OK, so your argument is that the Patriots were the only ones who got caught. Which, of course, is another way of saying the Patriots are the only team with actual evidence indicating they were doing it.
NFL 2014-2015 Season Discussion
- Thread starter tomalak301
- Start date
- Status
The Colts deflated the Patriots' footballs?
Okay.
Anyway, here's a brief summary of what I'm talking about:
http://abcnews.go.com/Sports/deflate-gate-england-patriots-controversies/story?id=28373420
The difference with Spygate, and what makes it egregious, is that it was done with a camera over a number of years, not just having somebody in-game try to listen to get something. Substantial difference. It's ridiculous, and he got off with just a slap on the wrist and tried to excuse it by saying they were doing it "out in the open." I don't see how anyone can defend him at this point.
http://nesn.com/2015/02/adam-schefter-there-are-people-who-believe-colts-deflated-patriots-football/
Do I personally believe that the Colts fucked with the balls? No. But there is are some in the game, who evidently do think that. And guess what, there is as much evidence of that happening as there is of the Pats intentionally deflating them. But somehow you have your mind made up already that they did something wrong.
And of those things on that list you posted....
OTHER TEAMS FILMED WITH A CAMERA. IN THE SAME POSITIONS. FOR YEARS. It's been admitted to by multiple head coaches. There was a reminder put out by the NFL to stop doing it in a particular location, and the Pats got caught filming there after the fact. They were wrong. They took their punishment, BB has never shied away from the punishment. And how is a massive fine and the loss of a first round draft pick a light slap? He's right. They filmed it in from of 80,000 people, its not like they were sitting there placing cameras in the god damn coaches office.
Do you bury Mike Tomlin every time his name comes up because he blatantly tripped a player on the field? Or the Broncos because they blatantly lied about their salary cap?
How are the tuck rule, and the substitutions trick against the Ravens "controversial"? The tuck rule was the rule at the time, and Belichick knew it could be called that way because it had been called against the Pats earlier that year.
The substitutions were completely within the rules. Completely. It's not even an argument. It's not BB's fault that John Harbaugh doesn't know the damn rulebook or coach his players well enough to recognize those substitutions.
Sure, if you ignore all the quotes from other former head coaches that said it was common practice. And if it was just the Patriots suspected of doing this (prior to them having been caught in 2007), why would the NFL send a memo to the entire league to tell everyone to stop doing it, instead of taking it up with the Patriots themselves? Not exactly a strong case that the Pats went rogue with the cameras. They were just the first ones to get caught AFTER that, because they were stupid. Of course, they got caught in the very first game of the season because the guy that used to be directly involved for the Pats (Mangini) became the opposing head coach for that game, so knew what and who to look for. And because the Pats got busted at the beginning of game 1, not lots of time for other people to get in trouble. Prior to the memo in 2007, was common practice and no opportunity to have anyone get 'caught', so hard to look for other events there. For fun, though, the Patriots had caught the Jets doing this the year before, and simply made the guy stop. Same when the Packers saw the Patriots guy a year or two before Spygate. Jets decided to escalate things because Mangini needed a 'win' because he was starting to slip in NY. (fired in 2008)
If you want an interesting read on what Spygate really was, and no the random media shoutings of cheating, and filming illegally, take a read through this (a little lengthy, but good):
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/...pygate-punishing-success-and-promoting-parity
Would still like to know why no one mentions it, no one cares, and no big fine or draft pick compensation for when the Broncos did the same thing in 2010, 3 years after spygate.
Or why Deflategate is a big deal (despite the facts falling apart quickly), but no one even cares about the Falcons or Browns cheating scandals that came out in the last couple weeks...
Last edited:
Not really relevant; We are talking about a label applied in 1979 to a highlight film of the 1978 season.
Well they did not achieve this wide-spread fan base in the Seventies by being mediocre. By the start of the 1978 season, they had established themselves as one of the top dynasties of the decade, with (at that point) two Super Bowl wins, four NFL/NFC championships, nine divisional championships, and eleven consecutive winning seasons with ten post-season appearances. They were a successful team and success attracts followers; that's why you will find Yankees fans in Texas.
You maybe right in that the blackout rule made them more visible but even then, they were more visible because they were successful. Or do you think that the NFL/TV network would replace an undersold home game with a game between lousy teams bumbling their way to the end-zone. Not much of a ratings draw there.
One final thought (and an anecdote): If another team, say the Eagles, had achieved that above-mentioned record, we might be here talking about their annoying nickname instead (America's Eagles, anyone.)
Because of the popularity of the Dallas TV series overseas, with that iconic shot through Texas Stadium, wearing a Dallas Cowboy's shirt or cap on liberty would occasionally get me a free drink.
---------
On the subject of Deflategate: Is an exploit of the rules a cheat if it is technically legal? Complete hypothetical: If the Patriots inflated the footballs to the minimum, legally fulfilling the requirements for the official inspection, but were expecting climatic changes to improve the footballs for Brady, would that exploit be a cheat?
Last edited:
During the Super Bowl pregame, Harbaugh clarified that his problem was with the signals used by the officials ("ineligible" and "eligible" were apparently the same from a visual standpoint), not with what the Patriots were doing. The signals were changed for the Super Bowl.
Of course, he let it go several times and then took a penalty instead of calling a timeout to figure it out, so he didn't cover himself in coaching glory there...
Took him a while to even figure out what was happening, and once he did, didn't occur to him to tell his team. He can bitch about the officials all he wants, but they were even pointing to people and telling the defense "don't cover that guy, not eligible" and it was coming across fine on the PA system.
Took him a while to even figure out what was happening, and once he did, didn't occur to him to tell his team. He can bitch about the officials all he wants, but they were even pointing to people and telling the defense "don't cover that guy, not eligible" and it was coming across fine on the PA system.
No we're not since my point was the genesis of the name predates it and has to do with the fact that the Cowboys were a universally covered team so fans across the country could only watch them instead of their own team. I agree that during this period, they were a very good team (which I suspect is also why they were broadcast everywhere) but that still doesn't change my argument that, without the blackout rules, they would never have a national fanbase and would never be called America's Team. Of course, this is secondary to the original discussion of why they're hated, but that's pretty much the reason too. At least where I grew up, the Cowboys are hated because there are scores of Cowboy fans that root for them over the local team. They're usually insufferable (granted, all fans from the area are insufferable, but they always came off as bandwagon fans since they were rooting for the best team in the country over their local team, a long-suffering division rival).
Yeah, frankly this one made no sense to me. Know the rules of the game better, coach your players to know the rules better. To me, it's up there with not knowing NFL games could end in a tie. There's no excuse for not knowing the rules of your sport, even a sport as complicated as football.
Well you see, they run out of actual scandals after the first one (overblown, but at least admitted to breaking a rule), so to say that it's a pattern and they are cheaters, gotta come up with SOMETHING to use. Eventually, they throw in things like "knowing what's legal or illegal from the rulebook" or "having the officials make the correct call, even if the rule is dumb" as things the Patriots have done to cheat.
Most coaches in the NFL are certifiable [IDIOTS], so that's been the biggest way the Patriots have cheated over the past decade and a half: not employing a [SIMPLETON] as head coach. Hell, that's the entire defensive philosophy of the Patriots, that "bend but don't break" thing. Pretty much means just try not to give up a big play, and sooner or later the QB or coach will fuck it up by themselves, just be ready to capitalize on that.
End of the Superbowl is kind of a nice example. Likely 95% of other coaches call the timeout and manage to lose. Gives Carroll time to think, he then slows down and does the right thing, running it in and giving it to us with like 40 seconds to try and rush down the field, which odds say aren't in the Patriots' favor. Carroll looked a little hurried at the end, Bill decided to not help him out, Pats win. Granted, damned lucky, and fantastic play from a rookie DB, but still not using the time out makes all that happen, because Carroll can't slow down and think it over, gotta make a snap judgement.
Doesn't look so good if Seattle scores on that play, but Pats weren't in a good spot either way, so at least like the gamble Belichick took there. Kinda like the 4th and 2 call in 2006 AFC Championship game that Belichick gets killed for. Book says probably punt, but means you're giving it to Manning in his prime, and think only needed FG to win. Bill didn't trust his Defense to be able to stop him, so if they convert 4th and 2, can kneel down to win. Had a good play called, and missed by like 6 inches, but Colts defense made a good stop and knocked Faulk back. (looked very close, but was spotted short). Didn't make it, but like the aggressive call that most coaches are too scared to go for.
Not that you should go [ALL OUT WITHOUT CAUTION] and always go for it, or any other gamble, but more coaches should definitely pick their spots. The results are often worth the gamble, depending on exact situation.
* [Edited for the PC Police]
Most coaches in the NFL are certifiable [IDIOTS], so that's been the biggest way the Patriots have cheated over the past decade and a half: not employing a [SIMPLETON] as head coach. Hell, that's the entire defensive philosophy of the Patriots, that "bend but don't break" thing. Pretty much means just try not to give up a big play, and sooner or later the QB or coach will fuck it up by themselves, just be ready to capitalize on that.
End of the Superbowl is kind of a nice example. Likely 95% of other coaches call the timeout and manage to lose. Gives Carroll time to think, he then slows down and does the right thing, running it in and giving it to us with like 40 seconds to try and rush down the field, which odds say aren't in the Patriots' favor. Carroll looked a little hurried at the end, Bill decided to not help him out, Pats win. Granted, damned lucky, and fantastic play from a rookie DB, but still not using the time out makes all that happen, because Carroll can't slow down and think it over, gotta make a snap judgement.
Doesn't look so good if Seattle scores on that play, but Pats weren't in a good spot either way, so at least like the gamble Belichick took there. Kinda like the 4th and 2 call in 2006 AFC Championship game that Belichick gets killed for. Book says probably punt, but means you're giving it to Manning in his prime, and think only needed FG to win. Bill didn't trust his Defense to be able to stop him, so if they convert 4th and 2, can kneel down to win. Had a good play called, and missed by like 6 inches, but Colts defense made a good stop and knocked Faulk back. (looked very close, but was spotted short). Didn't make it, but like the aggressive call that most coaches are too scared to go for.
Not that you should go [ALL OUT WITHOUT CAUTION] and always go for it, or any other gamble, but more coaches should definitely pick their spots. The results are often worth the gamble, depending on exact situation.
* [Edited for the PC Police]
Last edited:
Maybe you could avoid the use of the word "retarded"?
I acknowledge that I could have used a more PC descriptor for it, however as defined, it kinda fits perfectly (per dictionary.com):
"1. characterized by a slowness or limitation in intellectual understanding and awareness, emotional development, academic progress, etc.
2. Slang. stupid or foolish"
Now that we've had fun with our PC argument distraction, I spent time addressing your last few points, care to do the same?
"1. characterized by a slowness or limitation in intellectual understanding and awareness, emotional development, academic progress, etc.
2. Slang. stupid or foolish"
Now that we've had fun with our PC argument distraction, I spent time addressing your last few points, care to do the same?
No, Scout, it's not an issue of PC any longer. This language is not tolerated... or would you like being called a retard?
Not to further derail, but isn't that kinda the definition of politically correct? And no one likes being called a moron either, can I use that one? I can edit the post and call them developmentally challenged, if you prefer, but language not being tolerated is kinda the definition of PC. Not exactly at the same level as calling a black person the N word, and clearly in this case no malice was intended. But whatever, I'll change it. Already getting stomped by a herd of high horses, don't want to attract any more.
So fun derail, back on topic:
spygate was overblown and isn't understood by most folks trying to use it against the Patriots.
Broncos also busted for own spygate in 2010, no one cared, 50k fine.
Tuck Rule and Substitutions were both perfectly legal and correct. You're an idiot if you bring them up as part of your evidence of the Patriots' cheating patterns.
Deflategate is absolute nonsense, most of the reported 'facts' to date have been recanted or shown to be patently false, only remaining ball that was deflated may have been in Colts' possession prior to being checked. Balls all checked SAT at start of game, 11 of 12 were in the 12.3-12.4 range, down a tick due to being cold and wet outside. Colts' balls were inflated more, so when down that same amount, still within range. If NFL wants balls a certain PSI, stop giving an acceptable range and pick a number. Only ball that was actually down 2 PSI spent some time with the Colts prior to being turned in. Odd, no? And why would you under-inflate ONE ball, when they get rotated out every play? Would mess you up to have one oddball, right?
Falcons and Browns both had cheating scandals that actually affect play on the field since deflategate broke, barely any mention of it aside from Patriots fans asking WTF?
The Superbowl replay, with players mic'ed up, was entertaining. Edelman getting clobbered and shouting "I love getting hit!" was hilarious, as well as Brady getting up and applauding "Good hit, 77 (or whatever his number was)" after getting hit on a big sack. Also, after Brady's second pick, kinda chuckled when Sherman was heard saying "That's it, Brady's heart's gone" and basically saying Brady was out of it and scared now.
So fun derail, back on topic:
spygate was overblown and isn't understood by most folks trying to use it against the Patriots.
Broncos also busted for own spygate in 2010, no one cared, 50k fine.
Tuck Rule and Substitutions were both perfectly legal and correct. You're an idiot if you bring them up as part of your evidence of the Patriots' cheating patterns.
Deflategate is absolute nonsense, most of the reported 'facts' to date have been recanted or shown to be patently false, only remaining ball that was deflated may have been in Colts' possession prior to being checked. Balls all checked SAT at start of game, 11 of 12 were in the 12.3-12.4 range, down a tick due to being cold and wet outside. Colts' balls were inflated more, so when down that same amount, still within range. If NFL wants balls a certain PSI, stop giving an acceptable range and pick a number. Only ball that was actually down 2 PSI spent some time with the Colts prior to being turned in. Odd, no? And why would you under-inflate ONE ball, when they get rotated out every play? Would mess you up to have one oddball, right?
Falcons and Browns both had cheating scandals that actually affect play on the field since deflategate broke, barely any mention of it aside from Patriots fans asking WTF?
The Superbowl replay, with players mic'ed up, was entertaining. Edelman getting clobbered and shouting "I love getting hit!" was hilarious, as well as Brady getting up and applauding "Good hit, 77 (or whatever his number was)" after getting hit on a big sack. Also, after Brady's second pick, kinda chuckled when Sherman was heard saying "That's it, Brady's heart's gone" and basically saying Brady was out of it and scared now.
Last edited:
Forgot the Jerry Rice thing! Came on TV before the Superbowl to offer this opinion on Tom Brady and the deflategate thing:
“I’m going to be point blank, I feel like it’s cheating,” Rice told Jim Rome on January 22 regarding the current controversy regarding whether the Patriots deflated footballs. “Because you have an edge up on your opponent and it’s unfortunate that it happened. I’m not saying the outcome of the game would have been different or anything like that because they got beat 45-7, but they still had an edge.”
Of course, a couple days earlier, gave an interview where he admitted this:
“I know this might be a little illegal, guys, but you put a little spray, a little stickum on them, to make sure that texture is a little sticky,” Rice said with a laugh as part of an ESPN feature regarding the evolution of gloves.
Once he realized what he said, went back over twitter with a little damage control:
“I apologize ppl after doing my research about stickum!,” Rice said. “The NFL banned this in 1981. All players did it! #equalplayingfield.”
Another lovely example of someone admitting to actual cheating, and then trying to make a controversy over the deflategate thing. Stickum, no big deal. 12.4 psi in a ball, ban him!
“I’m going to be point blank, I feel like it’s cheating,” Rice told Jim Rome on January 22 regarding the current controversy regarding whether the Patriots deflated footballs. “Because you have an edge up on your opponent and it’s unfortunate that it happened. I’m not saying the outcome of the game would have been different or anything like that because they got beat 45-7, but they still had an edge.”
Of course, a couple days earlier, gave an interview where he admitted this:
“I know this might be a little illegal, guys, but you put a little spray, a little stickum on them, to make sure that texture is a little sticky,” Rice said with a laugh as part of an ESPN feature regarding the evolution of gloves.
Once he realized what he said, went back over twitter with a little damage control:
“I apologize ppl after doing my research about stickum!,” Rice said. “The NFL banned this in 1981. All players did it! #equalplayingfield.”
Another lovely example of someone admitting to actual cheating, and then trying to make a controversy over the deflategate thing. Stickum, no big deal. 12.4 psi in a ball, ban him!
It was on PTI today where they directly pointed out Jerry Rice's hypocrisy. So it wasn't buried. If it sticks depends on whether there's any NBA news or if anyone cares about Hockey, though.
When checking dictionary.com for your argument, you may have missed this bit:
Along with this:
So regardless of how you want to spin it, its use is generally accepted and understood as a slur and insulting.
As your edit shows, there are a number of other words that can convey the same thought but aren't generally used as slurs.
Whether you think it's the PC Police or not, the word retarded carries a lot of negative weight, is generally used as a slur or in an abusive manner and is not a word that is acceptable for use on this board.
[/mod hat off]
Where's the national outcry, the call to strip the 49ers of their rings, the call for asterisks on the championships, the movement to remove Rice from the HoF? Patriots had all that and more. Nice that Jerry Rice got 20 seconds on PTI, though...
Doing a quick search came back with max results (both 'retard' and 'retarded' came back with 200 each, meaning there are at least that many recent usages of each), so maybe you need a list or an announcement that it's no longer acceptable (along with any other trigger words we've decided are no longer fit for the board) if you want it to stop. In that quick look, this was the only thread where people jumped all over the poster, as well, but maybe I missed one. Message about it being a banned word is not getting out.
While it was obviously meant to be used as an insult, think it's pretty obvious I wasn't slurring that particular group, unless you think that most NFL coaches are actually Developmentally Disabled, and I was using a slur for that group? One of the phrases was a quote from Tropic Thunder, anyway. Ok there, bad here?
Whatever, I removed the word for other insulting words, so good here. If you want to remove it board-wide, though, you need to make an announcement, as it seems to be in common use without comment from the mods. Except this time.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
