So who else here remembers when the Pats were the spunky underdogs against the Steelers and Rams in 2002

[lancerman]

33 minutes ago, JonStark said:

Except, you know, protecting the NFL as a multi-million dollar brand and all.

The NFL back then was not as big as it is today. It wasn't small, but it also wasn't untouchable. If it comes out that the winners of the Superbowl cheated, that is hugely detrimental to the brand of the league. Knowing that any game could be rigged, fixed, or unfair at that time could have plummeted the company and made a lot of the audience lose interest. After what we've seen from Roger Goodell over his career, you honestly don't think it's within the realm of possibility that he just chose to sweep it under the rug so that the league didn't suffer a setback? Oh, and then there's this which ESPN reported...

"The Patriots told the league officials they possessed eight tapes containing game footage along with a half-inch-thick stack of notes of signals and other scouting information belonging to [Patriots football research director Ernie] Adams, Glaser says. The league officials watched portions of the tapes. Goodell was contacted, and he ordered the tapes and notes to be destroyed, but the Patriots didn't want any of it to leave the building, arguing that some of it was obtained legally and thus was proprietary. So in a stadium conference room, Pash and the other NFL executives stomped the videotapes into small pieces and fed Adams' notes into a shredder, [Kraft Group VP Robyn] Glaser says. She recalls picking up the shards of plastic from the smashed Beta tapes off the floor and throwing them away."

But I guess ESPN just made that up. That's obviously more plausible than the NFL making something up I guess.

As for your first point, the odds that a defense could see a formation shift or movement that film has never shown a team do, and be able to switch to a pre-designed audible to match it perfectly are really low. I find it HIGHLY unlikely they could have pulled that off multiple times.

Does it really matter if Mangini regrets reporting it? Newsflash: It happened. Period. Whether or not you want to consider it a big deal or not, the Patriots were caught red handed. You honestly believe this is the only time they've done it?

Literally the only thing I agree with in your entire post is that Faulk is a scumbag.

 

 

You're arguing two different points. 

1. As far as the idea of a taped walkthrough. Let's say the NFL had a vested interest in protect the Super Bowl winner... WHY would the media outlet that reported it also retract the story? Why would they throw their own reporter under the bus? They aren't the NFL. They don't have an incentive to protect the Super Bowl winner. They are seperate from the NFL. So the logic fails at that point. 

2. Okay the NFL has a vested interest in protecting the Super Bowl winner? Why did they fight to punish the Patriots and suspend Brady after deflategate AFTER they won the Super Bowl when they admitted in court that they had no direct evidence against Brady? They could have said "we have no direct evidence". 

Too much of that conflicts

3. As far as the Spygate, I have to question your comprehension because nobody disputes whether Spygate happened. Most people just dispute the impact it had. Spygate was about a rule about not IF you could film signals, but WHERE you could film signals. Beyond that, that specific rule went unenforced for many years until Goodell became commissioner. The Pash stuff is irrelevant. So you're saying the Patriots were arguing against the NFL destroying evidence that the NFL found incriminating? So the Patriots wanted to keep incriminating evidence against them? Makes sense. 

4. Well lets talk about ESPN making up a story. The same writer just released a story on a Brady/Kraft/Belichick power struggle. Within several days many beat writers already disputed and refuted significant portions of his story. So clearly that reporter is not infallible and has had errors. Going a step further ESPN irresponsibly reported the Patriots walkthrough story that was retracted YEARS before and they waited until the middle of the night to retract that. So clearly things aren't on the up and up, much less infallible. Remember what the E in ESPN stand for. 

5. Okay you find the defense being able to recognize and audible out of plays highly unlikely. Well lets see how much you know about. I'm not going to respond to you again until you tell me 

a) how many plays they audible'd on that were part of new plays that they never tried during the year.

b) what type of plays those were and why it would be so hard to for a defense to recognize tells or to have never seen any team try those plays. 

Since you find it highly unlikely, I'd like to see some specifics so we can actually debate plays.

[everlong]

I remember my dad screaming "WHO THE **** IS TOM BRADY?!" when Mo Lewis knocked out Bledsoe.

[JonStark]

9 minutes ago, lancerman said:

You're arguing two different points. 

1. As far as the idea of a taped walkthrough. Let's say the NFL had a vested interest in protect the Super Bowl winner... WHY would the media outlet that reported it also retract the story? Why would they throw their own reporter under the bus? They aren't the NFL. They don't have an incentive to protect the Super Bowl winner. They are seperate from the NFL. So the logic fails at that point. NFL paid them off? NFL threatened them somehow? NFL threw some money around and scared the outlet into backing off? Who knows what goes on behind closed doors. I'm not going to pretend I do, but WHY would the media outlet release it in the first place? In point 3, you clearly say no one is disputing it happened, so this is just a complicated point of yours that has zero meaning. Spygate happened, so who cares whether or not the media outlet retracted it after it was out there or not?

2. Okay the NFL has a vested interest in protecting the Super Bowl winner? (I love how you state that like a question) Why did they fight to punish the Patriots and suspend Brady after deflategate AFTER they won the Super Bowl when they admitted in court that they had no direct evidence against Brady? They could have said "we have no direct evidence". Probably because this was the third time the Patriots have been caught trying to cheat and they were sick of it.

Too much of that conflicts

3. As far as the Spygate, I have to question your comprehension because nobody disputes whether Spygate happened. Most people just dispute the impact it had. Spygate was about a rule about not IF you could film signals, but WHERE you could film signals. Beyond that, that specific rule went unenforced for many years until Goodell became commissioner. The Pash stuff is irrelevant. So you're saying the Patriots were arguing against the NFL destroying evidence that the NFL found incriminating? So the Patriots wanted to keep incriminating evidence against them? Makes sense. This did help me because honestly, I didn't know it was specifically where you could film them. My point for this one was there were tapes. There was evidence of whatever went down. If it wasn't a cover up, what possible reason was there for the tapes to be DESTROYED before they left the room? If there was nothing on them, why destroy them? As for the impact, I'm not saying that was 100% the reason the Rams lost the game, but it was definitely an unfair swing the in Patriots advantage.

4. Well lets talk about ESPN making up a story. The same writer just released a story on a Brady/Kraft/Belichick power struggle. Within several days many beat writers already disputed and refuted significant portions of his story. So clearly that reporter is not infallible and has had errors. Going a step further ESPN irresponsibly reported the Patriots walkthrough story that was retracted YEARS before and they waited until the middle of the night to retract that. So clearly things aren't on the up and up, much less infallible. Remember what the E in ESPN stand for. I'm honestly not sure where to go with this one. You already said Spygate happened, so why does it matter who released what, and if it was taken back?

5. Okay you find the defense being able to recognize and audible out of plays highly unlikely. Well lets see how much you know about. I'm not going to respond to you again until you tell me 

a) how many plays they audible'd on that were part of new plays that they never tried during the year.

b) what type of plays those were and why it would be so hard to for a defense to recognize tells or to have never seen any team try those plays. 

Since you find it highly unlikely, I'd like to see some specifics so we can actually debate plays. I said it was highly unlikely that a defense could recognize and audible out for plays they haven't studied or seen the opposing team ever do before. There's a difference. Having a specific defensive adjustment ready to go for a play that your opponent has never ran aside of in the walkthrough is very hard to believe. They did it multiple times. I'm actually planning on going through the entire game play by play eventually and looking into this, but it's going to take a while. I do find it funny how you assign that job to me when you obviously have a computer of your own and could do the same to prove your side of the argument though.

 

[lancerman]

1 minute ago, JonStark said:

 

No see this is the problem and it tells me everything. Spygate and the Rams walkthrough practice story are two different things. Two completely separate and unrelated things. The fact that in 2018 there are still people that don't know this, speaks volumes

[Plat2]

Pats have dominated so much for so long that there will be a relief sigh let out by the rest of leagues fanbase when Brady/BB finally hang it up lol

[lancerman]

16 minutes ago, Plat2 said:

Pats have dominated so much for so long that there will be a relief sigh let out by the rest of leagues fanbase when Brady/BB finally hang it up lol

2025 will be a sad year for me 

[JonStark]

28 minutes ago, lancerman said:

No see this is the problem and it tells me everything. Spygate and the Rams walkthrough practice story are two different things. Two completely separate and unrelated things. The fact that in 2018 there are still people that don't know this, speaks volumes

Honestly, I always combined both video-taping-of-another-team's-information under the Spygate headline. Makes sense for you to ignore everything else because of that...

What about this example?

"Former Patriots videographer Matt Walsh claimed he and at least three other videographers watched the Rams' final practice, then reported back some valuable information, like the fact that Rams running back Marshall Faulk was returning kickoffs and the addition of new redzone plays."

A poster literally brought up that exact same play earlier in this thread, giving credit to Vinatieri. There's an exact play for you with some evidence from the videographer.

Or what about what Martz said. Does that not count because he was a member of the Rams?

"Martz, who coached the Rams from 2000-05, also told ESPN that Goodell called him in 2008 and asked him to provide a statement saying he was satisfied with the league's look into Spygate. Arlen Specter, a senator from Pennsylvania, was calling for a congressional investigation. Martz, canned by the Rams in 2006, was the offensive coordinator for the San Francisco 49ers.

"He (Goodell) told me, 'The league doesn't need this. We're asking you to come out with a couple lines exonerating us and saying we did our due diligence,'" Martz told ESPN. "It shocked me," Martz told ESPN. "It appears embellished quite a bit — some lines I know I didn't write. Who changed it? I don't know.""

You can keep saying this never happened, but you're either trying to convince yourself of it or are brainwashed by the NFL. The tapes were destroyed so we'll never have hard proof, but we can testimonials of people that were involved and STILL don't have an answer to why the tapes were destroyed in the first place.

[lancerman]

Just now, JonStark said:

Honestly, I always combined both video-taping-of-another-team's-information under the Spygate headline. Makes sense for you to ignore everything else because of that...

What about this example?

"Former Patriots videographer Matt Walsh claimed he and at least three other videographers watched the Rams' final practice, then reported back some valuable information, like the fact that Rams running back Marshall Faulk was returning kickoffs and the addition of new redzone plays."

A poster literally brought up that exact same play earlier in this thread, giving credit to Vinatieri. There's an exact play for you with some evidence from the videographer.

Or what about what Martz said. Does that not count because he was a member of the Rams?

"Martz, who coached the Rams from 2000-05, also told ESPN that Goodell called him in 2008 and asked him to provide a statement saying he was satisfied with the league's look into Spygate. Arlen Specter, a senator from Pennsylvania, was calling for a congressional investigation. Martz, canned by the Rams in 2006, was the offensive coordinator for the San Francisco 49ers.

"He (Goodell) told me, 'The league doesn't need this. We're asking you to come out with a couple lines exonerating us and saying we did our due diligence,'" Martz told ESPN. "It shocked me," Martz told ESPN. "It appears embellished quite a bit — some lines I know I didn't write. Who changed it? I don't know.""

You can keep saying this never happened, but you're either trying to convince yourself of it or are brainwashed by the NFL. The tapes were destroyed so we'll never have hard proof, but we can testimonials of people that were involved and STILL don't have an answer to why the tapes were destroyed in the first place.

The two quotes you mentioned about Faulk and Martz are about two different things.

[JonStark]

1 minute ago, lancerman said:

The two quotes you mentioned about Faulk and Martz are about two different things.

Yes, they are. One is about the adjustments the Patriots were able to use from the walkthroughs and one is about the cover up. I guess we're done here, you're just trolling at this point.

[lancerman]

1 minute ago, JonStark said:

Yes, they are. One is about the adjustments the Patriots were able to use from the walkthroughs and one is about the cover up. I guess we're done here, you're just trolling at this point.

No.... One has literally nothing to do with the walkthrough. The walkthrough and Spygate aren't the same. The fact that you think they are the same or were ever considered the same just shows a lack of knowledge on your part and why you didn't understand the points I was making to you earlier.

[JonStark]

49 minutes ago, lancerman said:

No.... One has literally nothing to do with the walkthrough. The walkthrough and Spygate aren't the same. The fact that you think they are the same or were ever considered the same just shows a lack of knowledge on your part and why you didn't understand the points I was making to you earlier.

Look man you can disregard everything I've said based off one piece of terminology (which from what I'm seeing online, most sites agree with me), but that's a cheap out. Martz being asked to provide a statement because "the league doesn't need this" is 100% proof that the NFL is not above a cover up, and that site still could be referring to Spygate as everything that took place from the Rams to the Jets. You have nothing to say, so you resort to "we'll you used the wrong word". Great argument. 

Do you work for the NFL or something? 

[lancerman]

Just now, JonStark said:

Look man you can disregard everything I've said based off one piece of terminology (which from what I'm seeing online, most sites agree with me), but that's a cheap out. Martz being asked to provide a statement because "the league doesn't need this" is 100% proof that the NFL is not above a cover up, and that site still could be referring to Spygate as everything that took place from the Rams to the Jets. You have nothing to say, so you resort to "we'll you used the wrong word". Great argument. 

Do you work for the NFL or something? 

Yeah I can disregard everything you are saying because you've shown multiple times you don't know what you are talking about. When confronted with it you said that it didn't matter that you were conflating two entirely separate instances (one instances to an alleged rule infraction that the NFL and the media both disputed, one instance to a rule infraction absolutely nobody disputed concerning two completely different things). 

And if the sites you looked at are saying it's the same, they are wrong and you should find better sources. Because anyone with half a brain cell could differentiate between the two. It's not difficult and I'm not even asking a whole lot of you. The fact that you made this argument more complicated than it was because you conflated two separate instances and then got your arguments confused wasted my time. If you want to revel in your ignorance so be it. I gave you the chance to correct yourself and to make your arguments clearer, you didn't. You just want to believe something you don't fully understand or don't care about knowing the details about. 

So I don't care to argue with someone who can't take the time to actually understand what they are debating and is making incoherent arguments in their ignorance because they confused two separate things. Okay. 

And don't be a child with the "do you work for the NFL or something" crap. It makes you look worse. I gave you a chance. I outlined your error, you still went on your path. You have lost credibility. Later. 

[JonStark]

5 minutes ago, lancerman said:

Yeah I can disregard everything you are saying because you've shown multiple times you don't know what you are talking about. When confronted with it you said that it didn't matter that you were conflating two entirely separate instances (one instances to an alleged rule infraction that the NFL and the media both disputed, one instance to a rule infraction absolutely nobody disputed concerning two completely different things). 

And if the sites you looked at are saying it's the same, they are wrong and you should find better sources. Because anyone with half a brain cell could differentiate between the two. It's not difficult and I'm not even asking a whole lot of you. The fact that you made this argument more complicated than it was because you conflated two separate instances and then got your arguments confused wasted my time. If you want to revel in your ignorance so be it. I gave you the chance to correct yourself and to make your arguments clearer, you didn't. You just want to believe something you don't fully understand or don't care about knowing the details about. 

So I don't care to argue with someone who can't take the time to actually understand what they are debating and is making incoherent arguments in their ignorance because they confused two separate things. Okay. 

And don't be a child with the "do you work for the NFL or something" crap. It makes you look worse. I gave you a chance. I outlined your error, you still went on your path. You have lost credibility. Later. 

All this post says is "my opinion is better than yours". You asked for a specific play. I gave you one, and you did nothing with it. You need to get over yourself. 

[lancerman]

2 minutes ago, JonStark said:

All this post says is "my opinion is better than yours". You asked for a specific play. I gave you one, and you did nothing with it. You need to get over yourself. 

It's not an opinion, it's a fact.  That's a Tywin Lanniser quote for you. You confused two seperate things and keep talking about the same things as if they are the same and it made your arguments just muddled and wrong. 

And no you haven't provided a specific play. I said provide a specific paly and your response was 

I said it was highly unlikely that a defense could recognize and audible out for plays they haven't studied or seen the opposing team ever do before. There's a difference. Having a specific defensive adjustment ready to go for a play that your opponent has never ran aside of in the walkthrough is very hard to believe. They did it multiple times. I'm actually planning on going through the entire game play by play eventually and looking into this, but it's going to take a while. I do find it funny how you assign that job to me when you obviously have a computer of your own and could do the same to prove your side of the argument though.

You have since failed to outline a specific play. 

The only person who needs to get over themselves is the person who was wrong, was proven wrong, was given the courtesy of having his error spelled out for him multiple times, and then still went along saying the error didn't matter and still decided to argue faulty based off that error. 

[JonStark]

1 minute ago, lancerman said:

It's not an opinion, it's a fact.  That's a Tywin Lanniser quote for you. You confused two seperate things and keep talking about the same things as if they are the same and it made your arguments just muddled and wrong. 

And no you haven't provided a specific play. I said provide a specific paly and your response was 

I said it was highly unlikely that a defense could recognize and audible out for plays they haven't studied or seen the opposing team ever do before. There's a difference. Having a specific defensive adjustment ready to go for a play that your opponent has never ran aside of in the walkthrough is very hard to believe. They did it multiple times. I'm actually planning on going through the entire game play by play eventually and looking into this, but it's going to take a while. I do find it funny how you assign that job to me when you obviously have a computer of your own and could do the same to prove your side of the argument though.

You have since failed to outline a specific play. 

The only person who needs to get over themselves is the person who was wrong, was proven wrong, was given the courtesy of having his error spelled out for him multiple times, and then still went along saying the error didn't matter and still decided to argue faulty based off that error. 

Tywin Lannister fits you, good choice. 

I'm not confusing two things because your opinion that Spygate only refers to the one infraction is not common knowledge. Maybe you're right and technically that's the way it is, but people use it to refer to everything that happened. You'd think you could get past that on an internet forum without some smug poster pulling out his monocle and reading the fine print. You're using that to avoid the points I gave you, which is probably smart because you had nothing for them. 

The play I gave you was the kickoff. The one the poster brought up before. The one the videographer mentioned. The only kickoff in the entire thread. I don't don't how much clearer I can make it, but I'm definitely not going play by play to give you any more if this is how you avoid the first example. Honestly, I'm probably done in here so don't even worry about it.