PFT: Times has anti-Pats agenda - Page 3 - New England Patriots Forums

***Rob0729*** · 05-11-2008, 08:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PatsDeb

I haven't read the thread yet, but I did say to my husband this morning (a native NY who gets the NY Times but is a die hard Pats fan), "Why the hell isn't the Times reporting on their own football teams? They have both ends of the spectrum to talk about - the SB champs and the crappy Jests, yet all they publish is these venimous articles on the Pats." They look like completely obsessed losers. The articles are just merciless. Let's hope Goodell has a brain (a nervous stretch, perhaps) and isn't believing the hype.

It is a little strange that the NYT would have two articles this weekend on the Patriots, but not cover the Giants or Jets. I guess prior to Spygate, the Times was the last of the big three newspapers that people went to for sports they gotta milk this thing for as long as they can.

***jczxohn1*** · 05-11-2008, 10:27 PM

Interestingly, the NY Times piece implies a Jaguar exec on the competition committee is the source of complaints to the league about Pats practices, but we all know there is another on that committee who tweaks the rules to favor his team.........

[quote]
The gist of the article is that most of the changes to the league’s rules since Bill Belichick’s arrival as head coach in 2000 have been driven by complaints made about the practices of the Patriots.

The article cites only one unnamed league executive in support of the assertion. (That said, an unnamed Jaguars exec is cited in support of the claim that the Jags filed a complaint against the Patriots in 2006 due to the failure of the coach-to-quarterback radio system.) “They were the only team, really,” the unnamed executive said. “Clearly, they were the team mentioned far more than anybody else.”

The “executive” in question presumably is a member of the league’s competition committee, since the item focuses on the efforts of the league’s rule-making body to make tweaks, supposedly in order to thwart (or, as in the case of Spygate, nail) the franchise that won three Super Bowls in four seasons and nearly captured a fourth to cap what would have been a 19-0 season.
[unquote]

While Polian may piously poo-poo the ramifications of Spy-Gate, make no mistake, he's laughing his ***** off behind closed doors and doing all he can to further the dicomfort.

HSanders · 05-12-2008, 12:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rob0729

I will be interested to see if Peter King writes about all this tomorrow. He has portrayed himself as the fair and balanced guy on this issue. I wonder if he will point out the hypocrisy of the whole media on this.

That he did not. But he DID write this little tidbit that seems to take care of the whole "Will they be punished for OFFENSIVE signals?" silliness:

Quote:

1. I think this is the odd thing about word that the Patriots were taping the offensive signals from the Miami sidelines as part of the Matt Walsh evidence turned into the NFL: At least 80 percent of the offensive signals from coach to quarterback are relayed through microphone and helmet-speaker. Teams might signal in personnel groups, like three wides/one back, but that's hardly going to give a team a big edge when studying tape of the opposition. Make no mistake -- it's still cheating. And it would bother me if I were Roger Goodell that Bill Belichick never told him about taping offensive signals, if indeed Belichick didn't, and we don't know if he did or didn't.
It'll be interesting if Walsh, in his Tuesday morning meeting with Goodell, has anything beyond the tapes he provided to the league, to disclose. My guess is he'll implicate long-time Belichick aide Ernie Adams, about whom Art Modell once said, "I'll give anyone here $10,000 if they can tell me what Ernie Adams does.'' But that won't be a surprise, because the league already knows he was key in the spy-versus-spy game of deciphering signals.
One other thing about the offensive signals from that Miami game. In the league's announcement of the sanctions last September, the release quoted a 2006 memo from NFL executive vice president of football operations Ray Anderson saying, "Videotaping of any type, including but not limited to taping of an opponent's offensive or defensive signals, is prohibited on the sidelines, in the coaches' booth, in the locker room, or at any other locations accessible to club staff members during the game.'' And the first paragraph of the release referred to the fine of $500,000 to Belichick for using video equipment to videotape "an opposing team's offensive or defensive signals.'' So I doubt there are grounds for further penalties because of the offensive tape, even though we'd known solely about defensive tapes before this.
2. I think, unless Walsh has something more powerful than the eight tapes, the Patriots won't be sanctioned further.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/200...11/mmqb/2.html

PatsFan24 · 05-12-2008, 01:22 AM

the new york times is a joke of a paper these days. last spring they felt it was ok to print an article that stated what don imus said was a "racaist tirade" it was not even close to that, but the editor let's that stuff get published. the media is out of control with lies and angenda that you really have to question just about every bit of information they give you.

tuckeverlasting · 05-12-2008, 02:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PatsFan24

the new york times is a joke of a paper these days. last spring they felt it was ok to print an article that stated what don imus said was a "racaist tirade" it was not even close to that, but the editor let's that stuff get published. the media is out of control with lies and angenda that you really have to question just about every bit of information they give you.

it's why newspapers are dying.

***DarrylS*** · 05-12-2008, 05:12 AM

Thought Florio did a pretty good job this AM, although I do not like all he writes.. he redeemed himself.