Brady'sButtBoy
2nd Team Getting Their First Start
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2005
- Messages
- 1,900
- Reaction score
- 137
OK, OK, keep your shirts on for a moment...
A couple of things first - I am a Patsfan through and through. My stomach churns EVERY time I hear the national media say, "The Patriots CHEATED," because (besides their gleeful tone), in my mind, the filming the Pats been shown to have done amounts to a violation of rules: to call it cheating would be to say that holding is cheating, and yet a player is 'held' on virtually every play from scrimmage. We don't see holding as cheating but just how the game is played.
On the other hand- If BB picked up anything that led to wins by filming AFTER the league specifically said to stop, well, that makes me equally sick. I don't want anything to do with winning like that, nothing. (Plus it interferes with my pure enjoyment of everything Patriots).
Looked at this way, BB could reasonably be deemed a 'cheater.' And someone who alters the outcome of an NFL game by a calculated, intentional scheme (it is impossible to believe BB's statement on face value that he thought the rule meant he couldn't use the tapes he made during the same game they were taken. Nothing he does concerning the team is so lightly explained) is a pretty bad dude in my book - it takes all the fun out of being a fan. And it begs the question-
Are Pacman's foolish, degenerate actions actually more replusive? Though he should be ashamed for his complicity, he didn't shoot that bouncer in Vegas. Pacman is a kid with lot's of money and no self-control, a social dope needing to learn regard for himself and others. That doesn't mean he shouldn't be punished but his 'crimes' are of a much different nature than the leader of a billion dollar enterprise scheming to beat the system, a system we hold dear as our most fond recreation.
Are we being hypocritical in condemnations of Pacman as a bad apple? If we really think signing/trading for Pacman would be against everything the Patriots stand for, don't we need to reconsider the conduct of our own head coach?
A couple of things first - I am a Patsfan through and through. My stomach churns EVERY time I hear the national media say, "The Patriots CHEATED," because (besides their gleeful tone), in my mind, the filming the Pats been shown to have done amounts to a violation of rules: to call it cheating would be to say that holding is cheating, and yet a player is 'held' on virtually every play from scrimmage. We don't see holding as cheating but just how the game is played.
On the other hand- If BB picked up anything that led to wins by filming AFTER the league specifically said to stop, well, that makes me equally sick. I don't want anything to do with winning like that, nothing. (Plus it interferes with my pure enjoyment of everything Patriots).
Looked at this way, BB could reasonably be deemed a 'cheater.' And someone who alters the outcome of an NFL game by a calculated, intentional scheme (it is impossible to believe BB's statement on face value that he thought the rule meant he couldn't use the tapes he made during the same game they were taken. Nothing he does concerning the team is so lightly explained) is a pretty bad dude in my book - it takes all the fun out of being a fan. And it begs the question-
Are Pacman's foolish, degenerate actions actually more replusive? Though he should be ashamed for his complicity, he didn't shoot that bouncer in Vegas. Pacman is a kid with lot's of money and no self-control, a social dope needing to learn regard for himself and others. That doesn't mean he shouldn't be punished but his 'crimes' are of a much different nature than the leader of a billion dollar enterprise scheming to beat the system, a system we hold dear as our most fond recreation.
Are we being hypocritical in condemnations of Pacman as a bad apple? If we really think signing/trading for Pacman would be against everything the Patriots stand for, don't we need to reconsider the conduct of our own head coach?
