Calling out NFL_Truth

[Jetssuck]

Well they'd decipher the signals during the game of course. And yes as a matter of fact some of the Panthers had taken steroids, although the best of those 3 players was their punter. Even so, yes that was wrong, yes it was an edge, and good that they got punished. But even Rodney Harrison likes the flavor of HGH so who's to say he wasn't doing it back then? But to be fair, no proof so thats a moot point. Was videotaping more of an advantage then the 3 players on roids? In my opinion without question it was.

But your still missing the point. The Patriots would not have even gotten to those SB's without cheating. Like i said, they wouldnt risk so much unless it had a major value, and it did. That value would certainly be the difference in many regualr season games, ignorant to assume it played no factor in helping them along the way to those SB's. It was a big factor and as you saw, the pats came out on top.

The best of those Panthers players were their 2 starting linemen that protected Jake Delhomme so well he throw for 323 yards and lead the team to 29 points scored.

Videotapping is more of an advantage than steroids? Are you serious? Are you really this stupid?

Harrison got "his taste for hgh" in 2007. Not 2003, not 2004.

Prove the Patriots would not have gotten to the superbowl without videotapping. Where is your proof. All you have is uniformed opinions and wishes borne of jealousy of the Patriots success.

I have proof the Patriots would have done just as well without videotapping: The 2007 season 16-0, 50 tds, the greatest season a quarterback ever had.

Look into that and crawl back under the rock you came from.

 

[NFL_Truth]

I find it funny that this jerkoff keeps talking to us about proof, yet he has no proof that the signals gave them any sort of advantage at all. Yet he says that they would have gone from 14-2 to 10-6, and would have never even made it to any SB's.

The proof is as follows:

1. Why go out of your way to videotape and break a rule that could destory your legacy if you would not get something major out of it? Wouldn't Belichick be smart enough to weigh risk and reward? He did and gained all the benifits from the big risk he took.

2. Knowing what signals are coming can make you execute plays more efficiently. Google Doug Flutie on Tom Brady signals and you'll read how Flutie was amazed how Tom was getting the signals in his helmet before the play started. These were major advantages.

 

[NFL_Truth]

The best of those Panthers players were their 2 starting linemen that protected Jake Delhomme so well he throw for 323 yards and lead the team to 29 points scored.

Videotapping is more of an advantage than steroids? Are you serious? Are you really this stupid?

Harrison got "his taste for hgh" in 2007. Not 2003, not 2004.

Prove the Patriots would not have gotten to the superbowl without videotapping. Where is your proof. All you have is uniformed opinions and wishes borne of jealousy of the Patriots success.

I have proof the Patriots would have done just as well without videotapping: The 2007 season 16-0, 50 tds, the greatest season a quarterback ever had.

Look into that and crawl back under the rock you came from.

No, not stupid...educated. Again, personal attacks do not help prove your point. When you reach a point where you have to justify the cheating of your team with the cheating of another, you're already in the hole.

These are not uninformed opinions. The facts are that the Patriots won many games, especially the 3 SB's by only 3 points. All the while they knew plays that were coming, were jamming other teams radios, and had an advantage no other team had. This is more then the difference between winning and losing in many instances.

As far as 18-1 is concerned, that has been explained many times so you can't use future success as a justification for why cheating didn't effect their success during different seasons with different players.

Wait wait, you think that the pats would have done "just as well" without cheating? Well if that's the case you must be smarter then Belichick who decided it was worth taking all the time to do. If he could have had the exact same success without risking all he did, he would have never done it, that much is obvious.

 

[Hardboiled]

Videotaping has never been tolerated.

Really? It happens every game.

"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."

Doesn't ban taping of signals in and of itself. Bans all taping from certain locations.

..it was a reminder of the rule which was and always has been...

Always been? Nice try.

"No video recording devices of any kind are permitted to be in use in the coaches' booth, on the field, or in the locker room during the game...All video shooting locations must be enclosed on all sides with a roof overhead."

I thought you said "Videotaping has never been tolerated." Make up your mind.

Also, so if you videotape from a place "enclosed on all sides with a roof overhead," what restrictions are there on what you tape?

 

[NFL_Truth]

Really? It happens every game.



Doesn't ban taping of signals in and of itself. Bans all taping from certain locations.




Always been? Nice try.



I thought you said "Videotaping has never been tolerated." Make up your mind.

Also, so if you videotape from a place "enclosed on all sides with a roof overhead," what restrictions are there on what you tape?

It does ban taping of signals "videotaping of any type" is not hard to understand. Read it again.

It has always been the rule, find it where it says the rule changed in 2006, you wont because videotaping signals has never been legal.

"No video recording devices of any kind are permitted to be in use in the coaches' booth, on the field, or in the locker room during the game"

The enclosed clause refers to the taping that is legal must be enclosed, but it already stated that recording devices are not permited. there is not mis-interpretation here, rather a blatant and obvious breaking of the rules to gain an edge needed to win.

 

[Hardboiled]

It does ban taping of signals "videotaping of any type" is not hard to understand. Read it again.

It has always been the rule, find it where it says the rule changed in 2006, you wont because videotaping signals has never been legal.

"No video recording devices of any kind are permitted to be in use in the coaches' booth, on the field, or in the locker room during the game"

The enclosed clause refers to the taping that is legal must be enclosed, but it already stated that recording devices are not permited. there is not mis-interpretation here, rather a blatant and obvious breaking of the rules to gain an edge needed to win.

You do know that teams tape, don't you??

 

[Jetssuck]

The proof is as follows:

1. Why go out of your way to videotape and break a rule that could destory your legacy if you would not get something major out of it? Wouldn't Belichick be smart enough to weigh risk and reward? He did and gained all the benifits from the big risk he took.

2. Knowing what signals are coming can make you execute plays more efficiently. Google Doug Flutie on Tom Brady signals and you'll read how Flutie was amazed how Tom was getting the signals in his helmet before the play started. These were major advantages.

What risk? What destroying of his legacy? He's going to the Hall of Fame. Thankfully there are football savy people that are smarter than you and know that signal stealing is a part of the game.

I googled Doug Flutie on Tom Brady signals and got a post from a Bills forum claiming Doug Flutie said this. Where's the source of the claim? A poster in a Bills forum?

 

[Jetssuck]

It does ban taping of signals "videotaping of any type" is not hard to understand. Read it again.

It has always been the rule, find it where it says the rule changed in 2006, you wont because videotaping signals has never been legal.

Find it where it says the rule changed on pass interference in 2004.

 

[NFL_Truth]

What risk? What destroying of his legacy? He's going to Hall of Fame. Thankfully there are football savy people that are smarter than you and know that signal stealing is a part of the game.

I googled Doug Flutie on Tom Brady signals and got a post from a Bills forum claiming Doug Flutie said this. Where's the source of the claim? A poster in a Bills forum?

The Risk?
destorying his legacy yes, but also tarnishing the reptation of his team and all of his players. Also risking the largest fine in NFL history. So yes, Belichick no fool would not risk as much as he did had there not been the major advantage of which he gained.

 

[PatsFan24]

. Was videotaping more of an advantage then the 3 players on roids? In my opinion without question it was.

imo....lol like your opinion on football has any value

 

[PatsFan24]

The proof is as follows:

1. Why go out of your way to videotape and break a rule that could destory your legacy if you would not get something major out of it? Wouldn't Belichick be smart enough to weigh risk and reward? He did and gained all the benifits from the big risk he took.

2. Knowing what signals are coming can make you execute plays more efficiently. Google Doug Flutie on Tom Brady signals and you'll read how Flutie was amazed how Tom was getting the signals in his helmet before the play started. These were major advantages.

are you not aware that other teams did the same thing to the patriots? are you not aware that many of the players on other teams have said this is not an issue? are you not aware that teams regularly change their signals, even in the course of a game? are you not aware that once a coach from the other sideline (herm edwards i think) smiled and waved at the pats "cheating camera?" other players and coaches knew it was there, and many of them were doing the same thing. i could go on and on with other examples that would prove how silly that argument really is. part of the reason for the huge fine was because goodell was mad BB did not take the memo seriously.

 

[ICSB]

This cheating stuff is soooo 2007. Can we all please move on AGAIN.

 

[Jetssuck]

The Risk?
destorying his legacy yes, but also tarnishing the reptation of his team and all of his players. Also risking the largest fine in NFL history. So yes, Belichick no fool would not risk as much as he did had there not been the major advantage of which he gained.

His "largest fine in nfl history" record won't last long thanks to inflation. Who was the previous holder of the "largest fine in nfl history?" You don't know and I don't know and in the future few will remember Belichick once held that record.

Tarnished who's rep? Brady's rep? In a poll of nfl coaches earlier this year, Brady was voted the best quarterback in the NFL. So much for your concerns about the reps of Patriot players.

Yeah, what a major advantage it must be to have signals on tape for a game that's over...to have signals that'll mean totally different things the next time the teams play...how could that not be an advantage?

 

[Hardboiled]

It does ban taping of signals "videotaping of any type" is not hard to understand. Read it again.

No, you read what I wrote. It's not hard to understand, but either you're not trying or it's above you.

 

[Watson's IQ]

Why dredge this up now?

I feel that the Patriots (being the only team caught) cheated, but cheated to an extent larger then any other team in the league. As a result, they reaped the benifits and beat teams they would not have had they not cheated. The fact that the NFL can hand down what did seem to be severe punishment. But look at it like this, what's more valuable? Having a big edge that helps you win 3 SB's or being fined money that is meaningless in comparision to what you make, and being stripped of 1 draft pick that they didnt need and already had another 1st rounder. To me the punishment did not nearly fit the crime. They won each SB by only 3 points and the advantage they had was the difference between winning and losing those games. So for the league to not punish them to fit the crime, hand out no suspensions, the players and coaches to not reveal details, and the fans to ignore the extent of the cheating and blame other teams without proof are just some of the reasons for me to come on here and discuss it with the Patriots fans directly.

Prove it. I'd like to see your statistics on the quantifiable advantage it provided. You said all you came here with was facts, but the statement I put in bold is undeniably your personal opinion. An opinion I don't share, and neither did the league.

 

[DaBruinz]

There were "rumors" spread by word of mouth that the patriots had been videotaping and this came from Matt Estralia being kicked out of lambeau field. Without proof they couldnt punish them but the league was smart enough to know it was going on. They didnt want it to continue or have it exposed so they sent the blatant memo which NE ignored.

Again, you do not have your facts straight. Matt Estrella was not kicked out of Lambeau. He was asked to leave the sidelines with the video camera.

BTW, if you knew a damn thing, you'd know that the Jets were doing the exact same thing during the game where they turned in the Patriots. There were plenty of pictures and debate on this website about it. And it showed that the Jets Employee was taping the opposing sidelines. Yet nothing was done.

So, please, you are not even close to being the truth.

 

[DaBruinz]

Hey NFL__TRUTH - Why is it that I posted the answer to your question and you only ignored it? Is it because you realized how wrong you are?

 

[JaxPats]

Hey NFL__TRUTH - Why is it that I posted the answer to your question and you only ignored it? Is it because you realized how wrong you are?

BINGO! We have BINGO!

 

[NFL_Truth]

are you not aware that other teams did the same thing to the patriots? are you not aware that many of the players on other teams have said this is not an issue? are you not aware that teams regularly change their signals, even in the course of a game? are you not aware that once a coach from the other sideline (herm edwards i think) smiled and waved at the pats "cheating camera?" other players and coaches knew it was there, and many of them were doing the same thing. i could go on and on with other examples that would prove how silly that argument really is. part of the reason for the huge fine was because goodell was mad BB did not take the memo seriously.

Are you aware that other teams did not do the same thing as the patriots and that is a fantasy land patriots fans live in to believe their not the only ones who cheated.

I am aware that other players have said its not an issue, not want to stir up things is a good reason for that, why make enemies if you dont have too. Are you aware many players have said it a major issue. Brett Favre, LaDanian Tomlinson, anyone? Of course you'll think they're biased, but they were correct.

One coach waving at a camera does not mean the entire league knew about it and didnt care, judging by the reation they certainly cared. The huge fine which was really a slap on the wrist was for cheating, ignoring the rule book, ignoring the memo, making the league look bad, etc.

 

[NFL_Truth]

Again, you do not have your facts straight. Matt Estrella was not kicked out of Lambeau. He was asked to leave the sidelines with the video camera.

BTW, if you knew a damn thing, you'd know that the Jets were doing the exact same thing during the game where they turned in the Patriots. There were plenty of pictures and debate on this website about it. And it showed that the Jets Employee was taping the opposing sidelines. Yet nothing was done.

So, please, you are not even close to being the truth.

You are correct, i mis-phrased my words but have already mentioned he then went to videotape from the tunnel. It shows his dedication to their much needed videotaping.