Wow, a national article that isn't biased against the Pats - New England Patriots Forums

Master Yates · 11-06-2007, 01:31 PM

Sorry if already posted, please move if you would like.

Shula is starting to sound like someone who is really worried about his precious record.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slu...yhoo&type=lgns

Bella*chick · 11-06-2007, 02:02 PM

What's all that about the real time in-game advantage we were trying to get? Whatever. NO ONE has come up with a plausible way in which that would have worked.

Master Yates · 11-06-2007, 02:06 PM

Yeah, some of it isn't worth reading, but at least it puts Shula in his place if we go undefeated this year.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bella*chick

What's all that about the real time in-game advantage we were trying to get? Whatever. NO ONE has come up with a plausible way in which that would have worked.

Bella*chick · 11-06-2007, 02:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Master Yates

Yeah, some of it isn't worth reading, but at least it puts Shula in his place if we go undefeated this year.

Well, yes, but this guy is one in a sea of people who think Shula is being foolish. I actually haven't seen anyone agreeing with his point of view except maybe the New York Post....and we all know what type of trash tabloid they are.

upstater1 · 11-06-2007, 02:49 PM

I wrote this to Dan Wetzel:

I'm very confused by your article on Shula and the Patriots.

You wrote: "NFL teams constantly update their movements,
even week to week, since it isn't against NFL rules to film
the coaches' signals from other areas of the stadium."

It's not? Then why does it matter that the Patriots were
doing it? I heard Bob Costas interview Goodell, and Costas
asked him: "With high-tech gadgets these days, like
binoculars with digital recording, you could steal signals
from the stands. How are you going to legislate against
this?" Goodell responded: "This wasn't a high-tech device.
And it was out in the open in an illegal area."

Seems to me the NFL is concerned about keeping up
appearances more than they are about cheating. You'll have
to explain to me the difference between videotaping in row 1
and videotaping on the sideline.

You also wrote: "New England was trying to get a real-time,
in-game advantage."

How do you know this?

Lastly, you stated that it's ok to question New England's
Super Bowl victories. Except the rule against videotaping
was passed in 2005, and the memo reinforcing the rule was
sent in September of 2006. The Patriots haven't won a Super
Bowl since those dates. Their wins occurred prior to the rule.