Specter: Pats video practices dates to 2000, includes 2004 Steelers games - Page 4 - New England Patriots Forums

makewayhomer · 02-14-2008, 08:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patsfaninpittsburgh

Napolian goes to the rules committee and through "point of emphasis" has the long standing "interpretation" changed to benefit one team- They are called the Dolts.

No, you are wrong. the rule wasn't changed to benefit 1 team - otherwise the competition committee (comprised of reps from many teams) wouldn't have voted to change it. you think other teams wanted to benefit the Colts at their own expense? ok.

if you don't understand the difference between "lobbying to have a rule changed" and "breaking a rule" then you're just an idiot.

***BelichickFan*** · 02-14-2008, 08:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by makewayhomer

if you don't understand the difference between "lobbying to have a rule changed" and "breaking a rule" then you're just an idiot.

And you're just as much of an (name calling not allowed) if you don't understand the difference between murder and speeding.

Wotan_the_Wanderer · 02-14-2008, 08:57 AM

Excerpts from Goodell's SB week press conference:

http://www.nfl.com/superbowl/story;j...o&confirm=true

Quote:

I believe there were six tapes and in fact, in one of the tapes, one of the coaches was waving at the camera, indicating that they understood that they were being taped. I think as far as the actual effectiveness of taping signals, as you all know, taking signals from opposing football teams or in other sports is done and it is done quite widely and teams prepare for that. There isn't a team that doesn't go into a game prepared for that because of the complex nature of the way they handle either their wristbands, different coaches sending signals in live or not. They all protect against that. I think it probably had a limited effect, if any effect, on the outcome on any game.

Also:

Quote:

Was there any indication that the confiscated tapes may have benefited the Patriots in any of the Super Bowl victories that they had?

"No, there was no indication that it benefited them in any of the Super Bowl victories. I think I've said before and I've repeated here, I'm not sure that there is a coach in the league that doesn't expect that their signals are being intercepted by opposing teams. That's why they go to great lengths. I think it was coach (Bill) Parcells earlier this season who said, 'Any coach that doesn't expect his signals to be stolen is stupid.' It's pretty simple but teams understand that it's a risk and they prepare for that. I don't believe it affected the outcome of any games."

Memeo to Sen. Specter...in the name of integrity and in the best interest of the American public, I wish you had been as vigilant and as dogged in your pursuit to get to the bottom of the destroyed CIA tapes.

makewayhomer · 02-14-2008, 09:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BelichickFan

And you're just as much of an (name calling not allowed) if you don't understand the difference between murder and speeding.

of course I understand the difference, and I'm not sure I've said otherwise. I don't think this is some grave offense that we've committed - have I said so? I said that we broke a rule, and this can LOOK very bad.

but to equate what we did with the Colts lobbying in 2003 is just lol

***patsfaninpittsburgh*** · 02-14-2008, 09:07 AM

Uhhhh Biff

The "rule" wasn't changed, the "point of emphasis" was changed. So Napolian does stuff to benefit everyone else? The ruling has long standing precedence and interpretation and Napolian changes the "point of emphasis" to benefit everyone else?

How many aliens were found at Roswell?

makewayhomer · 02-14-2008, 09:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patsfaninpittsburgh

Uhhhh Biff

The "rule" wasn't changed, the "point of emphasis" was changed. So Napolian does stuff to benefit everyone else? The ruling has long standing precedence and interpretation and Napolian changes the "point of emphasis" to benefit everyone else?

of course he thought it would benefit his team...and various other reps from teams thought the same, and thought the league would benefit from the change. That is why the COMPETITION COMMITTEE and COACHES SUBCOMMITTEE were in favor of thee change, it wasn't just Polian.

it included Rich McKay and Jeff Fisher and Mike Martz. Polian wasnt even the chair of that committee.

here is the current committee, which I know is pretty similar to the group that voted the 'point of emphasis' in. I know Charlie Casserly was on the group back then instead of Millen, I'm not sure what else has changed

Co-Chair: Rich McKay (Atlanta Falcons)
Co-Chair: Jeff Fisher (Tennessee Titans)

- Matt Millen (Detroit Lions)
- Marvin Lewis (Cincinnati Bengals)
- John Mara (New York Giants)
- Ozzie Newsome (Baltimore Ravens)
- Bill Polian (Indianapolis Colts)
- Mark Richardson (Carolina Panthers)

but yeah, I'm sure the real goal was to help just the Colts.

sebman2112 · 02-14-2008, 09:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by makewayhomer

from what Goodell is saying, it was "illegal" before 2000

Yes, it's been illegal for a long time, this is why I never understood why some posters had the idea it only became illegal after that 2006 memo.

No, that memo was only issued because he wanted to make sure teams stopped violating a rule that was already on the books. For some reason a number of teams believed there was a loophole in the rule, and they used that perceived loophole in an attempt to circumvent the rules.

***patsfaninpittsburgh*** · 02-14-2008, 09:32 AM

So is our point that the rule wasn't defined, it's only "illegal"?

Enforced a sodomy law lately?

Welker83 · 02-14-2008, 09:37 AM

Is videotaping signals illegal?

Yes. You don't get the largest punishment in NFL history unless you did something wrong. It gives you an unfair advantage.

Why is congress sticking it's nose in the NFL?
THe nfl operates under an Anti-trust exemption granted to them by congress.

Why is an anti-trust exemption so important?

because the nfl basically runs a monopoly on proffesional football. If they piss of congress it will be revoked and the league will be forced to split into at least 2 separate entities.

Why does Arlen Spector care?
Arlen spector is bought and paid for by COMCAST. They are his second largest contributer. You can bet that this has something to do with the NFL network fiasco with comcast. If the NFL concedes to them spector will back off.

Why won't other lawmakers stand up for the pats?

The world at large veiws the pats as "tainted" and anyone that defends them will get the same treatment. There is no political advantage to help them so none will.

Did other teams video tape?

Doesn't matter. OJ killed somebody and got away with it. That does not mean i can get off just because he did. (i'm not eqauting this to murder. I am merely using a well known analagoy for the sake of a clear message)

If other teams did then punish them...

*********

Doesn't matter. Spygate will ALWAYS be a side note to the patriots dynasty. some will want one, others will deny. BUT it will always be a point of contention.

Dino 6 Rings · 02-14-2008, 09:55 AM

Seriously...I wish Spector never named my team in his statement.

The Pats beat the Steelers in 04 because Burress couldn't catch an effing fade pass and Ben through to a TE he thought was open, but his rookie eyes didn't notice the very good veteran D-back sitting on the play who then takes the pick to the house to seal the game away.

Also, I'm pretty sure Bettis got stuffed on a 4th and short early in the same game, which was a huge boost to the Pats defense and helped swing momentum their way.

Knowing our defenisive signals did Not give the Pats the win. Better execution did.