune.com/510/story/1421746.html



El Duderino -> RE:Those Lying Cheating Pats (9/14/2007 3:58:20 AM)

[quote="Todd Mallett"]I think ESPN uses manatees to put together "news balls".[/quote] :rofl:



Dave Odle -> RE:Those Lying Cheating Pats (9/14/2007 5:01:57 AM)

The maximum fine is a good start, but there's only one problem. It seems like suspending Belichick for 6-8 games (roughly half the season without pay) would have sent a stronger message and also exceeded the maximum fine that stands alone at $500,000. In my opinion, it's not even about the fine w/ a guy like Belichick. Hitting his ego through suspension and loss of draft picks would hurt more. At this point, real justice would be for the 49er's to meet the Pats in the Superbowl and win, leaving the Pats w/ the last pick of the draft, plus the sting of defeat.



Steve Lentz -> RE:Those Lying Cheating Pats (9/14/2007 5:14:13 AM)

[quote="Dave Odle"]The maximum fine is a good start, but there's only one problem. It seems like suspending Belichick for 6-8 games (roughly half the season without pay) would have sent a stronger message and also exceeded the maximum fine that stands alone at $500,000. In my opinion, it's not even about the fine w/ a guy like Belichick. Hitting his ego through suspension and loss of draft picks would hurt more. At this point, real justice would be for the 49er's to meet the Pats in the Superbowl and win, leaving the Pats w/ the last pick of the draft, plus the sting of defeat.[/quote] To me the Pats losing their 1st round choice if they make the playoffs is a credible penalty along with the fine.



Jake Carlson -> RE:Those Lying Cheating Pats (9/14/2007 8:12:51 AM)

IMO, the league/Goodell opted for the punishment that would be the lightest hit to the NFL's marketability. It's obvious that they sat in a closed door meeting and said "how can we look like we're coming down hard on this while also quickly nipping it in the bud and making it go away?" The fine seems "harsh" yet instantaneous and actually quickly forgotten. Taking away a draft pick is also instantly looked at as somewhat severe by many, but will be quickly forgotten and consequently old news by the time it is in effect. Even though it may have been justified, the last thing the league wanted was to suspend Belicheat and keep this as a topic of conversation for another few weeks. Keep in mind folks, it's a business!!!! This means that marketing always wins over fair play, competitive balance and even ethics in todays sports world.



Steven JL -> RE:Those Lying Cheating Pats (9/14/2007 12:41:25 PM)

[quote="El Duderino"][quote="Todd Mallett"]I think ESPN uses manatees to put together "news balls".[/quote] :rofl:[/quote] That's hella funny.



Steven JL -> RE:Those Lying Cheating Pats (9/14/2007 12:57:54 PM)

I applaud the loss of first round pick that definitely sends a message. The fine is relatively meaningless although I can't imagine writing a check for $500 Gs. Craft and Bilicheck can work that out between them. I would guess the fine is more of a message for other coaches (you know the 95% of coaches who aren't guaranteed lifetime employment at $5-8 million a year) where a $500,000 hit would be enormous. However, in the case a suspension was necessary. I think 6-8 games is a bit much but I would have liked to see him sit down for 4. This was a blatent disregard for a well-publisized rule. At the very least it would have hurt his ego AND been a direct pushiment to team competiveness this year which is fair because they were cheating to aid the competiveness of this year's team. As it stands now they only competiveness they lose is one guy who might have contributed in the 2010. Not enough.



Steven JL -> RE:Those Lying Cheating Pats (9/14/2007 1:09:17 PM)

I see paranoid ole Bill has responded: In part:
quote:

Part of my job as head coach is to ensure that our football operations are conducted in compliance of the league rules and all accepted interpretations of them. My interpretation of a rule in the Constitution and Bylaws was incorrect. With tonight's resolution, I will not be offering any further comments on this matter. We are moving on with our preparations for Sunday's game.
Lame. "Interpretation"? What a slimy weasel. Goodell definitely dropped the ball because Bilicheck still doesn't get it. He should've be banned from the team for 2-4 weeks and let either a) them lose because he's gone; or b) win easily without him participating. Either way his team, pride, and ego would have taken a hit. As it is now he seems totally unconcerned about it.



Todd M -> RE:Those Lying Cheating Pats (9/14/2007 1:23:24 PM)

[quote="Steven JL"]I see paranoid ole Bill has responded: In part:
quote:

Part of my job as head coach is to ensure that our football operations are conducted in compliance of the league rules and all accepted interpretations of them. My interpretation of a rule in the Constitution and Bylaws was incorrect. With tonight's resolution, I will not be offering any further comments on this matter. We are moving on with our preparations for Sunday's game.
Lame. "Interpretation"? What a slimy weasel. Goodell definitely dropped the ball because Bilicheck still doesn't get it. He should've be banned from the team for 2-4 weeks and let either a) them lose because he's gone; or b) win easily without him participating. Either way his team, pride, and ego would have taken a hit. As it is now he seems totally unconcerned about it. I'd love to see what the rules actually say. No way a rational person could accept BB's failure to interpret the rule as an acceptable excuse. I would have been happy with a 2-4 game suspension as well. I think there are going to be more than a few players that will be pissed over the lack of suspension.



Steven JL -> RE:Those Lying Cheating Pats (9/14/2007 2:10:50 PM)

Here's of snippet of Peter King's lambasting of Bilicheck. It includes some of the actual language:
quote:

How brazen, how cocky, how untouchable, how arrogant must he have thought of himself. Coaching against a man who knew all his tricks -- former Pats aide Eric Mangini -- who KNEW to be looking for the video spy, Belichick was almost asking to get caught. As for Belichick's teflon reaction, remember the very well-publicized warning all teams got last September from the league. "Video taping of any type, including but not limited to taping of an opponent's offensive or defensive signals, is prohibited on the sidelines, in the coaches' booth, in the locker room, or at any other locations accessible to club staff members during the game," said the warning from league vice president Ray Anderson. In the league's rule book, on page 105, the video ban is as clear as day. "No video recording devices of any kind are permitted to be in use in the coaches' booth, on the field, or in the locker room during the game,'' the rules state. Belichick said in his Thursday night statement: "Part of my job as head coach is to ensure that our football operations are conducted in compliance of the league rules and all accepted interpretations of them. My interpretation of a rule in the Constitution and Bylaws was incorrect.'' You know what that is? It's a classic deflection by Belichick. Instead of simply admitting he broke the rules and saying he deserves to be censured, he throws the changeup and tries to smokescreen us. The "interpretation'' of the rule was in error. That's an insult to Goodell, and to every fan who loves either the Patriots, this game or both. Goodell slapped Belichick hard, but not hard enough. A suspension should have accompanied the loss of the top draft choice.
See his interpretation was that that rule book didn't apply to him. Now that it has been clarified that the rules also apply to living legends he's more clear on it now.



Duane Sampson -> RE:Those Lying Cheating Pats (9/14/2007 2:31:22 PM)

-- NFL Likely to Reconsider Radio Communications for Defensive Players -- Fri Sep 14, 2007 The Boston Globe reports in each of the last two seasons, the NFL has considered proposals to put earpieces in the helmets of defensive players to allow direct electronic communication by defensive coaches. The coach-to-quarterback communication shuts off with 15 seconds left on the play clock. The proposed rules change for defensive players was defeated, 18-14, in 2006 and this March fell three votes shy of the three-fourths margin needed for approval (21-11). Do the allegations of electronic espionage against the New England Patriots make a stronger case for giving a defensive player audio capability? "I would say so, yes," said Tennessee Titans HC Jeff Fisher, one of two coaches who are members of the league's Competition Committee, which is in charge of reviewing and recommending potential rules changes. The other, Cincinnati Bengals HC Marvin Lewis, said it could end such subterfuge. "Offensively, with the coach-to-quarterback communicator, you've taken the ability to steal plays away," Lewis said. No system is foolproof. Audio irregularities were cited during the Patriots-Jets game Sunday and Jacksonville Jaguars HC Jack Del Rio said Wednesday that the Jaguars experienced problems with their coach-to-quarterback communications during a 28-3 playoff loss to the Patriots at Gillette Stadium in 2006. "Our coach-to-quarterback system mysteriously malfunctioned the entire first half," said Del Rio, according to an Associated Press report. In March, when the defensive coach-to-player communication proposal was being considered, Patriots HC Bill Belichick said he was opposed to it. "I wouldn't be in favor of this," Belichick said in March. "There is an inequity in the rule and you don't know when that inequity will come. I also think we need to be careful about the concept of going to a 'Star Wars' mentality. I'm not so crazy about the coach-to-quarterback thing. Now this. That's why this wasn't passed in the first place, and was just an offensive thing, to help the offense get the play in, speed up the game, eliminate delay-of-game penalties, and make it easier for crowd noise. We've done that, but now this takes it to another level." He was more equivocal when pressed yesterday, saying there are pluses and minuses while citing logistical difficulties. "Defensively, you don't know who's going to be on the field," said Belichick. "It's a lot easier with the quarterback position. Every team has a quarterback. It's a lot different on defense. It's not necessarily one guy. You can only have one guy in the game at a time that has that mechanism. So who are you going to give it to on defense? Pick a player. Now say he comes out. Whether you take him out on a substitution or whether he comes out, let's say it's an injury. Now who has it? Somebody who never plays, like the backup quarterback or another guy who is involved in other aspects of the game, say it's your backup middle linebacker and now he's on special teams and maybe he comes in in certain situations and both guys are in the game. Now what do you do? There are some logistical things. It's not the same on defense as it is on offense, that's all I'm saying. I'm not saying it's better or worse, it's just different."



Duane Sampson -> RE:Those Lying Cheating Pats (9/14/2007 2:33:54 PM)

-- Carl Banks Believes Patriots Spygate Overblown -- The New York Post reports former Giants LB Carl Banks said he is not surprised or appalled by New England Patriots HC Bill Belichick's spygate fiasco because espionage, legal or otherwise, is a rampant league-wide phenomenon. "Its something that every team does in one way, shape or form," Banks said. "Every team has a TV show, every team has a highlight show with a camera crew on the sideline. You think theyre just shooting highlights for their team? With the advent of all these access shows - Inside the Panthers, Inside the Lions - theyre not all shooting highlights, Im telling you now. What the league has to do now is monitor the number of people on the sidelines who operate cameras. I bet a few people disappear this weekend!" But not the opposing team scouts in the press box. "When youre sitting in the press box and see all those scouts from other teams," Banks began, "theyre not all watching the game. Theyre watching the sideline, for calls, for signals .??.??. they do all of that stuff. Its however you can get an advantage to help you prepare for the next week." Banks pooh-poohed the notion that the Patriots could have gained a competitive advantage over the Jets by stealing their defensive signals. "I cant debate the legality of it; but any fan who is appalled and thinks the outcome of the game was impacted based on this videotape has been misled," Banks said. "Theres not enough time to process and corroborate the information. The biggest spies during the course of a game are the players on the field." Then what would be the purpose of a cloak-and-dagger video scam? "Library," Banks said. "Its a library of calls and signals." Belichick was Banks defensive coordinator with the Giants. Banks also worked in the Jets front office when Belichick was defensive coordinator under HC Bill Parcells. "I learned just about everything I know about strategy, preparation and competitive edge from him," Banks said.



Lynn G. -> RE:Those Lying Cheating Pats (9/14/2007 2:54:59 PM)

I can't see a reasoning for tying the draft picks lost to whether or not they make the playoffs. They'll lose a first round pick if they make the playoffs, and a second and third if they don't. Why make it conditional? Take away the first round pick either way!



Steven JL -> RE:Those Lying Cheating Pats (9/14/2007 3:06:17 PM)

[quote="Lynn Garthwaite"]I can't see a reasoning for tying the draft picks lost to whether or not they make the playoffs. They'll lose a first round pick if they make the playoffs, and a second and third if they don't. Why make it conditional? Take away the first round pick either way![/quote] My guess is the logic is that if they had a top 5 pick it would be too severe a punishment. However, in this particular case I think he should have just removed the restriction as it is apparent this team is at worst going to finish 9-7 so it'd be a mid-round pick anyway. Also it sets a bit of a dangerous predcedent. For example, the Browns should have done this with the pick they gave Dallas for Quinn. You get our first, unless it's a top 5 pick, then you get our 2nd rounder, 3rd rounder, and the 2009 first round pick.



Jeff Jesser -> RE:Those Lying Cheating Pats (9/14/2007 3:35:07 PM)

Way too lite IMO. They still have a 1st rounder left so, yes it hurts, but it's not crippling. A suspension was a no-brainer. I won't argue "how many" but every player that has seen the paper tiger has gotten some form of it.



Cheesehead Craig -> RE:Those Lying Cheating Pats (9/14/2007 3:40:12 PM)

I went to a Pats forum just to see their take on this and it's interesting. They feel that BB has completely owned up to the situation like a man. They are not saying much about the picks or the money, just that it's time to move on and they think BB still walks on water.



Steven JL -> RE:Those Lying Cheating Pats (9/14/2007 4:26:24 PM)

[quote="Cheesehead Craig"]I went to a Pats forum just to see their take on this and it's interesting. They feel that BB has completely owned up to the situation like a man. They are not saying much about the picks or the money, just that it's time to move on and they think BB still walks on water.[/quote] Well they can think what they want but the other 98% of the NFL community sees this for what it is and the tarnish it has stained those 3 trophies with. I think it is telling when Peter King, Clayton, Dr. Z and the other NFL-lifers who rely on good relationships with NFL-insiders to make their comfortable high 6-figure livings have totally blasted the guy. It shows how disliked this guy is in the community. The bloom is off the rose - he will never walk on water in the NFL media again.



JamieH -> RE:Those Lying Cheating Pats (9/14/2007 5:11:23 PM)

I think the penalty is probably fair...losing draft choices is a big deal. I also think it tarnishes the Patriots image...a lot. They were one of the teams you cheered for if your team wasn't in the game. Now, they are one of the teams you cheer against. I actually think what the NFL should have done is to take this as evidence to probe deeper...confisgate Patriots memos, videos, etc. But that is a nightmare scenario for them...so I am not suprized they didn't.



Jim Frenette -> RE:Those Lying Cheating Pats (9/14/2007 6:09:00 PM)

[quote="Jeff Jesser"]Way too lite IMO. They still have a 1st rounder left so, yes it hurts, but it's not crippling. A suspension was a no-brainer. I won't argue "how many" but every player that has seen the paper tiger has gotten some form of it.[/quote] Even Wade Wilson got a 4 game suspension for something he did in 2004 to help his erectile dysfunction. Also if the NFL can suspend a player 8+ games for off field problems that affect the image of the NFL, then BB showed be treated the same way. The fine is small thing as next year he can have his contract redone and get that money back from the owner. Taking away a #1 when they still have a higher one with the 49ers is also weak.



Jake Carlson -> RE:Those Lying Cheating Pats (9/14/2007 7:09:31 PM)

Jamie, I disagree with you about the penalty being fair, but I agree that it's no great surprise that the NFL didn't drag this out and dig deeper. There's no way that they would take a chance on uncovering a bigger mess with their darling team. How else can you explain the fact that there isn't an investigation into how long this has been going on and how deep it goes?! Goodell showed his hypocrisy by refraining from any suspensions and going easy on a coach and a team that is front and center in terms of a model NFL franchise for image and marketing. You have to wonder how different it would have been had it been some middle-of-the-road franchise!



JamieH -> RE:Those Lying Cheating Pats (9/14/2007 7:23:07 PM)

[quote="Jake Carlson"]Jamie, I disagree with you about the penalty being fair, but I agree that it's no great surprise that the NFL didn't drag this out and dig deeper. There's no way that they would take a chance on uncovering a bigger mess with their darling team. How else can you explain the fact that there isn't an investigation into how long this has been going on and how deep it goes?! Goodell showed his hypocrisy by refraining from any suspensions and going easy on a coach and a team that is front and center in terms of a model NFL franchise for image and marketing. You have to wonder how different it would have been had it been some middle-of-the-road franchise![/quote] Jake C., You may be right, but NO team had ever been docked a first rounder before plus this is the largest fine EVER given to a coach. I am sure it would have been different for the middle of the road franchise, but this is enough to prevent it from happening again I do think. I am really interested to watch people's reaction to the Patriots this year now. EVERYTHING they do will be under a fine toothed comb.



Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5.5 Unicode