Calling out NFL_Truth

As I've gathered i have become quite unpopular on these forums. That's fine. I did act quite obnoxious for a while and I apologize for that. Moving forward, I've also gathered that many members totally disagree with my views about spygate, etc. So I'm going to give everyone the oppertunity to call me out on these things. Multiple times people have said I have not responded to direct questions which I feel I have, but this will give you a direct chance to call me out on things, and discuss football back and forth. You can call me out on anything, just post the question...

Ex.
1. Why have coaches been covering their mouths for years?

And I will respond directly with my answer. I also might expect that I'll get alot of sarcasim and insults which is possible as well but for those who want to discuss or debate football or any of my views that you think are incorrect, post them up and i'll write back.

I'll bite.

Why do you feel it's necessary for you to spend your time coming on an obviously hostile board to dredge up issues from last year? Regardless of anyone's positions on the validity of the spygate drama, for better or worse the league made it's ruling, found the Pats' excuses and defenses sorely lacking, and issued a harsh punishment.

If the debate as you frame it is "Pats misbehaved" versus "Pats did nothing wrong" then clearly the former argument won out in the eyes of the NFL. Many here disagreed with it, some for legit reasons, others for purely homer-ish reasons, but the fact is the Patriots were punished severely.

What then, is your primary aim in bringing it up now? Were you unsatisfied with the punishment, or just unhappy that the lion's share of Patriots fans still don't believe it was justified?

Watson's IQ said:

I'll bite.

Why do you feel it's necessary for you to spend your time coming on an obviously hostile board to dredge up issues from last year? Regardless of anyone's positions on the validity of the spygate drama, for better or worse the league made it's ruling, found the Pats' excuses and defenses sorely lacking, and issued a harsh punishment.

If the debate as you frame it is "Pats misbehaved" versus "Pats did nothing wrong" then clearly the former argument won out in the eyes of the NFL. Many here disagreed with it, some for legit reasons, others for purely homer-ish reasons, but the fact is the Patriots were punished severely.

What then, is your primary aim in bringing it up now? Were you unsatisfied with the punishment, or just unhappy that the lion's share of Patriots fans still don't believe it was justified?

Click to expand...

He's a 49er fan. 'Nuff said.

Watson's IQ said:

I'll bite.

Why do you feel it's necessary for you to spend your time coming on an obviously hostile board to dredge up issues from last year? Regardless of anyone's positions on the validity of the spygate drama, for better or worse the league made it's ruling, found the Pats' excuses and defenses sorely lacking, and issued a harsh punishment.

If the debate as you frame it is "Pats misbehaved" versus "Pats did nothing wrong" then clearly the former argument won out in the eyes of the NFL. Many here disagreed with it, some for legit reasons, others for purely homer-ish reasons, but the fact is the Patriots were punished severely.

What then, is your primary aim in bringing it up now? Were you unsatisfied with the punishment, or just unhappy that the lion's share of Patriots fans still don't believe it was justified?

Click to expand...

Why did I come to a hostile board?

A fair question deserves a fair answer. It's not that I'm looking to anger people, or be a pain in the you know what ir whatever people might think. I've discussed the issues of spygate with many NFL fans, and it seems that fans of all the other 31 teams share my point of view. I discuss this on boards that agree with me and I understand their perspective. I am however very interested in how Patriots fans view this inccident. You were correct in stating that I do feel the punishment was not severe enough for what happened and that upsets me. Cheating is always bad regardless of the team, but the way the NFL and Belichick handled the situation is what bothers me the most. The NFL destorying the tapes, not releasing what Belichick had told them (that it has been his policy for 6 years), and seemingly doing everything they could to make it go away. I'm upset with Belichick's lack of any comment, and his consistancy to be as vague as possible. I can't accept an apology when he does everything he can to not answer the obvious questions directly. You were also right in the fact that I am upset that Patriot fans feel it was blown out of proportion when it is infact the opposite. Players, coaches, and even fans who do not own up to something major bothers me. So I've come here to hear the opinions directly from the fans themselves instead of making assumptions. What I've got is anger, rude comments, and lots of attacking. Yes i''ve been sarcastic but I've backed up my statements and not traded insults.

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.

NFL_Truth said:

As I've gathered i have become quite unpopular on these forums. That's fine. I did act quite obnoxious for a while and I apologize for that. Moving forward, I've also gathered that many members totally disagree with my views about spygate, etc. So I'm going to give everyone the oppertunity to call me out on these things. Multiple times people have said I have not responded to direct questions which I feel I have, but this will give you a direct chance to call me out on things, and discuss football back and forth. You can call me out on anything, just post the question...

Ex.
1. Why have coaches been covering their mouths for years?

And I will respond directly with my answer. I also might expect that I'll get alot of sarcasim and insults which is possible as well but for those who want to discuss or debate football or any of my views that you think are incorrect, post them up and i'll write back.

Click to expand...

Because coaches like SHANAHAN would hire lip readers to site with binoculars and read the lips of the opposing coaches. They'd write down what they saw and immediately get it to the bench. The bench would then attach that to the picture that the sidelines got of the play and use that to figure out what the play was and how to game plan against it.

Well, I also assume you're on a Carolina Panthers message board debating with them about how some Panthers players took steroids before Super Bowl 38. That obviously gave them an edge and the Patriots would have won by 12 points otherwise.

He's a 49er fan. 'Nuff said.

Click to expand...

Is he? Didn't the 49ers cheat with the salary cap? And weren't they accused of tampering recently?

By the way, regarding my "they would have won by 12 points joke", I only randomly picked that number because NFL Truth claims the Patriots would be 10-6 instead of 14-2 without the aid of cameras. Don't ask me how he came up with that one.

i wouldn't waste one second responding to mr nfl bull**** in a serious way. im starting to smell aqua. this clown has the same style. the same apology as aqua did done the same way.

Didn't Bill Parcells mention some 49er cheating that he experienced when he was coaching?

Communications between coaches being jammed or something of that kind.

Jetssuck said:

Didn't Bill Parcells mention some 49er cheating that he experienced when he was coaching?

Communications between coaches being jammed or something of that kind.

Click to expand...

"If" that happened it would be cheating as well and action should be taken. For what its worth, the Patriots were also known for jamming opposing coaches signals.

The point here is that defending the Patriots dishonesty and poor decisions by using bad things other teams "might" have done is a poor argument of defense in my opinion (no offense). But all these other alleged cheating scandals people have mentioned have not been proven. You can find hear-say about any other team but to this date, the Patriots are the only team to have been caught doing these kinds of things. Theoretically is it possible that others have? Yes but anything can be theoretically possible. Its theoretically possible that Tom Brady took steroids, no i dont think he took steroied in any way, but you can make as much of a foundation for frivilous acusations on anything just as these other alleged cheating cases seem to be.

NFL_Truth said:

"If" that happened it would be cheating as well and action should be taken. For what its worth, the Patriots were also known for jamming opposing coaches signals.

The point here is that defending the Patriots dishonesty and poor decisions by using bad things other teams "might" have done is a poor argument of defense in my opinion (no offense). But all these other alleged cheating scandals people have mentioned have not been proven. You can find hear-say about any other team but to this date, the Patriots are the only team to have been caught doing these kinds of things. Theoretically is it possible that others have? Yes but anything can be theoretically possible. Its theoretically possible that Tom Brady took steroids, no i dont think he took steroied in any way, but you can make as much of a foundation for frivilous acusations on anything just as these other alleged cheating cases seem to be.

Click to expand...

So the Patriots were known for jamming signals too, thus it's only cheating when the Patriots are known for jamming signals.

All these other cheating scandals have never been proven because there never was a witch hunt launched against the coaches and organizations guilty of the offenses the way a witch hunt was launched against the Patriots.

What Jimmie Johnson, Steve Sabol, and Bill Parcells has said is not hearsay, Professor. Hearsay is what a third party is alleged to have seen. Jimmie Johnson confessed to personally committing the offense. Steve Sabol and Bill Parcells were eyewitnessess to others committing these offenses.

The 2001, 2003, and 2004 superbowl championship can never be tainted by a 2006 memo.

Jetssuck said:

So the Patriots were known for jamming signals too, thus it's only cheating when the Patriots are known for jamming signals.

All these other cheating scandals have never been proven because there never was a witch hunt launched against the coaches and organizations guilty of the offenses the way a witch hunt was launched against the Patriots.

What Jimmie Johnson, Steve Sabol, and Bill Parcells has said is not hearsay, Professor. Hearsay is what a third party is alleged to have seen. Jimmie Johnson confessed to personally committing the offense. Steve Sabol and Bill Parcells were eyewitnessess to others committing these offenses.

The 2001, 2003, and 2004 superbowl championship can never be tainted by a 2006 memo.

Click to expand...

Again you misunderstand, anyone who jams signals is cheating. If another team did they are just as guilty as the patriots. What is important is proof, without it you dont have much ground.

Jimmie Johnson, i have not done enough extensive research but it seems to me like he and the 1990's dallas cowboys were cheaters as well. And much like the patriots, capatalizing off of this and thus becoming a dynasty.

The 2006 memo was a reminder of what had been in the rule books for years. There would not have been need for a memo had the rumors of the pats not circulated enough to bring it upon. We later found out the rumors were true but again, the memo was a reminder. A genius such as Belichick certainly understood the rulebook, they knowingly broke the rules to cheat.

A quick google search of "Panthers steroids" shows several links, including a doctor being sentenced for illegally prescribing steroids to several Panthers players, and NFL players who filled prescriptions before playing in SB 38.

But forget all that, let's keep harping on spygate. By the way, when was the last time the Patriots even played the Panthers and Eagles prior to their Super Bowl matches? How would they even be able to know what signals mean what if they hadn't played in a long time? This could actually apply to plenty of teams, who probably change their signals all the time.

LeonPowe said:

A quick google search of "Panthers steroids" shows several links, including a doctor being sentenced for illegally prescribing steroids to several Panthers players, and NFL players who filled prescriptions before playing in SB 38.

But forget all that, let's keep harping on spygate. By the way, when was the last time the Patriots even played the Panthers and Eagles prior to their Super Bowl matches? How would they even be able to know what signals mean what if they hadn't played in a long time? This could actually apply to plenty of teams, who probably change their signals all the time.

Click to expand...

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.

NFL_Truth said:

Again you misunderstand, anyone who jams signals is cheating. If another team did they are just as guilty as the patriots. What is important is proof, without it you dont have much ground.

Jimmie Johnson, i have not done enough extensive research but it seems to me like he and the 1990's dallas cowboys were cheaters as well. And much like the patriots, capatalizing off of this and thus becoming a dynasty.

The 2006 memo was a reminder of what had been in the rule books for years. There would not have been need for a memo had the rumors of the pats not circulated enough to bring it upon. We later found out the rumors were true but again, the memo was a reminder. A genius such as Belichick certainly understood the rulebook, they knowingly broke the rules to cheat.

Click to expand...

Eyewitnesses are not enough proof? Maybe in your strange world, but not in the real world.

They didn't capitalize on cheating because they weren't cheating. They broke a rule beginning in 2006.

Cheating means unfair advantage. What unfair advantage could they have had? You said yourself the league knew about it for years. How could the league know about it, but not the coaches in the league know about it. And if the coaches knew about it, they would have been changing their signals. Problem solved. No unfair advantage.

You're just repeating yourself about the memo being a reminder, so I'll repeat myself. The memo was a reminder that beginning in the 2006 season videotapping was no longer going to be tolerated. Tolerated = permitted. Just like when the league issued the memo to remind teams that the league would no longer tolerate pass interference five yards beyond the line of scrimmage. Whatever teams did before these memos is irrelevant.

A 2006 memo cannot taint what happened before 2006.

Well they'd decipher the signals during the game of course.

Click to expand...

Oh, sure, of course. Every signal deciphered in what, the 15 minutes at halftime?

The Patriots would not have even gotten to those SB's without cheating.

Click to expand...

Yeah, they sure wouldn't have beaten the Steelers in the 01 AFCCG had they not known the signals for those two special teams touchdowns.

Jetssuck said:

Jimmie Johnson confessed to personally committing the offense.

Click to expand...

Johnson didn't "confess". He just described what he did as standard procedure. No big deal.

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.

Jetssuck said:

Eyewitnesses are not enough proof? Maybe in your strange world, but not in the real world.

They didn't capitalize on cheating because they weren't cheating. They broke a rule beginning in 2006.

Cheating means unfair advantage. What unfair advantage could they have had? You said yourself the league knew about it for years. How could the league know about it, but not the coaches in the league know about it. And if the coaches knew about it, they would have been changing their signals. Problem solved. No unfair advantage.

You're just repeating yourself about the memo being a reminder, so I'll repeat myself. The memo was a reminder that beginning in the 2006 season videotapping was no longer going to be tolerated. Tolerated = permitted. Just like when the league issued the memo to remind teams that the league would no longer tolerate pass interference five yards beyond the line of scrimmage. Whatever teams did before these memos is irrelevant.

A 2006 memo cannot taint what happened before 2006.

Click to expand...

Videotaping has never been tolerated. This is the memo...

"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."

It speaks nothing of toleration, it was a reminder of the rule which was and always has been...

"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."

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.