Should Bill Belichick be banned from football?

[lancerman]

9 minutes ago, Matts4313 said:

Denial of what exactly? I dont dislike Bill nor am I saying any of them are true?

I typed in "bill belichick scandals" and posted the first thing I saw. I didnt even read it. Didnt need to. Saw like ~10-12 things listed and thought "sounds about right".

Okay so this goes back to my point that the validity of something matters. You just assumed you had the correct opinion and you posted something with zero vetting that most people would have serious issues with but you think because you can regurgitate another list that is probably equally as dubious you have some sort of standing with your point. 

[Matts4313]

10 minutes ago, lancerman said:

You just assumed you had the correct opinion

lmao

I didnt share an opinion. Might want to reread. I simply stated there was a long list of (assumed) scandals. Which is a fact. But were going in circles because you never grasped my point. 

[lancerman]

Just now, Matts4313 said:

lmao

I didnt share an opinion. Might want to reread. I simply stated there was a long list of (assumed) scandals. Which is a fact. But were going in circles because you never grasped my point. 

You will very few people on here that will consider the tuck rule which was in fact a rule that was in fact used against Bill that year as a legitimate scandal he is accused of. 
 

Like I said. The validity matters 

[Matts4313]

1 minute ago, lancerman said:

You will very few people on here that will consider the tuck rule which was in fact a rule that was in fact used against Bill that year as a legitimate scandal he is accused of. 
 

Like I said. The validity matters 

Arguing over one tiny point while ignoring the larger theme. Good job. 

[Hunter2_1]

.

Edited July 2, 2020 by Hunter2_1

[lancerman]

5 hours ago, Matts4313 said:

Arguing over one tiny point while ignoring the larger theme. Good job. 

It was the majority of your article 

I just brought up the 3 most obvious that required zero explanation 

[Matts4313]

19 minutes ago, lancerman said:

It was the majority of your article 

I just brought up the 3 most obvious that required zero explanation 

It blows my mind how painfully youve missed the point. 

Ok, so only ~7 of the ~10 accusations have any merit (even if false). Thats still 7 more than most coaches and probably 5 more than all of them. Thats the point that you cant seem to grasp.

[lancerman]

32 minutes ago, Matts4313 said:

It blows my mind how painfully youve missed the point. 

Ok, so only ~7 of the ~10 accusations have any merit (even if false). Thats still 7 more than most coaches and probably 5 more than all of them. Thats the point that you cant seem to grasp.

No it’s really that you are egregiously overstating your point. If there are 10 points in the article there are like 3 that had any shred of real evidence supporting them and like 3-4 of the 7 clearly baseless ones that wouldn’t even qualify as a scandal (a ref making a call isn’t a cheating scandal). 
 

So you’re down to like 3 in your own source. Then you just make up numbers of the average coach. Pete Carroll had a cheating scandal college, he had two separate instances of being investigated for lying on injury reports and also had a large amount of his players on PED’s during a SB run. Those are 4 things that are not only more substantial than all but 3 things in your article are almost proven to be pretty much true (PED tests proved one,  Carroll contradicted his own injury report and the college thing is more documented). 
 

So you are baselessly making up numbers in your own article and have already proven that you have zero standards on what you count and then you baselessly made up a number for your counter comparison that I could disprove off the top of my head with the only other coach that went to multiple SB’s last decade. 
 

Again if you have to resort to throwing crap at the wall, it’s not really a compelling argument. You’re just lowering your standards to be right 

[Hunter2_1]

Every coach presides over players that use PEDs. Let's ban them all! Or...do we just draw an arbitrary line and say - THAT particular thing is wrong, but this isn't...etc?

[Ty21]

On 6/29/2020 at 1:30 PM, ET80 said:

He should be, and his flippant attitude towards his decision is all the more reason to keep him out.

He only bet for his team to win, though right? So it’s not like he was throwing games and profiting. Who gives a **** if he’s confident in his roster he’s putting money on it imo 

[ET80]

4 minutes ago, Tyty said:

He only bet for his team to win, though right? 

We don't know. We're taking him at his word on that - no formal investigation was done, Rose agreed to his lifetime suspension instead of agreeing to an investigation.

I'm pretty certain that's part of the reason why he didn't want a formal investigation - that and the tax evasion from his winnings. 

[Joe_is_the_best]

Sure. Why not?

[Go_Giants]

With Belichick, we know about Spy gate, we know about Deflate gate and now the situations with the Browns. If this is the cheating we know about, how much more cheating do they do that we don't know about.

[I <3 Faulk]

I'm starting to like him more and more every time he gets caught. He gets caught and still sticks the middle finger to everyone else. It's starting to feel like by the end of scarface when I was rooting for the bad guy. 

[MookieMonstah]

1 hour ago, Go_Giants said:

With Belichick, we know about Spy gate, we know about Deflate gate and now the situations with the Browns. If this is the cheating we know about, how much more cheating do they do that we don't know about.

And all 3 scenarios were wildly overblown and not very useful in terms of meaningful advantage. Current players and coaches came out during Spygate and Deflategate and said "Yeah we do that too"