Spygate Information Analyzed

Jetssuck said:

Agreed prohibitted beginning in 2006.

Filming not going to be tolerated anymore is why the memo was issued.

Click to expand...

No, not begining, it never had been tolerated. They just never caught anyone and the memo was a reminder for the Pats to knock it off. NFL didnt want a scandal, but the Patriots desire to continue forced the issue.

You're dancing more than Maroney when it comes to this. The memo was sent out, the Pats didn't knock it off, so they deserved to be punished. ALL OF THIS AFTER THE 3 SUPER BOWL WINS.

NFL_Truth said:

No, not begining, it never had been tolerated. They just never caught anyone and the memo was a reminder for the Pats to knock it off. NFL didnt want a scandal, but the Patriots desire to continue forced the issue.

Click to expand...

They never tried to catch anyone. If they did want to catch someone they wouldn't be issuing memos to give a team a chance to destroy all the evidence.

If the NFL was so fearfull of a scandal they would have left things the way they were before 2006 and not advertize this to the whole country.

LeonPowe said:

You're dancing more than Maroney when it comes to this. The memo was sent out, the Pats didn't knock it off, so they deserved to be punished. ALL OF THIS AFTER THE 3 SUPER BOWL WINS.

Click to expand...

True, but they did cheat during all 3 super Bowl wins as admitted by your head coach.

Jetssuck said:

They never tried to catch anyone. If they did want to catch someone they wouldn't be issuing memos to give a team a chance to destroy all the evidence.

If the NFL was so fearfull of a scandal they would have left things the way they were before 2006 and not advertize this to the whole country.

Click to expand...

I'm not saying they didnt care at all. no no. they didnt want anyone cheating, they knew of rumors but had no proof, gave the pats another chance, but the pats continued and got caught.

NFL_Truth said:

I'm not saying they didnt care at all. no no. they didnt want anyone cheating, they knew of rumors but had no proof, gave the pats another chance, but the pats continued and got caught.

Click to expand...

So they did knowingly allow the Pats to "cheat" before the memo. Allow = not forbid = videotapping permitted before 2006. Thanks for finally conceeding my point. The memo was a warning that it would not be permitted any longer and what happened before 2006 didn't matter.

Jetssuck said:

So they did knowingly allow the Pats to "cheat" before the memo. Allow = not forbid = videotapping permitted before 2006. Thanks for finally conceeding my point. The memo was a warning that it would not be permitted any longer and what happened before 2006 didn't matter.

Click to expand...

They did not knowingly allow them to cheat. They knew of rumors that only later proved to be true. They gave a warning to try to get the pats to stop but the continued. Of course knowingly breaking the rules before 2006 matters.

NFL_Truth said:

They did not knowingly allow them to cheat. They knew of rumors that only later proved to be true. They gave a warning to try to get the pats to stop but the continued. Of course knowingly breaking the rules before 2006 matters.

Click to expand...

You say something different every post. One post you claimed the league knew about it for years now you say they didn't.

If knowingly breaking the rules that were different before the 2006 memo mattered Jimmie Johnson and the cowboys would have been investigated.

The memo was issued to the WHOLE LEAGUE that filming wouldn't be tolerated any longer. Do you understand English?

Jetssuck said:

You say something different every post. One post you claimed the league knew about it for years now you say they didn't.

If knowingly breaking the rules that were different before the 2006 memo mattered Jimmie Johnson and the cowboys would have been investigated.

The memo was issued to the WHOLE LEAGUE that filming wouldn't be tolerated any longer. Do you understand English?

Click to expand...

You can't change the word from "prohibited" to "tolerated" and think you've won the debate. Its never been tolerated.

I didn't say the league didn't know about it, they knew about rumors only later to be confirmed. There has not been a switch on this position.

NFL_Truth said:

You can't change the word from "prohibited" to "tolerated" and think you've won the debate. Its never been tolerated.

I didn't say the league didn't know about it, they knew about rumors only later to be confirmed. There has not been a switch on this position.

Click to expand...

And why didn't they set up a sting without a memo if illegal "cheating" was going on. The memo was a warning that the league would no longer tolerate filming. Just as 2004's memo was a warning that the league would no longer allow pass inteference beyond 5 yards of scrimmage. 2004's memo had no relevance before 2004 and 2006's memo has no relevance before 2006.

True, but they did cheat during all 3 super Bowl wins as admitted by your head coach.

Click to expand...

I really don't have the patience for this monkey today.

LeonPowe said:

I really don't have the patience for this monkey today.

Click to expand...

Then you dont have to read about your teams history.

My team: 3 championships
Yours: 0

OWNED

LeonPowe said:

My team: 3 championships
Yours: 0

OWNED

Click to expand...

True, but my team made it to 4 super bowls without cheating, your team only made it to 2 without cheating.

3-0

owned

NFL_Truth said:

True, but my team made it to 4 super bowls without cheating, your team only made it to 2 without cheating.

Click to expand...

Where's your proof that "your team" made it to the superbowl without cheating?

Jetssuck said:

Where's your proof that "your team" made it to the superbowl without cheating?

Click to expand...

Sorry mate, when it comes to cheating its the accusers job to find proof someone did something not the other way around. Just because the Patriots were the only team to cheat like this does not mean its the job of all other 31 teams to prove they have not. How would you prove you havent cheated? By having no evidence to the contrary. So there you go...

Vikings = no cheating
Patriots = 6 years of cheating

While we're at it, why dont you prove the pats didnt cheat last season? For what its worth i dont think they did but its just as legit of me to ask you that as it was for you to ask me to prove minnesota never cheated.

NFL_Truth said:

Sorry mate, when it comes to cheating its the accusers job to find proof someone did something not the other way around. Just because the Patriots were the only team to cheat like this does not mean its the job of all other 31 teams to prove they have not. How would you prove you havent cheated? By having no evidence to the contrary. So there you go...

Vikings = no cheating
Patriots = 6 years of cheating

While we're at it, why dont you prove the pats didnt cheat last season? For what its worth i dont think they did but its just as legit of me to ask you that as it was for you to ask me to prove minnesota never cheated.

Click to expand...

It's actually very easy to prove the Vikings cheated every season of their existence.

Just their superbowl years: 1976 penalized 77 times for cheating/violating the rules, 1974 penalized 56 times for cheating/violating the rules, 1973 penalized 55 times for cheating/violating the rules.

NFL.com doesn't have the stats for 1969 but you can be assured the Vikings didn't play the whole season without cheating/violating the rules

NFL_Truth said:

Nice article but that does not make the author any more qualified to comment on the value of something NE fought so hard to do. That article is no more qualified then the link I sent you.

Hope you guys took time and enjoyed reading it.

Click to expand...

no i didnt bother, now quit beating a dead dog. even the pats haters have stopped talking about it

NFL_Truth said:

True, but my team made it to 4 super bowls without cheating, your team only made it to 2 without cheating.

Click to expand...

How do you know tht the Vikings never made it to the SB wihtout cheating? Where is your proof?